Sitting of 7 March 1962

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS (COMMITTEE OF SELECTION)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That Mr. Edward Short be added to the Committee of Selection.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Mr. Speaker, before this Motion is carried by the House, I should like to know whether it is debatable?
Mr. Speaker: Has the hon. Member looked at Standing Order No. 109 relating to Private Business? He might find it helpful.
Mr. Hughes: No, Sir, I am not acquainted with that Standing Order, but I should like to know whether we have an opportunity of raising this question of the Committee of Selection, the Members who are appointed to it and the way in which it goes about its business. I raise this matter because yesterday attention was drawn to the fact that the Committee of Selection does not appoint its members in accordance with the general principle of democratic representation.
Mr. Speaker: We were then discussing one of the Standing Orders relating to Public Business. This Committee is covered by a Standing Order relating to Private Business. If the hon. Member wishes to oppose the Motion, the Chairman of Ways and Means will have to put it off.
Mr. Hughes: I wish to oppose it.
Motion being opposed, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

    N.A.T.O. Defence College, Paris (Courses)
    Mr. Kershawasked the Minister of Defence what further consideration he has given to the granting to officers attending the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Defence College in Paris of appropriate marks of qualification in their Service lists.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. Harold Watkinson): It has now been agreed that attendance or service at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Defence College should be recognised in Service lists by the symbol "n.a.d.c.".
    Mr. Kershaw: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he does not agree that it is very desirable that we should give the same attention to this important college as our allies do?
    Mr. Watkinson: I quite agree. I think it does very useful work indeed, and I am very glad that we have been able to give it this recognition.
    Mr. Kershawasked the Minister of Defence how many officers have attended the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Defence College in Paris in the last five years; and how many of these are still serving.
    Mr. Watkinson: Fifty-six officers of the Armed Services, including those on the current course, have attended the college since March, 1957; 51 are still serving.
    Mr. Kershaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is a very satisfactory proportion and will correct the impression which has sometimes been given that some officers who attend are just about to retire and are, therefore, not very useful to their Service?
    Mr. Watkinson: I am very glad that my hon. Friend has raised that point, because it has been brought to my notice before. I think that officers who have served on this useful course ought to go back to their own Service and carry the tradition with them.

    Intelligence Services
    3. Commander Keransasked the Minister of Defence what consideration he is giving to the amalgamation of the intelligence services of the three Service Departments with a view to reducing overhead expenses.
    Mr. Watkinson: I doubt whether an amalgamation would result in significant economies but I keep all matters of this kind under review.
    Commander Kerans: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that it is rather unnecessary for the Service Departments to deal with political intelligence, which surely is the prerogative of the Foreign Office, and could he not find in this amalgamation a means of reducing overheads?
    Mr. Watkinson: I should like to reduce overheads, but on this issue I think the intelligence departments of the Services are tailored to the direct needs of the Services; while I will certainly have another look at this point, do not think there are substantial savings to be made here.
    Mr. Shinwell: While, no doubt, this would reduce overhead expenses, it is not the main consideration, as the Minister will agree. Is there not something to be said for concentrating all intelligence sections under the Ministry of Defence?
    Mr. Watkinson: I think there is a good deal in what the right hon. Gentleman says.

    Advisers
    Mr. W. Yatesasked the Minister of Defence how many advisers, special or ordinary, he employs in his Department; and what is the total annual cost of their combined salaries to the taxpayer.
    Mr. Watkinson: There are eight officers who are attached to my Department and whose appointment includes the title "adviser" in one form or another. The total cost to the crown is about £25,000 per annum. In addition, until quite recently, Field Marshal Sir Francis Festing has given me valuable assistance as my adviser on a special study of future defence policy which has now been completed. I am
    376
    also indebted to Sir Frederic Hooper who advises me, in an honorary capacity, on recruiting problems.
    Mr. Yates: While not wishing to dispute with the Minister his choice of persons whom he calls upon for advice, may I ask whether he feels it necessary to call upon Sir Francis Festing when he has got the C.I.G.S. available to him? Secondly, will he give further consideration to using the Service advisers rather more in a concentrated form instead of in such a wide way?
    Mr. Watkinson: I am not sure if my hon. Friend is aware that Sir Francis Festing's term of service in the Ministry of Defence was recommended by the Chiefs of Staff and had their full approval, which certainly includes that of the C.I.G.S. I would welcome this opportunity to say how grateful I was to the Field Marshal. He would like to have gone and had a little rest after his arduous and very successful duties as C.I.G.S. He stayed on because he felt it was his public duty.
    Captain Litchfield: Is it not a fact that the Ministry of Defence Vote, unlike some other Departments, shows a reduction of £210,000 for the forthcoming year?
    Mr. Watkinson: Yes, Sir, it does, but perhaps I should not take too much credit for that.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who advises him on civil defence and whether the reason why he did not mention this subject in the debate yesterday was that he was not adequately briefed or that he did not have time?
    Mr. Watkinson: The second reason is the correct one. As the hon. Gentleman knows, departmentally civil defence comes under the Home Office. However, I want to make it perfectly plain that that does not mean that I do not attach the greatest importance to it. I very much regret that there was not time last night in my winding-up speech to deal with the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

    Recruiting Offices, Coventry
    Mr. Edelmanasked the Minister of Defence whether, in view of the expense to public funds arising from the fact

    377
    that each of the three Armed Services maintains separate recruiting offices in commercial premises in the central area of the city of Coventry, he will arrange to amalgamate their activities in a single property.
    Mr. Watkinson: If suitable premises capable of providing adequate space for all three Services could be obtained on an economic basis I should be prepared to consider the hon. Member's suggestion. I understand, however, that there is little prospect of finding a suitable property.
    Mr. Edelman: While welcoming the Minister's reply, may I ask whether it has not been gross extravagance on his part in the past to maintain under peacetime conditions premises adequate to a wartime establishment? In view of the protest of the Coventry Planning Development Committee, which obviously has in mind to offer adequate space for alternative premises, will he go into the matter very carefully with it in order to take the action which he has undertaken?
    Mr. Watkinson: If the Committee can offer adequate space which will enable us to have adequate premises for recruiting, I shall be only too glad to look into the matter.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: Will my right hon. Friend be prepared to look into this matter on a national basis? It is very often difficult to find recruiting offices. It seems to be a way in which Service co-ordination can take a step further forward.
    Mr. Watkinson: I should like to explain to the House that the difficulty is that as long as we recruit on a three-Service basis it is not always the most satisfactory method to have a centralised form of recruiting whereby an officer recruits for a Service with which he is not perhaps familiar. However, I do not think that in the long-term this is an entirely economic way of going about it, and I have been looking at the whole recruiting system.

    Handicapped Children (Education Facilities)
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Defence what progress has been made with the provision of special educational
    378
    facilities for the handicapped children of Service parents.
    Mr. Watkinson: Handicapped children of Service parents use the special educational facilities provided in this country by local education authorities and voluntary bodies. The Services introduced new arrangements just over a year ago for considering the interests of such children and for helping them to obtain places in suitable schools. These arrangements are proving extremely valuable.
    Mr. Boyden: Will the right hon. Gentleman say now whether the handicapped children of Service parents have the same opportunities and facilities as the children of ordinary residents with a good local education authority?
    Mr. Watkinson: I believe so. If this is not so in any case, I should very much like to hear about it, because I think that these children are deserving of special care and help. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular problem, I shall be very glad to look into it.

    Defence Estimates
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Defence what is the percentage increase of the latest total of Defence Estimates compared with such expenditure in 1951.
    Mr. Watkinson: The total of Defence Estimates for 1962–63 is 53·5 per cent. above the actual net expenditure in 1951–52, but if the comparison is made in terms of constant prices, expenditure in 1962–63 is expected to be 2·4 per cent. below expenditure in 1951–52.
    Mr. Allaun: But compared with, say, 1949, is not the increase 125 per cent—
    Mr. Nabarro: No.
    Mr. Allaun: —and is not the £70 million increase this year the biggest single increase in Government expenditure? Does the right hon. Gentleman foresee any further rise over £1,720 million? Is there to be no ceiling at all?
    Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman appears to be asking quite a different question. Perhaps the best way to answer him is to say that the fairest assessment is according to the slice of the gross national product which is

    379
    taken, and if he examines that he will see that it has fallen since the date about which he asked. As I said in the recent debate, it is the Government's hope to keep it at about 7 per cent. of the gross national product.
    Mr. Nabarro: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, both in defensive terms and in terms of attacking power, whether on a global, a regional or a local basis, the nation is getting immensely greater value for money from the present Estimates than at any time since the end of the last war?
    Mr. Watkinson: I agree with my hon. Friend. I should just like to add—this is a matter which the House has to face—that I do not think one can pay a smaller insurance policy premium for peace than the present defence budget. It is, in my view, a perfectly justified share of the national income to try to keep peace in a very dangerous world.
    Mr. Paget: When the right hon. Gentleman says that the fair way to assess these things is by the proportion of the national product, will he consider applying that to his pensioners?
    Dame Irene Ward: Answer.

    British Forces, El Adem and Tripoli
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Minister of Defence what is the strength of British forces at El Adem and Tripoli; and if he is satisfied that these are adequate to honour our treaty obligations.
    Mr. Watkinson: It is not the normal practice to reveal the number of forces in any given area. Taken in conjunction with our ability to reinforce if necessary, the forces now in Libya are fully adequate to meet our obligations under the Anglo-Libyan Treaty.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is a rather surprising statement to make, as these facts were quoted in the national Press only last week and that they reveal a very ineffective garrison in that theatre? If it is necessary so substantially to supplement our forces to meet our treaty obligations, would it not be in our interests to get rid of the garrison? We are depending
    380
    anyway on large-scale reinforcements from some other theatre.
    Mr. Watkinson: I cannot comment on statements in the national Press of which I am not aware. What I have said is that we have a garrison in Libya which is fully adequate to meet our obligations under the Anglo-Libyan Treaty, and that is what we are asked to do.

    Hertford Hospital, Paris
    Mr. Fernyhoughasked the Minister of Defence what was the total cost of running the Hertford Hospital, Paris, during the last financial year; and what was the cost per week for each occupied bed.
    Mr. Watkinson: The total cost was £134,415, giving a figure of £83 10s. Id. per week for each occupied bed. In view of these high costs it was decided to terminate military use of the hospital as from 30th November last year. Our main requirements are now covered by an agreement with the American Military Hospital in Paris.
    Mr. Fernyhough: While I am very glad to have that news, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not agree that it has taken his Ministry a very long time to arrive at that decision? It is more than three years since the Public Accounts Committee referred to the extravagance and cost of the hospital. I am very glad that the Minister has at last decided to do the only right and proper thing.
    Mr. Watkinson: I do not at all disagree with the hon. Gentleman that the hospital was costing far too much. I regret that it was not possible to end its military use sooner, but we had great difficulty, unfortunately, in finding alternative accommodation.

    Director of Joint Warfare Staff
    Mr. Gordon Walkerasked the Minister of Defence what rank will be held by the senior officer to be appointed Director of the new Joint Warfare Staff in the Ministry of Defence.
    Mr. Watkinson: The rank of the Director of the Joint Warfare Staff will be Major General or equivalent.

  ROYAL NAVY

    Warships (Construction and Modernisation)
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what has been the total amount spent in each of the last three financial years on new construction and modernisation of warships, respectively.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C, Ian Orr-Ewing): In the three financial years 1958–59 to 1960–61, the cost of new construction warships was £40·7 million, £49·6 million and £56 million. Modernisation costs in the same years were £6·7 million, £5·2 million and £9·2 million.
    Mr. Digby: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of saving all possible money for new construction? Will he bear in mind that at this moment, I believe, the Americans have a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier on trials and that we have no nuclear propelled surface ships envisaged for this year?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I will certainly bear these points in mind.
    Mr. Willis: Will the hon. Gentleman say what the very great increase in the expenditure on modernisation was for?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: In the year just finished we were spending money on H.M.S. "Albion" and that took a good deal of money, and the refurbishing of H.M.S. "Eagle" also took a very considerable slice.

    Royal Marine Hospital, Deal
    14. Sir C. Thornton-Kemsleyasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what is the current annual cost of the Royal Marine Hospital at Deal; if he will give separately the number and rank of doctors, nurses and other staff employed there; how many naval personnel have been treated there in the last 12 months; and how each of these figures compares with the corresponding figures five years ago.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: When in full operation the annual cost is estimated at £72,000. Officers, ratings and civilians manning the sick quarters total 56. As
    382
    the quarters were under reconstruction during 1961, facilities were limited, but the average number of cases treated in each of the last four months of that year was 53. Since the close of R.N. Hospital, Chatham, Deal will cater for all naval patients, and surgical cases for all three Services in the south-east area. This makes comparison with five years ago invalid.
    I will, with permission, circulate details of the staff employed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: Do not the details of the staff show a considerable increase in both numbers and rank without a commensurate increase in the number of Service patients using the facilities of the hospital?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: In January, 1962, 143 new patients were admitted to the hospital. While it is true that the staff has increased, so have the medical commitments which that staff has to look after, as I said in my original Answer.
    Following are the details:

    Staff employed at the RM. Sick Quarters, Deal

    Surgeon Captain

    …

    1

    Surgeon Lieut-Commander

    …

    1

    Surgeon Lieutenant

    …

    3

    Surgeon Commander (Dental)

    …

    1

    Surgeon Lieutenant (Dental)

    …

    2

    Wardmaster Lieutenant

    …

    1

    Q.A.R.N.N.S.

    Supt. Sister

    …

    1

    Senior Nursing Sister

    …

    3

    Nursing Sister

    …

    1

    Sick Berth C.P.O.

    …

    1

    Sick Berth P.O.

    …

    4

    Leading S.B.A.

    …

    5

    S.B.A.

    …

    10

    W.R.N.S. S.B.A. (Dental)

    …

    2

    Civilians

    Non-Industrial

    …

    2

    Industrial

    …

    18

    56

    Nuclear-Powered Submarines (Building Tenders)
    17. Dame Irene Wardasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether future building of nuclear submarines will be subject to tender, and not concentrated at Barrow.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: Until our future programme of nuclear submarine building has been settled, I cannot say where these boats will be built.
    Dame Irene Ward: But could I have my hon. Friend's assurance that, when the programme has been settled, there will be no special concentration of the nuclear power technique in the west coast of England or in any other part of the country, but that the "know-how" will be properly spread over all areas and there will be fair tendering at all shipyards so that everyone may share in what seems likely to be a new technique for nuclear propulsion in its marine application?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I do not think that I could possibly give an undertaking that we shall spread the building of nuclear-powered warships and submarines all round the shipyards of this country.
    Dame Irene Ward: Well, to the Tyne, then.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Submarine building has always been a rather specialised undertaking, and we have to bear this in mind when considering where we shall build future submarines.
    Mr. Burden: Will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that on this occasion he will resist the blamdishments of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) and base this building, or at least a fair share of it, in the Royal Naval Dockyards, particularly Chatham, which is well equipped to carry out the work?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: That supplementary question shows that I was very wise in not giving a preference to one area over another.
    Mr. Willis: Can the hon. Gentleman say when consideration of this programme by the Admiralty is likely to be concluded?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Our nuclear submarine programme is a very expensive project, and it may take some time before it is decided exactly what it will be in future years.

    Direct Entry Commissions (Graduates)
    Mr. Willisasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many offered themselves for the direct graduate entry for commissioned rank in September, 1961; and how many were accepted.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: Four candidates offered themselves for the postgraduate direct entry for permanent commissions in September, 1961, for service in the Engineering Specialisation. Two were accepted.
    Mr. Willis: Does this come up to the expectations of the Admiralty, and is entry open to other categories?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, this was, as he knows, a new arrangement. We are now employing one officer to maintain liaison with the universities and thereby give greater publicity and encouragement to the scheme. We have other schemes—the Supplementary List Electrical Specialisation, the Instructor Branch, and the Medical and Dental Branches—to which we seek to attract graduates from the universities.

    Committee on Rating Structure (Report)
    Mr. Willisasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what progress has been made in the programme of experiments in the organisation of manpower arising from the recommendations of the committee on lower deck structure.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The Committee on rating structure concentrated on two main aspects—the function of the seaman branch and the best arrangement for the maintenance and use of modern weapons, which are becoming increasingly numerous and complex. As a result of its report, two general principles have been accepted. One is the need to give the seaman branch duties which will be useful and interesting; the other the need to move towards a greater integration of the duties of users and maintainers.
    The Fleet is still carrying out experiments to find how far it is practicable for the seaman to undertake 5ome weapon maintenance.
    Mr. Willis: Am I to understand that the new branch, Weapons Mechanician, is the result of this consideration? Further, in view of the fact that the Minister of Defence is talking in terms of closer co-operation and men of the various Services will probably be working together more frequently in future

    385
    and comparisons will be made, is it not time that the question of the master rate was looked at again?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I should not like to answer the first part off the cuff. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put a Question down for next week. The master rate is really a hardy old annual, and I do not think that it comes quite within the purview of this Question.

    Coastal Shipping
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what priority in naval preparedness he attaches to the maintenance of coastal shipping.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: A certain amount of coastal shipping would, of course, be required on defence grounds in the event of global war, but it is not my noble Friend's task to allot a priority to the maintenance of coastal shipping.
    Dame Irene Ward: No, but, having regard to that Answer, will my hon. Friend kindly convey to the Minister of Transport that coastal shipping is not only a matter as between coastal shipping and the railways, and will he please take a hammer and a nail and drive into his right hon. Friend's head that coastal shipping is also part of our defence programme?
    Mr. Speaker: It is out of order even to urge persuasion of a milder kind.
    Dame Irene Ward: Will it not be in order, Mr. Speaker, if I put my question, leaving out the hammer and the nail?
    Mr. Speaker: I do not remember what there was apart from something being done to the other right hon. Gentleman.
    Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish my hon. Friend just to convey to his right hon. Friend that coastal shipping is part of our defence programme and that coastal shipping is not only a matter for discussion between coastal shipping interests and the railways, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport seems to think.
    Mr. Speaker: It is not the Minister's duty to convey messages to another one. Perhaps the hon. Lady will be content with having asked her question.
    Mr. P. Williams: My hon. Friend the Civil Lord says that a certain amount of coastal snipping is necessary. Can he be a little more specific? Is there a minimum tonnage requirement for defence needs? Further, will he please note the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), that if coastal shipping continues to decline at the present rate, this will not only be a tragedy economically for Britain, whether we enter the Common Market or not, but also will undermine our position in terms of war and survival?
    Dame Irene Ward: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: My noble Friend is well aware, of course, that coastal shipping would play an important part should a major European war be upon us. We, therefore, do look at its level, although it is not in any way our responsibility. I can say that at present it more than meets the possible need.
    Dame Irene Ward: It must be maintained.

    Refits (Cardiff, Newport and Barry)
    Mr. Callaghanasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what are his plans for allocating naval vessels for refit to Cardiff, Newport and Barry in the near future.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: We have no plans for allocating naval vessels for refit to Cardiff, Newport and Barry. We invite competitive tenders for work of this kind if we are unable to arrange it in the Royal Dockyards. Two Cardiff firms tendered unsuccessfully for an R.F.A. refit which is due to start shortly in South Wales. The ship-repairers in the Cardiff-Newport-Barry area will be given the opportunity to tender for the refit of two more of our R.F.A.s shortly.
    Mr. Callaghan: With due deference to you, Mr. Speaker, is the Civil Lord aware that the working strength of the ship-repairing industry in Cardiff has declined by one-third in the last four years and of the remainder 13 per cent. are unemployed? Will he, therefore, give special consideration to allocating some ship on competitive tender for repair, lest this industry should decay and men be attracted to more stable employment?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I judge from the hon. Gentleman's opening words that he realises that responsibility for the well-being of the ship-repairing and shipbuilding industry rests with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport now. We shall certainly make sure that ship-repairing firms in Cardiff are given the opportunity to tender. I hope that, perhaps, their tenders will be so competitive in the future that they will win awards.

    Fleet Work Study Team
    Miss Vickersasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what progress is being made by the Fleet Work Study Team; and how much money is likely to be saved as a result of their recommendations.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The Fleet Work Study Team is showing good results, but it is not possible to measure these entirely in terms of money saved. Some of the studies, for instance, have led to the more efficient use of existing manpower, and others to improved safety arrangements, higher standards of maintenance and longer periods of operational service for ships and equipment.
    Miss Vickers: How many teams are there, and does my hon. Friend think that they are really justified?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: From everything I see, I am absolutely certain that they are justified. They are more than paying their way. We have 16 teams in all, and last year they pursued with a successful outcome more than 35 studies of different aspects of naval work.

    Women's Royal Naval Service (Accommodation)
    Miss Vickersasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will have a survey made of the accommodation provided by his Department for the Women's Royal Naval Service, both at home and abroad, to ascertain whether it is adequate for the needs of this service.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The accommodation needs of all naval personnel are considered annually when the works programme for the next five years is reviewed. The needs of the W.R.N.S.
    388
    are naturally included. New accommodation is being provided for the W.R.N.S. at a number of naval establishments in this country and I do not think a separate survey is desirable.
    Miss Vickers: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. There have not been any requests from the W.R.N.S. about accommodation, but I have seen some of it myself, particularly abroad and in Gibraltar. These women play a very important part in the naval service, and I hope my hon. Friend will ensure that they have adequate accommodation.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I have looked at their accommodation in Gilbraltar, and I agree that it is far from ideal. I will make certain that they are considered fairly with all other branches of the Royal Navy.
    Mr. Lipton: Is it not a fact that, in case of need, the men in the Royal Navy will always be ready and willing to share accommodation with the Women's Royal Naval Service?
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers), I have received complaints from a member of the Women's Royal Naval Service about the accommodation at Portsmouth, which is apparently inferior to other accommodation. Will my hon. Friend consider this, because the accommodation is not up to standard?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: We are considering plans for new accommodation for the Women's Royal Naval Service in the Portsmouth area in the next five years. Although the Women's Royal Naval Service makes up only 3 per cent. of Vote A, it looks as if 9 per cent. of our works programme will be devoted to accommodation for its members.

    Replenishment Tankers
    Captain Litchfieldasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he will give details about the two replenishment tankers now under construction.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: Yes, Sir. These two ships, being built by Hawthorn Leslie, Hebburn-on-Tyne, will be of 13,100 tons gross and have a speed of 17 knots, the same as the existing "Tide" Class. They will, however.

    389
    have improvements including a helicopter platform and up-to-date replenishment arrangements. These ships reinforce our seaborne capability under the strategy outlined in this year's Defence White Paper.
    Captain Litchfield: Does not my hon. Friend feel that a speed of 17 knots is a little slow for modern ships accompanying a fleet?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: We must balance the amount of money that we have with our desire for extra speed. However, we hope that future tankers will have a speed rather higher than 17 knots.

    Dry Cargo Freighters
    Captain Litchfieldasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he will make a statement about the two dry cargo freighters now being built for service in the Royal Navy.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: These ships are 4,700 tons dead weight with a service speed of 15 knots. They are being built by H. Robb and Company, Leith, to the order of the British India Steam Navigation Company, which will charter them to the Admiralty. The first ship, "Hebe", was launched today. The second ship, "Bacchus", is to be launched in May.
    Captain Litchfield: Does not my hon. Friend feel that the speed of these ships is much too slow for modern times?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: We are not talking about first-line ships. In this case, there is less need for speed and we must balance that need with economy.
    Mr. Willis: What proportion of the very large increase in Vote 8 expenditure for this year is attributable to the four ships mentioned in this Question and in the previous Question?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: None under Vote A. because they will be manned by Royal Fleet Auxiliary civilians.
    Mr. Willis: What expenditure is involved under Vote 8?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I cannot answer that. I have not the necessary papers with me. No doubt that point will be raised in Committee on the Navy Estimates. I shall be glad to answer it then.
    Sir J. Maitland: Can my hon. Friend say who will man these ships? Will they be manned by the Royal Navy or by the R.F.A.?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: They will be manned by R.F.A. civilians.

    Able Seaman Murray
    Mr. Burdenasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will arrange for the discharge from the Royal Navy of Able Seaman Murray, who is presently employed in the officers' mess of H.M.S. "Pembroke", and whose wife is now on hunger strike.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I am looking into this case at the moment and I will let the hon. Member know what is decided.
    Mr. Burden: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the squalid exhibitionism of Mrs. Murray, who is now in hospital, merely highlights the dignity and patience with which the majority of the wives of serving -men accept their responsibilities, often during the prolonged absence of their husbands abroad? In considering this matter, will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that this man is almost certain to be a liability to the Royal Navy, however long he remains in it? The sooner he is sent packing, the better it will be for all concerned.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I will balance the two factors which my hon. Friend has mentioned.
    Mr. Rankin: If all the wives of all the seamen in the Royal Navy go on hunger strike, will all the seamen be discharged?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has also drawn attention to this difficulty. It is one of the factors that we have to take into careful consideration.

    H.M. Submarine "Dreadnought"
    Mr. Dribergasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what action is being taken against the intruders who painted the word "Rag" twice on the nuclear submarine "Dreadnought"; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I understand that the civil police are taking active steps to try and identify the persons responsible. The question of what action may be taken against the culprits is not a matter for me.
    Mr. Driberg: Although the action may not be a matter for the hon. Gentleman, presumably he consults about it. If and when they are identified, is it proposed to prosecute them under the Official Secrets Act?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Naturally, we have looked into the circumstances which led to this prank, but the question of prosecution is, I think, one for the Chief Constable and for the Director of Public Prosecutions, and I cannot possibly comment on it.

    Ratings (Education Facilities)
    Sir J. Maitlandasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what facilities are provided to enable ratings serving afloat to prepare for the educational qualifications required for promotion and advancement.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The larger ships of the Fleet carry instructor officers, who also serve with destroyer and frigate squadrons. Correspondence courses, in a great variety of subjects, are provided for ratings to whom instruction is not locally available.
    Sir J. Maitlandasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what results have been obtained by naval ratings who sat for the examination for the General Certificate of Education during 1961.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: 3,386 subject passes at O level in the General Certificate of Education were obtained by just under 3,000 ratings who sat for this examination during 1961.
    Sir J. Maitland: Would not my hon. Friend agree that these results are extremely satisfactory and that the Navy should be very proud of them and of what it is doing for these people?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think that it is. The fact that more than 100 ships sent forward examinees for this examination shows that it is widely spread throughout the fleet.
    Mr. Willis: In view of the Admiralty's policy of raising the quality of the officer branches, with which I agree, does it not become increasingly important that educational facilities for the lower deck should be provided so that the numbers coming from the lower deck will not fall?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: We are paying attention to that point, which is so directly connected with the strength and calibre of our instructor branch. The better the officers we can attract to the instructor branch, the better our results will be.
    Mr. Pentland: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that a rating's dialect is not taken into consideration when he applies for promotion? We have a suspicion in the North-East, which we have had for a long time, that a number of bright Service men from our part of the country have been deprived of the chance of promotion because of their Geordie dialect.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: This examination was taken on paper, not verbally. How men can convey their dialects to paper is beyond my comprehension.

    Submarine Chasers and Hydrofoil Ships
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Government of the United States of America are building submarine-chasers and hydrofoil ships capable of speeds up to 60 knots; what research is being carried on in this country into ships with hydrofoils; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The Royal Navy is in very close touch with current developments by the Government of the U.S.A. and by others of our N.A.T.O. allies and we are watching the possible military applications of these techniques with interest.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would my hon. Friend agree that the hydrofoil ship seems to have a great future as a submarine chaser? The Russians are building one and the Americans are building an 80-tonner with a speed of 60 knots. Should not we, as a maritime nation, be in the forefront of this development and use all our brain power to get there?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: There are many research and development projects on which we should like to spend money, but we have to be strictly selective. In this instance, there would be no point in duplicating the efforts of our close allies.

    Assault Ships
    Mr. Reynoldsasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the increasing emphasis on amphibious strike forces, it is proposed to limit the Royal Navy assault ships to the two vessels now envisaged; when those vessels are likely to be put into service; and when further Commando ships will be provided in addition to H.M. ships "Bulwark" and "Albion".
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: H.M.S."Albion" is expected to commission next July, and the two assault ships in about three years. There are no plans to have more than two assault ships and two commando ships in commission. When all these four ships are in commission the amphibious capability of the Royal Navy will be roughly double that of the Amphibious Warfare Squadron which they will replace.
    Mr. Reynolds: This is rather disappointing news. It means that the Admiralty is not planning to have more than one task force afloat at any one time, Is it not a fact that as soon as the "Albion" is ready the "Bulwark" will go in for a rather extended refit? When will the hon. Gentleman be in a position to provide a seaborne task force. Including commando ships and assault ships, as forecast in paragraph 27 of the Defence White Paper?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: It is true that the "Bulwark" will go in for a refit, but for much of that time we shall have two commando carriers available and, when they come forward, two assault ships. We have to balance the many claims on our resources—aircraft carriers, antisubmarine vessels and the whole submarine programme—with the demands of our amphibious forces.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Service Pay and Pensions
    Mr. Pagetasked the Secretary of State for War when he proposes to undertake the review of Army pay in accordance with Command 954 Service Pay and
    394
    Pensions, February, 1960; and whether he will give an assurance that the pay pause will not affect this undertaking.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Profumo): I would refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence during the Defence debate on 5th March.
    Mr. Paget: Now that the right hon. Gentleman has an all-voluntary Army in circumstances of full employment, does he not feel that the time has come when he must experiment in being honest with it and fulfilling the bargains upon which he secures his recruits?
    Mr. Profumo: "Very dangerous", did the hon. and learned Gentleman say? I simply do not accept what he says, that we are in any breach of any obligations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No. We undertook to review Service pay automatically every two years. That is what the Grigg Committee recommended. That is our undertaking, and that is exactly what we have done.
    Mr. Paget: Is the right hon. Gentleman unaware that that undertaking was extended by his predecessor into specific terms—not only to review, but to pay in accordance with the review? It would, one would have thought, if there was an undertaking to review, obviously have followed, but it was actually spelled out by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor the present Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations.
    Mr. Profumo: I think that if the hon. and learned Gentleman reads the White Paper, which will be published, he will see that we have fulfilled our obligation, and I believe that the Army as a whole will understand this.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman really saying now that to maintain an obligation he has merely to look at it and not to do anything about it? Is he saying that if he merely looks at it he has carried out his obligation which the men in the Service expected him to carry out?
    Mr. Profumo: What I said was exactly what was correct. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the Government's comments on the Grigg Report, he will see that the Government agreed that

    395
    Service pay and conditions should be looked at regularly at intervals of not more than two years, and that is what we have done.
    Mr. Driberg: Is the right hon. Gentleman proposing to circulate copies of the White Paper to all ranks in the Army, and does he suppose that recruits who now believe they have been cheated by the Government will be happy about it when they read the White Paper? Is he himself happy at having to defer this increase of pay?
    Mr. Profumo: I have already said that I believe that what has been done is correct, and it conforms with the policies described in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the White Paper on Incomes Policy. In spite of all that the hon. Gentleman has tried to do to sow seeds of discord, I believe that the Army will accept this as fair.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no one is sowing seeds of discord except himself?

    Rifleman Robinson
    Mr. Leeasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the confession of another soldier of his guilt of the offence for which Rifleman Denis Robinson, of the Royal Ulster Rifles, was court-martialled on 30th September, 1961, he will now arrange for the release of Rifleman Robinson, and clear his name.
    Mr. Profumo: In consequence of the decision of the Courts Martial Appeal Court on 2nd March, I have already caused action to be taken according to the recommendations of the Lord Chief Justice.
    Mr. Lee: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what that means in plain English? Is Rifleman Robinson still in detention? If so, how many people must be in detention for one and the same crime to conform to War Office justice? Is it not the case that another man has confessed to this? Obviously, Rifleman Robinson did not want to let down his colleague. Would the right hon. Gentleman now say that in view of all this Rifleman Robinson will be released?
    Mr. Profumo: No, I am afraid I cannot accept that Rifleman Robinson
    396
    should be released. The other soldier who since the trial has said he did the assault himself gave evidence for the defence at "the trial and made no admission regarding this at all. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I have got to be absolutely satisfied about this. In view of what he has said in his Question, I will see that an examination is carried out as quickly as possible, but I am not in a position to release anybody till the case is substantiated.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Is my right hen. Friend aware that this man is a constituent of mine, and will he arrange to meet me personally to discuss the circumstances of this case? Secondly, is he aware that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) gave me no notice that he was raising a question relating to a constituent of mine? Is he aware that the hon. Gentleman has been a Member of this House since 1945? Am I to accuse him of innocence merely or of carpet bagging?
    Hon. Members: Oh.
    Mr. Profumo: I do not know about the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, but I think that the first part is perfectly proper, and, of course, I will give my hon. Friend the undertaking that I will discuss with him a matter which concerns one of his constituents.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) was raising a point of principle and not merely a matter concerning a constituent of the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills)? As I understand it, two men are in detention now for one charge. Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman is now defending having two different men in detention in relation to the one charge?
    Mr. Profumo: I am not defending that at all. I am merely saying that I cannot release Rifleman Robinson, about whom the Question was asked—and I am answering that Question—till I have substantiated the truth or otherwise of the other allegation. This has been referred by the Lord Chief Justice to the Army Council to deal with.
    Mr. Lee: Whereas he had to serve nine months, he has now served six

    397
    months of this period. How long must it be before he gets justice accorded to him? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Rifleman Robinson has now been told that he must remain in till the appeal, but that if he remains in till the appeal takes place in London, then by the time that happens he will have served the full sentence? Surely justice should be done more rapidly than this?
    Mr. Profumo: I have given the undertaking that now that the matter has been referred by the Lord Chief Justice to the Army Council I and my colleagues will see that the procedures are carried out with the utmost despatch.

    Officers
    Mr. Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state the number of officers serving in the Army who are under the age of 25 years; how many of them are married; and what is the number of such officers who are now stationed abroad.
    Mr. Profumo: There are 3,190 officers in the Army under the age of 25; of these 333 are married, and of this latter number, 136 are serving abroad.
    Mr. Wainwright: In view of the fact that a very small percentage of these officers are married and are under 25 and abroad, would the right hon. Gentleman make certain that the wives of those officers can join them and that the Government will be responsible for their fares?
    Mr. Profumo: I am afraid I cannot give that undertaking. There is a longstanding regulation that officers under the age of 25 do get treated not so well as those over 25, and I do not see—and I have had a look at this very carefully—any way in which I can alter this arrangement.
    Mr. Wainwright: Does not the Minister think it a very unjust and very unfair penalty on these young men? What right have the Government to say that a man shall not marry till he is over 25 years of age? It behoves the Government to make certain that they play fair and justly with these boys. Will the Minister give further consideration to this?
    Mr. Profumo: We always give further consideration to these matters and we are
    398
    considering them the whole time. The hon. Gentleman asked what right the Government have in this matter of marriages of young officers under 25. We have no right, and we are not saying that we have. With regard to what right we have to say that those under the age of 25 do not get special consideration, that right was laid down by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in office.

    Royal Ordnance Factory, Swynnerton
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for War what action he is taking to use, or dispose of, the site of the former Royal Ordnance Factory at Swynnerton.
    Mr. Profumo: One hundred and twenty-seven acres of the former Royal Ordnance Factory at Swynnerton have been sold to the British Motor Corporation, and the Staffordshire Potteries Water Board has acquired the water facilities. Most of the remainder of the site is now available for disposal. We are meeting the local authorities to establish what kind of use can be made of the land to be given up.

    Royal Ordnance Factory, Blackburn (Mrs. Buckley)
    Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for War why Mrs. E. Buckley, a registered disabled person, has been dismissed from the Blackburn Royal Ordnance Factory.
    Mr. Profumo: I have no information to add to my hon. Friend's letter to the hon. Lady. Mrs. Buckley's continued ill-health prevented her from giving satisfactory service; and after very careful consideration it was decided that she must be discharged. I have much sympathy with Mrs. Buckley in her poor state of health, but I am sure that this decision was right.
    Mrs. Castle: Is this not the equivalent of sacking a registered disabled person just because she is disabled? Is not this a total violation of the policy for the employment of registered disabled persons which the Labour Government introduced? Is it not particularly incumbent upon the Government in a Government-run factory, a Royal Ordnance Factory in my constituency, to carry out

    399
    the policy in this connection? Has Mrs. Buckley any other blot against her name but the fact that she has been ill because she is a disabled person? Will the right hon. Gentleman set an example to private employers by giving me the assurance here and now that when Mrs. Buckley comes out of hospital after her latest operation she will be offered her job back again in the Royal Ordnance Factory?
    Mr. Profumo: I do not think I can give that undertaking—
    Mrs. Castle: Why not?
    Mr. Profumo: May I just answer the hon. Lady? First of all, we do employ our statutory quota of registered disabled people. At the Royal Ordnance Factory in the hon. Lady's division where Mrs. Buckley is employed, over 6 per cent. of the labour force is under some form of medical restriction. This led us to discharge her because of long periods of illness. I very much regret that it had to be done. The decision was fully discussed with representatives of her trade union. Beforehand they had sponsored an appeal on her behalf, but asked for it to be withdrawn after the hearing.
    Mrs. Castle: On a point of order, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I wish to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Aldershot Show and Queen's Birthday Parade
    Sir E. Erringtonasked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether he has now agreed to the cancellation this year of the Aldershot Queen's Birthday Parade; whether he is aware that the parade is the only annual comprehensive parade of all units in the Aldershot district; to what extent the "At Home" proposed to be held a fortnight afterwards is designed to serve as a substitute for this traditional occasion; and if he will make a statement;
    (2) why he has agreed to the cancellation this year of the Aldershot Show; and whether he proposes to reconstitute this limited form of army publicity at an early date.
    Mr. Profumo: This decision has been taken because of our shortage of manpower. The usual comprehensive parade
    400
    involves a good deal of special training and administrative effort. This year in its stead there will be unit parades to mark the occasion and the ceremonial artillery salute will be fired. The Aldershot Show has not been cancelled. It was decided last year that the 1962 Show would be held without the Tattoo which has formerly been an adjunct to it, and advantage has been taken of this arrangement to replace the Tattoo by an "Open Day". These arrangements will be reviewed next year.
    Sir E. Errington: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it involves at most only two extra parades? Is he also aware of the value of this traditional spectacle and the fact that this decision to cancel it will cause a great deal of disappointment to those who live in the area? Concerning the Show, will my right hon. Friend make it quite clear that this year Rushmoor arena will be made available for civilian purposes of a show, and will he give an undertaking that next year reconsideration will be given to the question of a military Tattoo in the Show?
    Mr. Profumo: I will certainly give consideration to the number of problems which my hon. Friend has put. I am sorry that I cannot give a more satisfactory reply from his point of view concerning this year, but I would remind him that we are doing this for the reasons that I have given and will review the whole position next year.

    French Paratroops (United Kingdom Visit)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for War who will pay the cost of training French paratroops in this country.
    Mr. Profumo: This visit is not yet definitely arranged, but we would follow the normal practice and invite the French Government to pay the extra costs arising from the participation of their troops, for example for food, petrol and other consumer items.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Torture.
    Mr. Lipton: While, of course, recognising the Government's need to earn foreign exchange by whatever means become available, is it not ridiculous that we should extend the practice of

    401
    training foreign troops here and sending our troops to be trained abroad? Would it not be cheaper and more sensible if each country trained its own troops in its own territory?
    Mr. Profumo: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am quite sure that diversification of training is a very important item in our curriculum. It is only an extension of interchangeability of training between the N.A.T.O. countries, which I am quite convinced is the right thing to do.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that public opinion in this country would deeply deplore these French paratroopers being brought into this country to brainwash our own troops in the kind of brutal behaviour for which these paratroopers have made a name for themselves in Algeria and elsewhere?
    Mr. Profumo: Whatever the hon. Lady's private views may be, I do not believe that she represents general public opinion in this country.
    Mr. Kershaw: Is it not undesirable that so often we have from some benches opposite general support for N.A.T.O. and during the rest of the time we have these individual insults to our allies.

    Signals Communications (Transistor Equipment)
    Mr. Pagetasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state the extent to which military signals communications use transistor equipment.
    Mr. Profumo: Transistors are already incorporated in certain equipment and, within the limits of their technical development, will be used extensively in equipment which will come into service within the next one and two years.
    Mr. Paget: When the right hon. Gentleman says "within the scope of their development", does he realise that this has been developed for almost all civilian equipment and has been in general use for the last five years? Is it reasonable that even for walkie-talkie equipment there should be added this great weight of valves when transistors
    402
    are available? Why does it take the War Office so much longer than anyone else?
    Mr. Profumo: Simply because, by and large, commercial development of transistorised techniques has taken place since the current range of Army equipment was developed. We must use our present equipment, but as soon as we can switch over to new equipment we shall use modern techniques.
    Mr. Paget: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the police are now transistorised, whereas the Army are still receiving deliveries of valve equipment which, in fact, costs twice as much?
    Mr. Profumo: I do not know about the police. That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that we still have radio equipment which is not transistorised—
    An Hon. Member: What a rotten word.
    Mr. Profumo:—which has not transistors in it. I am sorry, I was succumbing to the jargon. I am advised that in the present state of development transistors are not suitable for every type of Army transmitter.

    B.A.O.R. (Medical Personnel)
    Mr. Morrisasked the Secretary of State for War what progress is being made in remedying the shortage of doctors and other medical personnel in the British Army of the Rhine.
    Mr. Profumo: The powers which I am seeking under the Army Reserve Bill will enable me to retain National Service medical officers and other ranks to meet the immediate shortage. In addition, eight civilian doctors have recently been engaged to serve in B.A.O.R.
    Mr. Morris: Will more doctors be retained under the provision of the Army Reserve Bill than other services?
    Mr. Profumo: I gave the number of doctors that we shall need when I spoke in debate. The hon. Gentleman will find the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 31st January, column 1132.

    403
    I think that it is something like 36 doctors in all.
    Mr. Bellenger: Is it not the case that there is a serious shortage of medical officers in units, amounting to about 50 per cent., and does he think that the Army Reserve Bill will meet that shortage? Does he not need a much longer term policy?
    Mr. Profumo: This raises a much wider question than the one on the Order Paper to which I was addressing myself. It may be that we may have a chance of discussing this matter, in more general terms, when we come to debate the Army Estimates.

    Hong Kong
    Mr. Morrisasked the Secretary of State for War why three artillery regiments are retained in Hong Kong.
    Mr. Profumo: Units of the British Army are deployed in the way best calculated at any given time to fulfil the objectives of our defence policy.
    Mr. Morris: Does the Secretary of State intend to decrease the number of troops in Hong Kong in the ensuing year? If so, will he say by how many and whether they will be gunners?
    Mr. Profumo: The last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is highly hypothetical. As to the first part, I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence said yesterday.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: As the Minister of Defence told us that the primary purpose of our troops in Hong Kong is for internal security, can we be told how far artillery troops contribute to the maintenance of internal security?
    Mr. Profumo: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence was talking about the prime purpose of these troops. It is not the only purpose of these troops. Unless we maintain a credible deterrent force in the Colony it would be an open invitation to a take-over bid.
    Mr. Rankin: While we could understand artillery being retained on Victoria Island, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman how he can defend its being retained in Kowloon?
    Mr. Profumo: If the hon. Gentleman reads my Answer, I think that he will find I have already told him.
    Mr. Paget: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously tell the House that three artillery regiments are a credible deterrent to the Chinese Army?
    Mr. Profumo: I said that I thought we should maintain a credible deterrent, part of which are the three artillery regiments, part of which are the rest of the Forces, part of which are the Gurkhas, and part of which are the reinforcements that can be got there.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    United States Air Force (F-105 Thunderchief)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Air how soon the aircraft now flown by squadrons of the United States Air Force stations in England are to be replaced by F-105 Thunderchief fighter-bombers, capable of speeds higher than the present maximum speeds and equipped with nuclear weapons in internal bomb bays as well as with up to 4,000 lb. of bombs and clusters of rockets or missiles under the wings; and what new arrangements for the control of exercise and training flights by these aircraft, and for the protection of the civil population from the risk of accident and from the nuisance of excessive noise, are being negotiated with the United States Air Force.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Julian Amery): I know of no plans to introduce these aircraft into U.S.A.F. squadrons based in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Driberg: Could the right hon. Gentleman then be good enough to explain why the facts contained in this Question were provided for the Press by a spokesman of the United States Air Force at Wethersfield?
    Mr. Amery: The hon. Member no doubt has better sources of information than I have, but I have consulted the United States Air Force authorities and they say that they have no plans to introduce the F-105 Thunderchief into their forces in the United Kingdom.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY, EURATOM AND COAL AND STEE COMMUNITY
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. BELLENGER: To ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he will now make a statement on the negotiations which formed the subject matter of recent ministerial meetings in Brussels with the European Economic Community.
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will now answer Question No. 65.
A fortnight ago I undertook to make to the House as full a statement as possible and I hope that this will be for the convenience of the House.
At the ministerial meeting in Brussels on 22nd February, we discussed for the first time the problems of agriculture and the temperate foodstuffs from the Commonwealth. Discussions have, therefore, now begun with the European Economic Community over the whole range of problems involved in our entry into the Community. For our part, we hope to be able to maintain the momentum of the negotiations in all their aspects.
At this meeting, I repeated that the United Kingdom fully accepted that the Common Market must extend to agriculture and trade in agricultural products; and that we were prepared to participate in a common agricultural policy.
At the same time, I experienced the view that some adaptations of the decisions already reached by the European Economic Community would be necessary, because, for example, the accession of the United Kingdom and other countries would alter the supply and demand situation, and because it would be necessary to provide for the smooth and progressive harmonisation of the present United Kingdom food and agricultural system with the new system which would be established in an enlarged Community. We naturally sought arrangements under which our position would be taken into account by the Community in working out regulations
406
for those commodities on which agreement has not yet been reached.
I again emphasised the need for arrangements to meet the essential interests of Commonwealth countries in this field. The Community was asked to accept that Commonwealth countries would need to feel that in the future they would have the opportunity of outlets for their agricultural produce comparable to those they now enjoy.
After the general discussion between Ministers a number of problems were remitted to the Deputies for further study and report. They include problems relating to the form of the common agricultural policy, assurances to farmers in the enlarged Community—including the question of annual reviews—the need for a special transitional period for the United Kingdom, the problems connected with the Commonwealth, and the financial arrangements for the common agricultural policy.
I will now refer to some of the subjects dealt with at previous meetings.
The House will recall that in my opening statement on 10th October last, I said that, whilst we were ready to accept the structure of the present tariff as the basis of the common tariff of the enlarged Community, we would wish to single out some items for special treatment. We have in these talks suggested that in a limited number of cases the Community tariff should be reduced to nil.
A Working Party has been continuously at work in this field. It has now largely completed its task of studying the problems which arise, except in the case of processed foodstuffs. These will be studied separately against the background of the discussions on the common agricultural policy. The Working Party has examined the balance of production and consumption in an enlarged Community, including the United Kingdom, and has reviewed the economic considerations which should influence tariff levels, taking particular account of Commonwealth trade in the products concerned.
Another important problem concerns the relationship between the Community and the less developed countries of the Commonwealth. A general examination of this problem has been taking place for some time on the basis of statistical

407
material especially assembled by the European Commission and our own delegation. This shows the division of the exports of each less developed Commonwealth country and territory between the United Kingdom, the European Economic Community and other countries.
The material indicates whether these exports are mainly affected by the common external tariff, by the present arrangements for the association of overseas territories, by the common agricultural policy, or by some combination of these factors. There has not yet been any detailed discussion about the particular Commonwealth countries and territories to be given the opportunity of becoming associated if they so wish.
The United Kingdom delegation has explained the nature of the Commonwealth interest and its effect on any arrangements made to replace those in the present implementing Convention which expires at the end of this year. There have recently been more detailed discussions about the problems of Commonwealth countries identified as being mainly affected by the common external tariff, namely, India, Pakistan, Ceylon and Hong Kong. A detailed review of the pattern of trade in the manufactures of these countries and of the restrictions at present imposed on them is now under way.
A special study has been made of problems arising in the field of exports of manufactured goods from the developed Commonwealth countries—Canada, Australia and New Zealand. This has been based on a statistical analysis of the trade in manufactured goods between these countries and the United Kingdom. The Working Party concerned has also listed some possible solutions to the problems that have emerged, which would not be inconsistent with the Treaty of Rome.
There has also been a thorough study of the articles of the Treaty of Rome concerned with Economic Union. This has taken place together with an examination of the detailed regulations, decisions and directives which have been adopted by the Community to implement the Treaty. The object of these discussions has been to enable us to assess how far these detailed measures would
408
be suitable for application to the United Kingdom without any adaptation.
I would like now to refer to two further matters. I need not remind the House of the terms of our obligations to our partners in the European Free Trade Association. The United Kingdom is not negotiating on their behalf but we are, of course, concerned to remain in the closest possible contact with them. One of the main purposes of the meeting of the European Free Trade Association Council which I attended last week in Geneva was to review progress in the negotiations begun with the Community in Brussels: this was part of a continuing process of consultation among the countries of the European Free Trade Association.
Secondly, we have now formally applied for negotiations with a view to joining the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community. This will enable negotiations with these two communities to begin as soon as it is mutually convenient. Moreover, it shows our desire to maintain the momentum of the negotiations as a whole.
Finally, I might sum up the position we have reached in the negotiations in this way. A great deal of ground has already been covered. A lot of the work has been unspectacular, but it has been necessary before we can formulate solutions to the complex problems which arise in every field. Businesslike procedures have been established in a co-operative atmosphere. I hope that it will be possible for the tempo of the negotiations progressively to increase.
Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order. Is there any precedent for an Answer to a Question of this length, read at such speed? Will you bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that if any supplementary questions from this side of the House matched the length of the dissertation to which we have just listened they would undoubtedly evoke a great many interruptions from hon. Members opposite? We think that this is an abuse.
Mr. Speaker: The Minister was asked to make a statement. I do not think that there is any limit set by the rules of order to the length of the statement that he can make, and if the right hon.

409
Gentleman read it slowly, of course, we might have less time.
Mr. Heath: To continue, some work of analysis remains to be completed, but I am hopeful that we shall then move on to the consideration of possible solutions. In this way a broad picture, covering the whole range of the negotiations, will begin to emerge.
Mr. Bellenger: The whole House will welcome the right hon. Gentleman's progress report, if I might call it such. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Obviously, the whole House does not want so to call it, but I do.
Is the House to understand from the procedure adopted by the right hon. Gentleman today, in Answer to the Question, that on further occasions, after Ministerial consultations, he will give the House an extensive report as he has done today?
Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman envisage that the guarantee that the Government gave to the agricultural industry in this country, that the deficiency payments system would not be altered during the period of this Parliament, will not be changed as a result of the negotiations which are going on in Brussels?
Mr. Heath: As I have already said, I am anxious to meet the convenience of the House in this matter. Apparently, this long statement this afternoon was not entirely to the convenience of the House.
I will consider the position after each Ministerial meeting. The undertaking which we have given to the farming industry will remain.
Mr. Gaitskell: The right hon. Gentleman has made a long and important statement which the House will wish to study carefully. Will he take up with the Leader of the House the possibility of a debate, when we could probe these things a little more satisfactorily? Meanwhile, I have four questions to put to the right hon. Gentleman.
First, I understand that what has been happening so far has been studies of the various problems which arise in connection with our possible entry into the Common Market. Can he tell us whether, the period of study being, so
410
to speak, now over, we are about to move into the period of negotiation?
Secondly, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the best solution of the problem of agricultural products from the temperate zone would be one which, in effect, threw open the European market more than it is at present to these products of the temperate zone members of the Commonwealth, even if they thereby lost something in the British market? Is that the view of Her Majesty's Government? If not, could he give us a clue about what they consider to be the correct solution of the problem?
Thirdly, there is the problem of the tropical products and the products of under-developed countries. Is it not the problem that the French Government contemplate discriminatory tariffs in favour of their ex-colonies, which they would treat on the basis that they were associated members of the Common Market? Are the French Government prepared to enlarge the list of associated members to cover all the ex-colonies of this country so that they might enjoy the same privilege? Would the right hon. Gentleman regard that as a satisfactory solution? Or is there not a tremendous amount to be said on broader, international grounds, for free entry to the Common Market for all products of under-developed countries?
Finally, can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about political developments? I understand that there have been certain conversations among the Six about development towards some kind of a federal system. Have they made progress? Where do we stand?
Mr. Heath: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has, of course, heard the right hon. Gentleman's request for a debate. The House has been very patient in understanding the difficulty of making information public while these negotiations are going on. I think that many right hon. and hon. Members will realise the difficulty of debating them in every detail during negotiations.
I take note of the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the possible solution to the problem of foodstuffs from the temperate zone. These things are very much in our minds, but, again, they

411
are a question of negotiation between the countries concerned and the European Economic Community.
The position which the right hon. Gentleman described in dealing with tropical products is that of the existing arrangements between the associated overseas territories of France and the Community. What is being discussed at the moment within the Community is what the new nature of these arrangements should be after 1962. So it is not a question of creating discrimination of this kind, but of existing arrangements which hold at the moment.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have broad arrangements with our own territories. What will be discussed in due course in the negotiations is the nature of the future arrangements for association after 1962 and the part which our own territories can play in them.
The right hon. Gentleman also raised the question of worldwide arrangements for tropical products. Various suggestions have been put forward about this, and the House will also realise the difficulty of securing worldwide arrangements in a very short period of time.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to political arrangements. The Fouchet Commission is still working on this at an official level. The arrangement is that when a greater degree of progress has been made we shall have an opportunity of giving our views fully to the members of the Six.
Mr. Gaitskell: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that it is understood that no change in the present political arrangements can or will be made without the consent of the British Government? In other words—if I may put it the other way—is there any danger that the six present members of the Common Market would reach arrangements among themselves which we would then have to accept if we went in? Can he clarify that point?
Can the right hon. Gentleman also answer the more general question? Have we now reached the end of the study period and the commencement of negotiations? In which sort of order are these subjects to be taken in the negotiations?
Mr. Heath: There is still a certain amount of work of analysis and provision of statistical information to be done. The work on agriculture, having started so recently, is slightly behind the other aspects I have described, but there is no decision about the order of the work, because it is being carried on by the Deputies and working parties on all the subjects I have mentioned.
As for the Fouchet Commission, so long as we are in the position of not being a member of the Community we cannot govern the actions of the Community in carrying on its deliberations. At the moment, the arrangement is that we shall have an opportunity, after the work at official level, of stating our views at Ministerial level.
Mr. Fell: Can my right hon. Friend precisely define what the words "comparable outlets" for goods from the Commonwealth mean? If he can, will his definition be the accepted legal definition for this country?
Mr. Heath: This is where we enter the difficult sphere of detailed negotions, on which, at the moment, I am unable to give the House detailed information.
Mr. H. Wilson: In regard to the European Free Trade Association, can the right hon. Gentleman say something about the attitude of the European countries in relation to the neutrality question? Will he make it quite clear that, as far as we are concerned, the exclusion of the neutral countries from association under Article 238 on grounds of political neutrality is quite unacceptable and, if persisted in, will mean that the conditions stated in the House of Commons Resolution of 5th August, 1961, will operate, and that we cannot ourselves enter unless satisfactory safeguards have been provided for E.F.T.A. countries?
My right hon. Friend raised the question of the Fouchet Commission. The right hon. Gentleman and I recently appeared in a television programme which was not fully reported—perhaps fortunately. Will he confirm what I understood him to say then—that there can be no question of this country joining the Community and accepting federal or supranational commitments in relation to foreign policy or political

413
questions generally, and that this would require a separate treaty? Have the Government reserved their position on this question?
Mr. Heath: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would expect me to express the views of other European countries. There are three neutral members of E.F.T.A. The position of Her Majesty's Government is clear. We are bound by the obligations of the Stockholm Convention and the communiqués which we signed in July this year in London and Geneva, which is that the other E.F.T.A. countries must have the opportunity of satisfying their legitimate requirements and that these should all be taken into account at the same time. These are our obligations and we adhere to them.
As for the Fouchet Committee, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Such obligations would require a new treaty and that treaty would have to be accepted unanimously by all members.
Mr. H. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman did not fully answer the question about the Fouchet Commission. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is very important. The six other countries concerned in E.F.T.A. are partners to whom we are morally and treaty bound. Since they regard their legitimate interests as safeguarded only by association under Article 238, will the right hon. Gentleman make it plain that, if that association is refused on military or political grounds—on the ground of neutrality—our attitude under the Resolution of the House last August will still apply?
Mr. Heath: The E.F.T.A. countries have applied for membership under that Article. In the case of Austria, association was not mentioned—deliberately so, as a matter of policy. I confine myself to saying that the legitimate requirements of E.F.T.A. countries for which we are seeking arrangements must be met. That is our obligation.
Mr. Ridley: While welcoming the Government's decision to apply for membership of Euratom and the Coal and Steel Community, may I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that we would not join these organisations unless the main negotiations were successful?
Mr. Heath: That is true. I understand that it is the view of the Six that
414
countries unable to join the Common Market are unable to join the Coal and and Steel Community or Euratom.
Mr. P. Williams: May I press my right hon. Friend a stage further on the phrase "comparable outlets for Commonwealth products"? While understanding the difficulty of the definition of this phrase at this moment, either it was put into the statement to mean something, or it is meaningless mumbo-jumbo. If it is a meaningful phrase surely the House is as entitled to have an explanation of this as it was courteous of my right hon. Friend to make a statement this afternoon at all?
Can my right hon. Friend say whether this phrase will allow free entry of Commonwealth products into this market for all time, and will not be on a declining or time limit basis? Secondly, will he give an undertaking that there will be no discrimination in the future against Commonwealth products, preferring the position of European products?
Mr. Heath: The phrase is meaningful, but to describe it one has to relate it to many circumstances and to individual commodities. It is, therefore, not possible to give a detailed answer separate from the negotiations. Secondly, the request was for the long term as well as for the short term.
Mr. Wade: The Lord Privy Seal used the expression "supply and demand situation". Can he explain what is meant by that? Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the transitional period. How long will the transitional period be? Thirdly, if this long statement is a statement of progress I welcome it, but I support the plea of the Leader of the Opposition that there should be some opportunity for debating it if only to allow a chance for an expression of views by those hon. Members who wish progress to be made, and those who do not.
Mr. Heath: As regards the supply and demand situation, I think that the House wild appreciate that if, for example, Denmark and ourselves were to become members of the Community, in some agricultural products it would mean the addition of the largest producers and, as far as the United Kingdom was concerned, the largest consumer. It would, therefore, produce a

415
different supply and demand position in the enlarged Community as a whole.
On the transitional period, I made plain in the Paris statement that we were asking for a longer transitional period for British agriculture, and this was the matter I put forward again at the last Ministerial meeting and which is now to be discussed by Deputies.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House heard the hon. Member's request for a debate. At the same time, I hope that the House, having given us authority to enter into these negotiations, will allow us to continue them and understand that one cannot give detailed information about particular aspects of the negotiations.
Mr. Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a danger of declining Commonwealth trade during the period of these protracted negotiations? To prevent that, will my right hon. Friend say whether or not the safeguards he is attempting to obtain for the Commonwealth are of a permanent nature, or are to be subject to a time limit? Will he not refer me to the Paris statement, as there is no mention in that statement of whether they will be permanent or temporary?
Mr. Heath: As I understand, the Commonwealth is anxious to maintain its trade with us and to increase it. We are equally anxious to increase Commonwealth trade wherever possible. This has always been the Government's policy.
I will send my hon. Friend a note of the particular points in the Paris speech where we requested that Commonwealth arrangements should be not only for the transitional period but the full Common Market period. And that, again, was the request on the agricultural commodities—temperate foodstuffs—which I put forward at the last Ministerial meeting in Brussels.
Mr. Rhodes: Has the question of the import of Commonwealth manufactures now passed the exploratory stage, and if so, how far?
Mr. Heath: I said in my statement with regard to Commonwealth industrial goods that possible solutions have now
416
been put forward which are not in conflict with the provisions of the Treaty of Rome.
Mr. Mendelson: Concerning the work of the Fouchet Committee which is being carried on at official level, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is essential for the House to know precisely where the political intentions of the Six and their plans for supranational organisation are leading to before the House can make up its mind about the economic provisions of the Treaty? Is it not essential that a full report should be given about the working of the Committee before we can go any further?
Secondly, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that while there are difficulties in giving too many details whilst he is conducting these negotiations, it is not possible to go on for too long without debating the progress report that he has given today and other future reports?
We are asked questions about these matters by our constituents all the time, and it is not possible for the Government to keep them in a field of mystery and finally appear in the House with a fait accompli.
Mr. Heath: There is no question of a fait accompli in this House. The Government have given full undertakings to the House and will carry them out.
As regards the Fouchet Committee, it is not possible to hold up these negotiations. Her Majesty's Government have no desire to hold up negotiations for entry into the Economic Community while awaiting the outcome of the Fouchet Committee's deliberations, if that is what the hon. Gentleman was suggesting. I see no reason for that. We have been informed of the substance of the Fouchet Committee's draft on which it is working, and, as I have told the House, as soon as it reaches the position of Ministerial discussion there will be meetings between the Six and ourselves at which we can express our view.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a difficulty about discussing this matter without a Question before the House.

GUARDIANSHIP OF INFANTS
3.56 p.m.
Miss Joan Vickers: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law with respect to the guardianship and custody of infants.
The reason for asking leave to bring in this Bill is because, by the common law of England, it is the father who is deemed to be the guardian of the child, and I should like to see equal guardianship, that is, that the mother should be able to be a guardian, too.
In a happy home the mother has an equal voice in how to bring up her family. But in many homes the mother does more than her fair share and takes more of the responsibility of bringing up the family; yet, by the common law of this country, she has no legal rights, only customary rights. For example, should her husband decide that the children should go to a particular school or church, even though there may have been an arrangement before marriage, the wife has no right to say that the child shall not go to that school or to that church. The husband has the legal right to make the decisions.
In this day and age travel is very much easier, and many people go overseas for jobs. There are, too, unfortunately, a number of women who are deserted by their husbands. They are still not regarded as legal guardians, even if they have no knowledge of the whereabouts of their husbands. A woman can work and keep the children, but should the husband return he can then claim—unless she has been to the courts—to exercise his right of guardianship over the children. In fact, in law, the father is entitled to the services of his infant children and to their earnings as long as they are living with him and being maintained by him. If he returns to his deserted wife after a certain number of years, particularly when the children are of earning age, he gets all the advantage.
There is one particular difficulty in regard to passports. These are still issued by virtue of the Royal Prerogative, and Regulation 4 (f) contained in Form A states:
"Children under 21 years of age may not be granted passport facilities without the consent
418
of the legal guardian—that is the father—or if he is dead the mother, except where the applicant is married or in H.M. Forces."
The form states that the mother, or any other person, claiming, during the lifetime of the father, to be the legal guardian must produce a court order committing the child to the custody of the mother or that other person. In other words, if the mother wishes to get a passport for her child in the absence of her husband she has to go to court and get the guardianship of the child before she can do so.
It seems strange that should a woman be widowed she automatically gets all these rights. It has been thought in the past that it may be difficult for a child to have two guardians, both mother and father, but, in fact, it is possible now for a child to have two guardians. The father has the right to appoint another guardian of his child should he wish to do so, and if he does not wish to make the mother the other guardian he can choose anybody else he likes.
One of the chief reasons why I want this facility for the mothers is that nowadays, particularly in school curricula, many educational tours are arranged overseas, and it is extremely difficult for the mother if she is anxious for her child to join one of these tours. She may have no idea of the whereabouts of her husband, and is therefore in difficulty in obtaining a passport, unless she applies to the court. Section 2 (1, c) of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates Courts) Act, 1960, says, that the court may make an order,
"where, by reason of impairment of the husband's earning capacity through age, illness, or disability of mind or body, it appears to the court reasonable in all the circumstances so to order, a provision that the wife shall pay to the husband such weekly sum not exceeding seven pounds ten shillings as the court considers reasonable…"
We have, therefore, reached a position in which a wife can be forced to keep her husband. Yet she still does not have the legal guardianship of her own children. Article 55 (c) of the Charter of the United Nations refers to the
"observance of human rights and fundamental freedom for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion."
It is a question of obtaining for the married woman the guardianship of her

419
child, and at present she can obtain that guardianship only by applying to the courts.
There is also the difficulty of the illegitimate child. As far as I can discover, under common law, the mother has no legal guardianship even over such a child. The Guardianship of Infants Act, 1925, modified the common law rights of the father to have the sole custody of his infant child, but it is limited by the phrase:
"where any proceeding is before any court."
Section 2 of the Act gives the woman like powers to apply to the court as are possessed by the father, but she cannot have the guardianship unless she takes action when she is before the court. In other words, the mother has to establish her right to have the child by appealing to the court. I hope that the House will give me leave to bring in the Bill, which, I am sure, will solve many of the present difficulties.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Miss Joan Vickers, Mrs. Elizabeth Braddock, Mr. John Parker, Sir George Benson, Mrs. Evelyn Emmet, Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith and Mr. Jasper More.

GUARDIANSHIP OF INFANTS
Bill to amend the law with respect to the guardianship and custody of infants, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 18th May, and to be printed. [Bill 75.]

TRANSPORT BILL AND HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)
4.2 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining Proceedings on the Transport Bill and the Housing (Scotland) Bill:

TRANSPORT BILL AND HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

  A. TRANSPORT BILL
  1. The Standing Committee to which the Transport Bill is committed shall report the Bill to the House on or before the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and sixty-two.
  2. The Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days, and shall be brought to a conclusion at half-past Ten o'clock on the second of those days; and for the purpose of Standing Order No. 41 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the Proceedings on Consideration such portion of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
  3. The Business Committee shall report to the House their recommendations as to the Proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those Proceedings and Proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fifth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.

  B. HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL
  4. The Standing Committee to which the Housing (Scotland) Bill is committed shall report the Bill to the House on or before the twenty-seventh day of March, nineteen hundred and sixty-two.
  5. The Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days, and shall be brought to a conclusion at Seven o'clock on the second of those allotted days and for the purpose of Standing Order No. 41 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the Proceedings on Consideration such portion of the time on those allotted days given to the Bill by this Order as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
  6. The Business Committee shall report to the House their recommendations as to the Proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those Proceedings and Proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fifth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.

  C. GENERAL
  7.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any Proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee

  421
  under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the Proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
  (2) No dilatory Motion with respect to Proceedings on the Bill or the adjournment of the Standing Committee shall be made in the Standing Committee except by a Member of the Government, and the question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith without any debate.
  (3) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sittings of the Committee except by a member of the Government and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement of the reasons for the Motion from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
  (4) On the conclusion of the Proceedings in the Standing Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any question.
  8. No Motion shall be made to postpone any Clause, Schedule, new Clause or new Schedule, but the recommendations of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee.
  9. On an allotted day, other than the second of the days on which the Housing (Scotland) Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the day, Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) and Standing Order No. 1A (Exemptions from Standing Order No. 1) shall have effect with the substitution of references to half-past Ten o'clock for references to Ten o'clock; and Proceedings which under this Order or any Resolution of the Business Committee are to be brought to a conclusion on any such day shall not be interrupted under the provisions of the said Standing Order No. 1.
  10. If, on any allotted day, other than the second of the days on which the Housing (Scotland) Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the day, a Motion is made under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance), paragraph 9 of this Order shall not apply but—

  (a) any Proceedings on the Bill exempted under paragraph (2) of that Standing Order shall be so exempted for the period mentioned in that paragraph and a further half hour; and

  (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or any Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day at any time after Seven o'clock shall be deferred for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the said Motion under Standing Order No. 9.

  11. If, at Seven o'clock on any allotted day, any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time have not been concluded, any Motion for the Adjournment of the House under the said Standing Order No. 9 which, apart from this Order, would stand over to
  422
  that time shall stand over until those Proceedings have been concluded.
  12.—(1) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on any allotted day, other than the second of the days on which the Housing (Scotland) Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the day, shall, instead of being considered as provided by the Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill on that day, and shall be exempted by this paragraph from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) for a period of three hours, or, if the Proceedings on the Bill are concluded before half-past Ten o'clock, for a period (from Ten o'clock) equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the completion of those Proceedings.
  (2) Paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking private business) and paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance) shall not apply to any private business exempted by this paragraph.
  13. Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business) shall not apply to any allotted day.
  14. On an allotted day no dilatory Motion with respect to Proceedings on the Bill shall be made except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith without any debate.
  15. For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any Proceedings which, under any Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee or of the Business Committee, or under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion at a particular time and have not previously been concluded, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall, at that time, put forthwith the Question on any amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, also the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill, and subject thereto shall proceed to put forthwith the Question on any amendments, new Clauses or new Schedules moved by a member of the Government of which notice has been given (but no other amendments, new Clauses or new Schedules) and any Question necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded, and, in the case of any amendments, new Clauses or new Schedules moved by a member of the Government, he shall put only the Question that the amendment be made or that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
  16.—(1) The Proceedings on any Motion moved by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order or of any Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee or of the Business Committee shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion two hours after they have been commenced and paragraph 15 of this Order shall, so far as applicable, apply as if the Proceedings were Proceedings on the Bill:
  Provided that if the Proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent

  423
  public importance), the time at which they are to be brought to a conclusion shall be deferred for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the Motion for the adjournment
  (2) If any Motion moved by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order or of any Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee or of the Business Committee is under consideration at Seven o'clock on a day on which any private business has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock, the private business shall stand over and be considered when the Proceedings on the Motion have been concluded, and shall be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) for a period equal to the time for which it so stands over.
  17. Nothing in this Order or in any Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee or Business Committee shall—

  (a) prevent any Proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution; or

  (b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such Proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

  18.—(1) References in this Order to Proceedings on Consideration or Proceedings on Third Reading include references to Proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.
  (2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment selected under Standing Order No. 31 (Selection of Amendments).
  (3) On the conclusion of any Proceedings in Committee of the whole House on re-committal of the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
  19. In this Order "allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the day; "the Bill" means the Transport Bill or the Housing (Scotland) Bill; "Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee; and "Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.
  There are two sorts of debate that one can have on Allocation of Time Motions. The first consists of a battle of quotations—parading what the other side of the House has said in the past; and the second is based on the assumption that the use of the Guillotine in our procedure is in some cases not only justified, but
  424
  necessary; and one merely has to consider whether the Motion before the House is such a case. I propose to follow the second course, and come straight to the Transport Bill.
  Mr. J. T. Price: On a point of order. Before we proceed any further with this matter, may we have some guidance from you, Mr. Speaker? This is a most unusual occasion, because, in practice, although the Motion is drafted in conventional terms it refers to two separate Bills which are before the House—the Transport Bill and the Housing (Scotland) Bill.
  Many of my hon. Friends, like myself, would like to know how we can assure that we have a tidy and orderly debate, when such diverse Bills are placed, as it were, on the same charge sheet, and hon. Members are asked to answer criticisms from the Government benches. It will be impossible to maintain an orderly debate unless there is some division of time, so that there need be no jumping about from one Bill to the other as the debate proceeds.
  We shall be grateful if we can have some guidance from you, Mr. Speaker, if you have any powers in the matter.
  Mr. Speaker: I do not think that I have. From my point of view it is one Question, and has to remain one Question. The House must discuss the matter as best it can.
  Mr. Macleod: The House will remember that the Transport Bill of 1947, to which I shall make some reference later, was joined with the Town and Country Planning Bill—and they were far bigger Bills than these two—and that this has been common practice for a long time.
  It might be convenient if I say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, about half way through the debate, at about seven o'clock, and that at the end of the debate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport hopes to speak.
  Miss Margaret Herbison: Do we understand that the Minister is telling us that the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is a member of the Cabinet, has to depend on catching Mr. Speaker's eye in this debate,

  425
  part of which applies to an important Scottish Measure?
  Mr. Speaker: Everyone who wishes to speak has to catch my eye.
  Mr. William Ross: I should like to know whether the Leader of the House will deal only with the Transport Bill, or also with the Scottish Bill.
  Mr. Macleod: Naturally, I shall deal with both, but in meeting the request for an orderly debate I thought it best to take them one at a time. I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that that is the best course.
  Mr. Archie C. Manuel: It seems to me that the debate will be quite unreal from the point of view of Scottish Members. The Secretary of State for Scotland—a fully-fledged member of the Cabinet—will be brought in approximately half-way through the debate. We do not know how many Scottish Members—if any—will have been called upon by that time. Why should not the Secretary of State wind up the debate, thus having an opportunity to answer questions put by Scottish Members?
  Mr. Macleod: Because, in that case, we should no doubt have equal objections from those Members whose main interest is in the Transport Bill. I shall devote half the time for which I wish to address the House to the Housing (Scotland) Bill.
  Mr. George Lawson: On a point of order. I notice that the Minister of Transport and the Parliamentary Secretary are present. I know that both are on the Transport Bill. But the Secretary of State for Scotland has not attended any sittings of the Housing (Scotland) Bill. He knows nothing about our proceedings in Committee. Why, therefore, should we be burdened with him?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member rose to a point of order. Will he be good enough to indicate what point of order he is raising?
  Mr. Lawson: Are we to be burdened with the Secretary of State for Scotland, who had nothing to do with the Scottish Bill in Committee?
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. I wish that hon. Members would not rise to points of order which are not points of order.
  Mr. Macleod: In the case of the Transport Bill it is important that the new structure should be introduced as soon as possible, not least to remove uncertainty among the staff concerned. During the Second Reading debate the Financial Secretary to the Secretary stated that the vesting day might be 1st January next, and even with this Allocation of Time Motion—if the House approves it—taking into account the time that will have to be spent in another place, there will be only a comparatively short time left after the Royal Assent for very complicated appointments and preparations that will be necessary.
  It is important, secondly—perhaps about this there will be less discord between the two sides of the House—that the reconstruction of the finances of the Commission, and particularly the operation to relieve the railways of their present burden of capital debt, should be completed. It is important, thirdly, that they should, as soon as possible, have the freedom which is contemplated in the operation of their commercial affairs. The question is, then: what is a reasonable time for these discussions? In this connection, we must look at both present progress and at precedent.
  The first meeting of Standing Committee E on this Bill was held on 5th December, 1961. The Committee, so far, has held 23 meetings. Owing to the slowness of the progress, the original programme of two meetings a week was changed to three. The Bill has been discussed for 60 hours so far, out of which Ministers and Government supporters together have spoken for 18. There were about 250 Amendments on the Notice Paper—not surprisingly in respect of a Bill which is very much disliked by the Opposition—but as these Amendments do not—as the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) will agree—cover the whole of the later stages of the Bill, it is probably fair to assume that this is only a fraction of the number which might be put down.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport said at the nineteenth sitting that at the present rate of progress the

  427
  Bill could not be obtained before 1964. That was, of course, before the remarkable burst that the Committee made yesterday after the announcement of the time-table Motion, when no less than 12 Clauses were discussed. As to what conclusion one should draw from that, again opinions might differ on both sides of the House. Perhaps I may mention here—I mention it only to pass from it—that on both Bills an offer of a voluntary allocation of time was made, and in both cases—rightly, from the point of view of hon. Members opposite—the Opposition chose to reject it.
  Let us now look at the question of precedent. Last week, on business, the right hon. Member for Vauxhall asked me whether I was
  "aware that the Transport Bill contains a great deal of contentious and complicated matters, which will have great consequences for the nation and all those who work in the transport industry, and that discussion of these matters therefore should not be curtailed or prevented?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1962; Vol. 654, c. 1544–5.]
  I replied that the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman put forward must have been equally valid in relation to the Transport Bill introduced in 1947 which had the melancholy distinction of being the first Bill to have the Guillotine applied to it in a Standing Committee. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will address himself to this point when he speaks.
  Perhaps I may illustrate it a little further. This is a Bill of 91 Clauses. The 1947 Act had 127 Clauses and so it was roughly as big as the two Bills which we are discussing today put together. In 1947, the Government gave notice of a timetable Motion after 11 sittings. We have waited until after the twentieth sitting. Yet, in 1947, progress was a good deal swifter. The Standing Committee had reached Clause 6 after eleven sittings when the Government moved a Motion for guillotine powers, whereas in the present case the Committee had by then only finished Clause 3. In all—this is very important from the question of the amount of time—in 1947 there were 31 sittings in Committee, some with and some without the Guillotine.
  If one makes the reasonable assumption that the Business Sub-Committee—
  428
  about which I will say a word in a moment—in relation to this Bill might recommend three sittings a week, as the Committee is sitting at present, there would be 36 sittings for this Bill; in other words, five more than for a Bill which was 36 Clauses larger. In short, this is both a smaller and obviously a much less fundamental Bill than the 1947 Act. Clearly, the allocation of time in 1962 is more generous and yet progress has been slower. On the basis of those figures, I hope that the House will feel that the case for an allocation of time Motion for this Bill has been made out.
  The Housing (Scotland) Bill—
  Mr. Gerald Nabarro: May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I accept absolutely the need for a timetable Motion in Committee. But will my right hon. Friend apply himself to the second paragraph of the Motion, at the head of page 2421 of the Order Paper, that Report or Recommittal and Third Reading of the Bill should be completed in two allotted days? This is a very grave disability to be thrust on hon. Members, such as myself, who sat right through the Second Reading debate but could not catch your eye, Mr. Speaker—because there were so many others with more important claims than my own in this context—and then were not appointed members of the Standing Committee. Therefore, in respect of really massive matters in the Bill, decided in Committee, we do not have adequate time to refer to them when the Bill is recommitted—that is, hon. Members who were not members of Standing Committee E.
  Mr. Macleod: I understand that point very well. But this includes Recommittal, if there is one, and, as is normal, Report and Third Reading. The allocation of time is a matter for the Business Committee. That was the amount of time given for example to the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill which was a Measure of enormous importance and, as I have just been saying, this is a Bill which is considerably smaller in size and scope than the previous major Transport Bill. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport wishes to touch on this point, so I will not go further on the matter in response to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. John Wells: In his intervention my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) said, in a slightly aggrieved tone of voice, that he had not been appointed to Standing Committee E. From the returns of Standing Committees for the last two years I observe that my hon. Friend has not served on any Standing Committee for the last two years, whereas many other hon. Members have carried the heat and burden of the day—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and, therefore, take his intervention in very bad part.
  Mr. Nabarro: If my right hon. Friend will permit me—and my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) as well—may I say that my hon. Friend's researches are evidently incomplete. Had my hon. Friend studied the returns of the Standing Committees for 1950 to 1959, he would have found me almost continuously a member of a Standing Committee.
  Mr. Richard Marsh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there any way in which hon. Members on this side of the House may be protected from this internecine squabbling among the Government supporters?
  Mr. Speaker: I was about to observe that interventions upon interventions are inevitably tedious. Mr. Macleod.
  Mr. Macleod: Perhaps I may be allowed to intervene in my own speech for a moment.
  On the Housing (Scotland) Bill, which is much smaller in size but of great importance—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Certainly, and very much disliked on the other side of the House—progress, as we all know, has been much slower even than on the Transport Bill. It is often said, and often there is a good deal of truth in it, that the early Clauses of a Bill—sometimes, in particular, Clause 1—are discussed at great length because in them is the heart of the whole Bill. But although Clause 1 is, no doubt, important, and I think that six sittings of the Committee were devoted to it, I should not consider it among the most important of all the Clauses in the Bill. It seems clear to me that Clause 3 and other Clauses are probably even more important—Clauses 8 and 29, and so forth.
  430
  Here, the position is that the Committee has had 13 sittings and is still only on Clause 2. I think that it is clear to everyone that even if the whole of this Parliamentary Session were devoted to this Bill, at the present rate of progress it is doubtful whether it would become law. When, on last week's business, I had an exchange with the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), I said that I had seen expressions of opinion about the progress on the Bill in Committee which would seem to put a rather different interpretation on what had happened from that of the hon. Member. I will not pursue this point in particular, because the hon. Member is not in his place and I have not given him notice. I referred to such comments as these in the Edinburgh Evening News, from its political correspondent. I will read only the headlines:
  "Committee Becoming Socialist Debating Society. Hours Being Wasted on the Housing Bill."
  Hon. Members: Tory Head Office.
  Mr. Macleod: It has nothing to do with the Tory Head Office. My authority in these matters stops at the Tweed.
  Miss Herbison: The right hon. Gentleman has read only the headlines. Perhaps it would be better if he read the rest of it. So far as I can remember, these were the exact words used by one of his own back benchers.
  Mr. Macleod: Indeed, I assure the hon. Lady that I would be very willing to read it, but perhaps I had better pass it over to her, and then, if she likes she can read it all. If she insists, it goes on like this:
  "But while it is good for a laugh to say that it took the Scots as long to fix the arrangements for an extra Sitting of their committee as it took Colonel Glenn to do three orbits of the world "—
  Mr. Manuel: Carry on, there is nothing to laugh at about that.
  Mr. Macleod: The next words are:
  "—the whole thing is really getting past a joke. And when one Socialist M.P. accuses the Press of reporting the committee's work in a frivolous manner, the last excuse for laughter disappears completely."
  The Minister in charge of the Bill has done everything he can to expedite its passage. He has, when it would bring about a decision, moved the Closure

  431
  half-a-dozen times, and, as with the Transport Bill, the Committee is now sitting three times a week.
  The House will recall a point, and I think this, too, is a very important one, put by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) on business questions last week, that there was a similar Bill, I agree of comparable size, applying to England and Wales, which went through the Committee stage without the use of the Guillotine. When I announced this Motion, the hon. Member for Fulham said:
  "On the Housing (Scotland) Bill, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he recollects that we had a comparable English Bill last Session and that although we gave the Bill the protracted discussion which it deserved, a guillotine Motion was not considered necessary and there was no idea of introducing it at this comparable stage in Committee?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1962; Vol. 654, c. 1547.]
  The hon. Member was, in fact, making my point for me. The two Bills were more or less of comparable length, although a considerable section of the English Act contained provisions on multiple occupation, which proved difficult and contentious and which indeed took seven Sittings.
  Nevertheless, the Housing Act, 1961, passed Standing Committee in 22 sittings, and if, once more, I make the reasonable assumption that for the remaining period of the Committee stage, there will be, as there are now, three sittings a week, this Bill will have been examined for 22 sittings. When we remember that the English Bill contains, as I have said, the additional complicated Clauses on multiple occupation, it does not seem at all unreasonable to suggest that the Scottish Bill should be disposed of in the same number of sittings as the English one.
  The House will have seen that the Allocation of Time Motion proposes to make use of both the Business Committee and the Business Sub-Committee, because these are Bills in Standing Committee. These conditions are established under Standing Orders Nos. 41 and 64. When last we discussed an Allocation of Time Order, shortly after the Christmas Recess, the Opposition said that as a gesture of protest they would not take part in the consideration of the proceedings of the Business Committee.
  432
  The Business Sub-Committee did not arise in that case, because both Bills were taken on the Floor of the House. I do not know whether they will take the same attitude, but I hope that they do not.
  All Oppositions always detest, and always will detest, an Allocation of Time Motion. This is entirely right, but I do not think that it commits them in any way to approval of it if they share in the provision that the House has made through its Standing Orders for allotting the time available. Indeed, I believe that the Opposition stand to gain very much from this, because it would be normal in the Business Committee and the Business Sub-Committee for their suggestions to be accepted regarding the amount of time that might be given to different parts of the Bill and to the different Clauses. In this way, they would be able to put the emphasis of debate during the remaining stages of the Bill where they wished, and to concentrate their criticism where they judged it would be most effective.
  The fundamental fact which we, as the House of Commons, have to consider is that with our procedures, which have grown up over so many years, any Bill whether it is long, or of moderate length, or even as we saw a year ago in March, a very short Bill indeed, will, if it is sufficiently disliked by the Opposition, result in a situation in which the Government must ask for allocation of time powers or drop the Bill, particularly if, as in this case, both the Bills are programme Bills, mentioned in the Queen's Speech, which have made some progress in Committee.
  There have been two instances since the war, one from each side of the House, of moving for these powers before a Bill reached its Committee stage, and after it has had its Second Reading, but it is more common form that progress should be made in Committee, and that we should see whether such powers are or are not necessary. Both sides have in the past indulged in what one might call delaying tactics of a strenuous nature—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is perfectly legitimate; it is all in Erskine May.
  To accuse anybody of obstruction is also entirely Parliamentary. I remember Lord Morrison of Lambeth, as he is

  433
  now, putting me right on that point a dozen years ago. Whether it is wise or not to do this, I do not know. I would be fairly confident that the Conservative Opposition, as they then were, lost ground in the country as a result of what came to be called the "harrying tactics "towards the end of the period of Socialist Government.
  Some hon. Members hold the view, and it was expressed particularly from the Opposition benches at the time of the guillotine Motion a year ago, that prolonged political controversy in the House is welcomed by the public outside. I understand that point of view, but I do not believe that it represents the point of view of the ordinary man. I believe that if he sees the House of Commons failing to complete its business, or not making reasonable progress in reasonable time, he comes to the conclusion that we ought to manage our affairs better.
  I believe that the case that I have made today is unanswerable, although I expect it to be answered from now until ten o'clock, but I do not doubt that, after we have examined the case for the Allocation of Time Motion for these two Bills, the House of Commons, after debate, would be right to give us these powers.
  Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman said that he was examining this matter in relation to progress in principle, but he failed to give us a precedent for a timetable Motion being introduced for a Bill in the Scottish Grand Committee. Will he give us it?
  Mr. Macleod: In each instance I have taken the case which seemed to me to have most relevance, the 1947 Transport Act against this Transport Bill and the English Housing Act of 1961, which is closely related and in many cases has almost exactly the same wording as in the Scottish Bill.
  Mr. Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when, if ever, the Guillotine has been introduced in a Scottish Committee? He will find only one precedent and it was done then by the same Member who is doing it now.
  Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Is it not the case that since the Scottish Grand Committee has been divided into
  434
  two Standing Committees we have never had this procedure? Is not the chief allegation against the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that he is, on this Bill, curbing discussion which is denied to half the Scottish hon. Members who are not able to be members of the Scottish Standing Committee?
  Mr. Macleod: I do not know whether it would be in order to reply to that. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) answered himself. There is a precedent for this.
  Mr. Ross: Yes, a Tory precedent.
  Mr. Macleod: I daresay, but the first precedent for a guillotine Motion in a Committee was a Socialist precedent, so we are even in that.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) asked me some time ago to contrive the organisation of this debate. I did not then know what the Leader of the House was to say about the likely time of the intervention by the Secretary of State for Scotland. I say now, in view of that arrangement, that I shall try as far as circumstances permit to have my eye concerned with hon. Members wishing to raise matters relating to Scotland early in the debate. I must, however, first call Mr. Strauss.
  Mr. Nabarro: Does your statement, Mr. Speaker, mean that hon. Members who are English Members and who are interested only in the transport section of this Motion, which is the major part of it—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—in substance the major part of it—will not succeed in catching your eye until after seven o'clock this evening? If so, is not that a grave inconvenience to English Members, who are in the majority on this occasion? Should we not have at least equal rights with the Scots?
  Mr. Speaker: It means no more than I have said.
  4.32 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: The speech of the Leader of the House in introducing this Motion was similar to those we have heard on these occasions in the past. When timetable Motions are introduced by the Government, the Leader of the House tells us that there has been delay in procedure in Standing

  435
  Committee and that the Bills concerned are important. Precedents are quoted and he tells us that if the Government are to get through their legislation, and Parliament is not to be frustrated, it is essential to introduce a guillotine Motion.
  We do not dispute for a moment that the Government must be empowered, as, indeed, they are empowered, to get through such legislation as they desire. The procedure of the House permits that. We cannot complain if the Government use these powers, except to say that on certain occasions—and we have the occasion before us today—they should not be used. The right to use the guillotine Motion is undisputed, but there is another principle of equal importance which the House must consider. It is that it is wrong for a Government to curtail free and full discussion of important legislation except in extreme cases and on rare occasions.
  There is, admittedly, a conflict of principle which arises on these matters, which it is difficult to reconcile. We say that the Government are using the powers of the guillotine far more frequently and with less cause than any previous Government. We complain that whenever a Bill gets into any difficulty in Committee, and the Minister becomes impatient at the progress which is being made, the Government proceed to the introduction of a timetable Motion.
  I remind the House that, taking these two Bills into account, the Government will have introduced guillotine Motions in respect of four Bills within six weeks, which compares with the record of the Labour Government during their six years of office of only three guillotine Motions under the greatest provocation.
  In those days, the Labour Government were forced to introduce the guillotine procedure, but the House will remember the extreme provocation which the Opposition gave the Government by deliberate, open, prolonged obstruction over a number of Bills. The House will remember that the Committee considering the Gas Bill was kept sitting for 50 hours non-stop and that a vast number of frivolous Amendments were tabled.
  436
  I can speak only in relation to the Committee on the Transport Bill, on which I have been sitting. It is impossible to put forward a case of obstruction in respect of that Committee. The proceedings there have been smooth and harmonious. There have been very few occasions on which points of order have been raised by any hon. Member of the Committee. Indeed, I think there have been no such occasions at all except those seeking from the Chairman legitimate guidance on procedure. No obstructive points of order have been raised. In view of the importance of the Bill, discussion in Committee has gone on smoothly and no one has complained about it.
  The Leader of the House has quoted the Transport Bill of 1947. He said that was a Bill on which the Labour Government brought in the Guillotine. He asked me to justify guillotining discussion on that Measure when I opposed guillotining it on the Transport Bill now before Committee. I justify that by the statements I have already made. In those days we were facing obstruction from the Conservative Party such as no Government had faced since the days of obstruction by the Irish Members. It was absolutely necessary to introduce the Guillotine to get our legislation through.
  The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): Does the right hon. Gentleman say that on the 1947 Transport Bill his Government were facing obstruction which was quite unprecedented?
  Mr. Strauss: I say that throughout their life the Labour Government were facing obstruction. It was quite clear, even at that early stage, what the action of the Opposition would be. That we were proved right was shown by developments on the Gas Bill, which arose later. It was inevitable, in view of the line which the Conservative Opposition were taking at the time, that the Government were certain to face fierce obstruction on the Transport Bill. On that occasion the imposition of the time-table Motion was essential.
  As the Leader of the House has quoted that Bill as a precedent, I desire to remind him of what leading members of his own party said about the introduction of the guillotine Motion at that time. They opposed it violently. I have looked

  437
  up that debate. J can quote to the Leader of the House and hon. Members some of the comments which were made by his colleagues on that occasion. Lord Hailsham, then Mr. Quintin Hogg, said that we were turning Parliament into a Reichstag. Sir Anthony Eden, now Lord Avon, said on that occasion:
  "I am bound to say, it seems to us utterly scandalous to use the Guillotine, in this way, on major Bills upstairs at this stage of the Session."
  That statement was made on 3rd March and today is 7th March. He went on to say that the Guillotine procedure in respect of the Transport Bill was "intolerable and unacceptable" and that we were
  "violating the traditions of the House".
  Mr. Nabarro: What date was that?
  Mr. Strauss: It was 3rd March, 1947.
  Mr. Nabarro: But 3rd March, 1947, was much longer before the following Genera] Election. We are much nearer a General Election now. In 1947, therefore, much more of the Session was in front of the Labour Party.
  Mr. Strauss: I thought that the hon. Member was about to make an intervention which was relevant, as his interventions usually are, but certainly is not on this occasion.
  In summing up his objections to the Guillotine procedure, Sir Anthony Eden said of the Government:
  "They are making it impossible for Members of this House, however diligent they may be, and wherever they may sit, to carry out their duties as they should be carried out. I beg them, even now, for the sake of our Parliamentary traditions, and for the sake of their own reputations, to withdraw this monstrous proposal… "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March. 1947; Vol. 434, c. 69–78.]
  The right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), who also spoke on that occasion, talked about the Guillotine Motion as the first step upon the road on which the Government had started—
  "the effective strangulation of parliamentary debate and the substitution for it of legislation by Government decree."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1947; Vol. 434, c. 89.]
  If we took the first step, the present Government are taking leaps and bounds in the same direction. We imposed a Guillotine on three occasions. This is the eleventh Bill for which the Con-
  438
  servative Party has introduced Guillotine resolutions, four of them within six weeks.
  There were similar comments by other leading Conservatives opposing the introduction of the Guillotine on the 1947 Bill, which the right hon. Gentleman advanced as a precedent. When he is advocating the Guillotine on this occasion, therefore, he is saying one of two things—either that his right hon. Friends in those days were talking nonsense or that he is now embarking on the same "intolerable", "unacceptable" and "monstrous" procedure which they condemned in those days.
  Mr. J. Wells: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the dates of Easter and Whitsun in that year when the Labour Party were in office? He will remember that those dates affect the Parliamentary programme.
  Mr. Strauss: I do not think that the date on which Easter fell in 1947 compared with the date of Easter this year is relevant.
  I ask the House to consider the Transport Bill, its importance and its effect on the lives of a very large section of the community. The Bill does two things. First, it disintegrates the publicly-owned transport system of the country—in so far as it is already integrated, which is nothing like as much as we should like. This is a major operation of great importance, involving a number of detailed provisions, all of which are highly contentious. The Bill therefore affects the lives of over half-a-million people working in the transport industry.
  Moreover, it touches the community in another direction; by implication, the provision of all the transport services in the country is seriously affected, as the prospects of the withdrawal of such services by the proposed Railways Board have arisen for consideration on many occasions under the Bill. The Bill is, therefore, a matter of great public importance—not only its principles, but the detailed way in which it is to be operated.
  Another part of the Bill deals with reorganising the financial structure of the publicly-owned transport industry. Broadly, that part has the support of the

  439
  Opposition. When the Minister of Transport accuses us, as he did the other day, of delaying this necessary and too-long-delayed reconstruction, the answer is simple: there are two quite separate proposals contained in the Transport Bill which have little connection with each other, and if the Minister wants the financial reconstruction of the British Transport Commission to be put into operation quickly it should have been put in a separate Bill. If he expected the reorganisation of the Transport Commission, splintering it into a large number of different sections, to pass through the Committee after only a short discussion, he was being wildly optimistic. Such a thing is not possible.
  The discussions in Committee have gone smoothly. We have had many speeches by hon. Members who are peculiarly fitted to talk about this great problem. Some Members of the Committee have spent many years in the railway service. They have great knowledge of the industry, and they have spoken from their experience. They are hon. Members who have devoted their lives to the welfare of the industry, and, naturally, they feel keenly and bitterly about the Government's proposals, which they believe will do grave damage to that industry. They have an obligation to give a warning to the Committee and to the Government about the consequences of the Bill and to move Amendments which they hope will modify some of those consequences.
  They have done so effectively and extremely well, and I think that all hon. Members, including those on the Conservative side of the Committee, will agree that the contributions made by my hon. Friends who are expert in this subject have added a great deal to our knowledge and our understanding of the implications of the Bill. They feel that if they had not made their contributions they would have failed in their duty to the nation and in their responsibility to the industry with which they are so closely associated and in which they have spent so many years of their lives.
  If it is suggested, as it was implied by the Leader of the House, that there has been undue delay and time-wasting in Committee as a result of the speeches
  440
  and actions of the Opposition, I reply that it has been time-wasting only in the sense that it is wasting time to put forward Amendments in Committee which one knows that the Government are certain to reject. That has happened in respect of every Amendment which we have put forward, whether it were a major Amendment or a smaller Amendment. Not one of them has been accepted.
  Mr. J. T. Price: There is one other point which my right hon. Friend may wish to develop. In addition to the Amendments which have been tabled in Committee by my hon. Friends and me, a large number of Amendments were tabled by dissatisfied Government supporters, and by some stroke of magic those Amendments have disappeared from the Notice Paper under pressure from the Government Whips. That needs to be explained before this debate ends.
  Mr. Strauss: I hope that we shall be given some explanation from Government members of the Committee during the debate.
  There are two special, although minor reasons, why the Bill needs special scrutiny, both the responsibility of the Government. In some respects, the Bill is drafted with incredible carelessness, in particular in respect of one very important Clause. One of the major provisions of the Bill is the setting up of a new body called a holding company, which is to take charge of a large number of the services now being run by the Transport Commission. I shall not discuss the merits of such a provision, for that would be out of order.
  This Clause is drafted in a way which makes absolute nonsense. It is now to be changed by a very large number of Amendments which have been tabled by the Government. Whether hon. Members will believe it or not, the Holding Company is to be established, under the Bill as at present drafted, without any explanation of what it is to be, whether it is to be a body corporate or not, who is to compose it and run it, or how those people are to be appointed. A Bill which comes before Parliament with that drafting defect on a matter of major importance, requires, at any rate in respect of this Clause, very careful and long scrutiny.
  The second reason, which I put forward with all seriousness, why the Bill has so far entailed lengthy discussion, longer than would otherwise have been necessary, is that we have had no one in the Committee from the Government side with the authority to accept Amendments, however desirable. The Minister of Transport has hardly attended the Committee. Every hon. Member who has sat on Committees knows that, if the Minister responsible for the Bill is there to guide the proceedings, these are greatly facilitated and speeded up.
  I cast no reflection on the leadership which the Parliamentary Secretary has given to the Committee. He has done his work well and effectively. All members of the Committee pay tribute to him for this. But that is nothing to do with the question whether the Minister of Transport should be in the Committee or, if he had been in the Committee, whether the work of the Committee would have proceeded faster than it has. We hardly ever see the Minister. Many days go by without him putting in an appearance at all. Occasionally, he flits in and out like a bumblebee; he takes a look round and disappears again. His persistent absence from the Committee is a cause of complaint, not only by members of the Committee, but by the whole House, as it is a discourtesy to Parliament when a Minister introduces an important Bill and does not attend its Committee proceedings.
  I repeat that, even if the Minister had been present throughout the Committee proceedings, the Bill is one to which we object and which we dislike very much—or certain parts of it. The Government have every right to introduce a Bill which they like and which we do not like. They have every right to force it through, if necessary by a timetable Motion, but only if such a timetable Motion is essential.
  It is true, as the Leader of the House said, that we rejected the proposal for an agreed timetable. My colleagues were anxious to be unfettered in their criticisms of the Bill. They wanted to put forward freely the strong objections they hold to those parts of the Bill that they think are particularly evil and obnoxious. The Leader of the House said that we rejected an agreed timetable
  442
  proposal. On the 1947 Transport Bill, the Conservative Party also rejected such a timetable, through Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, as he then was, who led the Opposition on that occasion.
  We dislike many parts of this Bill very much indeed. Therefore, we cannot be expected to agree to any proposal such as the right hon. Gentleman puts before us today which makes its passage easier or more certain. We were elected to the House to oppose by all the powers which parliamentary procedure accords to us the enactment of such legislation as this Transport Bill. When the House discussed, on 25th January a timetable Motion in respect of the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill and the Army Reserve Bill, there was opposition from some Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean), who very much disliked the Army Reserve Bill, refused to vote for the timetable Motion. He said:
  "… I will do nothing whatever to facilitate its passage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January, 1962; Vol. 652, c. 497.]
  We take the same view about the Transport Bill. We think that it is a thoroughly bad Bill and will have bad consequences nationally and on those working in the industry. Therefore, we oppose the timetable Motion, which will inevitably curtail what we consider to be proper discussion on the Bill and the movement of essential Amendments. We opposite it, further, because guillotine Motions are now becoming far too constant a feature of our proceedings. The use of the Guillotine weapon, as we are now witnessing it, is, we believe, a threat to parliamentary democracy and should be stopped.
  4.55 p.m.
  Mr. J. A. Stodart: One thing which has filled Scottish Members on both sides with sorrow is that this is the first occasion on which a weapon which is so clearly and so closely associated with France is to fall upon the necks of France's ancient allies. In a recent sitting of the Standing Committee which has been considering the Housing (Scotland) Bill, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) made a literary reference which I found both apt and humorous with reference to the falling of the Guillotine and those who sat alongside and watched it. That

  443
  literary reference caused me to delve into the deep recesses of my memory and into literary matters which I hold there.
  Many, many years ago—I think some thirty-five years ago—I once played the part of the Fairy Queen in "Iolanthe". Since remembering this I have gone to the trouble of confirming that the activities of the Standing Committee considering the House (Scotland) Bill have recently been in the pure vein of W. S. Gilbert. It seems to me to be quite fantastic and extraordinary that Gilbert, who wrote "Iolanthe" exactly sixty years ago, and who set one of its scenes in Arcadia and the next one in the Palace of Westminster, should have created three characters whom it is not difficult to identify in the Scottish Standing Committee at the moment.
  There was the Fairy Queen herself. She, perhaps, was not like the traditional Fairy Queen of one's imagination. She was a bit of a tartar. I well remember declaiming her lines, which went like this:
  "Every bill and every measure
  That may merit our displeasure,
  Though your fury it arouses,
  Shall be quashed by both our Houses! …
  You shall sit, if we see reason,
  Through the grouse and salmon season …"
  I am not sure if the mention of the month of November has passed the lips of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), but I have certainly heard it pass the lips of certain Members of the Committee that they think that it would be a good plan to run this Bill into next November; but the sense of these lines has at least been spoken on many occasions in the Standing Committee by the hon. Lady, if a trifle less lyrically.
  The second easily identifiable character is the hero—
  Miss Herbison: Before the hon. Member goes on to the next character, perhaps he will give quotations to prove that his analogy is right.
  Mr. Stodart: There was a time when I knew the whole of the libretto, but, unfortunately, I must confess that I do not know it any longer.
  Mr. Ross: Why not just sing it?
  Mr. Stodart: The second easily identifiable character is the hero, who rescues the Scottish Standing Committee. That is clearly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Again, W. S. Gilbert appears to have—
  Mr. Ross: We never see the Secretary of State in the Scottish Standing Committee.
  Mr. Stodart: W. S. Gilbert saw the hero sixty years ago as a Liberal-Conservative Member of Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, although not a Liberal-Conservative, is a Liberal-Unionist. I pay tribute to him for subscribing to the Motion, which will rescue us from the penal servitude to which hon. Members opposite would have us sentenced.
  Mr. Ross: Would it not be far better to quote the Duke of Plaza-Toro, who led his regiment from behind, as the Secretary of State?
  Mr. Stodart: If we are arguing about that, we shall have to put it to "Trial by Jury".
  The third character, however, which is the most remarkable of all, is the character in "Iolanthe" called Private Willis. [Laughter.] [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] There really is a distinct resemblance to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), because in the play Private Willis said this:
  "I am an intellectual chap,
  And think up things that would astonish you."
  That is only too true, as can be seen from twenty-five columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT, containing some 9,000 words, including the following—and I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee for 20th February, at c. 332, when the hon. Member said—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I think that it would be out of order to quote from the proceedings of the Committee which is still sitting.
  Mr. Stodart: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I would remind the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, who is now present with us and whom I have ventured to identify with the character of Private Willis in "Iolanthe", of the

  445
  fate that befell him. The Fairy Queen was so perfectly attracted to him by his powers of verbiage, which far exceeded her own, that she clapped a pair of wings upon him and he disappeared from Westminster altogether.
  I regret profoundly that a timetable is necessary, and I regret it for two reasons. The first is that it appears to me seriously to strike at what might be called the very roots of our democratic method of discussion, which is associated all over the world with the British Parliamentary system. The Glasgow Herald—
  Mr. Manuel: Another Tory newspaper.
  Mr. Stodart:—last Friday stated that members of the Opposition had described the Bill as a crucial one. Certainly, I consider it a Bill of great importance. That opinion is borne out by the Report of the Toothill Committee, which set great store by housing in Scotland. If the Bill is crucial, obviously it must be passed. It is a pity that so many important Clauses—for example, Clauses 3 and 29—will be curtailed in discussion because of the time which has been spent, fifteen hours of it, on Clause 1 and four hours in arguing whether we should meet on Tuesday evening or Wednesday morning.
  Hon. Members opposite claim that they have been doing no more than their duty in opposing the Bill. I should, however, like to say this, and I am aware that it will meet with no agreement from the benches opposite. I believe it to be true and fair to say that the reputation of the Scottish Standing Committee now is that it merely havers, to use a Scottish word. That is certainly the reputation which it has in this House.
  I wonder very much whether, perhaps, this is a deep-seated plot. Is it, perhaps, that Scottish home rule has once again found, or will find, its way into the Labour Party programme. If it does, one thing of which I am certain is that the majority of hon. Members in this House would willingly give us Scottish home rule, so fed up are they with these antics and the dreadful fate that awaits anyone who is press-ganged into service on the Scottish Grand or Standing Committee.
  If the Press reports of this matter are any reflection of opinion in Scotland,
  446
  opinion at home would appear to bear out what I have described as opinion here. I am well aware that if I mention the Glasgow Herald, hon. Members opposite will say, "Ah, a Tory paper". All the same, I shall quote the report from the Glasgow Herald of 2nd March, which said:
  "The Government has decided to apply the guillotine to the Scottish Housing Bill, which has been making sluggish and surly progress. Socialists have approached the Committee stage of the Bill with what a polite man would call leisurely caution. In eleven sittings so far, they have reached Clause 2—the Bill has 36 Clauses and several Schedules. A week ago, they spent seven ludicrous hours arguing about a Government suggestion that the Committee should hold an extra sitting every week to try to get on with things. In spite of this lamentable history, Scottish Socialists gave a good imitation of surprise today when the Leader of the House told them he was going to set a limit on their evidently interminable discussion. They said it was a crucial Bill and that they had been making reasonable progress."
  I have done my best to find what can generally be regarded as a balancing comment and, in doing so, I have searched the files of the Daily Record. I fully expected that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) might have had something to say in his column last Friday about the merits of the Guillotine. I admit that it may have been difficult for him to do so, as his copy for last Friday no doubt had to leave London before the Guillotine Motion was announced. I hope at least that if there is genuine grievance and irritation about this the hon. Gentleman will have something to say to counterbalance the arguments of the wicked Tory hon. Members in this Friday's column.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having given that explanation. Indeed, I was shocked when I heard that a guillotine Motion was to be introduced. I heard about that on Thursday when the business for this week was announced. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) might have mentioned a word or two about the comments I have made publicly in the Press about this, for I have said that the only Conservative hon. Member to have really participated in the Committee stage of the Bill—if it can be called "participated"—was the Minister. He surely has a case.
  Mr. Stodart: I will now travel eastwards and quote from an independent

  447
  newspaper, the Edinburgh Evening News. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to make jibes about this let me assure them that no one is more frequently photographed in the Edinburgh Evening News than is the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East. That shows that this newspaper is balanced in its outlook; and no one contributes more frequently to its columns than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn).
  Mr. E. G. Willis: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) does not do too badly, either.
  Mr. Stodart: But not quite as well. Although the Leader of the House has already pinched the best of the comments from the Edinburgh Evening News, some of those he did not use are worth quoting. An aticle in that newspaper read:
  "It is only fair to say, however, that one or two of the Scots Socialists are heartily sick of the behaviour of their colleagues in the Committee.
  The participants themselves, however, are delighted with the success of their manœuvres the result of which was that for a total of four and a half hours no word was said about the Housing Bill, which is what the Committee were supposed to be talking about.
  The time was spent debating whether the third weekly meeting of the Committee—necessary because progress with the Bill has been so slow—should be held on a Tuesday afternoon or on Wednesday mornings, or at some other time of the week."
  Mr. Manuel Mr. Manuel rose—
  Mr. Stodart: Let the hon. Gentleman hear the rest of this before he intervenes. The article continued:
  "Of course, a subject like this has to be discussed. But for how long?
  One hour would have seemed adequate since the Government are bound in any case to get their way in the end."
  Mr. Manuel: Why does the hon. Gentleman quote some tuppeny ha'penny Press man?
  Mr. Stodart: Let me continue.
  Mr. Willis: Surely the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) appreciates that four and half hours could have been saved had the Government accepted a Motion to meet on Wednesdays?
  Sir Myer Galpern: Would the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) indicate that the only contribution, as far as I can recollect, that he has made so far to the deliberations in Committee on the Bill has been to take part in the very debate which he is now condemning? Did not his contributions add to the period of time in question?
  Mr. Stodart: The premise of that question, in any case, is not quite right, because the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) was absent from the Committee yesterday afternoon at a time when I took part.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Stodart: I must complete the quotation I was making. The article continued:
  "Part of the trouble is that, whereas other elements in the House having opposed a Bill at the Second Reading stage, are prepared in Committee to do what they can to improve it, the Scots Socialists prefer to keep their opposition going throughout all stages."
  That is a fair comment, and on those grounds—as stated, as I have said, by an independent and impartial newspaper—I support the timetable Motion.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. James McInnes: I am afraid that I cannot follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) in his Gilbert and Sullivan stuff. All I will say is that we can leave Iolanthe to Private Willis, who is quite capable of dealing with the matter. But there is a quotation from Gilbert and Sullivan which says that every child
  "That's born into the world alive
  Is either a little Liberal
  Or else a little Conservative!"
  It would appear that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West has been both. He has been a Liberal believing in home rule for Scotland, and now he is a Conservative and is not believing in it. Indeed, I am quite satisfied for the House to know that the contribution of the hon. Gentleman in Committee occupied 15 or 16 minutes, which was more time than was taken up in Committee on the Housing (Scotland) Bill by all the other Conservative hon. Members put together.

  449
  I assume that the reason why they are not participating is that they have absolutely no case to defend. I give credit to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) for some of the interventions he makes in order to elucidate certain points. When the Secretary of State introduced the Bill last November his introductory remarks occupied forty-six minutes. He indicated, after speaking for that time, that time did not permit him to go into any great detail about the Bill. Really! Did the right hon. Gentleman really mean, after spending forty-six minutes introducing a Bill and explaining its Clauses, that he did not have time to go into it in detail?
  The Secretary of State described the Bill on that occasion as "a major Measure" which would make a great contribution to the solution of Scotland's housing problem. That being so, surely the Leader of the House must realise that a Bill designed to solve the greatest social problem in the whole of Great Britain merits the maximum consideration. That is what we are doing in Committee. We are giving the Bill the absolute maximum consideration, and it is in the light of these circumstances that I fail to appreciate why the Leader of the House has decided to apply the Guillotine.
  After all, the Bill has thirty-seven Clauses and five Schedules. I have sat on many Committees since entering the House. For example, I sat on the Committee which considered the 1957 Housing and Town Development Act, which had twenty-eight Clauses, not thirty-seven, as well as three Schedules. We had twenty sittings of that Committee, with no Guillotine. I sat on the Committee on the Town and Country Planning Bill of 1959. That Bill had forty-three Clauses and eight Schedules and we had twenty-five sittings, but no Guillotine. Neither of those two Bills was of a controversial character such as is the Housing (Scotland) Bill. I sat on the Committee on the Betting and Gaming Bill of 1960, a Bill which, like the Housing (Scotland) Bill, was of a very controversial nature. That Bill had only twenty-three Clauses and six Schedules, as against thirty-seven Clauses and five Schedules in the Housing (Scotland) Bill. We had eight sittings on the Betting and Gaming
  450
  Bill before we disposed of Clause 1. Indeed, altogether we had twenty-five sittings extending over a period of four months, and no Guillotine was introduced.
  The whole heart of the Housing (Scotland) Bill—I think that the Leader of the House confessed to this in his speech this afternoon—is contained in its early Clauses. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I make that submission. Clauses 16 to 28 consist largely of Amendments to existing housing legislation. Obviously, these will not involve any prolonged discussion. On the other hand, I think we must recognise that the Housing (Scotland) Bill deals with the question of housing subsidies, with a new rent structure which the Secretary of State intends to impose on the Scottish local authorities, with giving millions of pounds to private housing associations, with money that has to be given to the Scottish Special Housing Association, and things of that character. These matters are all of a very controversial nature.
  In the light of the circumstances which I have described concerning the other Bills that I have mentioned which were taken in Committee upstairs and the period of time occupied on them. I say that there is absolutely no justification for the introduction of the Guillotine on the Housing (Scotland) Bill. Indeed, I say quite candidly to the Leader of the House that I regard the introduction of the Guillotine as an attempt to deny freedom of speech and of expression as far as Government Bills are concerned, and I personally am vigorously opposed to it.
  5.24 p.m.
  Mr. Ian MacArthur: I also wish to make some remarks about the Housing (Scotland) Bill in the light of the Motion which we are considering today. The Bill consists of thirty-seven Clauses and five Schedules, and up to last night the Standing Committee had had thirteen sittings and had not quite completed consideration of Clause 2. I certainly agree, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) has said, that not all the remaining Clauses are controversial, but some of them certainly are. The Notice Paper as it stands at present runs to fourteen pages of Amendments that still have to be considered.
  Mr. Manuel: It is a bad Bill.
  Mr. MacArthur: Clearly, if the present rate of progress is maintained the Bill will certainly not be completed this Session and the consequent continuing uncertainty will delay housing development in Scotland.
  Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman says that if we continue as we are doing the Bill will not be completed this Session. But he knows very well that we willingly offered to meet on Wednesday mornings. In fact, on several occasions we have been prepared to sit all night, and on any particular night of the week. Surely, the hon. Gentleman will agree that if these offers were accepted we could make some progress with the Bill.
  Mr. MacArthur: If the hon. Gentleman is as anxious to speed the deliberations on the Bill as he says he is, it is surprising that his hon. Friends did not agree to sit on the Tuesday afternoon, which opportunity was lost because of their verbosity. Also, in speaking in this way, the hon. Gentleman is in complete disagreement with his hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) who warned at the start of the Committee proceedings that the consideration of the Bill was going to be such that there was no chance of it getting on to the Statute Book before November. I suggest that the hon. Lady's gloomy forecast was an under-estimate of the time that her hon. Friends were going to take, much of it wastefully, in the guise of careful, serious consideration.
  No heed was paid to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who early in the Committee proceedings pointed out that careful examination of the Bill did not necessarily involve examination of it at undue length. It would surely have been possible to have combined serious examination of the Bill with reasonable brevity of expression, but from the moment that we started the Committee stage the Opposition have taken every opportunity to extend every argument to the uttermost syllable. Hours have passed with little being accomplished and time has been wasted interminably by bogus points of order.
  Mr. John Robertson: Surely the hon. Gentleman would agree that quite a lot of time was taken up—I will not say wasted—by the contributions of
  452
  his hon. Friends. They accounted for at least sixteen minutes during the thirteen sittings.
  Mr. MacArthur: In one breath the hon. Gentleman objects because my hon. Friends and I, who were in agreement with the Bill on its first two Clauses, did not speak at inordinate length and he also objects, apparently, to us taking up sixteen minutes of the thirteen sittings which we have had so far. If the hon. Gentleman wants to examine time wasting, he might care to look at the occasion when, I think, his Amendment was accepted by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, and accepted very courteously. But that was not good enough for the hon. Gentleman and for hon. Members opposite.
  Mr. J. Robertson Mr. J. Robertson rose—
  Mr. MacArthur: The hon. Gentleman must allow me to finish what I am saying. He cannot behave here as he does in the Scottish Standing Committee. He must sit down occasionally and allow hon. Members who are addressing the House to complete a sentence.
  Mr. J. Robertson Mr. J. Robertson rose—
  Mr. MacArthur: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I will give way in my own time.
  Miss Herbison: On a point of order. I wonder, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if you heard the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) making a very bad criticism of the Chairman of the Scottish Standing Committee?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that I appreciated the hon. Member's remarks in that sense.
  Miss Herbison: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It may be that you did not hear the hon. Member. He said to some hon. Members on this side of the House that they should not behave here as they behave in Standing Committee. Surely it is the Chairman of the Committee who guides and controls behaviour in Standing Committees, and if criticism is levelled at the behaviour of hon. Members surely the only person who is criticised is the Chairman.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think I took the hon. Member's remarks so

  453
  seriously as the hon. Lady is taking them.
  Mr. Mat-Arthur: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Before this spate of interruptions I was calling attention—
  Mr. Willis: Having heard Mr. Deputy-Speaker's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), I am a little bewildered. I do not know whether the hon. Member is speaking humorously or seriously.
  Mr. MacArthur: The hon. Gentleman himself must be the judge of that. Sometimes I find that he strains my imagination and understanding in the same way. I was referring to an occasion when my hon. Friend accepted an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Robertson)—
  Mr. Manuel: With bad grace.
  Mr. MacArthur: That was not enough for hon. Members opposite. Nearly half an hour of the Committee's time was occupied with discussion after the Amendment was accepted, for this reason—it is a very curious reason—that if my hon. Friend rejects an Amendment, which he has to do very often because some of the proposed Amendments are so bad, he is accused of acting frivolously or in ignorance or with discourtesy, but on those occasions when he accepts an Amendment he is equally open to reproach which goes on and on—
  Mr. J. Robertson: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that when the Under-Secretary accepted the Amendment he was suitably thanked? I agree that it was a little while later, but he was suitably thanked.
  Mr. MacArthur: Having given way for about the twelfth time, I do not think I need give way any more. I would say in reply to the hon. Member that the thanks, which were most ungracious and belated, were, in my view, wholly inadequate.
  Reference has been made to the sittings Motion which was moved on the morning of Tuesday, 20th February. My hon. Friend then gave the Committee an opportunity to start their extra meetings on Tuesday afternoon. It did not suit
  454
  the Opposition, including the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). In fact, nothing seemed to suit them, The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) said that he did not like the idea of meeting on Tuesday afternoon because it was the time of the week when he liked to have a little nap. Indeed, sometimes he could have a little nap in the House of Commons.
  But that was not all. Tuesday afternoon for the hon. Member for Shettleston—I have given him notice that I would raise this point—was a time, if not to sleep, perchance to shop. He explained that he had to lay in stores for the week, perhaps a toothbrush or a bar of soap. It was on Tuesday afternoon only that he found it possible to go on these little expeditions round the shops and, therefore, he could not conveniently attend to Scottish business on those afternoons.
  Sir M. Galpern: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Would he agree with me that the hon. Member who commenced this frivolous approach to the choice of Tuesday afternoon or Wednesday was his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), who began by saying that he rejected the Wednesday forenoon sitting which we were suggesting, because he wanted to get fresh air on the Wednesday morning; and as a result of that, I followed him immediately in the same strain? I am sorry now that I followed a very bad example.
  Mr. MacArthur: The hon. Gentleman's comment is not surprising. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) very briefly and sensibly opposed the suggested meeting on Wednesday morning because it was the only time when he could get some fresh air to keep himself fit and enable him to build up his strength to withstand the interminable performance of finicky attention to unnecessary detail by hon. Members opposite on the Thursday.
  That Tuesday morning went on, and no progress was made. At one stage my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary rose to speak. He was promptly interrupted by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) who, on another bogus point of order, asked if it was in order for my hon. Friend to look at the clock.

  455
  However, undeterred, my hon. Friend continued his speech, and after about twenty words he was interrupted again. Before he completed his speech he was interrupted with straightforward interruptions and points of order no less than eighteen times.
  My hon. Friend was immediately followed by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay) who suffered several interruptions and points of order—so much so that the proceedings reached a point when hon. Members in the Committee, headed by the Chairman, could no longer remember who in fact was originally addressing the Committee. The original Motion was carried over to the Thursday morning, and the Opposition, who claim to be so anxious to give serious and prolonged study to this Bill, thus lost the opportunity of studying it on Tuesday afternoon.
  On the Thursday several of my hon. Friends took objection to this waste of time. We said that we were not objecting to serious study of the Bill but we did object to this monstrous waste of time during the whole of the Tuesday morning. At the same time, the Scottish Press began to comment on the farcical proceedings of the Scottish Committee. This upset hon. Members opposite. They were very offended by the comments which were made by some of my hon. Friends and myself. It is curious, because the manner of some hon. Members opposite ranges from the discourteous to the openly offensive in Committee, but if the slightest criticism is made of them they turn into sensitive lilies and utter loud protests. [Laughter.] Scottish Socialist lilies are not short of words.
  We talked on, day after day, and yesterday we completed the thirteenth sitting, with our consideration of Clause 2 and most of the other Clauses still incomplete. Many of my hon. Friends and I object to this interference with our proceedings. There are later Clauses in the Bill which interest us far more than Clauses 1 and 2. Yet, at the rate we are going, they will not be reached, the Bill will not be completed, and a very valuable Measure will be lost.
  I regret the need for this Motion. Much more than that, I deeply regret the circumstances which have made the
  456
  Motion necessary. The proceedings in the Scottish Standing Committee—I say this seriously—are approaching the level of a farce. We have become involved—in fact, engulfed—in a morass of interminable verbosity. We are accomplishing nothing and we are losing opportunities to do positive work for Scotland. I believe that the more protracted the discussions in this Committee, the less time there will be for other Measures and for other meetings of the Scottish Committee to discuss the Scottish Estimates and Scottish problems in general. Not only are hon. Members opposite endangering future discussions of important Measures and important problems but—
  Mr. Willis Mr. Willis rose—
  Mr. MacArthur: I am not going to give way; the hon. Gentleman will find that he will have an opportunity to speak in a moment—more important than that, perhaps, is the harm which this unfortunate state we have reached does to the reputation of Scottish Members on both sides in Westminster and, through them, the harm which can be done to the proper understanding and appreciation of Scottish problems in Westminster. There are many hon. Members on both sides who, to my dismay, seem to be getting fed up with Scotland, fed up with the perpetual, unceasing verbosity of many hon. Members opposite. I believe that this is cause for great regret. In the end, it can do only harm to us as hon. Members and grave harm to the cause of our country.
  5.40 p.m.
  Mr. Archie C. Manuel: I do not want to follow at length the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur). I think I should be kind to him if I said that he has shown an infantile appreciation of this place and its work in Committee. He has not been here very long, yet he sets himself up on a pinnacle as a sort of oracle able to give decisions of immense import. He really should crawl back into his shell and gain a little knowledge of what he is talking about.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke about time wasting. What does he know about time wasting in political debate? He is a young Tory Member. Although he is a

  457
  bit scarce of hair, he is quite young, and the difficulty is that he and others like him come into the House of Commons without any real experience of public life and debate and of how we manage things in a democracy. These young Tories are straining away to some form of dictatorship or Fascist government where the Secretary of State can speak and we all follow like good little boys. I hope that that day never comes. The hon. Gentleman should guard himself against the way his thoughts are travelling in wanting to get Bills through too easily. Local government and Scotland itself can be destroyed if we follow that line.
  Mr. MacArthur: Thirteen sittings and two Clauses!
  Mr. Manuel: We have now reached the end of Clause 2. The hon. Gentleman said that we had not, but the debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", is finished. As I understand it, the vote is about to come, and I am near enough to the centre of things to know what is happening. He should not try to give the wrong impression.
  If we are to do our job examining a Bill meticulously, as the Housing (Scotland) Bill should be examined, we have a right to take as long as we want. The Bill will be in force for some time. It is having an immense impact in local government circles. We can dismiss from our minds all the comedy, the "striptease" stuff, we have had from the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire.
  Mr. John Brewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Manuel: Yes. We are delighted to have the hon. Gentleman take part.
  Mr. Brewis: The hon. Gentleman keeps referring to local government. I do not know about his town or county council, but in mine there is a rule that no one shall speak for more than ten minutes without leave of the chair. Does that apply in the hon. Gentleman's council?
  Mr. Manuel: This is the very thing I am talking about. We have local authorities bringing in these rules because they are dominated by a large Tory majority which wants to shut out as much democratic freedom as possible.
  458
  Ayr County Council, of course, would never adopt such a practice. It is controlled by a Labour majority. It breathes freedom and wants to have freedom of voice and expression for its members.
  Mr. Brewis: What about the standing orders of Glasgow Corporation?
  Mr. Manuel: I know many people on the Glasgow Corporation, and they find ways and means of handling the matter if the business before them is important enough. The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) must realise that one can suspend a standing order to provide for as much freedom of discussion as one wants if the members think the occasion is important enough. This is very often done in local government.
  I come now to the Guillotine Motion, after these little interruptions. The Leader of the House freely admitted that the Housing (Scotland) Bill is very much disliked. He would not have said that if someone, the Under-Secretary of State or the Secretary of State, had not told him that that was so. But does the Leader of the House understand the scope of the dislike among local authorities in Scotland? The Secretary of State could give him a list of a great number of protests which have come to him from local authorities, from associations of local authorities, from the Scottish Housing and Town Planning Council, the highest body in Scotland in these matters, the members of which are recruited from housing conveners all over Scotland, from county councils, from cities and from boroughs where the town clerks or town chamberlains attend. They are all heartily opposed to the Bill and have sent us a mass of literature, to some of which I hope to refer tomorrow, before the Guillotine comes on, in order to enlighten and educate hon. Members on the Government side of the Committee about the scope of dislike for the Bill and how necessary the local authorities think it is that we should discuss it most meticulously. That is the expression of view I am receiving from local authorities in my constituency, and I know that hon. Friends of mine are having similar representations made to them in their constituencies.
  We must not let the Leader of the House down too easily. He is a pseudo-Scot. He fought the Western Isles once,

  459
  though he did not make many converts. He has a spot of Scottish blood in his veins, I imagine, and I think that he is naturally well disposed to Scotland. I suppose that he is the sort of fellow who would like his children to wear the kilt, his daughters to wear tartan dresses, and that sort of thing. But that is all very well as a show. We must go deeper into things if we are to show our appreciation and love of Scotland and the things that Scotland stands for.
  The right hon. Gentleman spoke of harrying the Government. I do not think that we have had this term used before in regard to our work in the Standing Committee on the Bill. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire was not here in 1950 when the right hon. Gentleman who is now Leader of the House was committed to harrying the Labour Government and the present Minister of Pensions and National Insurance led the attack when we had only a very small majority.
  I gathered that the Leader of the House thought that the Tories lost favour in the country. Of course they did. They lost favour with some hon. Members on their own side because of the need then for us to bring people out of hospital and shoulder them through the Division Lobbies in order to maintain Government in the country at that time. People did not want to run into another election, and that is what we had to do.
  We had colleagues who went to an early grave as a result of the harrying by hon. Members opposite. Yet they have the colossal impudence to talk today about what is happening in the Committee upstairs. It ill becomes the Leader of the House or any other right hon. Gentleman opposite, in introducing a timetable Motion, to talk in this way.
  To compare the harrying which took place when the Labour Party was in power, when we had a majority of only five or six, and in view of the illness which pervaded our ranks and the people we had to bring here to try to keep government in this country going, with what is happening in the Committee upstairs is monstrous. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw the word "harrying".
  460
  I take it that I have not mistaken the time to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. At that time I raised a point of privilege about a speech which was made by a former Member, who is now in the other place, at Banbury boasting about the harrying which was taking place and saying that hon. Members on his side could not match the intellectual ability of hon. Members opposite and that the only way in which they could bring down the Labour Government was to harry them until they could not get enough Members to vote. I refer to the former Member for Aberdeenshire, East.
  Mr. Geoffrey Wilson Mr. Geoffrey Wilson (Truro) rose—
  Mr. Manuel: I am delighted to give way to a railway colleague, although he is a solicitor. We do not usually regard solicitors as colleagues, but we on the footplate always have a large measure of sympathy with everyone.
  Mr. G. Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the speech to which he has just referred was made by a former Member of the House who had not taken part in the harrying at all?
  Mr. Manuel: That was the matter that I raised in my point of privilege. The Member left this great Conservative rally at Banbury, saying that he had to hurry back to the House to carry on the harrying tactics in order to bring the Government down. This came through on the tape. The hon. Member did not get back to the House to do the harrying. That was a potent point when I raised my point of privilege the following day with Mr. Speaker. We should not liken what is happening in the Committee upstairs to the despicable conduct of so-called educated hon. Members opposite who were then in opposition.
  I am very sorry that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) has left. We had a fantastic exhibition when he was speaking. I do not know with what fallacy he was carried away. He spoke about Gilbert and Sullivan, fairies and ogres, and he quoted poetry. But he also gave us a glimpse into his own mind and of what is wrong with the hon. Members for Perth and East Perthshire, Galloway and Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) by a little slip that he made. He indicated

  461
  that if we carried on like this we should interfere with the grouse and salmon season and that the Recess might have to be shortened. That is what hon. Members opposite are thinking about. We know the value of such things to them. Apart from that insight which the hon. Member gave us into how the minds of hon. Members opposite operate—
  Mr. J. Wells Mr. J. Wells(Maidstone) rose—
  Mr. Manuel: An English Member would not know what we are talking about. Please sit down. I will deal with the hon. Gentleman later.
  The rest of the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West was rather a joke. I am sorry that Scottish Tory Members regard Scottish business in this way and talk as the hon. Gentleman did about the greatest social blot on Scotland, namely, the festering sores in many of our cities which have resulted from the housing problem. This ex-Liberal who represents Edinburgh, West gave us pure tripe today in the joking way in which he tried to deal with the subject which is occupying us upstairs.
  We are opposing what we consider to be a bad Bill. We are quite definite about that. The hon. Members who face us in the Committee upstairs do not consider it to be a bad Bill. Not a single Amendment to the Bill on the Notice Paper is from hon. Members opposite, despite the fact that it is proposed that dictatorial powers should be exercised by the Secretary of State for Scotland over the functions of local authorities, powers which we have never seen since we first had local authorities. The Government now propose to encompass them with rules such as we have never envisaged any Secretary of State would bring into operation.
  I can imagine what the Secretary of State and the Leader of the House would have said if a Secretary of State in a Labour Government attempted to take powers such as those proposed in the Bill. It is our duty to examine every part and Clause of the Bill. That is what we are sent here to do. We have had representations from every local authority association and every borough in our constituency to the effect that they oppose completely Clauses 3, 8 and 29 and certain other portions of the Bill.
  462
  Hon. Members opposite have received the same information that we have received from the Scottish Housing and Town Planning Association, of which I was a member for many years and which is a top organisation in Scotland on housing and town planning. Even the proof in the memorandum which hon. Members have received does not instil in one of them the desire to table an Amendment to the Bill.
  Hon. Members opposite are satisfied with the Bill. To them, the Bill is completely all right. Cannot they draft Amendments? Is there something wrong with hon. Members opposite? Cannot they think of appropriate Amendments? Or are they afraid of the Secretary of State for Scotland? The right hon. Gentleman is not a bully. I am sure that he would forgive them if they overstepped the bounds a little. The Under-Secretary of State goes over the bounds sometimes. He is easy to stir up. He is getting more like his father every day. I advise him to keep control of himself, because, while we all liked his sire, I think that we prefer to have him as he is now and not to get too easily irritated. Is it the irritation of the Under-Secretary of State which prevents hon. Members opposite from doing work on behalf of their constituents?
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I should like my hon. Friend to treat the Under-Secretary of State with some sympathy because he is my constituent.
  Mr. Manuel: I appreciate that. However, my hon. Friend is a little late. I divulged that information to the Committee upstairs yesterday when I tried to obtain some more humane treatment from the Under-Secretary of State.
  In view of the representations which we have received, it is quite wrong that our discussions on the Bill should be curtailed or that we should allow Clause 29 to go through without voicing our opinion about it. It has been said that there was so much discussion on the early parts of the Bill that there will not be time to discuss the later parts. It is this ignorance that I deplore so much.
  This timetable Motion is set out by the Leader of the House egged on by the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has been prompted to introduce the Housing (Scotland) Bill by the Treasury.

  463
  He did not think out the Bill. The formula in the Bill is not his brain child, nor that of the Under-Secretary of State. It stems directly from the Treasury. We can see the need for the Bill in that more than £1 million less will be spent on housing in Scotland in 1962–63 than was spent in 1961–62. That is why we are having the Bill, which was introduced through the Treasury's compulsion upon the Secretary of State.
  I have appealed to the right hon. Gentleman on many occasions to take his corner in the Cabinet and to speak for Scotland, but still he will not do it. He will not stand his ground. He keeps giving way, and we get less and less from him for Scotland. I feel, therefore, that it is up to the Opposition to be vigilant on behalf of Scotland.
  We must never forget for one moment that we really are the Government of Scotland. We have more Members of this House than the party opposite. We have more votes. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We hold more constituencies. I know the point which the Under-Secretary of State is trying to make, but if we add up all the Opposition votes and compare them with those of the Government in Scotland we find that there the Government are in a minority. They are in on a minority vote. Start counting in the Highlands and all through the crofting counties in particular and at the end we discover that that is so. The Leader of the House is a much more political animal in this respect than is the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary of State. He discovered many years ago this fact about the votes of Scotland, when he fled from the Western Isles. He did not contest the Western Isles a second time. Oh, no. One experience was one too many for him.
  I have been talking too long. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not like debating timetable Motions. I am not keen at all on this sort of debate. We are spending time which we could have spent in Committee upstairs on the Bill. All of the Members of the Scottish Standing Committee could have been dealing with the Bill. Why did the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire want to spend time down here on a timetable Motion? This is not the Bill. Let him discuss it with that corre-
  464
  spondent of the Edinburgh Evening News who said that, in the Committee, instead of devoting time to the Bill we were devoting time to a Government timetable Motion. But we had to discuss that Government Motion and resist it in the hope of getting extra time. After all, it was not we who put down that Motion. But we have to discuss it if we were to discuss the Bill as we should. There is so much colossal ignorance about these procedures. If on that Motion we had discussed the Bill we should have been run out of the Committee for disobeying the Chair.
  Mr. MacArthur: The hon. Member is being less than fair. He knows perfectly well that I said nothing of the kind at all. What dismayed so many of us was that we spent the whole of a Tuesday morning debating a Motion about sitting on Tuesday afternoons and continued that argument until noon on the following Thursday. What depressed us was the waste of time that took place then.
  Mr. Manuel: I do not want to carry on this argument too long, but we are continually coming into conflict with decisions of the Chair in these allegations and accusations which are being made. If, as custodian of the rules of the House and its Committees, as custodian of order in Committee, the Chairman of a Standing Committee does not feel like accepting the Closure he need not, but I think he accepted it on every occasion that it was moved. He has never refused it. We cannot carry the thing on against the Chair if the Chair accepts the Closure.
  Mr. MacArthur: I have the greatest respect for the Chair, and the conduct of the Chairman of the Standing Committee has been admirable. Of course I have a great respect for the Chair. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that there were desperate attempts by hon. Members opposite to find some workable and acceptable Amendment to the Motion, and the Chair, very courteously, allowed that discussion, which went on for a long time and is reported in column after column of the OFFICIAL REPORT. But that discussion was, I believe, a waste of time.
  Mr. Manuel: I do not want to carry this on, or to carry on my argument on

  465
  that part of this Motion relating to the Housing (Scotland) Bill, but the hon. Gentleman is bound to recognise that we of the Opposition offered to sit on Wednesday mornings in the Committee and that we were prepared to sit all night, and that in that way we could have got more time for the discussion on the Bill in Committee than by sitting on Tuesday afternoons. We thought that we offered an excellent bargain, but it was not accepted.
  I am in rather a peculiar position, because as well as being a member of the Scottish Standing Committee on the Scottish Bill I am also a member of the Standing Committee considering the Transport Bill, and I have to try to divide my time between the two Committees and the two Bills, and I have had to set up a system of runners by the Officers of the House in order that they may let me know when I should be voting in one Committee or the other. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) is in the same difficult position, for as well as being a member of the Scottish Standing Com-mitte he is a member of the Standing Committee on the Sea Fish Industry Bill, talking about cod and kindred fish. It seems passing strange that the Committee of Selection seems never to select hon. Members on the Government side for this sort of thing. I think it must be because my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East is keen and virile, and that they want to overwork him and wear him down. The harrying process is being operated by the Government, it seems.
  The Leader of the House said that it was very necessary to get the Transport Bill as soon as possible. As a railway man, I can understand the Government's concern about this, although I completely disagree with the Bill. I do not, however, agree with the reason which the right hon. Gentleman gave for saying he wanted to get that Bill as soon as possible. The reason he gave was, to relieve concern among the staff. Better for him to have said, concern by the British Road Federation and these other people who are dinning us with documents every day of the week about how we should keep the railways, how we should contract them, what traffic should go on the railways and, so on.
  466
  The reverse is the case. I have had meetings with railway staffs all over the country on this thing, and from the staff I meet, whatever grade they come from and whether they belong to the Transport Salaried Staffs Associations or the National Union of Railwaymen or my own Union, the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, I do not get any sense of the sort that the right hon. Gentleman indicated. They are all wanting us to oppose the Bill, to oppose railway closures, to oppose the closure of branch lines and to do something to protect the thousands of staff being made redundant because of contracting railways, to institute a cheap rail fares policy in this country in order that trains do not run as empty as they are. It is such things as these which are exercising their minds.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) indicated that we have had four guillotine Motions in these last six weeks. Nobody can pin any accusation like that on the Labour Government. The Guillotine has been imposed on eleven Bills since this Tory Government came in. This is deplorable. While some of us do not like talking on timetable Motions which keep us from discussing the things we ought to be talking about, I would say that on this occasion there is a very strong, a massive, case which we can put to show that we are being put in an impossible position.
  I would hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends would agree that, if we are to have this timetable, we should allocate the most time to the most important parts of the Bills, the Transport Bill and the Housing (Scotland) Bill. Even so, I hope that there will be complete recognition among all hon. Members of the House that what we are accepting is very much a second best. We shall not be able to do the work which we were elected to do, that is, to give these Bills the examination which we are entitled to give them.
  6.10 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I hope that it will be convenient to the House, in the light of what Mr. Speaker said at the beginning of the debate, if I intervene now.
  Mr. Lawson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. We understood, in the first place, that there might be a possibility that the Secretary of State would catch your eye about seven o'clock. It is now only ten minutes past six. Can we take it that this will in no way jeopardise our prospects of carrying on discussion on the Scottish aspect of this business?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No. I think that the Question before the House is one which affects both the Transport Bill and the Housing (Scotland) Bill, so the whole debate must be regarded as one. I understood Mr. Speaker to state that it might be for the convenience of the House if Scottish speeches were made in the earlier stage. I understood that that was agreed.
  The Secretary of State rose to reply. Scotland has had a very full debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—during these last minutes. It is already, I understand, intended that the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), a Scottish Member, should speak at the close of the debate. It is incumbent upon the Chair to bear in mind the needs not only of Scotland but of England.
  The Secretary of State caught my eye, and I, as Deputy-Speaker, have called the Secretary of State for Scotland to speak.
  Mr. Nabarro: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Would it be in order to draw your attention to the fact that no hon. Member of this House who is an English Member has yet succeeded in catching the eye of the Chair?
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: Nonsense. The hon. Member has not been in the House.
  Mr. Nabarro: The Leader of the House is not an Englishman; he is a Scot. May I ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether it would be in order for a Sassenach to participate in this debate at any time before ten o'clock?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has made it clear to the House how difficult it is in these debates to do what is fair to everybody. The Chair is trying its best. I call the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  Miss Herbison: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I wish to have your advice.
  Some of my hon. Friends have been put in a very difficult position this afternoon. I can assure you that my hon. Friends from Scottish constituencies would have been completely willing today to take their chance in catching Mr. Speaker's eye. The difficulty in which we have been placed has been brought about by the Government's own decision to put the Secretary of State for Scotland somewhere in the middle of the debate, as if he were a messenger lad rather than the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  A further point which I wish to bring to your notice, and on which I wish to ask your advice, is this. The debate was very late in beginning today. The Leader of the House opened it and my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) dealt with transport. If one takes these two speeches from the time available, Scottish Members have had a very short time indeed.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I find it a little difficult to accept the hon. Lady's first proposition as a question for the Chair. Scottish Members have am opportunity of rising to catch the eye of the Chair later in the debate. They will have that opportunity. That is not prejudiced. The Secretary of State for Scotland has now caught the eye of the Chair, and I propose to call him to make his speech.
  Mr. Ross: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Will you elucidate something that you have already said and would appear to have gone back on in the last remarks that you made? You said that the Secretary of State for Scotland had risen to reply. The implication of a reply is closing the debate. You have yourself stated that the devision of the debate was such that Scottish Members would catch your eye in the earlier part of the debate.
  I think that we should get something straight about this. Is the Secretary of State really closing the debate? By rising now is he applying yet another Guillotine to Scottish Members? If that is so, I want to protest as violently as I can. We are entitled to more than one hour, because the first two speeches were relatively unrelated to Scotland at all.

  469
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) did not deal in any detail with Scottish points. The time of Scottish back benchers whose rights are being curtailed by this Motion are again being further curtailed by the action of the Secretary of State. He did say seven o'clock.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is well aware that the debate today continues until ten o'clock. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman speaks now does not close the debate.
  Mr. Ross: It closes the Scottish part.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It does not close the debate. It is open to any hon. Member on either side, from any country, to rise and endeavour to catch the eye of the Chair. I now call the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has caught my eye.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. For the sake of harmony, and the good name of the Secretary of State for Scotland, may I make a suggestion? Would it not be possible, even if the Secretary of State for Scotland has caught your eye, for another hon. Member to catch your eye if the right hon. Gentleman stays in his place, so that we can have this debate extended? In practical terms we all know, as I am sure you know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the chance of a Scottish Member being called from now on, once-the right hon. Gentleman has sat down, are almost nil. It really is unfair that he should rise now.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am making no forecast at all of what hon. Member in future may succeed in catching the eye of the Chair. Mr. Maclay.
  Mr. Maclay: In catching your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I say that I have no intention whatever of endeavouring to curtail the debate. I do not understand why hon. Members should assume that there is any termination of the possibility of their speaking. If hon. Members feel that, they must be speaking from some experience which I have not yet known.
  I would make it clear that I have on this occasion reason to rise in the middle of the debate instead of opening it or
  470
  winding it up. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House conventionally opens the debate on a Motion of this kind. Sometimes I think that it is best, where there is a double debate going on, for the Secretary of State for Scotland to wind up, and sometimes it is more convenient for all hon. Members if he speaks in the middle of the debate.
  As I shall not be entirely soothing in what I have to say, I thought it right that hon. Members should have an opportunity of commenting on my speech. I want to say things which, I hope, hon. Members will consider very carefully.
  I hope that the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) will not refer again to messenger lads. She has done it before and it does not mean anything at all. She knows very well the problem of how to get the best balanced debate. That is what we are always trying to do. It is a very real problem in this kind of debate and in all debates in which there are Scottish and English elements. We search to find the best way in which to get the most useful debate for all hon. Members.
  Hon. Members who have spoken so far have raised a number of points, but nothing has been said about the good work of the Under-Secretary of State. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) was reasonably polite, as far as he is ever able to go in that direction about another hon. Member in public, whatever he may say in private. I thank him for that. I think that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is doing extremely useful work on the Bill. We are in close touch throughout. It is one of the great fortunes I have in my present job, which makes it impossible for me to attend all Committees.
  Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman does not attend any.
  Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) should not go on interrupting. He has been doing it for seven, eight or nine years and I would ask him to sit down and be quiet.
  I have not attended some Committees of recent years because it is impossible to do my job as Secretary of State and, at the same time, be in Committees. I keep in close touch with the Under-Secretaries. In many cases we do not need to consult

  471
  because each of us knows how the other thinks. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who attends the Committee has a very wide authority to handle the Committee stage as he, in his own judgment, thinks right.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), whom I do not see in his place, spoke with some emotion about Scottish housing conditions. I have every sympathy with his point of view but if hon. Members listened to his short, sincere and—because he feels strongly on these matters—slightly emotional speech, they will have realised that the hon. Member was making the whole point for this Motion, because he said clearly that what worried him was that the essential parts of the Bill would not be adequately discussed; that there was not a lot of time.
  Mr. Ross: Because of the Guillotine.
  Mr. Maclay: No, that is not what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central said. The fact is that 13 sittings of the Committee have gone by and we have not yet got the first important Clause.
  Hon. Members: Nonsense.
  Mr. Maclay: Clauses 1 and 2 are of some importance—
  Mr. Ross Mr. Ross rose—
  Mr. Maclay: I am not prepared to give way. I have given way to the hon. Member a great many times over the last five years and I do not intend to give way tonight, because for once the hon. Member must listen to what I have to say.
  Mr. Ross Mr. Ross rose—
  Mr. Maclay: No.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: This is not true.
  Mr. Maclay: What Clauses in the Bill are of the greatest importance is a question of judgment, but hon. Members opposite will agree that Clauses 3, 8 and 29 are of importance and that we have not yet reached them.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: Misrepresentation.
  Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member sounds like a gramophone record with the needle gone a bit wrong.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: It is better to have a needle than to have no needle at all.
  Mr. Maclay: I was about to say—
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. An obligation devolves upon hon. Members to behave properly or else we can have no proper debate.
  Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire rebuked my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur), who made an interesting and serious speech, for being pompous. Has the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire thought out the argument about democracy which he developed in his own speech? I ask him to pay attention to what I shall say later and I think that he will then agree that my hon. Friend was not in the least pompous. My hon. Friend, like me, is concerned about the good government of Scotland and about the good handling of Scottish affairs in Committee.
  First, I should like to deal briefly with the need for the Bill. Clearly, the Government have presented the Bill because they are convinced that it is necessary and desirable in the interests of house building in Scotland, in the interests of local authorities as a whole, and above all of those local authorities who most need help. There may be varying views about the intention of the Bill and about some of its detailed provisions—these are very properly bound to be expressed—but we think it desirable that the pattern of housing subsidies should be recast in such a way as to give more help where help is most needed.
  Mr. Ross: Keep to the Motion.
  Mr. Maclay: I will take things in my own time and in my own way, provided that I remain in order. I am referring to the substance of the Bill but using that as an illustration of the reasons why we need the Bill.
  We think it desirable also to encourage building to let at cost rents or for cooperative ownership, and there are also a number of other desirable amendments and additions to the statutory provisions relating to housing. Quite clearly, we want the Bill. We are anxious that it should be fully and properly discussed,

  473
  and, equally, we would like to see it discussed in a balanced way. By that, I mean that adequate time should be available for discussion of those parts of the Bill which are novel as well as for the examination of drafting and the detail of what may be described as the machinery parts of the Bill. Unfortunately, 13 sittings have gone on two Clauses which we know are not the most important Clauses of the Bill.
  Mr. Ross: They are important Clauses.
  Mr. Maclay: I am quite satisfied that within the number of sittings available between now and 27th March fully adequate consideration can be given to the rest of the Bill, always provided that discussion is conducted—and I emphasise this—on genuine Committee lines with a concentration on what matters and a resistance to the urge to elaborate on details which have already been discussed or which are not of significance.
  Miss Herbison: The right hon. Gentleman is insisting, and it was suggested also by the Leader of the House, that the two Clauses with which we have already dealt are not important in comparison with the others. Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the first part of Clause 2 deals with the worst feature of housing in Scotland—the difficulty of making overspill provision for Glasgow? Is he aware that the second part of the Clause deals with housing to meet the urgent needs of industry and that our need for new industry is urgent because there are over 85,000 unemployed? I do not wish to take up the time of the House, but I could say something similar about Clause 1.
  Mr. Maclay: I agree that one can argue indefinitely about which Clause is the most important. All I say is that while those Clauses are important they are not as important as other Clauses and we have had 13 sittings and we have not completed discussion on Clause 2 yet.
  I want to be quite serious, but I do not want to import any pompous note into what I have now to say. The working of an effective Parliamentary democracy, such as we have in this country, depends on effective government and on effective opposition. It also depends, with our very flexible—and
  474
  properly so—rules of order, on a fair amount of common sense and give and take, not only in relation to the substance of the matters under discussion but also in the method of discussion.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: The Gas Bill.
  Mr. Maclay: No one would seriously attempt to lay down hard and fast rules on the details of how discussions should be conducted.
  Mr. Ross: This is Huey Long speaking. The right hon. Gentleman is the man who made the Huey Long speech.
  Mr. Maclay: It may well be that occasionally the precise placing of a comma can be extremely important, but that is not to say that all commas demand meticulous examination and argument. The fact is that each of us—perhaps I should say the great majority of us on both sides of the House—know very well when the examination of a Bill in Committee is being carried out with a proper regard for what matters. Equally well, we know when meticulous argument, reiterated in various forms, is going far beyond what is reasonable. None of this may amount technically to tedious repetition. With a little skill—and I pay tribute to skill where tribute is due—the rules of order may be strictly observed, but I repeat that hon. Members know very well when enough is far too much.
  As for what has been happening in recent weeks, we all know that in opposition, for good reasons or bad, it may seem sensible so to protract debate that the Government of the day are bound to impose a timetable. But if that is the tactic, do not let there be any complaint when the inevitable happens. One can expect a lot of things to be said, but everything has been said before. The possibilities of quotation and counter-quotation are infinite and, up to a point, great fun, but do not let there be any sententious nonsense about it.
  I ask hon. Members to consider whether the right use is being made of the Scottish Standing Committee. In my time in the House there has been a marked change in the way in which the Committee conducts its debates. The

  475
  strength of conviction expressed and the weight of argument developed on things that matter have changed little, if at all, since 1945. The only difference in this respect that I see is that it is now much more difficult to disentangle what matters to the Opposition from what does not.
  I want to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, that I am the first person to guillotine proceedings in a Scottish Standing Committee. I ask hon. Members to listen carefully to what I am going to say, because the future of Scottish business in this House is at stake. During the years from 1945 to 1951 some extremely important and highly contentious Bilk went through the Scottish Committee. Not one was guillotined. No one who was there would say that the things that mattered were not strongly argued, or that the Bills were not improved in substance and in detail. What was the score?
  In the 1946–47 Session the National Health Bill, with 81 Clauses and 11 Schedules, went through in 19 sittings, unguillotined. The Town and Country Planning Bill, with 114 Clauses and 11 Schedules, took 21 sittings. Imagination boggles at the prospect of such a Bill today. It is a horrifying thought. In the 1947–48 Session the Agriculture Bill—which to us, to say the least of it, was not free from arguable points of principle, and was full of detail—with 88 Clauses and 10 Schedules, took 15 sittings.
  Hon. Members opposite who were not there then may say that we were not doing our job. We most certainly were. [Interruption.] It depends on one's interpretation of wise and sensible opposition.
  Mr. Ross Mr. Ross rose—
  Mr. Maclay: I will not give way again in this speech.
  Mr. Ross: I can give the right hon. Gentleman the attendance record for those meetings.
  Mr. Maclay: We were most certainly doing our job, but I admit that we did not rise one after another to question in detail the application of certain Clauses or parts of Clauses to an infinite variety of hypothetical situations.
  Mr. J. Robertson Mr. J. Robertson rose—
  Mr. Maclay: I am sorry, but I cannot give way.
  It is possible to take any Bill, word for word and line for line, and ask just what it means. That may be good fun, but only for those who are doing it; for everyone else it becomes the most appalling bore. Of itself it is not likely to improve a Bill.
  I believe that we have evolved a very effective system of devolution for the handling of Scottish affairs. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) in a guarded—or unguarded, perhaps—moment has paid tribute in the House to the efficiency of the Scottish Departments. We have also evolved, over the years—and both sides have had a hand in this—a quite workable procedure for the discussion of Scottish business and the consideration of the various stages of Scottish Bills, but I ask hon. Members to consider seriously whether they are using it to the best advantage—and I mean to the advantage not of the Government, because that is not the job of the Opposition, but to the advantage of Scotland as a whole, which is the job of the Opposition, just as much as it is the job of the Government.
  I now want to apply this argument to the Bill under discussion. Up to last evening, out of a total of 33 hours spent in Committee, Opposition Members had spoken for approximately 29 hours, this time including a remarkable variety of points of order and the time unavoidably taken by the Chair in dealing with them. It also includes four hours on the Sittings Motion. I will not go over that again. I should be ashamed to disclose what happened on that occasion in the Scottish Standing Committee.
  Time went, too, on the undoubtedly fascinating subject of the correct disposition of a dispatch case, and the reading of newspapers, and, with considerable regret, I must point out that in the first six sittings of the Committee hon. Members were called to order about 30 times for irrelevancy, interruptions, and so on.
  Mr. Lawson: Is it not a matter of considerable importance that hon. Members should not read newspapers in Committee, even if they are not taking part in the debate? When hon. Members observe that some Members opposite

  477
  come into the Committee room regularly to do their correspondence, and pay no attention to what is going on, is it not their duty to bring this breach of order to the attention of the Chair?
  Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member has been in the House almost as long as I have, and he knows that this practice is unavoidable in Committee.
  Mr. J. Robertson: I should like some help from the right hon. Gentleman. I am new to this sort of thing. I have not sat in many Scottish Committees, but I have been listening to the Minister's lecture on democracy. Will he explain why all the Government's supporters were unable to utter a word on the subject of the Bill.
  Mr. Maclay: I welcome the hon. Member's interest in the proceedings of the House. If he remains here for very long he will discover that what he has just said has been said—to my knowledge—in every Guillotine debate since 1945. It is said in every Committee. It is old stuff that is not worth repeating. The short answer is that if hon. Members on both sides of the Committee work properly it should be possible for them to take a proper share in the work of the Committee, but it is sheer hypocrisy to deny that if hon. Members on this side of the House—who, in my opinion, exercised a remarkable degree of self-restraint—had risen they would have been certain, on every occasion, to provoke more irrelevancies from hon. Members opposite.
  It has been common in Committee for nine or ten Members to speak to an Opposition Amendment—some of them twice, or even three times. This is a new departure in Committee work. It may be right; I am not challenging it, because the Chair is in command of Committees, and the hon. Members concerned deliberately stayed in order. But it is not real Committee work. It is not normal practice for a stream of Members to rise to a certain Amendment and make comparable speeches, even if they are slightly different.
  One hon. Member contrived to speak twice on one Amendment, for a total of about three-quarters of an hour, and then to speak for as long again on the following Amendment. That is surely carrying things a little too far. It is far
  478
  beyond sensible discussion. And after all these 13 sittings, with this wonderful discussion, the Committee has not yet completed its discussion on Clause 2.
  I want to quote from a speech made by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I hope that he is not leaving the Chamber. Some of the things that go on are quite all right, and this would be a dull place if none of it ever happened, but I ask hon. Members seriously to consider whether an overdose of it can possibly do any good to themselves or their party—neither of which worries me very much—or to Scotland, about which I am extremely concerned. I urge hon. Members opposite to think about this. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire and other hon. Members opposite who have touched on the same theme claimed the inalienable right of people in a democracy to talk for ever—
  Mr. Manuel: I never said that.
  Mr. Maclay:—to talk a great deal, then. I urge them to pay some attention to the wise remarks of their right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields in November, 1948. He said:
  "The danger to democracy is not that there will be too short a time spent on the preparation and discussion of Measures that are essential. If there is anything to learn from the history of the past few years, it is that where, owing to one cause or another, excessive discussion has brought Parliament into disrepute, parliamentary democracy has suffered its most severe defeats."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1948; Vol. 458, c. 1538.]
  I leave the members of the Standing Committee to consider that.
  I submit that the action we have taken today has been quite inevitable. It is one which I believe members of the Scottish Standing Committee have accepted, and have deliberately played for.
  6.40 p.m.
  Mr. William Ross: The last person who should have delivered that speech is the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland. He has played no part at all in the Committee stage proceedings on the Housing (Scotland) Bill. In fact, for some time now the right hon. Gentleman has played no part at all in any Standing Committee. The Minister of Transport is a member of the Standing Committee which is discussing the Transport Bill.

  479
  When the legislation relating to housing in England and Wales was being discussed in Committee the Minister of Housing and Local Government was a member of the Committee. But on not one single Bill relating to Scotland do we see the Secretary of State for Scotland in the Committee, and I think it an insult to us that the right hon. Gentleman should proceed today to lecture us.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) referred to Gilbert and Sullivan. He, too, made a mistake. He seemed to think that the Secretary of State for Scotland was a member of the Standing Committee. I wonder whether he remembers the quotation about
  "That celebrated,
  Cultivated,
  Underrated
  Nobleman,
  The Duke of Plaza-Toro"?
  Does he remember:
  "In enterprise of martial kind,
  When there was any fighting,
  He led his regiment from behind—
  He found it less exciting."?
  So far as the Leader of the House is concerned, someone referred to the right hon. Gentleman as a Highlander. The song which he should be singing is not, "Over the Sea to Skye" but, "Over the Sea from Skye".
  Actually, this is a very serious matter. One of the worst things that any Government can do—and I am glad that the Leader of the House had the decency to express his regret—is to curtail the right of hon. Members to speak. After all, this place is Parliament. Some hon. Members—some with not a great amount of service in this House—seem to forget that. That is all we can do here, speak, proclaim the needs of our people, urge the Government to do something and, when the Government do something which is not satisfactory to meet the needs of the people, criticise them. That is the right of back bench Members of Parliament—and also to try to stop the Government from doing something when it is bad.
  The Leader of the House knows this quite well. The whole fundamental basis of Parliamentary democracy is our right to speak out, our right to oppose. When any Government introduce a guillotine Motion, that Government are
  480
  cutting down on something which is the basis of Parliamentary democracy. When the Leader of the House has to resort to this method four times in six weeks, he should first look a little beyond his own convenience and examine whether the Bill in question should have been introduced in the first place, and, secondly—when the Bill has gone to a Standing Committee and there has been a good deal of talk—whether it is a fact that the conduct of the Minister in that Committee is such as to leave quite a lot to be desired.
  One thing the right hon. Gentleman did not do today, in relation either to progress or to precedent, was what the Secretary of State is now doing in relation to this Scottish Bill. If he looks up the precedent established by the last Measure of this kind—the Bill which became the 1957 Housing and Town Development (Scotland) Act—he will find that during the Committee stage discussions Clause 2 was not disposed of until after there had been ten sittings, and the Bill took twenty sittings. Two of those sittings, may I remind the right hon. Gentleman, lasted for thirty-four hours. If he takes the normal period of two and a half hours per sitting, it will be seen that on that Bill, and without a Guillotine, we had thirty sittings. There was some reason for curtailing the debate on that occasion because there was a time limit which made it necessary for the Government to get the provisions of the Measure in operation before a certain time.
  Let me return to the Housing (Scotland) Bill. I hope the right hon. Gentleman noticed that the Bill applies to every house approved after 1st November last year. Suppose we take six months, eight months, or nine months. It does not cause a single legislative inconvenience to Scotland in relation to housing. Do not let us have the Secretary of State for Scotland lecturing us on the importance of Clauses 1 and 2. He says that they are relatively unimportant. Yet every single power which the right hon. Gentleman possesses to issue circulars to local authorities stems from the provisions contained in Clause 1 of the Bill.
  Does the right hon. Gentleman remember the speeches made from his side of the House about Government interference with local authorities? Does

  481
  he remember the speeches made about delegated legislation? Clause 1 deals with the power of the Secretary of State to pay subsidies. If he did not pay subsidies he could not order local authorities about. Yet we must not examine the Clause. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland spoke about "33/60 tenants" and his hon. Friends did not know what he was talking about. The expression "33/60" relates to a circular under which, without any further legislative power, the Secretary of State for Scotland, whether he knows it or not, is practically telling local authorities who will go into their houses. That stems from Clause 1—but we must not talk about it.
  In relation to the 1957 Act, Lord Craigton said that, with Glasgow unable to find sites to build houses for the people within its boundaries, overspill was the biggest problem in Europe. "The biggest problem in Europe" is dealt with under Clause 2 of the Bill-but we must not talk about it. We have five or six hours to deal with a problem which has beset this Government and the last Government and which is still insoluble. In 1957, when these overspill arrangements first started, we were told by Lord Craigton that in ten years the local authorities were to build 15,000 houses in order to deal with the matter. Does the right hon. Gentleman know what progress the local authorities have made in four years under a Tory legislation towards that target of 15,000 houses? The number built is 500. But we must not examine this. We must not talk about it and tell them where they have gone wrong.
  All this time we have the "dumb oracles of Caledonia" on the benches opposite. The only contribution made to our discussions by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) was on a Motion that did not relate to housing at all but to whether or not we should sit on Tuesday afternoons. The hon. Gentleman rose out of his pompous silence and made as pompous and patriotic a declaration as I have heard—"Let us do something for Scotland". Then the hon. Gentleman sank back into his lethargy. Silence has become elevated to a new pinnacle of Parliamentary performance by the hon. Gentleman. He has not opened his mouth again until today—
  Mr. MacArthur: That is not quite true.
  Mr. Ross:—when he repeated the speech that he delivered on that occasion. This is the hon. Gentleman's stock speech. Whenever we want any enlightenment in relation to the virtues of silence, we can expect the hon. Gentleman to make his speech. But what about the rest of them? He was not alone. The only person I could absolve is the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis). He did speak. He was persuaded by our arguments, and this is true not only of the hon. Gentleman, but also of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart). Having listened to us and having been dragged out by the compelling force of our arguments to say a word or two, what did we find? They could not support the Government. No wonder we are having a guillotine Motion, because this kind of thing is catching. Before we finish up, if we go on much longer in that Committee, the tight-lipped legislators will be not just abstaining but actually voting against their own Government, and no wonder.
  The right hon. Gentleman has a tremendous responsibility. I think it is unfair of him, in an important Committee dealing with an important Bill like this, to leave the whole responsibility of making decisions whether Amendments shall be accepted or rejected to one who, with all due respect to him, is a rather immature junior Minister. But this is true. Somebody has said that he was" a chip off the old block." We remember his father with respect. His father had exactly the same position as he now has, but his father had a long experience not only of Parliament but of local government work as well. We found with his father that we could make him lose his temper just as easily. [Laughter.] Well, we have to liven up the Committee procedure, and I am quite sure that after what hon. Members have heard they will think that the Scottish Standing Committee is the liveliest and finest Committee in the House.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: We shall have hon. Members volunteering for it.
  Mr. Ross: Hon. Members do not seem to me to appreciate that their function as Members of Parliament is to talk

  483
  and to criticise, and the trouble with the Under-Secretary is that he has not realised that. He is one of the trinity of Under-Secretaries, and he has not even had the help of the Lord Advocate. He has remained alone on the Government Front Bench without a single one of his supporters opening his mouth. Yes, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) did open his mouth. I remember that debate. He was going to sit day and night. We have hardly seen him since.
  Mr. Forbes Hendry Mr. Forbes Hendry (Aberdeenshire, West) rose—
  Mr. Ross: I really must not take too long; I am just looking for the next apt quotation.
  I have a personal grudge against the Secretary of State's attitude to my hon. Friends, and to myself in particular. I can well remember the speech which he delivered—
  Mr. Maclay: Read it all.
  Mr. Ross: Of course, I will, but it is not the one which the right hon. Gentleman thinks it is. It is not the Huey Long one. It is not even the one where he talked about the "unravished brides of quietness". It is the one in which I feel he has let me down and really shocked me today by his attitude. I can well remember when I was on the other side of the House in February, 1947, and when I delivered what I thought was not a bad speech. I do not think it was quite as good as that of the right hon. Gentleman, because he then rose in his place and said:
  "I hope that we shall hear lots more from the hon. Gentleman."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1947; Vol. 433, c. 1743.]
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I think I have said enough. Have I not got cause for complaint? If I take his advice, and when I meet his measured hopes, what does he do? He is the first Secretary of State in Scotland in history who has found it necessary to guillotine the Scottish Standing Committee. That, to my mind, was a reflection upon himself. With due regard to the previous Secretary of State, now Lord Stuart of Findhorn, were we less voluble in his day? It may well be that Lord Stuart of Findhorn had more Parliamentary
  484
  experience, knew when to give way and knew what power he had as Secretary of State for Scotland to make his legislation different from that of England. But what do we find now?
  Since the right hon. Gentleman became Secretary of State for Scotland we have had these troubles. There is a very obvious moral to be drawn from this. Since he became Secretary of State, more and more Scottish legislation has taken a purely English pattern. This is true of the national character of Scotland in many ways, but it is true of legislation, and we as Scots must protest against it and protect our interests.
  The right hon. Gentleman today has not given any reason for speed. I have already shown that there is no reason to guillotine this Bill because of any date of operation in regard to it. I think it was the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West who, in an unguarded moment and in one of the few speeches we heard from the silent senators opposite, told us, "Let us get on with this Bill, because we want to get on with the Licensing Bill." In other words, he wants to start a "pub-crawl". This is the real reason why the Housing (Scotland) Bill has been included in this Motion. It is because of the Licensing Bill and the public houses. I hope the Minister of Transport will remember a speech which he made only last week about alcohol and will appreciate what has been going on during the last six days. We have to hurry up, and we must not talk about slums, overcrowding, overspill and the powers of the Secretary of State. It is a case of "Hurry up, we want to talk about the Licensing Bill".
  Mr. Willis: They want to drink. They want to talk about the pubs.
  Mr. Ross: This is the real reason why we are faced with this Motion, and if the Secretary of State realised the needs of Scotland he would appreciate that all we want is a housing Bill far better than the one he has given us. Until we get that we will echo through these walls of St. Stephen's the wrongs of Scotland.
  I hope the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that by this tyrannical legislative act he is speeding on to the Statute Book a Bill that gives him more tyrannical powers than any Secretary of

  485
  State for Scotland ever had. He is to take power to depart from the contracts he has entered into with the local authorities on subsidies. He can abolish subsidies after ten years, not just for the houses that are to be built but for all the houses built now, but we must not talk about it. He is to take powers over the local authorities to fix the rents of local authority houses, but we must not talk about them. He is making important new provisions regarding housing associations and the contribution which they can make to Scottish housing, but we must not talk about them. He tells us that we have to finish it in nine sittings of two-and-a-half hours each.
  Once this guillotine Motion goes through, of course, the tongues of hon. Members opposite will be loosened. The rights of the Opposition to proclaim against the Bill which does not meet the needs of Scotland at all and is opposed by everyone in Scotland—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Local authorities in Scotland are opposed to it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They have more sense of democracy than have hon. Members opposite. The democracy nearest to the people is the democracy of the local authorities. That democracy will be overruled and overriden by a Secretary of State who started in life as a Liberal.
  I remind the right hon. Gentleman of one thing which was said:
  "The only thing which really entitles this country to be called a Parliamentary democracy is not the right of free speech but the right of an Opposition, which has something serious to say in opposition to a Measure, not merely to say it plainly, but to say it at such length as the subject really deserves."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1947; Vol. 434, c. 106.]
  That is what we have been doing in the Scottish Standing Committee and that is the right that is being denied us by the action of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The action to which he is a party tonight is just one other act in the tragedy of the present Secretary of State who has served Scotland so ill, although ever so well-intentioned. In this case it is action which is setting even himself a very bad example.
  7.3 p.m.
  Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Although the Housing (Scotland) Bill may be of parochial interest north of
  486
  the Border, the major Measure that we are discussing within this Motion today relates to She Government's proposal to apply a timetable to the Transport Bill. The Committee, I am told, although I am not myself a member of the Standing Committee, has had 23 sittings and has got through only 25 Clauses out of the total of 91 Clauses and 11 Schedules in the Transport Bill.
  Superficially, that might be judged to be a good reason for a timetable Motion. I have read through practically all the proceedings of the Standing Committee on the Transport Bill—I am sorry that I am not a member of it—and I cannot find much cause for the allegations that there has been deliberate delay on the part of the Opposition, or Government supporters, or any measure of filibustering.
  I say to the Minister of Transport that this Bill is one of immense complexity and, other than the nationalising Statute of 1947, is certainly the most massive transport Measure ever brought before the House. One has only to study any one of the 11 Schedules to the Bill. notably those connected with docks and harbours, to understand their controversial character. I assert without any fear of contradiction that any one of those Schedules could usefully occupy three or four sittings of a Standing Committee, or a full day's debate in this House, so much are transport interests concerned and the livelihood of local people.
  I do not believe that the Transport Bill has been unduly delayed. I must at once contradict what was said by the Leader of the House. He attributed to the Minister of Transport a statement on an earlier occasion that if the Bill carried on at the rate at which it was going through Standing Committee it would not be through until 1964. That is not so, at least not judged in the true perspective of the position today. Twenty-three sittings have been required to get through 25 Clauses.
  I judge from that that about 100 sittings would be required at the rate of progress for the first 23 sittings, to complete the passage of this Bill in Standing Committee. In fact, some of the later provisions of the Bill in Clauses after Clause 50 are extremely difficult, notably Clause 63, dealing with inland

  487
  waterways, and notably several of the Schedules to which I have referred. I should have thought they would have occupied more time, without a Guillotine, than has been devoted to the earlier Clauses.
  Mr. G. Wilson: In arriving at his arithmetical calculation, has my hon. Friend considered that ten, eleven, or twelve Clauses were rushed through during the last few sittings after the Guillotine had been announced?
  Mr. Nabarro: Of course, one can argue that and I agree that there is some substance in it.
  Mr. Marples: A lot.
  Mr. Nabarro: All right, I will grant my right hon. Friend that there is a lot of substance in it, but I ask him to turn to Clause 63, which deals with inland waterways. I ask him to consider that the Bowes Committee, which produced a Report on that subject, and the future of the canals, did so nearly two years ago and that we in this House have not been able to debate that Report. The provisions of this Clause change the whole of the management and financial structure of the inland waterways.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay)The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay) rose—
  Mr. Nabarro: May I be allowed to finish what I was saying? It may be unpalatable to the Government Front Bench but—
  Mr. Marples: It should be accurate.
  Mr. Nabarro: I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) to give him an opportunity to expose the verities, but I now give way to the Parliamentary Secretary.
  Mr. Hay: When my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) said that the Report of the Bowes Committee had not been debated in this House, he forgot that we had a day's debate on it eighteen months ago. It took place on a Friday. Perhaps my hon. Friend was not present, but the subject was certainly very fully debated.
  Mr. Nabarro: That is perfectly true. It took place on a Private Member's
  488
  Motion. The Government have not attached sufficient importance to the # Bowes Report to allocate time for a discussion of it on a Government Motion. The plain fact of the matter is that most hon. Members have duties elsewhere on a Friday, as is well known, and that it is mainly Government business which attracts their attention.
  The case I am putting is that there are matters of massive moment to the entire nation in the later stages of this Bill. I wish to say, not particularly of the timetable being imposed in Committee upstairs, because I am not a member of the Standing Committee, to my right hon. Friend that, so far as he has influence on the Leader of the House in settling the terms of the Motion, only two days are to be devoted to the whole Recommittal, or Report and Third Reading of the Bill.
  Now I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro, who wishes to expose I the verities of the Measure.
  Mr. G. Wilson: The point has now been answered by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. I spoke in the debate on the Bowes Committee's Report. The debate took a full day. We went into it very thoroughly and had a full answer from the Government.
  Mr. Nabarro: I do not think that that is any reason for almost eliminating debate on Clause 63 of this Bill, which would change the statutory position of the canals. It is an entirely different matter.
  Mr. G. Wilson Mr. G. Wilson indicated dissent.
  Mr. Nabarro: My hon. Friend is indicating dissent. This is a Government matter. It should not be left to private Members and then used as an excuse by the Chairman of the Conservative Transport Committee to back up his Minister when little Government time is being devoted to the matter on this Bill. I believe that substantial Government time should be devoted to matters of this sort.
  I want to allude particularly to my main cause of grievance about the timetable Motion on Report and to illustrate it by an even more important matter than that of the canals. I allude, by way of example only, to the contents of Clause 13, which is of an explosive

  489
  character politically, because it involves diametrically opposed views of the Socialist Party in regard to the powers of nationalised industries and views which I and, I hope, my Conservative hon. Friends hold as to what should be the prerogative of private enterprise in manufacture and production of equipment for transportation purposes.
  I will read to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport an extract from the manifesto of the Conservative Party at the 1959 General Election, on which he fought his election with such conspicuous success in Wallasey and I fought mine with equally conspicuous success in Kidderminster.
  Mr. Marples: More success.
  Mr. Nabarro: No. Not more. My right hon. Friend has a bigger majority than I have.
  I will read an extract from paragraph 4 of the document "The Next Five Years"—a document which bears a magnificent portrait of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, no doubt to establish its authenticity. Paragraph 4 deals with the nationalised industries and begins:
  "We are utterly opposed to any extension of nationalisation by any means."
  I invite my right hon. Friend to turn to Clause 13 of the Transport Bill, which says that each of the boards—that is, the boards established under Clause 1—
  "shall have power to construct, manufacture, produce, purchase, maintain and repair anything required for the purposes of the business."
  In other words, the four boards—the British Railways Board, the London Transport Board, the British Transport Docks Board and the Inland Waterways Authority—are being authorised under the Bill greatly to extend the powers of nationalisation and to manufacture any equipment which they choose to manufacture. I suggest that this is a matter of very great moment—certainly it should be a matter of very great moment—to all of my Conservative hon. Friends, for this is an outright extension of the powers of nationalisation and is in direct contradition to an essential part of the Conservative Party's manifesto.
  Mr. Philip N. Hocking: Does my hon. Friend realise that the Clause goes even further than any
  490
  of the nationalisation Measures introduced by the Labour Party?
  Mr. Nabarro: Yes, that is so. I should be out of order if I went into great detail in this matter on a timetable Motion. I am well aware of that, but I answer my hon. Friend's intervention: the nationalisation Statute of 1947 placed a quantitative restriction upon the equipment which might be manufactured for the purpose of the transport authorities in the ownership of the State. This Clause sweeps that restriction away and gives them complete carte blanche.
  I am not, of course, imputing to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport any subversive intention in this respect. I know that his private enterprising instincts are identical with my own. I always note with pride the monuments to his efficiency on the roads, labelled so prominently, as, for example, the recently completed Hammersmith flyover, whenever I travel to London Airport. I know that his views in these matters are identical with my own. But we are enacting here provisions which will provide for the requirements of the nationalised transport undertakings for a long time ahead—and what would happen if a Socialist Minister were empowered with the provision which my right hon. Friend has written into Clause 13? Such a Minister would have no hesitation at all in expanding and extending the powers of the State to manufacture transportation equipment.
  I quote to my right hon. Friend an exact analogy: in 1957 the then Paymaster-General, who was responsible for fuel and power, brought to the House an Electricity Bill which contained similar manufacturing provisions, but for electrical plant. I fought those provisions in Standing Committee upstairs. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) is in his place. He seems to think that he is the only Member on this side of the House who ever serves on Standing Committees. As I say, I fought these provisions in Standing Committee, and I was defeated on a Division.
  I then took the matter to the Conservative Transport Committee, over which my hon. Friend the Member for Truro presides today with such great

  491
  distinction. I secured the support of that Committee and that of the Power Committee. I then went to the 1922 Committee and secured its support; and we caused the Minister to withdraw these wretched provisions, on the Report stage of the Electricity Bill. The reason which he gave—I commend these words to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport—was that they were inimical to the philosophy and the principles of the Conservative Party.
  I hope that I have said enough to demonstrate to my right hon. Friend the interest which my hon. Friends and I have in this fundamental matter. I propose, on Report, to put down appropriate Amendments. I listened to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). He felt rather aggrieved because these timetable Motions would mean that the Opposition would lose some of their time and that suddenly my hon. Friends and myself might become rather garrulous in the future stages of the Bills and have a good deal to say I am not concerned with the Housing (Scotland) Bill, but I am very concerned with the Transport Bill when it comes back to the House, and I am certain that no inhibition will be felt by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Hocking), my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) and, I hope, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone, and others of my hon. Friends and myself.
  Mr. J. Wells Mr. J. Wells rose—
  Mr. Nabarro: I hope that other hon. Members on this side of the House, too, will join us in pressing matters of this sort, because I remind my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport that we were not elected in 1959 to extend the principles and practice of Socialism—which is what Clause 13 means. It is no good the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport shaking his head in dissent. The Clause extends the power of manufacture.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot possibly argue that on this Motion. The Question is whether we get on with this Allocation of Time Motion.
  Mr. Nabarro: It was by way of a passing illustration. I will give way at
  492
  this point to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone.
  Mr. J. Wells: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to me. May I point out two things to him, briefly? First, I do not think that I am the only hon. Member on this side of the House who serves on Standing Committees. But I notice that my hon. Friend's name has been notably absent in recent years, as I said earlier this afternoon.
  Secondly, my hon. Friend has grouped together several hon. Members on this side of the House with particular respect to Clause 13. As he is so extremely interested in what took place on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", when we were debating Clause 13, he might have been in attendance outside the Committee, when he would have noticed that some of us had the Closure moved against us and saw fit not to vote with the Government on that occasion.
  Mr. Nabarro: My hon. Friend has missed the point. I do not attend Standing Committees to listen to his speeches. I can read what he said in HANSARD afterwards.
  Mr. Marsh: Why bother?
  Mr. Nabarro: Why bother? I have since read the speech as a sort of imposed duty. The debate was very short and limited in scope.
  That is why I am making the point that this is a matter of great interest to the whole of the Conservative Party and should not be disposed of under the guillotine Motion on Report in a few minutes—for it was very inadequately dealt with in Standing Committee.
  I am not alone in expressing these views. The Times, on 28th February, 1962, carried an admirable letter in the correspondence columns—the title was "Principle and Practice"—over the signature Mr. R. H. Smallman. He concluded that admirable letter with these words:
  "The Government should tell us plainly what lies behind a piece of legislation which is prima facie in direct conflict with its declared aims and policies."
  For all these reasons, I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, as the Leader of the House is not here, to cause a greater allocation of time

  493
  to be made under paragraph (2) of the Motion, which contains this restriction:
  "the Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days …"
  I calculate that that represents not more than ten and a half hours for Amendments on Recommittal or Report.
  I suggest that the House should be given three full days for the Report stage, which would represent approximately nineteen and a half hours, or nine hours longer than the Motion proposes. There are a large number of Conservative Members Who have had no opportunity of contributing to debates on matters which fundamentally affect the policy of the Tory Party. I calculate that no more than 5½ per cent. of the Members of the House of Commons have been able to participate in this massive Transport Bill. Two days were devoted to Second Reading. I sat right through those two days, bobbing up every time another Member sat down, but I did not catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. I was not one of those Members privileged to be selected to serve on the Standing Committee.
  Therefore, my only opportunity is on Report. With this attenuated programme which is now put before the House I shall have little opportunity to speak on my Amendment, if, indeed, it is selected. The chances of it being selected are ten to one against, because the matter has been debated in Standing Committee. I am not making a criticism. I am stating a fact. This issue has been debated, far too shortly, in Standing Committee. Therefore, the chances are ten to one against it being selected on Report.
  I am one of the majority of 95 per cent. which, by the rules of order of the House of Commons and the guillotine Motion combined, are refused an opportunity to debate and divide against the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to hear some murmers of support from behind me. We have been refused the opportunity to debate and divide against the Government on such Clauses as Clause 13.
  Mr. Charles Pannell: Mutiny.
  Mr. Nabarro: It is not mutiny at all.
  Mr. C. Pannell: First the hon. Member "leaks" his party meeting and then he threatens mutiny.
  Mr. Nabarro: I have "leaked" nothing. I said that I raised this important principle at a meeting of the 1922 Committee, five years ago, on another Bill. Surely that is not being "leaky". What I want is an opportunity of showing my hostility individually to Clause 13. Otherwise, I might be faced with the position of having to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill, which I do not want to do, because 97 per cent. of the Transport Bill is good. Only perhaps about 3 per cent. is bad.
  Therefore, I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to persuade the Leader of the House to give us those extra nine hours on Recommittal and Report, so that adequate attention may be devoted by my hon. Friends and myself to these very important matters of principle.
  7.24 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Mapp: I agree in principle with the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) about the paucity of time allotted. I shall develop my argument, not on the slender issue of one board manufacturing for another board, but on the wider issue of transport as it affects the nation. The hon. Member for Kidderminster was guilty of a contradiction. At one moment he was opposed to the idea of one board manufacturing for another board, but in the same breath he spoke of additional money being pumped into inland waterways by the State. He recommended this in respect of an undertaking which is known not to be viable and not likely to be viable. The Conservative Party tends to use waterways for weekend pleasure. They are not unprepared to use public finances for that purpose.
  The Leader of the House adduced two reasons, amongst others, which he said led to the conclusion that a timetable Motion was desirable. First, he referred to the anxieties of those engaged in the industry. I know about these anxieties. Secondly, he referred to important appointments which would have to be made, and said that he did not want the Bill delayed until the end of the year. We have heard the Minister of Transport argue, "Better a good appointment than

  495
  a quick appointment". On this argument the second reason adduced by the Leader of the House is invalid.
  The Motion will give us another twelve sittings in Committee, which will presumably amount to thirty hours in all, and the Report stage. This is a quite insufficient allocation. I agree with the hon. Member for Kidderminster that it should be increased. What is the Bill about? The Bill will kill the British Transport Commission, whose working receipts are £759 million a year, which has working expenses of £800 million a year, and will have a deficit—so we are told—of £151 million next year. The Government are reallocating, redesigning, repatterning and to some extent killing this undertaking. The Government are, in effect, writing off in terms of £ s. d. two-thirds of the B.T.C. book values.
  The Bill is not merely concerned with waterways. The argument is not only whether one workshop should do a job for another. I want to correct my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), who said that the total staff of the B.T.C. was half a million. The Bill concerns the welfare and destiny of three-quarters of a million people employed by the B.T.C. We are concerned about so much capital being written off, which I suppose is the legacy of ten years of political neglect and misjudgment. No wonder the Minister of Transport and the Leader of the House are anxious that the burial should take place quickly and quietly.
  There is great public anxiety about the Bill. There is also great anxiety within the industry. Railways, waterways, docks and London Transport are being revalued and realigned. A holding company is to be set up. I liken the Bill to a ship. So far in Committee we have examined merely the shell. We have dealt with three or four undertakings. In the next twelve sittings we have to deal with the people, the implements and the functions which will be within the shell.
  The time allotted is not sufficient. I am a member of the Standing Committee. Making all allowance for what might be argued to be a certain amount of delay, I cannot place my hand on my
  496
  heart and say that there has been any filibustering. I acknowledge that I have taken some part in the proceedings of the Committee. Hon. Members opposite, as we have just learned from the hon. Member for Kidderminster, have read the report of our proceedings. There is no evidence of any concerted filibustering in the Committee. If it is argued that contributions by those with intimate knowledge of transport, dealing with important matters of detail, are filibustering, I am as guilty as anyone. It is, however, the job of Members of Parliament to consider both principles and details. That is the job of the Committee.
  In the remaining four weeks, we have to write in the furniture and mechanics of the holding company, which is in many ways a new departure and over which there is considerable controversy. We have to decide the division of the Commission's assets, on which there are differences of view. But we have not yet faced one of the most controversial issues, the question of charges and facilities.
  Are we, in a matter of a few hours, to say goodbye for ever to the question of the common carrier? Are we to free, as I want them freed, railways from all legislative restrictions on their charges by way of local enactments, and so on? I am prepared for that. Certain details and assurances should be forthcoming, but the time will be limited so that those of us who might have something to say will be cut out.
  There is a big lobby among hon. Members opposite which took a number of items off the Notice Paper a few weeks ago concerning Clause 54. Have we, in the Bill, a proper relationship with coastal shipping? I do not associate myself with that lobby, but at least I and others in the Committee want the opportunity to take a helpful and constructive line on that and similar Clauses.
  There is the innovation of an alleged Nationalised Transport Advisory Council, with which we have the limited powers of the existing consultative committees. How many hon. Members are there, on both sides, who at some time have not been vitally involved in this local mechanism that the Minister so often uses against us in Adjournment

  497
  debates? The powers of the local consultative committees are to be cut even more and the powers of the Nationalised Transport Advisory Council are to be purely advisory, whereas advice may be forthcoming, both from this side and from the Government side, to give the Council power and strength so that in one way and another it may be a channel of first-class advice to the Minister. At the moment, it is an anaemic affair, but it is the job of the Committee, for which it should have the time—it has the ability—to fill in the details.
  I must indicate my interest in this matter. I was, and still am, with the railways. A number of Clauses deal with the transfer of assets and, inter alia, of staff to the respective boards. Many of us have considered the Clauses dealing with the transfer of staff, pension provisions and consequential matters. There is manifest uneasiness about the Clauses. The police side of the railways has great uneasiness. One does not want to waste time, but we want to safeguard the position of the three-quarters of a million people in the industry. Some of them have changed from one division to another and they seek to go back. Many will want assurances about superannuation fund solvency, but our time is to be guillotined.
  The Minister states that he is anxious about the Commission. Consider some of the changes of mind of the last few months. Part of my argument is that, if the Committee deploys itself as it should, the Minister will be changing his mind still further. Since the issue of the White Paper, he has changed it vitally concerning hotels and the private development company. If time were available, further argument in Committee might educate the Minister. Alongside the Bill has come the Pipe-lines Bill, which is to some extent related to it. This is a further complication.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall pointed out, there was a serious omission in drafting concerning the holding company. The fertile discussion which has come mostly from this side has pointed the need for further Amendments by the Minister.
  I say with regret that I cannot compliment the Minister on his tact. Apparently, he has not authorised his
  498
  Parliamentary Secretary, who has done good work in the Committee, to give way even on small points. It is no wonder that he and the Leader of the House have not found the full cooperation that would have been forthcoming had the areas of doubt been properly explored.
  When I looked at the Notice Paper on 23rd February, following the Minister's heated intervention on one of his few appearances in the Committee, I found that 119 Amendments remained of Which 63 were in the names of hon. Members opposite. These included 34 by the Minister. Were they put down as a waste of paper? Should we not give them the vetting that they need?
  After the Committee finished yesterday, I made a further calculation. The illuminating fact emerges that 105 Amendments remain for the Committee to face. Forty-four of these are in the name of the Minister and 33 in the names of his hon. Friends. A mere 28 are from hon. Members on this side. Yet we are being asked to limit the time, and the Minister recommends that we should have a mere twelve sittings to deal with this great problem.
  The hon. Member for Kidderminster pointed to the size of this problem in the national economy—
  Mr. Marsh: My hon. Friend will remember that at one stage in the Committee we had seven or eight Amendments from Government back benchers, which they then proceeded to vote against.
  Mr. Mapp: That is quite true.
  Mr. Michael Foot: Of even greater importance is the fact that an earlier Bill introduced by the Minister was withdrawn after it had become an Act of Parliament.
  Mr. Mapp: I wish to refer to an intervention which the Minister made in our discussions in Standing Committee early last month. He said, in effect, that he was annoyed that my hon. Friends had taken so long over Clause 9—longer than it had taken Colonel John Glenn to go round the world; and Colonel Glenn went round the world three times. The Minister went on to argue that the delay being caused would, in turn, delay the financial reorganisation of the

  499
  B.T.C. That was begging the major question, for he was, in effect, saying that this great financial reorganisation must now be considered under duress.
  Surely it is the right of hon. Members to scrutinise every part of a Bill of this sort without having the threat of the Guillotine hanging over us. What is even more important is that the Minister's statement was incorrect. I could say that in somewhat different language, but I wish to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to retract the words he used. I refer, of course, to a remark he made which meant, in effect, that unless the Bill had passed through all its stages by June there would be no method of communication between the union leaders and the Railways Board, the established machinery would break down and the whole thing would be difficult to organise without the Bill.
  I referred in Committee to the right hon. Gentleman's statement about the possible lack of communication and the established machinery, and I now urge the right hon. Gentleman to consider his words again. I think he will agree that his argument was incorrect, untrue, and that he uttered those words at a time when he was trying to "sergeant major" the Opposition. That will not do, for that sort of thing will not help him to get his Bill. Having observed the Minister over a period of time I have come to the conclusion that, rather like Dr. Beeching, he is learning fast. The right hon. Gentleman will learn a lot faster soon about the difficulties of the railways.
  In many respects the Guillotine will mean that the Bill will not receive the careful attention it warrants. It is our duty as hon. Members to give it that attention. As a result, it will be two-thirds a Whitehall Bill and the old saying "Whitehall knows best" will, presumably, apply. Does the Minister really want this sort of action to cover up ten years of politically wrong decisions and neglect? I urge him to allow the Standing Committee to do its job properly and get on with its proper consideration of the Bill. There is no evidence to show that there has been any concerted filibustering, and the guillotine Motion, apart from the wider issues involved, is not justified and is a travesty.
  7.44 p.m.
  Dame Irene Ward: I listened to the opening stages of the debate on this timetable Motion with very mixed feelings. I felt that it really was a waste of time either for the Government to point out what the Opposition had said when they were in Government, or for the Opposition to say what we had said when we were in opposition. It does not affect the issue today. No one likes the Guillotine and no one likes to impose it. We all understand what Parliamentary procedures involve and I thought that it was very sad, when there are so many important things to discuss, that we should spend such a lot of time discussing the pros and cons of what went on in 1947.
  I do not very often agree with the Opposition, but they are perfectly right to attack the timetable. It is part of their business to do so. I would be upset if the Government did not do the same when in opposition. That said, let us now call it a day.
  I do not want to detain the House, but I must make a protest about the possibility of the Standing Committee not being able to deal with Clause 54, which relates in detail to new plans for dealing with coastal shipping. I was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) say that he would join that lobby, but I am not sure that I like the word "lobby". It is a bit too Americanised.
  Mr. Mapp: I hope that I did not say that I would join that lobby. I was indicating my intention of joining in the discussion and pointing out the dangers of joining any lobby.
  Dame Irene Ward: I am glad that I have given the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to make his position clear. I thought that he sympathised with the position of coastal shipping.
  I rise tonight mainly to ask my right hon. Friend whether he will give an assurance that, on Report, there will be an opportunity to discuss this very important matter, for it is absolutely essential that we should do so. It is unfortunate that we were unable to obtain the services in Standing Committee of any hon. Members who have either knowledge of or interests in shipbuilding or shipping—coastal shipping,

  501
  in particular. This has made matters awkward, and the lack of hon. Members with this knowledge is deplorable from the point of view of the interests of coastal shipping.
  All hon. Members seem to have been arguing, and rightly so, about the points which they consider should be dealt with in the Bill. When my right hon. Friend replies I hope that the representations that have been made to him on behalf of coastal shipping will have sunk into his brain and that we shall have an effective answer which will enable us to protect this industry.
  I realise that I would not be in order in arguing the case for this tonight, but I felt that I should ask my right hon. Friend to give an assurance that an opportunity will be provided for hon. Members to discuss this very important matter and that if, when we reach the Report stage, there is any intention on the part of the Government to clip the wings of the House in this discussion, we shall be able to extend the time so that the interests of coastal shipping can be reasonably and properly discussed. That is important if we are to retain an adequate Parliamentary system.
  That is all I have to say, except that I very much regret that it seems rather unlikely that Clause 54 will have a chance of being discussed in Standing Committee. I shall, I hope, be sitting on this little back bench when the Minister winds up the debate and I hope that he will make a delightful speech in which he will say that the wishes I have expressed will be taken note of and a chance given for this important matter to be discussed on Report.
  7.49 p.m.
  Mr. Tom Brown: Having listened to the debate so far, I fail to discover any justifiable reason why the Government should introduce the Guillotine. Although I have not taken the trouble to read every word of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Scotland (Housing) Bill proceedings in Committee, I have taken the trouble to read the report of the debates in Standing Committee E. Having done so, I again fail to discover, from that Committee's proceedings, why the Government feel justified to introduce the Guillotine.
  I find that the debate on the Amendments to Clause 13, to which the hon.
  502
  Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) referred, and which is one of the most important Clauses in the Bill, occupied only two hours. The twenty-first sitting of that Committee took place last Thursday. The proceedings started at half-past ten in the morning and finished just after twelve o'clock, so one cannot accuse Opposition Members of filibustering or of trying to prevent the passage of this Bill to the Statute Book.
  Apart from that, what concerns me profoundly is the fact that there will not be an opportunity of discussing Clause 13 on Third Reading and Report. I wonder whether the Minister or the Department appreciates the tremendous effect that part of the Motion will have upon the industry and the people engaged therein. If this part of the Motion is passed, it will cause serious disturbance among workers engaged in an industry—and the right hon. Gentleman knows the industry to which I refer, namely, the wagon repairing industry. I think I can understand the right hon. Gentleman's view up to a point, but I cannot understand why he has allowed the Government to impose the Guillotine on this very important Measure.
  Paragraph 10 of the Motion states:
  "the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or any Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day at any time after Seven o'clock shall be deferred for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the said Motion under Standing Order No. 9."
  Paragraph 11 says:
  "If, at Seven o'clock on any allotted day, any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time have not been concluded, any Motion for the adjournment of the House under the said Standing Order No. 9 which, apart from this Order, would stand over to that time shall stand over until those Proceedings have been concluded."
  One gathers that we shall not have an opportunity of discussing the Amendments which have been tabled to the Bill in Standing Committee. As an ordinary man, I think that is a very serious slight on those of us who claim to live according to the principles of democracy. This is having a serious effect in my constituency. Except in the case of old-age pensions and compension, I have never known of any piece of legislation which has caused

  503
  so much interest as this Bill has caused, because the livelihood of the town which I represent depends upon the proper administration of this country's transport system.
  In that constituency there are factories employing about 1,000 men, and they have done very important work, particularly during two world wars. They were commanded by the Government to manufacture and repair all sorts of wagons. These works have been in existence in one case for 100 years, in another case for sixty years and in another case for seventy-five years. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary is aware of the effect that the Bill will have upon the men employed in those workshops. Would he or the Minister like to work with a feeling of insecurity in the next twelve months? Sweeping powers are given to the boards under Clause 13—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but he must not embark on a discussion of the merits of the Bill.
  Mr. Brown: I do not intend to disobey your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but Clause 13 was previously discussed at some length by a Government member. I am only following his lead. However, I will drop the matter in response to your wishes.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman's argument is that there is not sufficient time to discuss the merits, that is all right, but to discuss the merits themselves is out of order.
  Mr. Brown: Very well, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I think I am allowed to say something about the effect that the operation of the Clause will have upon my constituency—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Not on this Motion.
  Mr. Brown: Then I will only say that I am very concerned at the effect which the Bill in its present form will have on my constituents, and let it be remembered that there will not be an opportunity of debating the Bill on Report or Third Reading. As a result of this Motion, hon. Mmbers who are accredited
  504
  representatives of the townships in which such works are situated will be prevented from voicing their opinions.
  We have heard a great deal this afternoon about the principles of democracy. I am always inspired by a quotation from one of the greatest writers who ever lived. He said that individual responsibility is the cornerstone of democracy, and if we fail to (realise our individual responsibility, down will come the cornerstone of democracy upon us. I tell the Minister and the Government as a whole that this Bill, unless it is operated in a kindly and humane manner, will strike a terrible blow at this industry and at this town.
  Mr. Hay Mr. Hay indicated dissent.
  Mr. Brown: The Parliamentary Secretary may shake his head, but we have had some experience of these things. We know how these things operate when legislation comes. With all respect to him, the right hon. Gentleman may not be the Minister of Transport in a few years.
  I was very glad to note—it is a credit to him—that the Parliamentary Secretary gave a partial promise during the debate on the Amendments to Clause 13. I wish I could be sure that that promise will be carried out. I have my doubts, not because I fear that the Parliamentary Secretary will fail but because I fear that there will be some interference between now and the time when the Bill reaches the Statute Book.
  There were several other matters with which I should have liked to have dealt, but time is getting on. I conclude with this plea. Whatever is done in a Department, however it is done, let those responsible make doubly sure, before any attempt is made to close a works, that something similar is put in its place so that the men may earn their living. This is what worries me. For a century these works have been in commission. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary knows them. I will tell him. There is the Central Wagon Works, in commission for over 100 years. There is the Ince Wagon Works, in commission for over seventy years.
  At these works more than 700 men are employed, representing through their families 1,500 to 1,800 people. For God's sake, I say, let us not leave those men

  505
  stranded. The Government must see to it that they deal humanely with them in carrying out the purposes of the Bill. I am not talking about finance. I am not talking about whether nationalisation is better than private enterprise. One thing I know is that private enterprise at its best has done very well for the town and for its inhabitants who have earned their livelihood there. Let us not be charged with the responsibility of disturbing these men after all those years. If they are disturbed—this is what I regret—they will have been disturbed as a result of a Guillotine put on by the Government.
  Mr. Hay Mr. Hay indicated dissent.
  Mr. Brown: I do not mind the Parliamentary Secretary shaking his head. It is customary, and I like to know whether the Government agree with me or not as I proceed, because I am inspired if they agree with me.
  I make the plea that nothing shall be done in the administration of the Bill which will create unemployment such as we experienced in the 1930s in my district. I am not arguing the pros and cons of Clause 13 now. I am speaking today because I had experience of unemployment then, 80 per cent. unemployment in my area, and I do not want it to happen again.
  8.4 p.m.
  Mr. John Wells: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), because of what he said about the kindly and capable way in which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has been able to give us some half-promises and semi-assurances on Clauses which lie ahead and which may, perhaps, not be debated as fully as we should like because of the guillotine Motion now before us. I welcome the Guillotine wholeheartedly, but for this thought, that, had we had it a little sooner, the Business Committee might have provided more time to debate the various Clauses still to be discussed.
  I have great sympathy with Members like my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), who is concerned about coastal shipping, and others of my hon. Friends who are concerned about the charges likely to be made on the inland waterways and similar matters I am very concerned
  506
  about the possible implications of the reallocation of the shares of the bus companies. I hope that there will be sufficient time left to debate those matters fully. The matter of wagon repairs is, in part, behind us, but we may well be able to have another go at it on Report.
  I deplore a little that my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)—if I may adopt the phrase used earlier by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss)—seems to have flitted in and out like a bumble bee and has now left us. Although he has not served on the Committee, he is rumbling and threatening that he will put down Amendments on Report. I do not believe that that is the right way to proceed in the matter.
  I agree with hon. Members opposide who have said that there has not been a vast amount of filibustering, but there has undoubtedly been some At the same time, I have great sympathy for hon. Members who, as the right hon. Gentleman said, are peculiarly fitted to discuss this great problem. There are hon. Members opposite who have specialist railway knowledge. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson), like them, has given many years of his life to railway matters. We have welcomed a great deal of what they have said, but the fact remains that there are other Clauses not dealing with railway matters. I cannot help feeling that those hon. Members who are specialists in railway matters might have given others more time to discuss their affairs.
  I am glad to see the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) in his place, because I know the interest he takes in the northern commercial waterways and all matters concerning waterways. Somewhat irrelevantly, my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster said that the Bowes Committee's Report had never been debated. It has been debated. Two hon. Members, myself one of them, made their maiden speeches in the House in that debate. We remember it clearly.
  The debate on the Bowes Report reminded the House that inland waterways are divided into three categories, A, B and C. There can be no doubt that the category A waterways, which are predominantly used by the commercial

  507
  waterway carriers, are making money. The commercial waterway carriers are providing the bulk of the revenue of the waterways, and it would be deplorable if we did not have sufficient time to debate the rights and the position of the waterway carriers.
  The first new Clause on the Notice Paper, if I may say so, is a very deserving one, and I hope that the Business Committee will see its way to arranging the business so that the Committee takes that as its first bite of the sitting when we reach that stage.
  As I have said, although there has been no vast amount of filibustering, there has been some. I feel I must mention—I am sorry he is not here—the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh). Although he has taken a great deal of the Committee's time, very ably no doubt, he has managed to be altogether absent from the Committee on several occasions. Notably, when we were debating an important constituency matter of his under Clause 13 (3), he was not there. No doubt he will seek to say something later about that matter.
  In supporting the principle of the Motion, I hope that the Business Committee will so arrange matters that all the minority interests which lie ahead for our consideration will have a reasonable chance of being dealt with and that the country outside will note the excellent half-assurances which my hon, Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has given, although we realise that the reports of HANSARD, particularly of Committee proceedings upstairs, are not Statutes and that, therefore, they can only be a guide to the new authorities and new boards in their day-to-day management.
  However, notice should be taken of what the Government spokesman has said. I hope that, when there is insufficient time for a full debate on a particular matter, the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will find it possible to continue to give assurances of this sort so that some guidance may be given to the new boards and authorities about their day-to-day management.
  Finally, may I say this to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), who did not give way to me
  508
  earlier today? Since he was dealing with Gilbert and Sullivan, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), I was proposing to say to the hon. Gentleman that he should have remembered the verses about the awful cost which Strephon was going to inflict on this House. It was said that he would end the cherished rights which we enjoyed on Friday nights. May I say to the hon. Gentleman that we do not see many Scottish Members here on Friday afternoons?
  8.12 p.m.
  Mr. Frank McLeavy: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells), particularly because of his personal interest in waterways. We on this side disagree with him about certain matters, but we appreciate the contributions which he will be able to make to our proceedings upstairs when we are discussing the waterways undertaking.
  I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) and my hon. Friends in paying tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary for the courteous way in which he has dealt with matters we have raised in Committee. Although we could not always agree with them, the explanations which he gave on many occasions were understandable. It is a good thing that we in Parliament can pay tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary, despite the fact that we profoundly disagree with the policy that he is putting forward in Committee upstairs.
  We should consider whether this Motion is justified. I am a member of the Committee considering the Transport Bill. I have not been absent many times from the Committee's meetings. I am satisfied that there has not been any attempt by my hon. Friends unduly to lengthen the debates on the important matters before the Committee.
  In recommending the Motion to the House, the Leader of the House unfortunately said that we had not made too much progress in Committee, but that yesterday we put a spurt on and dealt with eleven Clauses. That was rather unfair because the first few Clauses in the Bill form the essential basis of it. It was essential that the Opposition

  509
  should try to ensure that there was a thorough examination of the Bill from Clause 1 onwards. It was a little ungrateful of the Leader of the House to try to make out that we allowed those Clauses to go through simply because we were to have this debate today. The fact is that there was very little opposition to the Clauses which went through yesterday because we agreed, in the main, with their provisions.
  The case for the Guillotine has not been made out by the Leader of the House. Our Scottish friends complain of the silence of hon. Members opposite who refrain from making contributions to the debates in the Committee on the Housing (Scotland) Bill. With one or two exceptions, the position on the Transport Bill is precisely the same. I do not know whether hon. Members opposite have been asked not to speak, but in the main they are silent during our discussions on the Bill.
  The whole purpose of the Committee stage of a Bill is destroyed unless hon. Members on both sides attempt to mould the Bill and to make it a much better Bill when it leaves Committee than it was when it reached there. If we get to the stage, which we have almost reached, that a Committee stage is merely a formality and almost a farce, that, no matter what arguments are put forward by the Opposition, the Government simply dig their heels in and say, "We are having this Bill as it stands", and if back bench Members opposite do not fulfil their Parliamentary obligation to act as examiners of Bills in Committee, the Committee stages of Bills will be almost useless and purposeless.
  This is a very important Bill from the point of view of national transport. It seems to me to be extraordinary that at this time, when we are in economic difficulties, when we are hoping against hope that everything will be done to restore the economic prosperity of this nation, we are prepared to disturb a system of co-ordinated transport which offers the only hope of getting a real contribution by the transport industry to the solution of the industrial problems which confront the nation. It is because I feel profoundly that the Bill will not help to get the nation back to industrial prosperity that I feel that we must of necessity seek to examine it Clause by Clause
  510
  and try at least to improve it so that its effects upon the economy of the nation may be less harmful than they will otherwise be, if the Bill goes through in its present form.
  We are told that there has got to be haste with this Bill. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall, who opened the debate from our side, exploded that balloon, but the issue on this Motion is not so much that the Motion will speed delivery of the Bill from the Standing Committee to the House of Commons so that the House can make a final decision upon it. The issue and the tragedy is that with that speed there will have been no proper examination of what the Clauses imply not only for those engaged in the industry but for the communal life of the nation. The Bill does not affect merely the industrial prosperity of the nation; it affects the rights of the travelling public.
  The Minister is given in the Bill almost unlimited powers of veto. I think it was said that there were about a hundred provisions in it whereby the Minister can approve or disapprove proposals. I am not sure that the Minister, even with all the good intentions in the world, will be able personally to examine these problems himself and make a personal decision for or against any proposal made by any of the respective boards.
  What we are really enacting through the Bill is that civil servants shall have the power of deciding these matters, and we are inviting the Minister to rubber stamp what the civil servants have done, because with all his other duties the Minister will not be able to do more. That is the power we are passing on to the civil servants. I am making no criticism of the civil servants. I think that we in Britain are being served very well inded by our civil servants, and I should not dike any suggestion or inference to get out that they are not highly competent for their jobs; but the point I am making is that if we say the Minister shall do this, that or the other, we are entitled to expect that the Minister will do it, and that it will be he who will give approval or otherwise to any proposals made or changes made affecting the expenditure, and so on, of the respective boards.
  We are breaking up the existing Transport Commission and are appointing four

  511
  new boards to deal with the various aspects of the problem. Therefore, the Minister's task in giving directions will be infinitely more difficult, when he has to give directions to four separate boards instead of giving directions to one Commission.
  I have spent my lifetime in transport, although not on the railways, and I feel that this transport question is the very heart of the economic problem which confronts the nation. We try as far as we can to forget our political prejudices when we approach this problem. If we approach it, as we must, from the point of view of what is good for the nation and the national prosperity, then I believe that we can provide a system of national transport which will serve the nation's needs, but my complaint about this Guillotine is that it presupposes that everything in the Bill is reasonably good, and that all we have to do is to hasten it through the House of Commons by Guillotine and without adequate discussion and that then everything in the garden will be lovely.
  I know from experience in the past ten years that successive Tory Governments have played with this question of British transport to the extent that they brought the railways into serious financial difficulties. It is no good their coming to us and saying, "The reason we are doing this is that the railways are millions in the red", because when they took them over they were just paying their way, and so the criticism is not of the railways but of the mismanagement by successive Tory Governments since they took them over. The Government are attempting to gull the public, saying that all this is because the railways are in the red. Successive Tory Ministries have tried to gull people into thinking that that is the railways' fault and that they have got to do something about it. The fault lies in successive Tory Governments' incompetence, and if the Government are as successful in what they do in the future as they have been successful in the past British transport will be in a dreadful position.
  I believe that the Bill has been ill-conceived. It has not been thought out properly. There are serious defects in it. We shall not have an opportunity in Committee to examine it in proper
  512
  perspective. Both in Committee and in the House itself hon. Members will have to be content with the limitations imposed by this Guillotine, and at the end of the day the Government majority will file into the Lobby and get the Bill passed on Third Reading, and eventually it will get on to the Statute Book.
  I do not know what the Government are thinking of. I do not believe that the Government have given very serious thought to this question. I do not believe that they have done what they ought to have done before embarking upon this. I do not believe they have held full consultations with either the industrial organisations on the one hand or with the trade unions on the other. I am perfectly sure that, from the point of view of industry, both the trade unions and the employers' federation would feel that a major disturbance at this time was extremely unwise.
  It would have been far better for the Government to say, "We have landed British transport in a mess, we have allowed the railways to get into financial difficulties, and we do not know what to do about it." I should have thought that, instead of trying to rehash the position, they would have had the most extensive discussions inside and outside the House to try to find the solution, based not on politics but on common sense, which ought to be applied.
  I do not believe that the break-up of the principle of integration will serve the interests of the nation. It is becoming high time that the public should understand that if they are confronted with increased bus fares, increased railway fares and the like, it is largely due to the bad policy of successive Tory Governments over the past ten years, and that it will not be until the Labour Party is in office and is prepared to face this issue of British transport from the point of view of the well-being of the community that the public and industry will have the type of services to which they are entitled.
  The position of the travelling public is getting worse and worse. Branch lines are being cut off; even more severely under this Bill people will be forced more and more to go on to the roads with all kinds of motor vehicles, some of which may not be of a good road-worthy standard. We shall therefore be

  513
  confronted with greater congestion on our roads adding to the problems of road safety. I believe that it is midsummer madness to bring in this Bill at the present time when it will not, and cannot, under any circumstances provide a permanent solution to these problems which confront the Government.
  It is almost useless to beg the Government to think this matter out again and to have further consultations with the people who understand the job and who can apply the remedy. We do not need to go to big business giants to solve this problem. We should go to the people who have worked in the industry.
  The Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he is straying into the kind of speech which would be more appropriate on the Bill itself.
  Mr. McLeavy: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I shall conclude by saying that I think that it is a mistake to apply the Guillotine because it will prevent our having the opportunity of reasonable discussion upon the remaining Clauses. We shall probably have under the Guillotine silent members of the Committee becoming vocal. That is all to the good.
  Mr. Hay: Can we also hope that some of the vocal members of the Committee will become silent?
  Mr. McLeavy: I should not like to join the Parliamentary Secretary in that wish, because I am perfectly sure that the vocal people to whom he refers are the people who in the main are more knowledgeable on the subject than many hon. Members opposite. If I were the Minister of Transport I should become extremely anxious that the vocal people who know what they are talking about should continue to talk and talk so that at least something might penetrate into the Minister's brain through the armour built up by political prejudice.
  The Guillotine means that there will be a limitation on both sides of the Committee. We cannot stop the Government from applying the Guillotine. We shall have to make the best of it, but the Government are serving no great interest of the nation nor any great purpose in forcing the Bill through with their Parliamentary majority. In the years to
  514
  come they may well regret the steps which they are now taking by means of the Bill and the efforts which they are making to force it through without adequate consideration.
  8.36 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I do not want to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) too far, as otherwise I am afraid that I also will be out of order in debating the merits of the Transport Bill, but I will mention one or two points to which he has referred. I wish to confine myself mositly to that Bill, although I belong to a family of Scottish origin and my father was born in Edinburgh, as were most of his forebears.
  I believe that one of my more remote ancestors was killed in the Battle of Flodden, fighting the English. Therefore, when Scottish Members make remarks about English Members referring to Scotland they should remember that a great number of hon. Members who represent English constituencies are of Scottish origin. I do not call myself an English Member. I am a Member for a Cornish constituency.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) said that the extreme verbosity and the constant flow of points of order we get from Scottish Members are giving Scotland a bad name in the House, and many hon. Members feel that very strongly.
  Mr. Willis: The debate was at its liveliest today during the speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  Mr. Wilson: It is true that there is a distinction between the two Committees on the Bill which we are discussing today. There is a distinction between what is happening in the Scottish Committee and what is happening in Standing Committee E, but it does not seem necessary to prove any extremes of filibustering to satisfy the House that it will be desirable to have a timetable Motion. The point is that the Transport Bill is absolutely vital and should reach the Statute Book as early as possible.
  As hon. Members know, I have had experience of being in the transport industry when it was undergoing a major

  515
  change. I was there during the passing of the 1947 Act, and I know that the period between the passing of that Act and its coming into force was one which caused a great deal of disturbance and delay. Everything was put back for further consideration until the new setup had come into being. That must be happening today, not only on the railways but throughout the transport industry, as a result of the introduction of the Bill, and it does not do the industry any good to keep matters hanging about.
  Mr. C. Pannell: Whose fault is that? It is nothing to do with the Committee.
  Mr. Wilson: The more prolonged the Committee stage of a Bill, the longer it is before a decision is made, and if a decision is to be made it should be made as quickly as possible, not only for financial reasons but because if five boards are to be set up it is highly desirable that they should be set up quickly so that the trade unions can enter into negotiations with them. Those new boards will have to deal with affairs in the future, and it would seem to be to the benefit of all that this matter should be disposed of with the least possible delay.
  Although there may not have been any flagrant or bad cases of filibustering in Standing Committee E there has certainly been a good deal of verbiage, and much talk which could have been condensed into far fewer words while making the same point. The Committee stage does not suffer at all under the Guillotine procedure. It improves the debate, because it brings home to Members that they must be brief in their remarks and come to the point.
  If hon. Members read through the reports of the twenty-three sittings that we have had they will find that many speeches have been of inordinate length and have repeated the same points over and over again. Each point could have been dealt with in far fewer words.
  Having said that, I had better keep my remarks as short as possible. Especially in the early stages of the Bill we took rather a long time in our discussions. The Bill contains ninety-one Clauses and eleven Schedules, and it took six sittings to complete Clause 1,
  516
  and eleven before we reached Clause 3. That was quite a long time.
  Mr. Mapp: Does not the hon. Member agree that Clause 1 sets up the vital four pillars of the whole fabric of the Bill? Surely he will agree that hon. Members on both sides—and especially on this—would have been avoiding their obligations if they had not given those four major pillars the consideration in detail and in principle that the Bill warranted.
  Mr. Wilson: But it did not take six sittings to complete the Clause because of the large number of Amendments.
  Mr. Mapp: Fifteen hours.
  Mr. Wilson: It took that long time because each point was debated at great length by many speakers. It seemed to me quite an unreasonable time to take. We have recently got on very much quicker. It may be that some of the later Clauses are not so important as Clause 1, but I believe that the mere threat of the Guillotine has caused some speeding up in our proceedings—and it would be a good thing if they were speeded up even more.
  I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is not present. Apparently he did not succeed in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, during the Second Reading debate. But the fact that a Member does not catch the eye of the Chair during the Second Reading debate does not prevent him from putting down an Amendment in Committee, even though he is not going to be a Member of that Committee. We have had examples of that in Standing Committee E. Two of my hon. Friends have put down very important Amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) put down a number of Amendments in connection with harbours, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner) put down a series of Amendments on coastal shipping. Other hon. Members have added their names to the Amendments relating to coastal shipping. One has been debated and no doubt others will be. Had my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster felt strongly about the inadequacy of the Amendment put down to Clause 13

  517
  he could have put down another one and persuaded an hon. Member who is a member of the Standing Committee to support it.
  Mr. C. Pannell: Knowing the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)—and I would not say a word against him in his absence—does the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) think that his hon. Friend would consider that anyone could speak for him?
  Mr. Wilson: That may be, I do not know. The point is that there is no reason why we should debate a thing twice simply because my hon. Friend did not happen to be present on the occasion when it was debated. We have had a debate on Clause 13 and if it proved to last no longer than it did, that was because the hon. Member who moved the Amendment did so shortly. He might have taken longer, and, no doubt, had it been my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster the point would have been explained at a somewhat greater length. But I do not think that that is an argument for altering the timetable. I consider that a case has been made out for imposing a timetable and that it would be to the advantage of the transport industry and the public to complete the stages of this Bill at an early date.
  8.47 p.m.
  Mr. Leslie Spriggs: The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) has done his share of speaking during our debates in Standing Committee E. He is an exception to the general rule in respect of hon. Members who support the Government. I was rather surprised to hear a Government supporter attack my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) for the speeches which he has made in that Committee. As my hon. Friend is not present to defend himself, I would say, on his behalf, that he has made speeches which were a worth-while contribution to the debates. I congratulate him on the good work that he has done.
  I regret the use which the Government make of their majority in the Committee to force through their point of view and refuse to accept any Amendments. The Parliamentary Secretary has had his orders. It is because the Government refuse to accept Amendments that hon.
  518
  Members on this side of the House who are serving on that Committee have thought it worth while—mistakenly as it has proved—to make a case for the Amendments which they were urging. The length of the speeches which have been made results from the efforts of hon. Members on our side to point out the weaknesses in the Bill in the hope that our Amendments would be accepted. The Parliamentary Secretary has suggested that hon. Members who have spoken should be silent now that the Guillotine is to be applied, so that perhaps some hon. Members who have not yet spoken will speak.
  Mr. G. Wilson: Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that another explanation for the Government's refusal to accept Opposition Amendments may be that the Amendments were not very good and, therefore, could not be accepted?
  Mr. Spriggs: The Bill is not a good one. If we try to amend a bad Bill we cannot make a worse job of it than the draftsman. From time to time the Committee has come across serious mistakes in the drafting. What do the Government expect from an Opposition? It is not long ago that the Government were saying that there was no effective opposition. When they have one, what do they do? They refuse to accept any Amendments put forward by the Opposition, and, worse still, bring forward a guillotine Motion to shut them up—to stop that opposition. If anyone has for a moment ever thought that any Government want a strong Opposition, he has been making a big mistake.
  I want to concern myself more than anything else tonight with the fact that the Transport Bill should be debated right to the end and in full. The Minister should be authorised by the Leader of the House, who has just come in to listen to the debate, to withdraw this pernicious Motion. It is a shocking state of affairs that when we have a Bill of such tremendous importance the Government complain about the time we have spend discussing it and bring in a Guillotine Motion.
  Clauses 1 and 2 set up the four boards and the regional railway boards and these are very important matters. There are businessmen who would say

  519
  that the Standing Committee was entitled to spend the time which it has spent in the debates which took place on the first two Clauses of the Bill. In Clauses 3 and 4, we deal with the duties and powers of the Railways Board and the Board's road services, while Clause 5 is concerned with shipping services and power to provide air services, and Clause 6 with the power of the Railways Board to provide hotels.
  I cannot see where the case has been made so far—indeed, it is the other way round—for this Motion. The case against it has been proved by my right hon. and hon. Friends who have spoken so far, and I am sure that my hon. Friend who will be winding up the debate will add further weight to the case against it.
  In Clause 7, we have the duty and powers of the London Board, in Clause 8 the London Board's road services outside London, about which there was a terrific debate. Inland waterways are dealt with in Clause 10, which is one of the few Clauses in the Bill which has been received with partial unanimity on both sides of the Committee. We found that there were hon. Members on both sides who had a common interest in waterways and their development. Clause 11 deals with the development of land, and Clause 12 with pipelines, though I understand that the Pipe-lines Bill will take the place of Clause 12.
  Clause 13 concerns the boards' powers of manufacture and production, Clause 16 supplemental provisions relating to the boards' powers, Clause 15 the compulsory purchase of land, Clause 16 working agreements involving the delegation of special statutory powers, and Clause 17 the power to promote and oppose Bills. Then we have the Clauses dealing with the financial provisions.
  One of the things which we ought to take into consideration is whether the time spent on the Bill is worth while. We know what the Government intend to do. Up to the present, they have shown a distinct refusal to accept any Amendments, and unfortunately, the Minister who now proposes to apply these restrictions to the Committee has himself attended the sittings of the Committee less than anybody else. I do not know what his business has been
  520
  elsewhere. Probably he can answer that question if he wishes. He has caused the Committee to have further sittings each week so that the Government could get this Bill within the specified time. Although hon. Members on the Committee came to sittings in the afternoons and evenings he has rarely attended. I suppose that he went to his dinner at the usual time while hon. Members on the Committee had to carry on discussions on the Bill.
  Mr. Hocking: Is it not true that we have always risen at a reasonable hour for dinner each night? I do not think that on any night we have been denied having dinner at the normal time. Is not what the hon. Member has just said unreasonable?
  Mr. Spriggs: The answer is that undoubtedly many of us had dinner after the Minister had had his dinner, because he did not attend the sittings of the Committee.
  I wish to give the House some idea of opinion on this Bill in commercial circles. A man who is chairman of a bus company writes to me:
  "As Chairman of this Company, I am venturing to write to you about a point on the Transport Bill which causes me considerable anxiety."
  This is to do with Clause 29 which I want the Committee to deal with. It is one of the most important parts of the Bill. It is in direct contradiction of everything the Parliamentary Secretary said to the Committee about commercial freedom. The letter goes on:
  "Ever since the Main Line Railway Companies acquired shares "—
  in the firm—
  "and its associated omnibus companies some thirty years ago, the omnibus companies, the railways and the travelling public have had the benefit—and in my opinion, a real benefit—of road-rail co-ordination. It is an astonishing thing that under the Transport Bill the old railway shareholdings—now held by the British Transport Commission—are to be transferred to a holding company which will be divorced from the railways. Thus, if the Bill becomes law as it stands, the road-rail partnership which has been in existence for over thirty years will be destroyed, to my mind a very regrettable and wholly unjustifiable retrograde step.
  Under the old partnership—continued by the B.T.C.—senior railway representatives have been on the Board of this Company and we have had a standing joint committee consisting of operating railwaymen and operating busmen

  521
  and this Committee has done a lot of good work from everyone's point of view. It would in my opinion be a sorry thing if these long-established arrangements were to be done away with, unless there were to be some very good reason for doing so, which certainly has not yet been produced.
  If the Railways Board were not to be financially interested in the bus company, it seems to me that there could be little likelihood of their being senior railwaymen on the bus boards or that the travelling public could have the benefit of road-rail co-ordination which has now existed for so many years."
  That is only part of the letter I have had from a man who has never been a railwayman. It concerns Clause 29, which is most important. Righthon. and hon. Members would be able to identify the manager who has written to me—the chairman of this bus company.
  In the last financial year moneys invested by the B.T.C., and, earlier, by the old L.M.S., received £140,744 interest from invested capital. That is only one example. Take the case of the Birmingham and Midland Bus Company. The money which has come from its investments amounts to £240,000. This has been coming into the "kitty" of the Transport Commission year after year. The figure for Northern General was £169,355—a fairly consistent income to the railways finances. During the last financial year North Western showed a healthy return of £121,905. As we go down the list we see that one after another showed a healthy return for the money invested in these road under-takings.
  The railwaymen and those who work with the omnibus companies are entitled to know what Clause 29 will do, and yet, because of the guillotine Motion, we may not be able to debate that Clause line by line—the Clause which is the heart of the Bill and which deals with one of the major activities which the Minister intends to inflict on the new Chairman of the Board. This great Chairman, selected by the Minister of Transport, will have to go to the Minister to ask for permission to do these things.
  It has even been said that the Minister will interfere with the day-to-day working of the B.T.C., but I do not think that that is correct. We are entitled to know what the Minister intends to do on major matters, because this affects not only those who work on the railways but those who use the railways and those
  522
  who, in the future, will have no railways if the Government have their way under the Bill. Areas which require economic development will be cut off from the means of providing it.
  Can we stand by and let the Minister of Transport do this? He has scarcely attended the Committee meetings to take part in the deliberations on one of the greatest transport undertakings in the world. We can be proud of our railway undertaking, but he is breaking it up and destroying the integration which has helped to make it greater year by year.
  I know that my colleagues in Committee are prepared to deal with the Bill Clause by Clause. Because of a prior engagement I was unable to attend the first additional meeting which the Minister of Transport imposed on our ordinary sittings—and I gave notice of that fact. But I have attended all the other sittings almost minute by minute, and have listened to all the debates. We have listened to Government supporters in Committee who have taken part in the debate and we have waited for others who have not yet made their contribution. We appreciate the point of view of hon. Members opposite, even if we disagree with them politically. I appeal to the Minister before it is too late, let us not divide the House on this issue; please withdraw the Motion.
  9.4 p.m.
  Miss Margaret Herbison: I have listened to most of the debate. I have come to the conclusion that it will be very difficult for the Minister of Transport to justify applying the Guillotine to both these Bills. The Leader of the House, when introducing the Motion, was very quiet. He did not adduce many reasons why the two Bills should be guillotined. I gained the impression from his speech that he was not very sure that what he was doing was right. Indeed, it seems that there are grave doubts in the minds of those of his hon. Friends who spoke, apart from the two Scottish Members, with whom I shall deal later, about the Tightness of guillotine Motions.
  It is not often that I take up a point made by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), but the sum total of his speech was that the Transport Bill is a Bill of immense complexity.

  523
  The hon. Member has gone to the trouble of reading the report of the Committee's proceedings, although he is not a member of the Committee. He has found that there is no sign of any filibustering, either by the Opposition 01 by Government Members. He said that there has been no undue delay. He is very worried because when the Bill comes up for Report 95 per cent. of the Members of this House will be prevented from discussing very important matters.
  It is evident from all the speeches which have been made about the Transport Bill that there is no justification whatever for the guillotine Motion. My hon. Friends who are on the Committee have been doing the job of an Opposition. They have been examining the Bill carefully and trying to improve it. So far, not one Amendment has been accepted. It is also evident that there is some feeling about the fact that the Minister of Transport is not attending the sittings of the Committee. There is the feeling, which we have in the Scottish Standing Committee, that no matter what the Parliamentary Secretary may want to do he is not in a position to do it. The Transport Bill will affect the lives of many thousands of people. It is evident from today's debate that my hon. Friends have very great fears about what will happen to these people in the future if the Bill is not thoroughly discussed and amended. With the guillotine Motion in operation there will be little chance of serious discussion of all these matters which are considered to be of great importance, not only to the thousands of people who will be affected, but also to places like Scotland and Wales, which may be very badly affected by the Bill.
  I hope that the Minister of Transport will announce tonight that he has been so impressed by the contributions which have been made that he has decided to let the Bill run its course without a timetable Motion.
  I come to the Housing (Scotland) Bill. We have heard three speeches from hon. Members opposite on this Bill—one from the Secretary of State for Scotland and two from his hon. Friends on the back benches. It is passing strange, perhaps, that the content of those three
  524
  speeches was very similar. Each of the three hon. Members rose in his place for one purpose only—not to make a case for the guillotine Motion but to castigate hon. Members on this side for doing our duty.
  I thoroughly enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart). I sometimes like comic relief, but since the hon. Member was so good at giving us advice, I advise him to leave Gilbert and Sullivan alone for a time and to turn to our most famous Scottish poet, Robert Burns. Robert Burns wrote a poem called "The Author's Earnest Cry and Prayer to the Scotch Representatives in the House of Commons". This is what Burns advised:
  "Tell them wha hae the chief direction,
  Scotland an' me's in great affliction …
  In gath'rin' votes you were na slack;
  Now stand as tightly by your tack;
  Ne'er claw your lug, an' fidge your back, An' hum an' haw;
  But raise you arm, an' tell your crack Before them a'."
  Mr. Maclay Mr. Maclay rose—
  Miss Herbison: I know what the right hon. Gentleman will tell me—that Burns was not talking about Scots housing or anything else. These words of Burns are appropriate to the debate today.
  Mr. Maclay: Did not the word "whisky" come into it?
  Miss Herbison: Not into the part I quoted. I knew that that would be the right hon. Gentleman's interjection, but it does not take away in the least from the sentiment of Burns on the duties of Scottish Members of Parliament.
  Mr. MacArthur Mr. MacArthur rose—
  Miss Herbison: I have given way already and time is short. I should have liked to have given way to the hon. Member, because I do not burke interventions.
  The Secretary of State and his hon. Friends know that in gathering their votes in Scotland they had no mandate whatever for the Housing (Scotland) Bill. I would say to the Secretary of State—I hope he is listening to this, because he placed himself and his side on a pedestal today as those who were concerned about the good name of

  525
  Scotland—that Robert Burns again spoke to the "Unco Guid".
  "O ye wha are sae guid yoursel,
  Sae pious and sae holy,
  Ye've nought to do but mark and tell
  Your neibour's fauts and folly!"
  That is really the only thing that the Secretary of State and his two hon Friends have done in the debate today.
  I wish—I do not say this offensively—that the two back benchers on the Government side, who are really infants in the precincts of Westminster, had tried to find out the history of their hon. and right hon. Friends when we on this side were the Government The Gas Bill has been mentioned. I was a member of the Standing Committee which considered that Bill. I remember how we had to sit morning after morning, and, in the later stages, on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday mornings and again in the afternoons. I remember the last sitting, when we began at 10.30 one morning and finished two complete days later at 12.8 p.m. At that last sitting what did the right hon. Gentleman who was in charge of the then Opposition's case have to say? He said, and I hope that the two hon. Gentlemen opposite to whom I referred will take note of these words:
  "Not only in this Committee did we do everything we could to make his life difficult"—
  that was the life of the Minister who is now the Leader of the Opposition—
  "but, by a splendid combination of forces … we opened up a second front below, much to the discomfort of the Minister and much to the happiness of the Members of this side of the Committee … The Minister was right in saying they have been extremely patient. We have done our very best to disturb that patience."
  He went on to say:
  "… considering we were a very small band, we did manage to create an immense amount of trouble in the minimum amount of time for the Government. That is our function, and my right hon. and hon. Friends feel that we have discharged it well."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 13th May, 1948; c. 2187–8.]
  Apart from that right hon. Gentleman—who later became a noble Lord—another participant was the present Minister of Pensions. I advise the two hon. Gentlemen opposite to whom I referred to have a look at the OFFICIAL REPORT of those sittings. They are all in one book, for
  526
  they occupied a complete bound volume of HANSARD. If they read them they will realise that the kind of speeches they made today were very childish indeed.
  The Bill to which I have been referring and which will be guillotined is of immense importance to Scotland. It has thirty-seven Clauses and five Schedules. Apart from the diatribes on how we should behave ourselves, the main burden of criticism from the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State has been that we have been an inordinately long time considering two Clauses. Those right hon. Gentlemen seem to think that these two Clauses were not very important, and the Leader of the House seemed to think that the part in the English Bill which dealt with multiple occupation was more important than any part of the Scottish Bill. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that Clause 29 has yet to be discussed and the contents of that Clause cannot be found in any English housing Bill.
  Mr. Willis: It is dictatorship, and the Leader of the House knows it.
  Miss Herbison: The Secretary of State seemed to think that Clause 1 was of no importance, but I remind him that it contains references to the infamous Clause 8 which we have yet to discuss. That raises the question of the Secretary of State back-dating subsidies, and these are matters of great importance. Then the Secretary of State gave the impression that he did not think Chat Clause 2 was of very great importance. My hon. Friends consider Clause 2 one of the most important in the Bill. The Secretary of State said that we had discussed it word for word and line for line and he condemned us for doing so. Even if we had discussed it word for word and line for line, there could have been no condemnation. But we did not do so on Clause 2. It just shows that the Secretary of State has no idea of what is happening on that Committee, or he would have realised clearly that Clause 2 was certainly not discussed word for word or line for line.
  The right hon. Gentleman accused us of wasting time and then—what I thought was the biggest joke of the day—the Leader of the House said that the Under-Secretary had done everything possible to expedite the proceedings of

  527
  the Bill. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) complained that when an Amendment had been accepted we dared to speak on it afterwards. I will tell the House why we spoke on it. It took the Minister two columns of HANSARD to accept a simple Amendment, and in the greater part of those two columns he was offering gratuitous advice and insults to hon. Members on our side of the Committee—that we had dared to put down an Amendment that could be accepted! The Secretary of State says to his junior Minister, "Well done.". I wonder who is doing the filibustering now, who is taking this Bill seriously and who regards it as comical.
  Mr. MacArthur Mr. MacArthur rose—
  Mr. William Hamilton: Oh, go to bed.
  Miss Herbison: I wish the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire would want to speak as often in Committee when we are trying to improve the Bill.
  They are a wonderful pair, the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary. The Secretary of State told us, "We know how each other thinks." That is what he told us today; because they know how each other thinks, they do not need to consult. Really, what a pair. I am sorry to have to say this, but if the Secretary of State really knew how his Under-Secretary was handling this Bill in Committee he would have realised that perhaps he and his Under-Secretary did not know at all times how the other thought.
  Two great problems face Scotland at present—apart from the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary. One is housing and the other is unemployment. We have seven Scottish Ministers, and I should have thought it reasonable, with a Minister of State attending two of the Ministers, that the Secretary of State would find time to attend this Committee. I am not asking him to attend every Sitting of the Committee—I want to be reasonable—but I think that on a Measure so important as this to the Scottish people the Secretary of State ought to attend from time to time. If he had done his bounden duty he would not have made the kind of speech that he made today.
  528
  This Bill is opposed by almost every local authority in Scotland. Only today, I received a letter from the town council of the furthermost burgh of Scotland, Lerwick. Lerwick Town Council is very concerned about the remote area subsidy, and we have still to discuss that.
  The Secretary of State, who complained so bitterly when he was a backbencher about centralisation—I shall not waste the time of the House in referring further to that—takes powers by the Bill which no other Secretary of State has ever attempted to take.
  Apart from Clauses 1 and 2, there are three further Clauses of outstanding importance, in our view. First, there is Clause 3, which we hope to begin tomorrow morning. It deals with the amount of subsidy and contains a very complicated formula which many local authorities still do not understand.
  Mr. Ross: And neither does the Secretary of State.
  Miss Herbison: When we try to elicit an explanation from the Under-Secretary of State, again, I fear, we shall have the time-wasting which we have had in the Committee so far. Clause 3 also cuts subsidies to many local authorities by 50 per cent. No wonder we oppose the Bill. No wonder we feel it our duty to try to improve it as best we can, with no help at all from the Government side.
  The next Clause of exceptional importance is Clause 8. Here again, the Secretary of State is taking unto himself a power which no other Secretary of State has ever had, a power either to abolish or to reduce subsidies. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that, with this uncertainty about subsidies and the length of time local authorities will have them, there will not be the necessary drive in providing the houses which Scotland so desperately needs. Because we feel so strongly about it, we must give time to Clause 8.
  I come now to Clause 29, which deals with the default powers of the Secretary of State. In the English Bill, no such power was asked for or taken. This is a matter to which we should devote even more time than we did to the multiple occupation of houses. The Secretary of State is taking power to say to any local authority in Scotland, "You will charge

  529
  the rents which I determine you shall charge", a power for which no other Secretary of State has ever asked.
  On those three Clauses alone, the amount of time which we are to be given under the Guillotine is disgracefully small. It will begin to operate on Tuesday of next week. We shall have eight sittings of the Committee. We need more than eight sittings for those three Clauses alone, quite apart from other Clauses which some of my hon. Friends regard as of the greatest importance. There is dictatorship of the very worst form in the Bill itself, and, in order to get it through the House as quickly as possible there is dictatorship in the Government's attitude.
  The Leader of the House said that a voluntary timetable on both Bills had been offered. That is true. But he should have realised that on neither Bill could a voluntary timetable be accepted. My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) and my hon, Friends have shown how impossible it would have been to accept the kind of voluntary timetable proposed for the Transport Bill. I was the Member who met the Secretary of State and Under-Secretary of State. The time which they offered in a voluntary timetable was pitifully short for the important matters that we are to discuss.
  When a proposal was made in Committee upstairs that we should spend more time on the Bill, I and my hon. Friends tried to co-operate to the full. I do not know whether the Leader of the House knows this, but we were willing to give up Wednesday mornings to consider the Bill. Wednesday mornings are very precious to all hon. Members. Because we considered that the Bill was so important, we did not adopt a dog-in-the-manger attitude to the Government's proposals. We said that we were completely willing to give up Wednesday mornings to discuss the Bill. But the Government did not. want that, and I know why. They get too much pressure from their own back bench Members with business interests who need Wednesday mornings in order to get on with their work. The proposal was turned down.
  Then we had the diatribe from the hon. Members who have spoken today
  530
  —at least from one of them—and the wonderful fighting speech in Committee of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry). I had some experience of those wonderful fighting speeches a few years ago, and the one that he made on this occasion did not surprise me. The hon. Member was, it was said, so keen to examine the Bill and to get it through the House that he would sit in the evenings and he would sit up all night in Committee. Of course, that reached the headlines. That was said on the Tuesday morning. On the Tuesday afternoon, a quorum was present, but it was only about forty-five minutes later that this great fighter arrived. Yesterday, we met for 2½ hours in the morning and for three hours in the afternoon; and the wonderful champion the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West did not put in an appearance at all.
  That is the "phoney" kind of fighting speeches that we get from hon. Members opposite.
  Mr. Forbes Hendry Mr. Forbes Hendry (Aberdeenshire, West) rose—
  Miss Herbison: I am sorry, but time is too short.
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. Hendry: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I agree that I was willing to sit all night in Committee, but she will remember that I qualified that by saying "if necessary". It is also true that I was not present during the Committee's proceedings yesterday. However, I am told that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) characterised yesterday's proceedings by referring to the old churchman who was given to extemporary prayer at great length. He said, "We have spoken a great deal of nonsense. Possibly God will be able to make some sense out of it".
  Miss Herbison: I was wondering then whether I should have the honour of asking the hon. Gentleman to allow me to intervene in his speech. However, his intervention has not helped him much. He was willing to sit up all night, but he could not attend a normal meeting of the Committee.
  Most of us on this side of the House know why the Government want the

  531
  Housing (Scotland) Bill through quickly. It is, first of all, because they want to do harm to local authorities in Scotland.
  Hon. Members: Oh.
  Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: Have a heart.
  Miss Herbison: I have been rather amused because we have been so much used to the Under-Secretary of State losing his temper and sometimes even becoming white with anger that one wonders when one sees an hon. Member, who is usually so suave, losing his tamper. I have given one reason why the Government are in a hurry to have the Scottish Bill.
  There is a second one. It is that there is a Licensing Bill. Again, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West thought that we ought to get the Housing Bill through so that we could get on with the Licensing Bill. It seems that some hon. Members opposite are much more interested in ensuring that visitors will have facilities for drinking strong liquor than they are in ensuring that the people shall have houses in which to live. I would say that their priorities are very different from the priorities we on this side of the House have.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. MacLean) is not in his place. He spoke the last time we debated a guillotine Motion and he gave his reasons why he would not vote for the Government. Referring to the Army Reserve Bill he said:
  "That is why I will do nothing whatever to facilitate its passage."
  Why? He said:
  "No one is more convinced than I am of the urgency of this matter … Equally, nobody is more convinced than I am that the Army Reserve Bill is not the way to do it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January, 1962; Vol. 652, c. 497.]
  Mr. Hirst: What has that got to do with it?
  Miss Herbison: If the hon. Member will wait he will find out what it has got to do with it. I would advise the hon Member to go where he has come from, we are so unused to his coming into debates at this time of night. We are dealing with an important and serious matter.
  532
  The hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire was dealing with a matter about which he knows a very great deal. I would say to him and to other Scottish Members that if they oppose this timetable Motion tonight they will be showing that they are convinced of the urgency of the Scottish housing situation. They will also be showing that the Housing (Scotland) Bill at present before us, which we intend to try to improve, will not meet the urgency at all. If they were really concerned about these matters they would do something tonight, and one thing which they could do would be to vote against this Motion.
  Mr. Hirst: A lot of good that would do.
  Miss Herbison: One of the greatest wrongs which has afflicted Scotland for generations and is still afflicting our country today in the most acute form is our shockingly poor housing conditions. The Bill will do nothing to improve them. Even if this Guillotine is imposed, we on this side of the House will try to improve the Bill. We object very much to the Government action—
  Mr. Hirst: Talk, talk.
  Miss Herbison:—and we will vote against it, and even, with the timetable, will try to improve the Bill, but I hope that our people in Scotland, seeing that the Government in six weeks or less have had to bring in four guillotine Motions, will see that as evidence of an inefficient, incompetent Government who cannot handle their business properly.
  9.40 p.m.
  The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): I am sure that I voice the feelings of the whole House when I say that the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) delivered a most agreeable and charming speech, witty and amusing, and, if I may say so, for one of the opposite sex of so small a stature, what I would call a fighting speech.
  Mr. W. Hamilton: Who is talking?
  Mr. Marples: It is perfectly true that we are both short, but I am the taller of the two.
  The hon. Lady made a fighting speech which reminded me of my term of office as Postmaster-General, when Scottish

  533
  Members of the party opposite—they are very fierce north of the Border—tried to get a Burns stamp. I cannot imitate the accent of the hon. Lady, and I shall not try, but may I say that it was not the Scots people who were after a Burns stamp.
  Mr. Ross: Oh yes, it was.
  Mr. Marples: Oh, no. The man who was really after it was the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), who was born in Dublin, rode in the Irish Grand National, practises at the English Bar and represents a Scottish constituency. There was no Scot who really brought pressure to bear.
  Mr. Ross Mr. Ross rose—
  Mr. Marples: The hon. Gentleman is a frequent interrupter. At least, he might allow me to start.
  When I looked up what Burns had done during his life, I was reinforced in my decision that it was right not to have given him a stamp. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] Yes, he had a very curious personal life which myself I would not like to justify, but I have no doubt that hon. Members opposite could do so.
  During the debate one thing that has intrigued me and, I am sure, all English Members is this. Having listened to the Scots speaking in this debate, I am sure that it is the wish of every English Member that they should have the privilege of serving on the Scottish Committee. It must be a most wonderful experience. I am only sorry that so far I have never been allowed in that Committee.
  This has been, on the whole, a very good-tempered debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, it has. Apart from one or two Scots, the others have been all right. This Motion deals with two Measures, the Housing (Scotland) Bill and the Transport Bill. The Government decided that it would be for the convenience of the House if my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition opened and deployed the general case. [Laughter.] We shall not be in opposition for twenty years. It was decided that the two Ministers in charge of the Bill should speak and not take too much of the time, so that hon. Members on the
  534
  back benches on both sides of the House could make their contribution.
  I should like to concentrate on the Transport Bill. I cannot speak on the substance or the merits of the Bill, but I can briefly refer to the Government's objectives. The Government's policy is to do three things as quickly as possible. The first is to replace the British Transport Commission by a new management structure. The second is to reconstruct the finances and particularly to relieve the railways of the burden of debt and also to provide a sound basis for modernisation and further investment. The third is that we must give the maximum practical commercial freedom, which is particularly important to the railways.
  I know that it will not command acceptance on the benches opposite when I say that in the Bill we are not doctrinaire. We are attempting to grapple with the facts of the situation, and for the sake of the reorganisation of the railways we must have the Bill as early as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) stressed that point.
  The party opposite guillotined the 1947 Transport Bill. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite now complain because we are doing the same thing. That is fair. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), who leads for the Opposition on the Bill and is always courteous in these matters, made some points in his opening speech with which I should like to deal. I quote from what I wrote down as he spoke. First, he said, "We could justify the 1947 Bill Guillotine because in those days we were facing obstruction unprecedented since the Irish Members were in the House." He went on to say, of the 1947 Bill, "We faced fierce obstruction, on the Bill and, therefore, a timetable was essential." Then he said, of the present Bill, "There is less cause to have a Guillotine than under any other previous Government." That was the right hon. Gentleman's whole case.
  The question which the right hon. Gentleman posed, therefore, is whether we are being more reasonable in 1962 than the party opposite was in 1947. I should like to examine the details and try to put them before the House as dispassionately as I can, in four respects.

  535
  The first is that before Second Reading we gave ample warning of our plans. In 1947, we had no advance warning. We gave advance warning in two ways. On 10th March, 1960, the general intention was set out by the Prime Minister in his statement to the House. The second advance notice was on 20th December, 1960, in a White Paper of 62 paragraphs which gave our detailed intentions to the House. We had a debate on 30th January, 1961, and the White Paper was approved by Resolution of the House by 303 votes to 221.
  The first point, therefore, is that we gave advance notice of what we intended to do, both generally and in particular. The second point on which we have been more favourable to the House is in the gap between Second Reading and the Guillotine. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall said that in 1947 Lord Avon, then Sir Anthony Eden, said that it was indecent haste to move the guillotine Motion. The right hon. Gentleman said that that speech was made on 3rd March whereas today's date is 7th March.
  Surely, if it was indecent haste then it is indecent haste now—that was the right hon. Gentleman's argument. But he omitted to say that the gap between Second Reading and the Guillotine Motion in 1947 was 75 days whereas the gap in this case is 106 days, 50 per cent. more.
  Mr. Strauss: Lord Avon said that it was indecent to move the Guillotine "at this stage of the Session", meaning early March, and the gap between Second Reading and the Committee stage is quite irrelevant.
  Mr. Marples: It depends on when the Bill is started and when the Committee stage is started.
  Thirdly, let us compare the progress made in Committee on the 1947 Bill with the progress on this Bill. On 3rd March, 1947, Mr. Arthur Greenwood, in a very rumbustious contribution to our debate, which I well remember, said that after 11 sittings we had reached only Clause 6. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall characterised the debates on the 1947 Bill as being full of fierce obstruction—when they reached Clause 6 after 11 sittings—but said that on the
  536
  1962 Bill we had worked smoothly and harmoniously, when, after the first 11 sittings, we had reached only Clause 4, If that is right, words must be losing their meaning. If to reach Clause 6 after 11 sittings is regarded as fierce obstruction and to reach Clause 4 after 11 sittings is regarded as smooth and harmonious progress, where are we getting with the English language?
  The hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) said that there had been no filibustering. We have never suggested that there has been. We have said that the points which have been raised may have been good or bad ones, but they have taken a tremendously long time to dispose of. I was going to use another word, but it would have been unparliamentary. Nevertheless, I mean it.
  Fourthly, let us compare the time left after the Guillotine. In the 1947 Bill there were 121 Clauses and 13 Schedules, and we were left with four-and-a-half weeks to dispose of them. In the 1962 Bill we have 66 Clauses and 11 Schedules—that is, approximately half the number of Clauses—and we have almost the same amount of time, namely, four weeks.
  So there are four points which absolutely destroy the right hon. Gentleman's case. First, before the Second Reading debate we gave notice of our intentions and had a debate on the subject; secondly, the gap between the Second Reading and the Guillotine was greater in 1962 than in 1947; thirdly, the progress made in Committee in 1962 was far worse than in 1947, until the Guillotine was announced—and I shall deal with that point shortly—and, fourthly, we have left more time for the remaining Clauses to be dealt with under the Guillotine now than the party opposite allowed in 1947.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, East, who has been a very consistent attender in the debates upstairs, and the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) said that there was no filibustering upstairs. As I said before, we have not made that charge. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Opposition, who are experts, have made a useful and valuable contribution to the debates. For that we are grateful. What he did not say was how quickly or how slowly the

  537
  party opposite deployed their points. The Guillotine was announced on Thursday, 1st March. Before that announcement there were 21 sittings of the Committee, and after it there were two. Before the announcement the Committee got through 13 Clauses in those 21 sittings, and in the two sittings after the announcement it got through another 12 Clauses.
  Mr. Strauss: The Minister is fully aware that those 12 Clauses which were dealt with in two sittings, although important, are not contentious. That is why we went through them quickly.
  Mr. Marples: The right hon. Gentleman says that they are not contentious. Let us see what the hon. Member for Oldham, East said about them. He said that this financial reorganisation required scrutiny, and that it would not be possible to give it that scrutiny. If he looks at the Bill he will find that the financial provisions are contained in Clauses 18 to 24. The Opposition put down nine Amendments, and all those Clauses, plus one other, were dealt with in four-and-a-half hours, yesterday, with no Guillotine.
  Mr. McInnes: Why have the Guillotine, then?
  Mr. Marples: As Dr. Johnson said—
  Mr. McInnes: Why the Guillotine, then?
  Mr. Marples: If the hon. Member will allow me—
  Mr. McInnes: Why the Guillotine, then?
  Mr. Marples: We are on the Transport Bill, not the Scottish Bill.
  Two hundred years ago, Dr. Johnson said:
  "Depend upon it, Sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged … it concentrates his mind wonderfully."
  We tried to come to an arrangement with the Opposition. It was their right not to accept it. We gave them three choices. We introduced the Bill on the first day possible, and we wanted to finish it on the last day possible before the Summer Recess. We asked if they would like the proceedings in Committee to be held with three sittings a week or with four, and, if they did not like
  538
  either of those choices, what their suggestions were. They rejected everything. We tried very hard to come to an agreement with them. If we have this Business Committee I hope that the Opposition will take part in its proceedings. I am now told that they will and I am both grateful and pleased about that.
  How will the remaining time be used? It would be out of order for me to say what the Business Commttee will do. It will recommend the allocation of time and what business should be taken and at what time. It would be out of order for me to comment upon it. In my view, the Opposition should have a larger and a stronger part in arranging the business for each day. I shall do everything I can to attach importance myself to whatever the Opposition attach importance to with regard to discussions on the Bill. That I agree with that broad assumption and with those sentiments is proved by the fact that I did try to do a deal with the Opposition, but I could not.
  I come now to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), who said that she was sitting on that little back bench of hers—
  Mr. Manuel: Where else should she sit?
  Mr. Marples: I thought that it was the same size as all the other little back benches.
  My hon. Friend asked what about the Business Committee drawing attention to Clause 54? The Business Committee will be considering the dividing of time between the Report stage and Third Reading and the allocation of time to the Report stage. I will call the attention of the Business Committee to what the hon. Lady has said.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who is not present—
  Mr. Nabarro: Yes, I am.
  Mr. Marples: My hon. Friend and I have a lot in common. In peacetime we have both been in private enterprise, and my hon. Friend did refer to the Hammersmith Flyover, which was built by a very good firm whose name escapes me

  539
  at the moment. In wartime we were both sergeants—I was a regimental sergeant major and he was of inferior rank, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the point he made was being considered by the Government long before his baritone voice raised itself in its objections. I should like to make one other point—
  Mr. Nabarro: Before my hon. Friend—
  Mr. Marples: No. I only wish that my hon. Friend had served with me in the Army and had been under me. He would have been very much better today.
  One last point which I wish to make refers to what was said by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall on 30th January, 1961. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "I have one final comment to make on the White Paper. We have been told that legislation to implement its provisions will not be available until next Session."—
  that is, this Session.
  "That means that the new scheme cannot be operative for two years at the earliest.
  During that period, whatever the Minister may say to the contrary, there is bound to be insecurity and uncertainty in the minds of the administrators and executives who have the responsible task of running the publicly-owned transport services. This cannot help having grave adverse effects, particularly when the modernisation plan is in such a critical stage."
  The right hon. Gentleman went on:
  "Having decided on this reorganisation, the Government should have determined, however difficult it may be, to introduce the necessary legislation in time for it to pass the House by the end of this summer"—
  that is, 1961.
  "They could have done so if they had wanted to do so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th January, 1961; Vol. 633, c. 641.]
  Now we want to pass the Bill this Session. We expeot the right hon. Gentleman to support his words by coming with us into the Division Lobby tonight. I ask my hon. Friends to give an overwhelming vote for this guillotine Motion and get the Bill on the Statute Book.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 211.

  Division No. 117.1

  AYES

  [9.59 p.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Gardner, Edward

  Aitken, W. T.

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Gilmour, Sir John

  Allason, James

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Clover, Sir Douglas

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  Arbuthnot, John

  Cole, Norman

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Collard, Richard

  Goodhew, Victor

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Cooke, Robert

  Cough, Frederick

  Barber, Anthony

  Cooper, A. E.

  Gower, Raymond

  Barlow, Sir John

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Grant, Rt. Hon. William

  Barter, John

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

  Batsford, Brian

  CorfieId, F. V.

  Green, Alan

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Costain, A. P.

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Coulson, Michael

  Gurden, Harold

  Bell, Ronald

  Craddock, Sir Beresford

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Critchley, Julian

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos & Fhm)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Hare, Rt. Hon. John

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Crowder, F. P.

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Bidgood, John C.

  Curran, Charles

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Biffen, John

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  d'Avidgor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Deedes, W. F.

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Bishop, F. P

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Hastings, Stephen

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hay, John

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Box, Donald

  Doughty, Charles

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.

  du Cann, Edward

  Hendry, Forbes

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Duncan, Sir James

  Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

  Brewis, John

  Eden, John

  Hiley, Joseph

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

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

  Brooman-White, R.

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

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Emery, Peter

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Bryan, Paul

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Holland, Philip

  Buck, Antony

  Farr, John

  Hollingworth, John

  Bullard, Denys

  Fell, Anthony

  Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Fisher, Nigel

  Hopkins, Alan

  Burden, F. A.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Hornby, R. P.

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Foster, John

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

  Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Freeth, Denzil

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  Iremonger, T. L.

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

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

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Morgan, William

  Smithers, Peter

  James, David

  Morrison, John

  Smyth, Brig, Sir John (Norwood)

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Jennings, J. C.

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Speir, Rupert

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Neave, Airey

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Noble, Michael

  Stodart, J. A.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

  Tapsell, Peter

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Kirk, Peter

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Kitson, Timothy

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

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

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Teeling, Sir William

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Temple, John M.

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Leavey, J. A.

  Peel. John

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Percival, Ian

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Peyton, John

  Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Lllley, F. J. P.

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Lindsay, Sir Martin

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Pott, Percivall

  Turner, Colin

  Longbottom, Charles

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Prior, J. M. L.

  van Straubenzee W. R.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  MacArthur, Ian

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  McLaren, Martin

  Pym, Francis

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Ramsden, James

  Walder, David

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

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

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

  Rees, Hugh

  Wall, Patrick

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Renton, David

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Webster, David

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Maddan, Martin

  Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)

  Whitelaw, William

  Maginnis, John E.

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Maitland, Sir John

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Roots, William

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Wise, A. R.

  Marshall, Douglas

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Marten, Neil

  Russell, Ronald

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  St. Clair, M.

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan

  Woollam, John

  Mawby, Ray

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Worsley, Marcus

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Seymour, Leslie

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

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

  Sharples, Richard

  Mills, Stratton

  Shaw, M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Shepherd, William

  Mr. Chichester-Clark and

  Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Mr. Finlay.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Chapman, Donald

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Ainsley, William

  Cliffe, Michael

  Forman, J. C.

  Albu, Austen

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Awbery, Stan

  Cronin, John

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Baird, John

  Crosland, Anthony

  George, Lady MeganLloyd (Crmrthn)

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Ginsburg, David

  Beaney, Alan

  Darling, George

  Gooch, E. G.

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Bence, Cyril

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Grey, Charles

  Benson, Sir George

  Deer, George

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Blackburn, F.

  Delargy, Hugh

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Blyton, William

  Dempsey, James

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Boardman, H.

  Dodds, Norman

  Gunter, Ray

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

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Bowles, Frank

  Driberg, Tom

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Boyden, James

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Edelman, Maurice

  Hannan, William

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Evans, Albert

  Healey, Denis

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Finch, Harold

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Fitch, Alan

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Callaghan, James

  Fletcher, Eric

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  Hilton, A. V.

  542

  543

  Holman, Percy

  Millan, Bruce

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Houghton, Douglas

  Milne, Edward

  Small, William

  Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Hoy, James H.

  Monslow, Walter

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Moody, A. S.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Morris, John

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Mort, D. L.

  Stonehouse, John

  Hunter, A. E.

  Mulley, Frederick

  Stones, William

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Neal, Harold

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Oliver, G. H.

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

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Oram, A. E,

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

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Oswald, Thomas

  Swain, Thomas

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Owen, Will

  Swingler, Stephen

  Jeger, George

  Padley, w. E.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, s.)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

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

  Parker, John

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Parkin, B. T.

  Thomson, G. M. (Dundee E.)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Paton, John

  Thornton, Ernest

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Timmons, John

  Kelley, Richard

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Tomney, Frank

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Peart, Frederick

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Pentland, Norman

  Wainwright, Edwin

  King, Dr. Horace

  Prentice, R. E.

  Warbey, William

  Lawson, George

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Watkins, Tudor

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Probert, Arthur

  Weltzman, David

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  White, Mrs. Elrene

  Lipton, Marcus

  Randall, Harry

  Whitlock, William

  Loughlin, Charles

  Rankin, John

  Wigg, George

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Redhead, E. C.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  McCann, John

  Reid, William

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  MacColl, James

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  McInnes, James

  Rhodes, H.

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Mackle, John (Enfield, Eaat)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

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

  McLeavy, Frank

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

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

  Ross, William

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Manuel, Archie C.

  Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

  Woof, Robert

  Mapp, Charles

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Marsh, Richard

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Mason, Roy

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Zilliacus, K.

  May hew, Christopher

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Short and Mr. Rogers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  POLICE FEDERATIONS [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to the constitution and proceedings of the Police Federations, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenditure of the Secretary of State, and any increase in the sums so payable under any other Act, which is attributable to the new Act
  Resolution agreed to.

  KATANGA (BRITISH SUBJECTS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]
  10.11 p.m.
  Sir William Teeling: The subject of my Adjournment is compensation for British subjects whose property has been looted by United Nations troops in Katanga. Since I chose that title I have had a list given to me of the British subjects who not only had their property looted but were murdered, and I should therefore like to include that issue, too.
  It is only a few days since my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs took part in an Adjournment debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson). The impression which I got from what I read in the newspapers was that he said that it was quite true that all these things had happened out there but, in view of the fact that things are gradually improving, that it would be better if we let sleeping dogs lie. That is all right if it is nothing to do with ourselves, but when it includes such problems as compensation for our subjects and what happened to people from Rhodesia—in which, no doubt, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations will be interested, for I shall refer to several Rhodesians in this speech—it is a different matter. There is also the question whether inquiries should be held, if British subjects have been killed or have had their properties taken from them. I feel that my hon. Friend should bear this in mind in future.
  546
  Just after I left Katanga and when I got back to Rhodesia I was horrified to read in the newspapers that the Lord Privy Seal had stated that he was about to arrange for the British Government to invest in bonds for the United Nations. That was just when one had heard about British subjects having their property taken from them in Katanga. The Consul had made application to the United Nations on that score and, as I understand it, the answer had been that the United Nations said that the war in Katanga is not their war, that the war in the Congo is not their war, and that therefore they are in no way responsible. I hope that my hon. Friend will follow that point up. If they are in no way responsible, who is responsible? If we are to give British money to help the United Nations, presumably because everybody in the Congo is almost bankrupt, and to help them to carry on there, surely we ought first of all to see that British subjects who have suffered there are compensated in some form or another.
  In order not to keep the House too long I will take only one case. This is the case of an old lady named Mrs. Van Damme, who is about 72 years of age. She is a British subject. She married a Belgian officer who was in Britain in the First World War. She went out to Katanga and settled there with him. He is long since dead. She has been living there by herself in a small house. Her only means of support were the vegetables and things she sold in the neighbourhood, but the house was her own.
  Whilst I was out there Lord Russell of Liverpool was there making a study of the atrocities committed by the United Nations in that part of the world. This is what he has told me about what he has found out about Mrs. Van Damme. It is much the same as I heard when I was there. Lord Russell says:
  "I had a long talk to her while I was in Elisabethville and the following is a short summary of what she told me. On the 15th December"—
  this is only last December—
  "there had been a good deal of indiscriminate shelling of the town and Monsieur Derriks, who lived next door, came down to see her about 5.15 p.m. to see that she was all right and to tell her that if she was frightened to sleep in her own house she was welcome to go to his house at any time.

  547
  The shelling increased so much that she was afraid to go out of doors and spent all night lying under her bed. The next day she remained indoors but was very worried because she had not seen M. Derriks who used to pass her house practically every morning."
  In a few minutes I will tell the House what happened to poor M. Derriks.
  Lord Russell continues:
  "The firing went on most of the day and on Monday the 18th she decided that it was too dangerous to remain where she was and she quickly packed some of her clothes, intend ing to leave her house and find shelter somewhere else. Just as she was about to leave five Ethiopians came up the garden path. She tried to prevent them entering the house but they forced their way in. One of them slapped her several times on the face and another one kicked her. They then wantonly broke everything in the house and after about half an hour they left. As soon as they hid gone Mrs. Van Damme left her house and left in the direction of Elisabethville. On the way she was found by the head of the Red Cross Organisation there. She is now living in a convent school next door to the Clinique Reine Elisabeth."
  That is what Lord Russell found out.
  I also understand that since then the British Consul, who has been looking after her, has offered her free passage back to England, to which the poor old lady not unnaturally has replied, "It is all very fine to offer me a passage back to England, but what am I going to do when I get back to England—live on public assistance? I am not accustomed to the English climate any longer. I have a perfectly good house in Elisabethville. If it were not for the United Nations"—she is absolutely right about this—"everything would be perfectly orderly in Elisabethville. Katanga under Tshombe is peaceful. It is only these United Nations people who are moving in who are causing all this trouble. I want to stay here ".
  The British Government could do something more about this. A few days ago I received a letter on this subject from the Minister of State in which he says:
  "I have received a report from our Consul in Elisabethville about her.… Most of its contents"—
  that is, the contents of her house—
  "were taken, although the house itself was not seriously damaged.… It is not possible definitely to establish who was responsible for this vandalism. Her Majesty's Consul has done his best to assist her and has made representations to the United Nations authorities about her case".
  548
  Why is it not possible to establish responsibility? Lord Russell and others were able to find out that undoubtedly the Ethiopians had done this. They, amongst others, are United Nations troops. Therefore, it would be reasonable that there should be some kind of inquiry on these subjects. After all, we must remember that there are different types of United Nations troops in this one town.
  I suppose I am a little locally minded, but Elisabethville is about the same size as my own constituency of Brighton. At one end of Elisabethville there are some 30,000 Baluba tribesmen, whom the United Nations have pushed into the equivalent of a concentration camp. They are dying at the rate of about forty a week and they are eating each other at the rate of about two or three a day. That is only one side of the town. At the other side and in the middle there are the Swedes, Ethiopians, Indians, Ghanaians and the Irish. One does not know what any of them will do at any moment. In another corner of the town, there are Mr. Tshombe and his Government. It is difficult for any form of order to remain in a town like that.
  The town is only about 50 or 60 miles from the Rhodesian border, the same distance as from London to Brighton, and here the Baluba are eating each other. Practically nothing is being done about it because the heads of the different units—the Indians, the Ghanaians, the Ethiopians, the Irish and the Swedes—are in control of their own people. Therefore, it is difficult to find who can be made responsible. The United Nations should be responsible, but they seem to have no super-organisation over these people.
  Sir Roy Welensky has tried to find out how far we can go beyond the United Nations. Can we go to The Hague? The answer would seem to be "No" and that nothing can be done about these people. They are like Frankensteins who are not being stopped and nothing can be done, whereas British subjects can be molested and attacked.
  There is not only the one person to whom I have referred, but there are a number of Northern Rhodesians. I have the names of three of them who were

  549
  all murdered by the Indians in the middle of December. We have just had a report—it has appeared only in the last three or four days—signed by forty-six doctors from Elisabethville which has been sent to the United Nations and also to the Red Cross at Geneva. It gives details of what happened. It is in French, so I will not go into too many details.
  The report states, however, that a young Italian, his cousin, his chauffeur and eight workers were travelling from Northern Rhodesia when they were attacked. No fighting was going on between the United Nations and the Katangan so-called mercenaries. These people were calmly travelling on their own when they were attacked by the Indians. A long terrible and brutal description is given of what happened to them all. The Indian mercenaries advanced and shot down at close range all the workers, who were trying to hide in the ditches. The three Northern Rhodesian British subjects to whom I have referred were found two days afterwards. The one and only remaining person who is still alive is a gentleman called Mr. Tshifunda, who is in hospital at the Clinique Reine Elisabeth. I should like my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary to take steps to find out from him exactly what happened and to let us know what can be done for the families and relations of these people.
  I have spoken about M. Derriks. who was looking after Mrs. Van Damme and who, incidentally, had the O.B.E. and has always been friendly towards us. He was a director of the Union Minière mines and was aged 60. He was sitting in his house next door to Mrs. Van Damme when the Ethiopians came in. For no reason, they shot him dead straight away. His mother, aged 84, was with him and was equally mutilated and beaten to death. These are the things that are happening all through that part of the world. Very few people know about it and I hope that this report, which is extremely detailed, will be widely read in this country.
  We are sending money to the United Nations, presumably to help them to carry on their fighting in Katanga and to do all that they can, as far as one can see, to destroy the one and only
  550
  Government there which is multiracial, which is interested in linking up with Rhodesia and which desires to keep the Europeans there. I hope that something can be done, but firstly for the British subjects who are suffering.
  10.25 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas): In the course of his speech my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Sir W. Teeling) referred a great deal to the behaviour and discipline of the United Nations troops in the Congo. I dealt with that matter at some length in the Adjournment debate last Friday and, if my hon. Friend wild forgive me, I will concentrate in my reply tonight on the matter which is the subject of the Adjournment, namely, compensation for British subjects for losses and damage that they have suffered as a result of activities in Katanga. I must say, first, how much we greatly deplore the damage occasioned to the British subjeots he mentioned and also how much we regret the deaths that have taken place.
  If I can deal with the damage caused to property and the pillage that has taken place, Her Majesty's Consul has kept us fully informed on this matter and has reported that 14 British subjects have had their properties pillaged. It is, however, by no means certain who was responsible in each case. Not only was Elisabethville fought over by United Nations troops and the Katanga gendarmerie, but there was also the complicating factor of the Baluba refugee camp.
  As my hon. Friend pointed out, this large refugee camp is sited just outside Elisabethville and contains about 45,000 Baluba tribesmen. As he knows, they live in conditions of the most appalling squalor and during the hostilities hundreds of these refugees left the camp and roamed through the residential centres, and a number of the acts of pillage are believed to have been committed by them.
  In addition to properties of British subjects which have been pillaged, the owners of six British properties reported that their properties had been occupied by United Nations troops. Her Majesty's Consul has reported that these houses are not in a good state, but it is not

  551
  clear what proportion of the damage was received during the fighting or during their later occupation by United Nations forces. That is the situation regarding property.
  British subjects in Elisabethville consist of a large number of Rhodesian Africans. In addition, there were 62 British subjects of European origin living there at 1st December. Of the latter, one, a Mrs. Dyer, was killed by mortar fire, 32 had left by mid-January, three had expressed an intention of leaving and the remainder—including the majority of the Rhodesian Africans—appeared to be prepared to carry on unless matters got a great deal worse.
  Any British subject who so desires is, of course, eligible for repatriation with the assistance of Her Majesty's Consul. Since July, 1960, between 50 and 60 British subjects have, in fact, been repatriated. My hon. Friend mentioned the death of certain Northern Rhodesians. We have only just heard about this from the same source as my hon. Friend; the letter which was sent to the International Red Cross. That body is making inquiries about the contents of that letter. The report covers events between 13th September and 31st December and lists cases of civilians who have suffered as a result of the hostilities. Among them are three Northern Rhodesian Africans who were road workers domiciled for a long time in Katanga. The actual circumstances surrounding this case are not absolutely clear, but it seems that they must have got caught between the firing of opposite forces in Elisabethville.
  We have asked the Consul there to forward details of the circumstances of this tragic incident and a similar request has been made to the Consul in Salisbury, but no further information is available. Before dealing with the individual cases mentioned by my hon. Friend, I shall say a word about the general position regarding such losses. Dependent upon the facts of each case there appear to be three parties against whom claims might lie for damage which has taken place in Katanga. By this I mean all Katanga, including the Northern part, which is now under central Government administration. These three parties are the Central Govern-
  552
  ment, the Provincial Government, and the United Nations.
  With this in mind, Her Majesty's Government have been looking into the various reports by British subjects who have suffered damage or injury during the fighting. In cases where United Nations responsibility appears to be established, I certainly see no reason why the claims should not be taken up with them by the persons concerned. On the other hand, evidence in some incidents may indicate responsibility of the Katanga provincial authorities or of the Congolese Central Government. Here, again, appropriate action may, if considered useful, be taken. The first thing is to get in the statements of loss or damage and then to set about examining them.
  Her Majesty's Consul reports that a large number of claims have already been submitted to the United Nations in Elisabethville and that they are still coming in. These are not, of course, all from British subjects. Indeed, I would expect claims from British subjects to be very much in a minority.
  United Nations claims officers are to be established in Elisabethville, where the first officer should by now have arrived. The investigation of claims will take many weeks. Meanwhile, Her Majesty's Ambassador at Leopoldville and Her Majesty's Consul in Elisabethville were instructed some time ago to assist British subjects to record their losses, if they so wished, on a standard form. These forms do not, of course, guarantee that on the basis of the information provided Her Majesty's Government will be able or willing to put forward a claim against any party. The purpose is merely to record exact details of the alleged loss so that our representatives can consider whether further action will be possible. Each case will have to be investigated on its merits, and these inquiries may well take some time. Completed record forms covering eleven cases have, as I have said, now been received and these are being carefully examined.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the case of Mrs. Van Damme, and I would like to say what has been- done to help her. As my hon. Friend says, this lady is over 70 years of age. She has a house in the neighbourhood of the Lido Hotel which

  553
  was occupied by United Nations troops on or about 16th December. These troops were then counter-attacked and, according to their statement, were sniped at from houses in the area.
  Mrs. Van Damme was evicted from her house and was obliged to walk barefoot for nearly half a mile along a lonely dirt road up towards the town centre. The Red Cross has installed Mrs. Van Damme in the Institut Marie José, a large boarding school for European and African girls where a refugee centre, then sheltering about 600 people, had been set up.
  As soon as movement round the town was possible, two members of the Consulate staff visited Mrs. Van Damme and 12 other British subjects at the Institut on 20th December Mrs. Van Damme was then wearing a pair of borrowed tennis shoes and a thin cotton dress, which constituted her entire wardrobe.
  Two days later, three members of the Consulate went to the Institut and took the British refugees extra food and a mackintosh, dresses, shoes, a wool jacket and jersey suit and dressing gown for Mrs. Van Damme. The British Vice-Consul visited Mrs. Van Damme several times during the fortnight after Christmas. The Red Cross declined to take her back to see her house, however, as the area was still in the zone of occupation, and, therefore, considered dangerous.
  On the afternoon of 7th January, two members of the Consulate staff accompanied Mrs. Van Damme to the local United Nations headquarters and obtained a pass to visit the colonel in charge of the zone comprising her property. Permission was eventually given to visit her house. Her property, as described by my right hon. Friend, consists of about 15 acres of what was valuable land on which Mrs. Van Damme's late husband had built a small house.
  The site is attractive and near the best residential quarter of Elisabethville. Beyond a few windows broken by rifle fire there was no sign of structural damage due to mortars or rockets and the doors were intact, but the interior of the house was in a state of considerable confusion. Most of the linen, cutlery, china and kitchen utensils had disappeared, a door had been wrenched off a wardrobe in a bedroom and electrical fittings torn out of the walls.
  554
  The two members of the Consulate worked with Mrs. Van Damme, who was very distressed at finding her house in such a state, for almost two hours, and finally salvaged some of her property which they took to the Institut. Before leaving the house, Mrs. Van Damme found that she had lost the remaining set of her keys, so, after locking her bedroom door, she was obliged to leave the other doors open. A former houseboy came later and nailed a piece of wood across the front door.
  A secretary at the Consulate helped Mrs. Van Damme compile a list of articles taken from her house and typed it for her. This she sent to the State Attorney and the United Nations Mrs. Van Damme was allowed to stay on at the Institut when the other refugees left, and has given help with the smaller children in return for her keep.
  On 17th January Mrs. Van Damme heard that United Nations soldiers had been seen entering her house and that some corrugated iron from the roof was missing. She asked a member of the Consulate whether another visit to her House could be arranged. She also asked whether the local United Nations commander might not be requested to put it out of bounds for his men.
  Representations were accordingly made to the United Nations. They replied that investigations were not yet completed and that it remained to be seen whether boarding-up of the house would be any protection. The United Nations added that the place was not in the United Nations occupied zone but in a kind of no man's land.
  On 23rd January a van was put at Mrs. Van Damme's disposal to collect some of her furniture, which was still more or less intact. A British subject, who held a pass from the United Nations commander, accompanied two members of the Consular staff to the Colonel in charge of the Lido zone on 26th January. When they arrived at Mrs. Van Damme's house, the piece of wood barring the front door had been sawn through and the bedroom door forced open with a pickaxe, which was still lying by it. Some corrugated iron had been taken from the workshop and more kitchen utensils were missing.
  Once she feels that her house is reasonably secure, Mrs. Van Damme wishes to

  555
  leave for England. When Her Majesty's Consul discussed her case very recently with the responsible United Nations officer, he was told that there was no guarantee that she would receive satisfaction. I can only express the hope that in the end her claim will be satisfied and I can assure the House that Her Majesty's Consul will continue to give all assistance to this unfortunate lady.
  In addition to the case of Mrs. Van Damme, the case of Mr. Burton has also been drawn to the attention of the United Nations in writing by Her Majesty's Consul in Elisabethville. Mr. Burton, a British subject, is the Managing Director of the Société du Génie Civil, in Katanga, whose private house was looted after it had been evacuated, on United Nations instructions, when it came into the line of fire during last December's fighting.
  Her Majesty's Consul has now presented four other cases to the officer in charge of the United Nations administration in Elisabethville. These are the cases of Mr. Spurgin, a South African for whose interests as a British subject we are at present responsible; Mr. Pitchen; Mrs. Bewsher and Mrs. Lejeune, all of whose houses were pillaged.
  In all, record forms have been completed for 11 cases, including those I have mentioned. In about half of these cases, however, the responsibility for the pillage is not clear. In several, both Baluba tribesmen and United Nations troops are mentioned as the perpetrators, while in once case the Katanga gendarmerie are held responsible.
  Record forms in three other cases involving British subjects are being studied by Her Majesty's Consul. One of these may prove too unsubstantiated to be presentable, since it amounts to no more than buglary by unidentified persons during the period of hostilities.
  556
  Considerable work is, of course, involved in interviewing claimants and reducing their statements to coherent form, and this has taken time. Only with the gradual return of security has it become possible to make investigations and for proprietors to determine the extent of their losses. In some cases the persons involved have left the country and have not yet returned.
  Finally, my hon. Friend has suggested that there is a relationship between Her Majesty's Government's decision to purchase United Nations bonds and the question of compensation for British subjects who may have suffered losses due to United Nations actions in Katanga.
  In the first place, as I have stated, we are, on receipt of proof, perfectly prepared to assist claimants against the United Nations; secondly, the responsibility for all these cases of pillaging has not yet been fully determined; and, thirdly, much as we deplore any possibility that these losses may have been due to actions by the United Nations forces, we do not believe that the interests of British subjects on the spot would be served either by refusing to buy bonds or by a withdrawal of the United Nations from the Congo which might be the effect of a failure of the bond issue.
  A complete abandonment by the United Nations of the Congo, leading to possible civil war between the various contending factions, would constitute, I would suggest, a very grave threat to British residents both in Katanga and in other parts of the country.
  Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Get them out of Katanga.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Eleven o'clock.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Research and Development (Management and Control)
  Research and Development (Management and Control)
ROYAL NAVY
  Honorary Officers
  Honorary Officers
  Moorings (Maintenance)
  Moorings (Maintenance)
  Flag Officers
  Flag Officers
  Armaments Depôt, Newton Noyes
  Armaments Depôt, Newton Noyes
  Barrow Shipyard (Security Arrangements)
  Barrow Shipyard (Security Arrangements)
BRITISH ARMY
  Retained National Service Men (Grants)
  Retained National Service Men (Grants)
  French Paratroops (Training, United Kingdom)
  French Paratroops (Training, United Kingdom)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Officers
  Officers
  Weather Conditions (Sun-spots)
  Weather Conditions (Sun-spots)
  Troops, British Guiana (Airlift)
  Troops, British Guiana (Airlift)
  Canberra Bombers, Germany (Conversion)
  Canberra Bombers, Germany (Conversion)
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
SCOTLAND
  Derelict Sites (Clearance)
  Derelict Sites (Clearance)
  Local Authority Houses (Subsidies)
  Local Authority Houses (Subsidies)
  Juvenile Courts (Medical Examination of Children)
  Juvenile Courts (Medical Examination of Children)
  Toll Bridges and Roads
  Toll Bridges and Roads
  Probation Officers
  Probation Officers
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  New Schools (Dental Facilities)
  New Schools (Dental Facilities)
  Local Authority Members (Allowances)
  Local Authority Members (Allowances)
  Probation Service (Committee's Report)
  Probation Service (Committee's Report)
ROADS
  Communications, North and South Wales
  Communications, North and South Wales
  Road Safety
  Road Safety
  Marlow Bridge
  Marlow Bridge
  London-Basingstoke Motorway
  London-Basingstoke Motorway
  Cromwell Road Extension-Great Chertsey Road (Roundabout)
  Cromwell Road Extension-Great Chertsey Road (Roundabout)
  Rochester Way, Woolwich (Accidents)
  Rochester Way, Woolwich (Accidents)
  Holiday Routes, Devon (Exchequer Grants)
  Holiday Routes, Devon (Exchequer Grants)
SHIPPING
  Coastal Trade
  Coastal Trade
  Nuclear-Powered Ship
  Nuclear-Powered Ship
RAILWAYS
  Branch Lines, Wales (Closures)
  Branch Lines, Wales (Closures)
  UNITED NATIONS (EXPANDED PROGRAMME OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND SPECIAL FUND)
  UNITED NATIONS (EXPANDED PROGRAMME OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND SPECIAL FUND)
HOUSING
  Kirkby Urban District Council
  Kirkby Urban District Council
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Hovercraft
  Hovercraft
  Vinyl Acetate Monomer (Import Duty)
  Vinyl Acetate Monomer (Import Duty)
EDUCATION
  New Schools (Dental Facilities)
  New Schools (Dental Facilities)
  Training Colleges (Places)
  Training Colleges (Places)
  All-Age Schools
  All-Age Schools
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Interest Payments (Tax Relief Claims)
  Interest Payments (Tax Relief Claims)
EMPLOYMENT
  Railways, South Wales (Reorganisation and Closures)
  Railways, South Wales (Reorganisation and Closures)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Underground Gas Storage
  Underground Gas Storage
SCIENCE
  Underground Gas Storage, Winchester
  Underground Gas Storage, Winchester
  Civil Science (Review)
  Civil Science (Review)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Richmond Park (Speed Limit)
  Richmond Park (Speed Limit)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Durham
The Earl of Halifax—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Lord Westbury—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

CHINESE DETAINEES IN HONG KONG
2.35 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their attention has been drawn to allegations publicly made by 24 Chinese who were recently deported from Hong Kong, that they had been detained for several months in the Colony during which time they were subjected to torture; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will give the facts of the case.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, the facts are as follows. Between October 20 and December 28, 1961, 24 Chinese aliens, including one woman, were arrested in Hong Kong and detained under Section 4 (1) of the Deportation of Aliens Ordinance. They were found to have engaged in activities in Hong Kong that were either directly subversive or could have proved seriously embarrassing, and they constituted a menace to the peace and order of the Colony. On the advice of the Executive Council that it would be conducive to the public good that they should be deported summarily, the Governor ordered that deportation orders for life should be made against them under Section 3 (1) (c) of the Deportation of Aliens Ordinance. This order was carried out on February 20.
1150
The detention and interrogation of the group was prolonged owing both to the large number of persons involved and to the time necessary to examine the very great mass of material relating to the group's activities seized in the course of the arrests. There is no foundation whatever for the allegations of improper treatment of members of the group while under detention, and I am grateful for this opportunity to make that part of the statement.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for his reply, and to say that I am sure that what he has said will be read with great satisfaction by the people who were just a little worried about the not very responsible report which appeared in the Press.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I believe these Chinese were deported to Formosa. Are they therefore Formosan Chinese? And can the noble Earl say what forms of subversion these Chinese were suspected of?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I think it can be taken that they were Formosan Chinese. As to the form of subversion, I think my Answer dealt with that sufficiently; it was either directly subversive or could have proved seriously embarrassing to the peace and order of the Colony.

DEMOLITION OF THE COAL EXCHANGE
2.39 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to prevent the destruction of the Coal Exchange.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, part of the site occupied by the Coal Exchange is required for the improvement of Lower Thames Street for the major new traffic route from Blackfriars to the East End which is now under construction. Possible ways of retaining this important and interesting building have been most

1151
thoroughly investigated since 1958. In April, 1961, three fresh schemes were put forward and while they were being examined the Corporation agreed not to demolish the building. However, my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government recently decided, after further and detailed consultation with the Corporation of London and the London County Council, that he could not reasonably ask for the adoption of any of these schemes. He has accordingly released the Corporation from their undertaking to defer demolition of the building.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, does my noble friend recognise that the beautiful interior of this building is of the greatest architectural and historical interest; that it is indeed unique, and that its destruction would not be allowed in any other civilised country? Does he know that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has devised a perfectly practicable scheme for saving everything essential at an estimated cost of £125,000? If, in these circumstances, the Court of Common Council decide on demolition, will their vandalism not injure the credit and reputation of the City of London at home and abroad?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I hope I can remember all the questions which my noble friend has put to me. In answer to his first supplementary, I would say that the Government, at any rate, fully recognise the importance of this particular building, with its very great historical and architectural interest. It is precisely because of that that all possibilities which might have avoided the demolition of this building have been so very carefully examined. In answer to my noble friend's second supplementary question, I would assure him that we are perfectly well aware of the scheme of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. In answer to his third supplementary question, I would only say that that is now a matter for the City Corporation.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend, arising out of his reply, whether he could give the House the further information that I was able to acquire by contacting the surveyor of the City Corporation this morning and by visiting the site also this
1152
morning? Is it not a fact that the access is quite out of date? The only entrance to the building is on a corner. The only entrance to the offices on the ground floor and on the first floor is by a circular stone staircase; and for getting up to the second, third and fourth storeys the only access is from the first floor by angular iron staircases. Is he not further aware that the office accommodation is entirely a question of dark cubbyholes with little stairways, thoroughly out of date with anything any of us have seen in the way of modern offices? As my noble friend Lord Conesford was allowed four questions, I beg the indulgence of the House to say two more words on the matter about which I took this trouble this morning. If the cultural uses which are being suggested here were found for this building, would not the smell of fish from Billingsgate Market immediately opposite be as objectionable as it would be in the concert auditorium provided for us—I do not see the noble Lord in his place—by the person once inadvertently referred to as "Lord Festival"?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on his researches and I am sure that the information which he has brought to your Lordships' attention is, broadly speaking, accurate. I would also confirm what my noble friend has said about the inside of the building at present. This is one of the difficulties in obtaining any alternative use for the building.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, have the views of the Royal Fine Art Commission been sought on this question and, if so, could we know what they are?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I understand that the Royal Fine Art Commission have commented and that they were very anxious to avoid the demolition of the building, if possible. Failing that, they were anxious that a full record, photographic and otherwise, of the building should be preserved and that the interesting Victorian ironwork in the inside of the building should be presented to a museum. I assure the noble Lord that if the building is demolished, full records of it will be preserved and it is hoped to find a home for its ironwork.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, may I ask how Her Majesty's Government came to the conclusion, as stated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, that under the Mottistone scheme for preserving the Coal Exchange its external appearance would be greatly altered and that the problem would be aggravated by an irrecoverable loss of overall accommodation, without consulting the author of the plan since he first put it forward in outline, when it was declared to be workable?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the information was obtained from the London County Council and from the City Corporation. It is my understanding that the noble Lord's scheme would involve the pulling down of the façade of the building facing Lower Thames Street and its re-erection ten feet further back, and the addition of an arcade. I would suggest to the noble Lord that, if you pull something down and put it up in a different place, you are changing its appearance.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether Her Majesty's Government realise the greatly increased interest in Victorian architecture and the growing view that many fine buildings were erected at that time, some of them masterpieces? Do Her Majesty's Government realise how great is the concern that, first of all, the Euston Arch should be demolished, in spite of the protests from all those most qualified to express a view about its architectural importance; that now the Corn Exchange is going, and that, in the evening papers yesterday, we now hear that the Shot Tower, which has come to be regarded as an important and, I may say, a much beloved landmark in London, is also to be demolished? Are Her Majesty's Government prepared to do something to preserve the great monuments erected in the nineteenth century, which are coming to be regarded with every year that passes as of greater importance?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am afraid that I have not "mugged up" the Shot Tower as yet, but I would assure my noble friend that we are well aware of the growing interest in Victoriana.
LORD CLITHEROE: My Lords, will the noble Earl agree that, although prob-
1154
ably the Government cannot help themselves on this matter, except by encouragement, there would be a great deal of sympathy throughout the country among people interested in these things if the City Corporation could see their way to do something to preserve this building?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am sure that the City Corporation will take due note of my noble friend's observations.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, can the noble Earl say how the Government and those responsible for these things draw the line between buildings which are called out of date and those which are referred to as "ancient monuments"?
EARL JELLICOE: Jolly high.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, as this scheme would take a good many years, at least ten, may I ask whether there could not be some delay while more research went on into the question? Many people consider the building to be of unique importance, and surely the Government would agree that it would be unnecessary and deplorable vandalism to pull it down without more thorough research?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I assure the noble Earl that this matter has been very fully looked into and very many possibilities have been examined. The City Corporation have been deferring demolition for five years already. I would also inform the noble Earl that the road-widening scheme is due to reach this particular site by 1964.
LORD REA: My Lords, can the noble Earl give any specific reassurance about Westminster Abbey and the Tower of London, both of which are frightfully old-fashioned?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think that neither of those two buildings is Victorian.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell us whether, in the deplorable event of the demolition of the Coal Exchange, the very important Roman remains which are in the basement of that building will be preserved; and whether, at the same time, the public will be able to enter and inspect them?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am afraid I do not know the answer to that question, but I will certainly see that the noble Lord's observation is brought to the attention of the City Corporation before they consider this building at their meeting to-morrow. I would agree entirely about the importance of what I think is called the hypocaust.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, if the City of London should find themselves unable to raise the sum of £125,000 in order to save one of their unique treasures, is the noble Earl aware that an Amenity Society will do their best to raise a fund to relieve them of their humiliating poverty and to save this building?
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, if there is so much interest in a matter of this kind that it warrants reading out prepared supplementary questions, would it not be desirable for the Government to give a day or half a day to a debate on this subject rather than to deal with it in this way?

WATER OPERATIONS IN BANNISDALE
2.51 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Questions was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why and on what authority notwithstanding the deletion of Part III (Waterworks) of the Manchester Corporation Bill, 1962, by the decision of the House, the agents of the Corporation are still conducting surveys and borings in the valley of Bannisdale in Westmorland.]
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, my right honourable friend is empowered by Section 8 of the Water Act, 1948, to authorise water undertakers to carry out experimental borings on land which they propose to acquire for the purpose of their undertaking and an authorisation under the section was given to Manchester Corporation on November 2 last. The authorisation expires on May 31. My right honourable friend has no power to withdraw it. It was for the
1156
Corporation to decide whether to continue boring after your Lordship's decision on their Bill. I understand they took the view that, as the greater part of of the work had been done, the balance of advantage lay in completing it.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for his Answer, may I take it that it means that if the Minister had power to withdraw this authorisation he would have withdrawn it, in the light of the very decisive vote which was given in your Lordships' House? And further, does he not consider, in view of the fact that this order was made in reply to an application by the Manchester Corporation which definitely referred to its need in connection with the Bill which they were proposing to promote in Parliament, that the decisive rejection of the relevant clauses of that Bill in effect has the result of voiding this order? In any event, does the noble Earl not think that the action of the Manchester Corporation in going on with this matter after this House had expressed its opinion about it so decisively is likely to result in the failure of the re-establishment of the amicable relations which were so much stressed by noble Lords during that debate? How can they expect to enter into good relations with the local authorities if they behave in this sort of way?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord's second supplementary question, I can only assure him that the legal position is as I have stated it. In reply to his first supplementary question, I can only say that it is a hypothetical question.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, would it not be a good thing if your Lordships' House began to do something to remedy the condition to which the Manchester Water Board has now been reduced, and do something to help them to get an adequate water supply?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I have been asked by my right honourable friend to take the chair of a meeting to consider this particular question, at which authorities in the Lake District and Manchester will be represented.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the local farmers and landowners were consulted before the Manchester Corporation started these borings; if so, whether they gave their consent; and, if so, whether or not that consent was given under duress?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I can assure the noble Duke that the local landowner—there are three tenant farmers and one landowner concerned—was consulted; that he did not give his consent, and that is why an order was necessary. There was no question, of course, of duress.
LORD REA: My Lords, in that case did the question of compensation arise for the landowner?
EARL JELLICOE: Yes, my Lords; the question of compensation does arise if there is damage or disturbance to the land by these borings. The boreholes are only three inches in diameter, but if there is damage or disturbance there is a valid claim for compensation.

CIVIL SCIENCE
2.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have now considered the views expressed by the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy as to the need to overhaul the present organisation for dealing with civil science.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have decided to review the existing organisation for the promotion of civil science by Government agencies. This review, which will be concerned mainly with issues of administrative organisation and the machinery of government, will take full account of the views expressed by the Advisory Council; and advice will also be sought from scientists both inside and outside the public service.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, in view of the importance of this subject
1158
to the engineering industry, can my noble friend say whether it is the intention also to consult representatives from industry also?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, this is primarily an internal review of Government machinery, but I will certainly make inquiries about my noble friend's point.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: I thank my noble friend.

WEST INDIES BILL [H.L.]
2.57 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty The Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the West Indies Bill, has consented to place Her Majesty's prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
I now beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. I think I might usefully start by recalling the statement which I made in this House on February 6, when I was repeating a statement made by my right honourable friend in another place after his visit to the West Indies. I said at that time [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 237 (No. 32) col. 26]:
"… Jamaica has declared its determination to withdraw from the Federation and this decision has been accepted by Her Majesty's Government. The Government of Trinidad and Tobago has decided not to participate in any federation of the Eastern Caribbean. Finally, the Premier of Barbados and the Chief Ministers of the Leeward and Windward Islands, while advocating a new Federation between their territories, are agreed that the present one should be dissolved."
The statement went on:
"Her Majesty's Government have therefore decided to introduce legislation into Parliament very shortly which will enable us to dissolve the present Federation, and to set up an interim organisation. …"
Here, my Lords, is the Bill promised.
I cannot pretend that this is a very happy occasion: rather is it a melancholy one. It is always a melancholy affair when, having set out at a certain time

1159
with high hopes, one is faced through circumstances with change. In this instance the high hopes of the Federation with which we set out have come to nothing, and indeed we are faced in its place with dissolution.
My Lords, I think it will be useful if I go back a little into history to show why we started and how the Federation, has ended. Between the wars the idea of federation between the various territories of the West Indies was canvassed by many prominent West Indians, and during that time there was a West Indian Royal Commission on the economic side of the problems for those countries. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, is to speak to-day, because he was, with another Member of your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, a member of that Royal Commission.
After the war the late Mr. Oliver Stanley said that we were prepared to do all we could to help the territories towards federation if they so wanted. Then, from 1947 on there were constant conferences and deliberations on this question, which culminated in 1956, when finally the ten territories said they wished to be bound together in a Federation. We took the necessary steps to that end, and in 1958 the Federation was launched. It was launched as rather a weak thing, but our hope was that, as years went by and as experience was gained, so it would grow stronger.
In fact, the experience of the next years showed that there was a very serious difference of opinion between members of the Federation. One group wanted to see it even weaker, and others wished to see it even stronger. It was very difficult to get them to agree together. They had all said they wanted independence, but the question was what form that independence should take. We had a Conference in London in June, 1961, and we thought we had reached a compromise between these two views which would enable the Federation to be launched on its own. But in reaching that compromise there was a specific allowance for the various parties to the Federation to judge whether they wanted to go on. To quote the exact words they were:
1160
"that the recommendations were subject to such decisions as may be obtained by our delegations from their respective Legislatures and peoples."
I stress the word "peoples" because—and this was realised at the time when the word "peoples" was inserted in that declaration—there was to be a referendum in Jamaica on the question of whether they did or did not want to stay a member of the Federation. On September 19 that referendum was held and, unhappily, there was a small but decisive majority against Jamaica's staying in the Federation; and this despite the fact that the Premier of Jamaica, Mr. Norman Manley, had done all he could to persuade his people that it was a good thing to stay in. Indeed, I recall that when I saw him a little while before the referendum he was full of hope that he was going to put it over to the people, but unhappily it went the other way. What were Her Majesty's Government to do under these conditions?
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, will the noble Earl forgive my interrupting? Was it on the initiative of the United Kingdom Government that this referendum provision was made? In our own country we do not encourage the referendum idea, and I should have thought it was still more debatable in the West Indies. Why did we walk into this trouble and not leave it to the Legislative Assemblies of the countries concerned?
THE EARL OF PERTH: It certainly was not on our initiative; it was at the initiative of the Premier, who said he wanted to consult in this way. This came out during the Conference, and it was for that reason, as I have already quoted, that we said "respective Legislatures and peoples". It certainly was not of our choosing, because I agree with the noble Lord that this is not the happiest method of determining what may be the opinion of peoples.
There we were. The situation was that Jamaica had said in a referendum that they did not want any of it. What was to be done? The first thing that happened was that the then Secretary of State. Mr. Iain Macleod, saw the Prime Minister of the Federation, Sir Grantley Adams, over here. I take this opportunity of paying tribute to Sir Grantley Adams for his efforts in four years or more in the

1161
Federation, and to all those who tried to make it work. At those talks, when Sir Grantley was over here, Mr. Macleod said:
"As I see it we have no option but to accept the desire of the people of Jamaica".
That was not objected to by the Prime Minister.
Shortly after his visit, there came to this country a delegation from Jamaica. On October 6 last year, the following was stated as a result of that meeting with the Jamaican delegation. I again recall that the Secretary of State had seen the Prime Minister of the Federation beforehand. This is what was said:
"Her Majesty's Government accepted the result of the referendum as a final indication of Jamaica's wishes and was prepared to introduce legislation as early as possible in the forthcoming Session of Parliament to provide for Jamaica's withdrawal from the Federation. Every effort would be made to secure the passage of the legislation before the end of March".
That, my Lords, is the reason why we have this Bill to-day.
To carry on this melancholy history of events, at the end of December last year there were the Trinidad elections. The Premier, Dr. Eric Williams, was again returned to power, and very shortly after that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State paid a visit to the West Indies to see for himself what was the position and what could be done. In fact, the day after his arrival there he consulted with the Federal Government, and then with the others. But on January 14, as I say, the day after his arrival, a General Council of the Premier's Party unanimously agreed that they did not wish to continue in the Federation now that Jamaica had decided to withdraw, and that they, too, wanted independence forthwith. At the same time, they expressed the wish that the common services which had existed until then should go on, and they also said that they were ready that others should be associated with them, but on the basis of a unitary Government and, of course, under their ægis. That, I must confess, was a disappointment to us and to the remaining members of the Federation.
Then, at the initiative of the Premier of Barbados and the Chief Ministers of the Leeward and Windward Islands, a meeting was held shortly after this statement and, as a result, the statement of
1162
February 6, to which I have already referred, said:
"Her Majesty's Government regard the suggested federation of Barbados and the Leeward and Windward Islands as a promising development. They consider further that a great deal of careful study, both here and in the West Indies, will be needed before any final decision can be taken, and they propose, for their part, to initiate this study in the very near future."
Since that time—and events, as you see, are moving very fast—there was the Jamaica Independence Conference. We had already said that we should be ready to give them what they wished, and at Lancaster House a date for independence was fixed, that date being August 6.
Finally, between February 26 and March 3 there was the final meeting in Barbados of the eight remaining members of the Federation. We are awaiting a report on the exact details of what happened there, but it looks encouraging that they have met, that they have issued a report, and that the general tenor of the report seems to indicate that they want to continue as a Federation. But they also said they want to wipe the slate clean. They do not want the old Federation. They want a new one if they are to start again. So far as we are concerned, we must await the report. After all, the history which I have gone over of the last ten or fifteen years all shows the importance of not rushing into federation but taking it with great care, lest, unhappily, the same thing happen a second time.
My Lords, so much for the history and some of the reasons for the Bill. Just to recall the three main factors, they were the referendum in Jamaica, in which they declared they wanted to be out of the Federation; the subsequent elections in Trinidad, with the expressed wish of the majority Party that they, too, wanted to leave the Federation; and, lastly, the remaining eight saying that they wanted to keep together, but on a new basis. I think, bearing in mind these three main happenings in the last several months, that we have had no option but to proceed with this Bill which allows for the dissolution of the present Federation.
To turn to the Bill, I would say that dissolution of a Federation which has been going for several years is almost as complicated as, or even more complicated than, starting something, and

1163
it is more true when one has certain members of it who want to keep an association in being although bound to the dissolution of the Federation. Owing to the circumstances I have outlined there is a general wish to retain various of the common services which the islands at present handle; the meteorological services, advisory services of all kinds, shipping services and others. We should frankly have preferred to be able to wait a little before bringing in this Bill. We should have preferred more certainty on many matters; for example, on just what form the interim organisation should take pending the establishment, if it so happens, of a new Federation, and pending the establishment of a new organisation under any conditions which will keep the common services going. We should have preferred to wait to note what form, if any, the eight might choose for their Federation, but these things have a habit of taking a very long time, and we have the pressure from Jamaica and the undertaking to Jamaica that we would do our best to get legislation through by the end of this month. Furthermore, we have settled, subject, of course, always to the approval of Parliament, a date for her independence. The outcome of all of that has been that we have had to seek—and that is what this Bill seeks to do—enabling powers to deal with any situation that may arise in relation to all of these happenings, or any combination of them.
Just to look very briefly at the Bill itself, it is, as I say, an enabling Bill and really does give us very wide powers for the purposes which I have outlined about dissolution or the setting up of a new Federation of the eight, keeping the common services going and so forth. If we look at the Bill we shall find in Clause 1 that it allows for the dissolution of the Federation or the secession of one of its members before the dissolution. Quite frankly, I would hope that we do not have such a secession but get on with the dissolution, because this is tidier and a less difficult method of procedure. Also, Clause 1 allows for some of the Federal laws to lapse and others to be continued, because as I have endeavoured to explain, there are certain features of the Federation which one
1164
wants to continue in one guise or another.
If we look at Clause 2 of the Bill we find that this is particularly directed to the common services and gives permission for an interim authority to deal with those common services which at the moment are handled by the Federation. It further allows for these to continue until such time as permanent arrangements may be worked out; and, lastly, once these permanent arrangements have been worked out, it will permit us to deal appropriately with those continuing in a permanent form.
Clause 3 of the Bill empowers Her Majesty's Government to secure the payment of pensions and compensation where appropriate to Federal servants. I am sure all your Lordships will agree that this is both right and necessary. Its exact details have to be worked out with the Governments concerned, and I might point out that Clause 3 (2) is permissive and not obligatory; an Order in Council may provide for the raising of money, and so forth. Here I do not know exactly what the position is, what may be the assets and liabilities of the Federation; and so at this stage it does not seem appropriate to go any further or any less far.
Clause 4 of the Bill allows for a new Court of Appeal.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, before the noble Earl leaves this part of the Bill, could he explain what are the powers of Parliament in connection with the Orders in Council? Will Parliament have the right to challenge? Will they say if and when Parliament will see them? I gather that at the moment we are giving the Government a blank cheque. We do not know at all what the Government propose to do. Will there, in time, be an opportunity of challenging any of these orders?
THE EARL OF PERTH: In fact, I think this comes in Clause 7 of the Bill and, if the noble Lord will allow, I will touch on it when I deal with that clause.
Clause 4 is in relation to courts. Then we come to Clause 5, which gives Her Majesty's Government powers to give new Constitutions or to alter existing ones for the territories where it may be appropriate. I would, however, wish to make it very clear that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government

1165
to use any of the powers under this clause to derogate in any way from the constitutional status of those territories which are already enjoying full internal self-government. But, for example, as a result of this clause we shall be able to give Barbados a written Constitution, which appears to be her wish. Or again, we can include in the Jamaica Independence Constitution certain provisions which they wish for and which may not be covered under the Jamaica Act, 1866. Clause 6 allows all the eight remaining territories, if they so wish, to federate, and will also allow the Virgin Islands, if they so wish, to join that Federation, but this is purely a permissive power and would not, of course, be used in relation to the Virgin Islands unless they themselves should wish it.
Then we come to Clause 7, which has been the subject of the question by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and there your Lordships will see in the first part that we seek to cover any sort of incidental or consequential things which may arise; I think that that takes the normal form. The third subsection of Clause 7 is, I think, that to which the noble Lord directed his question. If any Order made under this Bill should modify or adapt an existing Act then it will be subject to the normal annulment procedure, but otherwise we are empowered under this Bill to proceed on any of the matters which are embodied in this Bill purely by Order in Council, and I would stress that this gives us to that extent blank permission within the range of the things contained in the Bill. Clause 8, as your Lordships will see, allows grants in aid to continue. I think Clauses 9 and 10 explain themselves.
As I have endeavoured to show, this is not a very happy Bill; in fact, it is a rather sad Bill. But we must face the facts; we must accept the wishes of the people of the territories. That has always been our practice, and I see no reason for thinking that in this case—much as we might like, in certain respects, to see otherwise—we could do other than respect their wishes to proceed. That is why we are asking your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Perth.)
3.20 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, the noble Earl has frankly admitted to us that he has come with a sad story; he has come with a small sprinkling of ashes over his not very capacious sackcloth. I feel that perhaps there ought to have been some coals of fire before the ashes. But he has also come before us—and he has not said this—to some extent, in the guise of a Pontius Pilate who has washed his hands of many of these things, who has run away from the responsibilities that he and Her Majesty's Government have in these matters and who has left it to others to decide on matters which are of such great importance that nobody other than Her Majesty's Government should make that decision.
The noble Earl told us a little of the early history of federation. He told us that there had been wise men who looked on it as a first step, as an essential step towards independence, which was right and proper. He did not tell us, though I think we all know it, that the reason for federation was, quite simply, that none of the Caribbean Islands, individually, was large enough, economically strong enough, or even with enough people, to carry independence as a separate island. Let me remind your Lordships that the largest of those islands, Jamaica, has a population of rather less than 1¾ million people; that Trinidad has a population of 800,000, and that the remaining islands, the eight, have a population, between them, of somewhere around half a million. So, even with all of those added together, we only just reach a figure of 3 million people, a figure not very different, in fact, from the populalation of Nyasaland, also the subject of some talk about federation.
Therefore it was a wise thing to say to those islands, "Come together. Federate, and with your resources, which are not inconsiderable—bauxite, oil, asphalt, agriculture and tourism—you should be able in a few years' time so to bring up your own standard of living, that, with the resources you have, the people you have among you"—and, my Lords, there are great men living in these islands—"you will be able to run your affairs as an important member of the Commonwealth, as an independent

1167
country". But I am afraid that Her Majesty's Government at that time allowed themselves to he led astray by that happy picture of the future and did not face up to the true facts which they must have known had they listened to their own advisers on the spot and to those who knew these areas. There were manifold difficulties; there were difficulties of personalities; there were difficulties of races; there were difficulties of tradition; there were even difficulties of language, and of the whole background; and, of course, there were difficulties of conflicting interests.
We see Jamaica, an island beginning on the road towards industrialisation, wanting to build up its own industries to become independent of certain commodities which hitherto it had had to import, and naturally anxious to protect its industries by imposing import duties. There were the other islands, many of the smaller ones, with no hope of ever starting industries of that kind, whose interests are in importing, from the cheapest market possible, whether Canada, the United States or the United Kingdom, those self-same commodities that Jamaica was anxious to protect and to produce herself. The conflict of interest is between Protection for Jamaica and Free Trade for the rest. There is the conflict of interest over the movement of labour, immigration. All the islands are over-populated, as we know full well in this country, but some are relatively more densely populated, some with a higher standard of living and some with a very low standard of living. It was natural that those with the lowest standard of living wished to go from the small islands—for instance St. Vincent and Grenada—to Trinidad, where there was more work and higher pay. The people in Trinidad, again understandably, were afraid of having a free influx of labour that might spoil their labour market and increase their unemployment, push down their own wages. Here was another conflict of interest; and there were many more.
Those were not the things that Her Majesty's Government talked about in those happy honeymoon days of federation. Those were not the things on which, as they should have done, they went to the assistance of this young
1168
Federation and said, "You must realise these problems before you give your support to the idea, the concept, of federation. You must know what you are letting yourselves in for; that it entails sacrifice, as well as simply receiving, but we shall be there, not only to point out these difficulties to you but to help you overcome them, with our advice, our experience and our money". That is what the Government should have done, and their failure to do that is one of the reasons for this sad story which the noble Earl has had to tell us to-day.
Now we will come on to this story of the desire of Jamaica to secede from Federation—something which in many ways was inevitable as matters stood. Because let me remind your Lordships of one more factor in this complicated story. Jamaica is in the Caribbean; it is one of the West Indian Islands. But not only has it more than 50 per cent. of the total population, it is some 1,000 miles or more away from most of the other islands. There is not the contiguity and contact between Jamaica and the other islands which, looking at it on a small-scale map in this country, one might justifiably suppose. So, when the Federation was set up, there was a struggle over where the capital should be. It was finally decided that it should be in Trinidad, a reasonable place, good for communications, the second largest island and in quite close geographical contact with the other eight small islands. But that gave a big fillip to Trinidad in this set-up; and it became even more important than it otherwise would have been, with Jamaica pushed out somewhat on one side.
THE EARL OF PERTH: If the noble Lord would allow me to intervene (though I am sure he appreciates this fact), that seems to imply that we chose Trinidad as the capital; whereas, of course, it was the decision of all the islands themselves. I think it is important to observe this.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for pointing that out. It had not escaped my attention, and it was something that I was about to develop in a little more detail. Trinidad was chosen by the Federation as the capital. They had that choice;

1169
we did not have it. It was quite right that we should not have it; it would have been wrong had we imposed it upon them.
It would have been equally wrong had we imposed upon them the Prime Minister. Obviously, they chose their own Prime Minister. They made an admirable choice, from two points of view. It was right that the Prime Minister should be a representative not of Trinidad or of Jamaica but of the small islands, and it was right that they should have chosen one of the outstanding figures of the West Indies, Sir Grantley Adams. I was glad to hear the tribute paid to him by the noble Earl. It is one with which I gladly associate myself. But here we have the picture of Trinidad represented (if I may put it that way) in the Federation by having the capital; the small islands represented, in the person of Sir Grantley Adams, by the Prime Minister, and Jamaica represented hitherto by nothing.
My Lords, could we have done anything at that stage? I believe that we could have done something. We still had to appoint a Governor-General. That was the responsibility, the privilege and the right of Her Majesty, advised by Her Government. I do not want to say anything in derogation of the Governor-General, who has worked hard and has had an uphill and sad task. But I cannot help thinking that, had the Governor-General been somebody (I mention no names) who was respected, known and experienced in Jamaica itself, that would have gone a long way to redress this balance between the small islands and Trinidad and Jamaica; and it might well have made the task of keeping Jamaica happy in the Federation a somewhat easier one than the present Governor-General had—a task which I concede was, in these circumstances, impossible.
For the reasons I have given, Jamaica came to the conclusion during the course of 1961 that she no longer wished to remain in the Federation. As the noble Earl said, experience during the three years of experiment showed that there were serious differences of opinion (those were his words), which led to the Conference in London in 1961. Then the noble Earl said something about which I should be happy to have some
1170
amplification when he replies. He said (again I wrote down his words) that at this Conference in London
"it was realised that there would be a referendum."
The referendum was on the initiative of the Prime Minister of Jamaica, Mr. Norman Manley. I do not know who realised it, or how widely realised it was. But that is, to me, an extremely important point, and it must be made abundantly clear. It has been said in most reliable quarters that the first the Prime Minister of the Federation knew of the referendum in Jamaica was when he read about it in the newspapers. Whether or not that is true, I do not know; but I hope the noble Earl will tell us just what he meant by those words—"it was realised that there would be a referendum."
But whether or not it was realised by all those who were at the referendum, or only by Her Majesty's Government, the right thing then to do was to go straight to the Governor-General of the West Indies, to the Prime Minister of the Federation of the West Indies, and say, "This has been proposed by one member of the Federation. Your Cabinet must advise as to what should be done, whether this should be accepted or whether it should not be accepted." It cannot be the right way to help a naissant Federation, struggling against many difficulties to find its feet and to make itself viable, simply to turn your back on the elected representatives, upon the Prime Minister and his colleagues in his Cabinet; to pay no attention to them whatsoever, and for the Secretary of State, simply talking to the Prime Minister of one of the members of the Federation, to arrange this between them, leaving the Federal Government entirely on one side in this matter. That sort of action can be defended by nobody.
It may be said that it was thought the referendum would simply strengthen the position of Jamaica in the Federation and that she would vote in favour of it. I believe that many people took that view. But events showed that there, as in so many other cases, the beliefs of Her Majesty's Government were wrong. But even if they had been right, even if, in fact, the referendum had reinforced Jamaica's position in the

1171
Federation, that could not have been the right course to follow. As my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth pointed out, we in this country prefer Parliamentary government to referendums and plebiscites, and to give way over the suggestion of one referendum merely because we think it is going to come out right for our side, makes no difference whatsoever to the rightness or wrongness of holding a referendum.
As I say, had the referendum shown a decision in favour of remaining in Federation, what would have happened if St. Kitts had then said, "We want to leave the Federation. We shall have a referendum among our 20,000 inhabitants. Jamaica had it. Why cannot we?" Should we have said "Yes" to St. Kitts, Antigua or to Dominica? He could not have done that. It was only because Jamaica appeared the most powerful and most important member of this group that we, weak-kneed, gave way to it. Of course, when that happened, what was inevitably the next step? It was no good thinking that the Federation would continue without Jamaica; truncated; with only 40 per cent. of the original population and far less than 40 per cent. of the original wealth left in it. Of course the rest would not do it. Trinidad—and by "Trinidad" I mean the Government of Trinidad—would say that it, too, wanted to leave Federation, bringing, if it had to, under its own umbrella as many of the other small islands as wanted to come.
The noble Earl went on to discuss Trinidad. I am quite sure that he in no way wished to mislead your Lordships, but the impression some of you may have got—because, as he said, shortly after the Election the Prime Minister of Trinidad announced that his country wished to leave the Federation—is that the Elections in Trinidad were largely fought on the issue of the Federation, and that his request or demand to leave the Federation came as the result of his victory at the polls, representing the will of the people of Trinidad. But in fact the Election in Trinidad specifically excluded federation from its campaign. Dr. Eric William's Party reserved its position. It did not fight the Election saying, "If we win we shall secede", or "If we win we shall remain in". They fought the Election on the basis, "When
1172
we have been returned to power we will then decide what attitude we wish to take on federation." So do not run away with the idea that we in this country are certain to-day that by giving freedom (if that is what you want to call it) to Trinidad, we are in fact giving the people of Trinidad what they themselves have said they want. We do not know. I do not believe that anybody knows what Trinidad wants.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord is suggesting a referendum for Trinidad? Because certain noble Lords on that side do not like that form of seeking information.
LORD WALSTON: The noble Earl is extremely helpful in always asking questions just before I am about to ask them. I am very grateful to him for that. We, alas! are not in a position to dictate what should be done in Trinidad. We are not the Government of that country now. I cannot help thinking that if we had been there would be no need for this debate at all. But, given the situation, all I would say to the noble Earl is this. Do not hurry ahead with this Pontius Pilate "washing of hands", the view that Trinidad is no longer any responsibility of ours. Simply because the Government Party has said at its Conference that this is what it wants, do not get the idea that you are fulfilling what the people of Trinidad—let alone the people of the Federation—want.
How this should be done is not for me to say. I certainly would not recommend a further referendum, though, having had one already, it would be extremely difficult for the noble Earl to explain why there should not be another one. Possibly there should be. I think he still has the power, through the Governor of Trinidad and Tobago, to dissolve the present Parliament and have a new general election. I am not recommending that either; that is the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. But whatever we do, and however we do it, do not let us fool ourselves into saying, "As in Jamaica, we are giving way to the expression of the wish of the people". We are doing it in Jamaica and Trinidad, although we have no inkling of knowledge whatsoever as to what the express wish of the

1173
people is because they have not in fact been given an opportunity to express that wish.
I cannot help wondering—and I am sure this has also passed through the minds of some of your Lordships—why it is that when Jamaica wishes to secede it is given the opportunity for a referendum, and, with this amazing haste, steps are taken to put its wishes into practical and immediate effect, and when Trinidad in this much vaguer way, has expressed a desire to secede, the same thing is done; yet when we look across the Atlantic to Central Africa, where there are also troubles of federation, where there are also certain constituent countries of a proposed federation who are not too happy about going into that federation, there is no talk of referendums, no talk of rushing a Bill through Parliament to allow one country to secede. The only talks one hears—and that comes from the other side—is about the use of force to maintain federation. One cannot help drawing a distinction between Sir Roy Welensky and his threats of the use of force, his flying to this country and all the rest of it, and Sir Grantley Adams and his very different, far more responsible, far more democratic, far more co-operative attitude. One can only wonder if in fact in this world, with this Government, the way to get what you want is to threaten force, refuse to co-operate, and to organise a lobby among Members of Parliament in order to protect your interests, rather than to try to operate through the normally accepted means of democratic government.
Let us pass on, my Lords, as the noble Earl did, to the future. We are presented with this sad story of failure. What can we do to bring something out of this pitiful wreck? As the noble Earl has said—and here I agree with him—we must re-think federation; and I would agree with every word that the noble Earl said when he quoted the views of Her Majesty's Government on this subject after the conference of the eight smaller islands, when Trinidad had expressed her wish to leave. The words he used were, "This requires a great deal of careful study". Yes, my Lords, it does require a great deal of careful study, and I do not consider that a hastily prepared Bill, hastily presented to your Lordships with the avowed object
1174
of getting it passed into an Act of Parliament by the end of this month, is consistent with a great deal of careful study.
The noble Earl went on to say that the Government would have preferred to wait a little while before bringing in this Bill, in order to have known what form the eight would take, and so on. Well, my Lords, who is the Government of this country? If the noble Earl and Her Majesty's Government would have preferred to wait a little longer, why did they not wait? Why did they have to say to Mr. Manley of Jamaica, and to Dr. Williams of Trinidad, "We should like to wait, but, of course, because you are in a hurry, we shall do it in a hurry"? That is the attitude of a Pontius Pilate; it is not the attitude of a responsible Government of a great Colonial Empire, and the leader of the Commonwealth.
What should we do, assuming we are given not a great deal of time, but a little time, in order, as I say, to rescue something from this wreck? Whether we actually preserve federation as it is, and allow Trinidad and Tobago and Jamaica to secede, retaining federation for the other eight, or whether we scrap the whole of federation and start again from the beginning, is to my mind a matter of technical convenience. I do not mind very much which it should be, but we must be in a position now to give all the encouragement, advice, help and support to the remaining eight islands who wish to remain grouped together in some form or another. We must pay attention to their wishes, wishes expressed through their elected Governments, through their oppositions and through the other sources that they have. Of course, we must pay attention to that. But we must not forget that the responsibility for this is ours. We have to make the decision, and we have to stand by that decision when it is made.
I do not believe that it is beyond the powers of this country to hold those eight together, to cement such good will as exists between them already, to reinforce it, and, on top of that, and perhaps more important than that, to build up their economic strength, and thereby their standard of living, so that within a relatively small number of years those eight islands, with their half a

1175
million inhabitants, as a result of our help, will have become a sufficiently strong economic unit, so that the other two—Trinidad and Tobago on the one side, and Jamaica on the other—will be happy to enter, not into a fully-fledged political federation but perhaps, as we are now in Europe discussing the Common Market, some form of economic get-together, with a progressive lowering of barriers against trade, barriers against movements of people and all the rest of it. With their common background such as it is, that would be regarded as a stepping-stone towards a fully-fledged economic and political integration of this whole area. Some people have suggested that it could evolve from that into a much wider Caribbean area, embracing even those countries and islands which have never been British Colonies, though I do not know whether that is looking too far ahead. Our immediate object, however, must be to build up the remaining islands so that they can be on an equal footing with the other two larger islands and can be accepted eventually as equal partners.
In this help that we give them we must, of course, avoid all dangers of paternalism and of making them feel that they are only Colonies; because remember that we have made it very much more difficult for ourselves already. If we are going to draw a distinction between on the one side Jamaica and Trinidad—which have full independence, are self-governing, and are free for good and all from the fetters of imperialism—and on the other the small islands which are kept under the Colonial Office and under colonial rule, then we are going to make the whole problem very much more difficult.
My Lords, from the days of Queen Elizabeth I until the days of Queen Victoria we in this country built up what is probably the greatest Empire that has ever been known. Although "Empire" is not a word which it is popular to use to-day, that, in its time, was something of which I think we are all proud. It had many faults. Many atrocities were committed in the name of Empire-building; many wickednesses were perpetrated; but, by and large, I believe not only that this country benefited, but that the world and mankind benefited from what
1176
happened during that period. We did not achieve that Empire by sitting back, by washing our hands, by leaving it to other people; we did not achieve it by closing our eyes to the difficulties and looking only on the possible brightnesses which might accrue. It was achieved by courage, by skill, by patience and by integrity.
We are now entering on a second era. Hitherto, every great empire has crumbled and has gone. We believe that what was the British Empire will last as the British Commonwealth and will become a far greater concept, a far more important influence in the world. But that sort of thing does not just arise, any more than that the Empire just happened. The Commonwealth can be built only if we have an equally creative attitude towards it; if we have equal courage, equal skill, equal patience and equal integrity. We have a need for all of that. But our experience in this one—I grant you small—part of the Commonwealth has shown that there, at least, those qualities are sadly lacking.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? He said that we lacked integrity. I should be very grateful if he could explain a little more fully where the lack of integrity is in our performance.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I was not specifically referring in this case to any act of integrity, or the opposite. But I will go on to say that I think that in some of our dealings with some of the Federal Ministers, the men who have devoted the recent years of their lives to the building up of this Federation, there has been a lack of integrity. The noble Earl asked for specific examples, I do not think that it is consistent with my idea of integrity to deal directly with the Prime Minister of Jamaica over the matter of the referendum affecting the whole of the Federation, instead of dealing with the Federal Prime Minister, with his Government and with his Cabinet. The noble Earl may have different ideas as to whether or not that is consistent with true integrity and the honest dealings which one expects between Governments, but that is my feeling in this matter. I still maintain that we need those qualities and that

1177
all of them, in this particular instance and this particular unhappy episode, have been lacking.
So what do the Government do now, my Lords? They come along, and announce this failure. They say: "We have failed to achieve what we set out to achieve. We should now like to go slower, but for some reason"—which doubtless the noble Earl will explain to us—"we cannot go slower. Something greater than ourselves is pushing us on with this undue haste. Therefore, we, who are now bankrupt on our own admission, come to you with this Bill and ask you for a blank cheque."
3.56 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has said, this is a melancholy occasion, but I, personally, do not feel that we need be too gloomy about it. I am quite certain that the able and delightful people of the Caribbean and the West Indies will be able to manage their affairs in the future, with our co-operation, and that we need not look upon this as any disaster. I think it is not only a great pity that Jamaica seceded; I think it will be found by her that it was a mistake from her own point of view. I believe it will be found to be an even greater mistake from the point of view of Trinidad, for whom the Federation offered great prospects. But they had the right to secede and they have seceded.
This afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Walston, whom I should like to congratulate as it is the first time he has spoken from the Box on behalf of the Opposition, has launched a powerful attack on the United Kingdom Government. Although, as your Lordships know, I am always ready to criticise the Government if I think they have been worthy of criticism—as, indeed, it is my duty to do as a member of the Opposition—in this particular case I cannot see that they have done anything calling for criticism. I am sorry to say this, and it may embarrass the noble Earl, Lord Perth, but I feel that they have not done anything wrong in this particular case—at least, nothing which has been proved to us to be wrong.
I believe that over the years successive Governments have shown a great deal of patience with and some understanding of the problems of the West Indies and the Caribbean. One must remember that the
1178
statesmen and the politicians in that vast area are very able men, men of great personality, and they will not be pushed around. That is what it comes to. If they want to have a referendum in Jamaica, they are going to have one. It does not matter what the noble Earl, Lord Perth, or his Secretary of State, says: they are going to have a referendum, and that is that. What could Her Majesty's Government have done to prevent it? If we did not want them to have a referendum, what could we have done? Could we send troops out? Can anyone imagine, even if we had any battalions to spare, which we have not, that we could contemplate British troops shooting down Jamaicans because they wanted a referendum and we objected to it? The whole idea is absurd.
My Lords, I do not propose to go over the past. As I have said, I do not think that the United Kingdom Government are really blameworthy. They have done their best and the thing has not come off. In a way, it is better for the constituent parties to find out now that they do not settle down together, rather than go into a watertight Federation and find out afterwards. I should prefer to deal with the future, as I do not think it is much good going over the past. As to the future, we have to look clearly at the situation as it is at the moment. It is obvious that Jamaica will soon be an independent member of the Commonwealth, and that in no long time to come Trinidad will be in the same position.
What of the remaining islands that form this Federation, and the Virgin Islands? There are nine rather small islands which, according to my arithmetic, have a total area of 1,392 square miles and a total population of 677,500 souls. That is the situation with which we have to deal: a number of small islands with a small population. Strangely enough, in some of the islands there is a great shortage of labour. We hear and see so many of these travelogues on B.B.C. and on Commercial Television and we get the wrong impression, because we get only a global picture, and everything does not fit into it. In fact, on one or two of the islands there is a great shortage of labour, and a good deal of mechanisation is having to be employed to make it good.

1179
Furthermore, some parts of these islands have become a millionaires' playground. I do not know whether your Lordships' attention has been drawn to a series of articles by Mr. Wolf Mankowitz in one of the London evening papers. He calls himself a demi-emigrant, because he has gone out to buy property in Barbados. In one of his articles he says—and it is rather interesting because it makes the point that I want to make:
"Barbados has one of the highest population densities of the world. Behind the beaches on which the tourist lounges away his idyllic fortnight, a quarter of a million people are packed into the parts of the island's 100,000 acres which cannot be cultivated.
"From Bridgetown, the country-town-like capital, the ribbon development is continuous northwards along the optimistically described 'Platinum Coast' where millionaires' … beach-houses pack side by side with shantytown shacks, and the beachland is valued at about £20,000 an acre."
I know the tourist trade is valuable in most places, but in a place like Barbados, where cultivatable land is scarce, is it a good thing to have beach-houses for people who, naturally, will occupy them for only a few weeks in the year, rocketing up the price of land to £20,000 an acre? What happens to the people who want to cultivate the land? What happens to the smallholder? That is always a danger, I think, on islands which go in for providing these millionaires' playgrounds. It is not necessarily a good thing. Although it is very tempting for a Government, I think it is a matter which wants watching; and I hope that, as we have still some responsibility for Barbados, we shall watch it—and I am quite sure that the very realistic Prime Minister of Barbados will do so.
Several of these territories are, of course, Treasury-controlled, which means that they have not enough money from their normal income to pay the expenses of government. I do not know how many there are now, but I guarantee that several of them are still Treasury-controlled; and there is provision in the Bill to enable the Treasury to make these grants or subventions after this Bill is passed and, presumably, even after federation is established. In my view, one of the troubles about these islands is that there is too much of a panoply of government. I have used
1180
the expression before and I use it again because I think it explains what I mean: there is too much harness for the horse. In fact, in some of them there is a good deal more harness than horse. There is a Governor-General; Ministers at Federal level; and then, in each island, a Governor or Administrator, and Ministers. All this expensive and cumbersome system is unnecessary, in my view, to deal with populations and areas of a size which, in this country, would be dealt with by an urban district council or a rural district council.
My Lords, this is a problem for them, but it is also a problem for us, because one must remember that we have to make good any excess in their expenditure over income. It is therefore a matter to which we can draw their attention; and I hope that the various experienced statesmen concerned—guided, I am sure, by my old friend Sir Grantley Adams, with the tributes to whom I entirely agree—will look at this problem. I myself feel that what they should have is a simple system of a central Government for all the islands, with a Governor or Governor-General at the head of it; and, in the various islands, no paid Governors or Administrators at all, but simply, as we have in this country, unpaid Lords Lieutenant. These would be responsible for the ceremonial duties and would represent the islands on such occasions as were necessary. Then, together with the Lords Lieutenant, there should be an absolute minimum of local government. Now this is going to upset many people because, of course, a lot of Ministers are going to lose their jobs; but I think it is quite unnecessary—and, as I have said, it is expensive and cumbersome—to have in each little island (when I say "each little island", I mean each little island Colony) a full panoply of government such as is at present the case.
In spite of the fact that the noble Earl has characterised this Bill, quite rightly, as a blank cheque, I think that perhaps he might be able to fill the cheque in a little bit with reference to the authority mentioned in Clause 5. Can he not give us any idea of the scope of the authority? Is it going to deal with economic matters, scientific matters, social matters or political matters? What is its scope going to be? I am

1181
sure the Government know this, because they have considered the whole problem and must have to some extent made up their minds on it. What will the structure of the authority be? Who will control it? To whom will it be answerable? Will there be any representation on it from the various Colonies which make up the new Federation?
The noble Earl will recall that the Prime Minister of Trinidad, as reported in to-day's Daily Telegraph, has complained that he was not consulted on this part of the Bill; that he was not consulted on the provision for the continuation of the common services. I should therefore like to ask the noble Earl whether, after the new Federation (in whatever form it may be) has been created, the common services will apply and will be made available to the other territories in the West Indies and the Caribbean which now are seceding from the Federation. In other words, will the services also apply and be made available to Trinidad and to Jamaica, and even to British Guiana and British Honduras? We should like to know that, if he can tell us.
My Lords, that is really all I want to say. I feel that what we want to do to-day is to assure the people of the Caribbean that our interest in them is as keen as ever it was; that we acknowledge the debt we owe them and have owed them over many years for the great help they have been to the economy of our country; and that in the future, as in the past, whatever co-operation we can afford, whatever assistance it is within our power to provide, will freely be made available to them by the people of this country, who have for these islands a very warm spot.
4.10 p.m.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I will take up your Lordships' time for only a few minutes. A certain obituary solemnity is bound to overhang this debate, but no one was overhung more heavily than the noble Lord, Lord Walston, who threshed and rethreshed pretty mildewed crops. I do not accept for a moment that Her Majesty's Government rushed blindly into federation. I do not accept for a moment that they underrated the difficulty, nor do I accept that they are running away from their responsibilities now. I do not think that
1182
to refer to Her Majesety's Government in general, and to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, in particular, as "Pontius Pilate" is a particularly happily chosen simile, and I am bound to say that the noble Lord did much less than justice to the Governor-General.
I have only one point to make, and I can make it briefly. One of the difficulties we always foresaw when we started this Federation—and all Federations are an act of faith—was that, although there is strong local island patriotism, the feeling of what one might call "West Indianness" was extremely limited. Had that feeling grown and become much stronger this Federation would never have broken down now. We knew that it was limited, but we hoped that with federation, and with living closer together, it would grow. It has grown, but it has not grown anything like fast enough.
Your Lordships, even those of you who do not often go out to the West Indies, probably know a good many West Indians. It is a very interesting thing to note that if you meet a Jamaican or a Trinidadian in London, he will always describe himself as a West Indian. But if you meet him at home, he never does this; he is a Jamaican or a Trinidadian. Of course, there are many good reasons for that. They are immensely separate, as several noble Lords have said to-day. It is about as far from Jamaica to Trinidad as from London to Lisbon. Ninety-eight per cent. of the inhabitants have never left their own island to go even to the next island. They have been outside the sphere of the warring giants of power politics for several hundred years. They have never got that feeling of exterior threat which blends men and nations together, nor that feeling of rivalry which comes when two countries look at each other across a land border.
The point I want to make to my noble friend Lord Perth is this. He has been asked a question by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, about the common services. These talks are going on about this new Federation of the "little eight", and while these talks are going on about the common services, we should probe the possibility of retaining a link which covers the whole West Indies. If that link is broken, it may take centuries to forge it again. It is still there at the

1183
moment. There are certain things which are the responsibility of all the West Indian Governments. There is the University of the West Indies for one. There is the West Indian Regiment for another. They must meet and unite to deal with those and other subjects. They have a job to do. There must inevitably be a secretariat. And, of course, secretariats must be responsible to somebody. Even if it is the loosest possible council, as long as it is representative of the whole West Indies, it is doing a most valuable job. If you break that link, you will not re-form it for a very long time to come.
If we could only have, in addition to these three units that the West Indies are now going to have, Jamaica, Trinidad, and probably a Federation of what are called the "little eight" divided like Gaul into three parts, another association, however loose, which we might describe as a "Community of Commonwealth nations of the Carribean" (though it would certainly have to be known by a very much shorter name) which could on occasion put up one spokesman in the councils of the Commonwealth or of the world beyond to speak for the whole Caribbean, it would be an effort well worth the trouble. As I said at the beginning, there is a certain obituary solemnity to-day. I personally regard the need for this Bill with great regret, but, like my noble friend Lord Ogmore, with no despair whatever. Federation is about the hardest thing to devise in the political world, and a harder thing still is to keep it going once you have started it. America retained her federation at the expense of a terrible civil war within one hundred years. All Federations are subject to recurrent strains. In the
1930's Queensland tried to opt out of Australia. There is quite a strong separatist movement in Quebec at the moment. Federation is a most difficult thing to run, far more difficult even than to devise. We are now having a second shot at this, and let us hope that we can find a solution which will be enduring.
4.16 p.m.
LORD CLITHEROE: My Lords, I want to speak for only a short time. I agree very much with a good deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, has just said; I want to strike a note of
1184
hope rather than despair. It is more than twenty years ago, as the noble Lord reminded the House, since I was on the Royal Commission to the West Indies. One of the few surviving members of it, the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, was here last night, and I had rather hoped he would also be here to-day, but I think he is unable to attend. I remember so well at that time forming the impression very clearly that, one of these days, federation was the right answer. But it was quite extraordinary to find how little the people of one island knew about the people of another. The people of Jamaica, who, after all, are more than 1,000 miles from Trinidad, had hardly heard of it. They knew none of the people in Trinidad, and they had very few common contacts. They all had contacts with London. There were no communications each between the other, and they were really in no sense, except geographically, the West Indies.
As time went on, the people came together and they have grown together and they are going to go on growing together. But my own impression is that the attempt that we made in this Federation was just a little premature. When the Bill was before Parliament, I thought of making a speech. In fact, I prepared one to suggest that it was premature. But I came to the conclusion, as it looked pretty certain that the Bill was going through, that it would not be a helpful thing to do. However, I do entirely see why this Federation has temporarily broken down.
I do not believe that, in looking ahead, we need be too pessimistic. This area of the Caribbean may develop in many different ways. We must not forget that the West Indian Islands are not all British; there are French West Indian Islands, Dutch West Indian Islands, American West Indian Islands, and so on. I think that there is a chance that this area will develop, and therefore we do not want to break down more than we need what has so far been achieved. These islands are all very poor. We have a tremendous responsibility to them, I think perhaps more responsibility than to any other part of the Empire, and for historical reasons. It is our duty to recognise that.
They are beautiful islands; the population are a charming, delightful, and

1185
colourful people, and the prospects for their future are dimmed only by their economic difficulties. Jamaica and Trinidad are, of course, comparatively rich. Jamaica has the advantage of bauxite and a more highly developed agriculture and a fine tourist business. Trinidad is lucky enough to have oil adjoining, as it abuts on Venezuelan oil field, and it also has the asphalt lake and a good agriculture. But these small islands are very numerous and very difficult to deal with. I do not know how many there are; I do know that I went to 26 different islands when I was there and some of them are very small indeed.
Now as to the organisation, about which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has been talking. It is important to try to arrange this in a way which is not extravagant, because it is not really necessary to have elaborate forms of government for them all. This Federation has broken down because the islands are so far apart and their people have not come to know each other very much yet and they do not yet feel the sense of fellowship. There are a number of colourful personalities who have not always succeeded in getting on with each other. And, in addition, there is the economic problem due to the fact that Jamaica and Trinidad, much the richest islands, are unfortunately walking out and leaving the small islands which are very poor. This is a problem in which we have to try to help as best we can.
Looking ahead, I believe that unity will one day again be found. If we look back at the history of any country, if we look back at the history of our own country, we see how much time it took to weld it together. It must have taken 400 years after the time when the Romans left Britain to weld the heptarchy into one country. If the West Indies Federation is to be restored and the islands welded together, it may take a long time. There has been a temptation for some of the smaller countries to seek independence for prestige reasons. They have a seat in the United Nations and feel a sense of importance—I hope that Scotland and California and countries like them will manage to resist that temptation. It is important to bring to the notice of people the fact that independence in itself is not of great value. It
1186
may be of value in certain circumstances. It may be that many of us have stressed the merits and the importance of independence and made many simple people believe that this is the one thing desirable to achieve, whereas in fact that is not at all true, and everyone in this House knows that to be the case.
As time goes on and people learn—and some of the politicians in these islands have learned very fast and will be able gradually to spread wiser doctrines—I see, within a generation, another Federation being created in which both Jamaica and Trinidad, and certain other islands in that part of the world as well, will participate. I do not want to sit down without telling your Lordships that I am not unhopeful of the future.
4.24 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, let me start by saying that I feel very much, with the noble Lords, Lord Ogmore, Lord Tweedsmuir and Lord Clitheroe, that the end of this story has not yet been told. All three noble Lords ended on a note of hope. My noble friend Lord Clitheroe, who has so much experience in this field, was very firm in that hope. I can only say that, so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, anything we can do to further the welfare of the peoples we shall always be anxious to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, made an attack on the Government's record in connection with the whole business of federation. On Ash Wednesday perhaps it is appropriate to have ashes, but I am not prepared to accept the charge that, like Pontius Pilate, we have washed our hands of the business and run away from our responsibilities. If I understood him correctly, the noble Lord said that in the light of the views expressed, we should have helped them with advice in their difficulties, and with money. My Lords, we did all those things. Before the project was set up, there was a Conference in 1947; and there were further Conferences in 1953, 1955 and 1956. In all those Conferences we took part and gave all the help and advice we could on these very difficulties. That was not all. There were yet more Conferences in 1959 and 1960, and a final one in 1961, when we desperately

1187
tried to bridge the gap between those on one side, who were for a weaker Federation, and those on the other who favoured a stronger Federation. I have no doubt at all that we did all that anybody could do to advise, but your Lordships must remember that these are free peoples; and, in the last analysis, they must do what they choose.
Did we help them with money? Certainly. I do not believe that there is any other area in the colonial territories where more has been done than was done in the West Indies. During the years of federation, we provided, in grants in aid or from the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund, something like £6 million a year to help them on their way. Is that neglecting them? No. I would say that, on both those charges, we certainly did all that any Government could do to fulfil the needs the West Indies themselves indicated.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, the noble Earl said that Her Majesty's Government have done everything they could in past years to make federation a success. He is confident that in future it will be sucessful. If they have done everything they could in past years, what remains to be done now that can turn failure into success?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I do not think that I said I was confident that the future was going to be a success. I echoed the hopes that other noble Lords had expressed; that, sooner or later, these territories, in one way or another, would get together again. But I did not say anything more than that.
The only point the noble Lord could bring out about the actual setting up of the Federation was that we did not choose a Governor-General from Jamaica. Well, there may have been a very good Governor-General who could have been chosen from Jamaica, but I am equally confident that the noble Lord, Lord Hailes, whom we chose as Governor-General, did all that any man could do to help the cause of federation, and I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to what he has done while he has been out there.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, may I apologise for interrupting once more? I think that perhaps what I said was mis-
1188
understood by the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir. I certainly meant to cast no reflection upon the Governor-General, and I would certainly associate myself with the noble Earl's remarks.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much. I felt sure he had the same opinion as we all have of the work of the noble Lord, Lord Hailes.
Lord Walton's next line of attack was in relation to our integrity, and when I pressed the noble Lord to say where we had failed to behave as an honourable people, he gave as an example something to do with the referendum in Jamaica. But what are the facts? In May, 1960, the Government of Jamaica announced that they were going to have a referendum on this subject. We were not warned that they were going to do this, and we could not have stopped it. Under the Constitution of Jamaica they were perfectly empowered to decide that this was what they were going to do; and we had no option. I understand it to be suggested that we should have conculted Sir Grantley Adams. Consulted him about what? That the Government of Jamaica had decided, when they were perfectly entitled to do so, that they would have a referendum on this matter?
There then came the Conference in June, 1961. At that time it was specifically laid down by all who were at the Conference that one might consult either through the Legislatures or through the peoples—and when the word "peoples" was used, it was well understood that the reference was to a referendum in Jamaica. Quite simply, I can find no grounds for a charge of a lack of integrity.
The last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, as I understand it, was that in some way or another we should have delayed things, because it was not good for the people of those territories to act in a hurry. It was, if I may say so, a very paternalistic approach to the whole of this question. Were we really to say, "Oh, no. We promised you at one time independence, but now you are going to have to wait. You, Jamaica, say you want it, but you must wait." Trinidad (I want to make this quite clear) has not yet officially asked for independence. And, of course,

1189
until she does so—and perhaps she will not—we do not take any action; we merely have the enabling power so to do. But we think we know what her expression of her wishes is; and we also know what the Eight want. They have said that they want to be finished with this Federation and hope to start a new one. In such conditions, should we wait? Should we risk all the ill-feeling that we may create with these people by waiting for a few more months, or longer, when they, after 50, 100, 200, 300—more than 300—years, have more or less run their own show? No, my Lords; we could not do that.
Then there was some comparison—and I can well understand this point being made—to the position in Northern Rhodesia and Central Africa. But the position there is not comparable. It is easy to make that comparison, but in that case there is no question at this moment of independence for the Federation. If there was we are under an absolute obligation to consult the people who are under our care—that is the peoples of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia—on what may be their wishes. But that is quite a different situation. What was laid down for that Federation was that after a period of time we would consult about their future; and that is what we are doing.
I pass from the various points made by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, to one or two raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. I would very much agree with the noble Lord when he says that in the event of the eight deciding that they wish to work together they should avoid over-elaborate administration. There is no doubt that at this moment those administrations are very elaborate and expensive; and we have to foot the bill. But, quite apart from that, it is not a good thing to have so much. But I think they themselves are aware of this fact, and we shall see what comes out of their report after their meeting.
1190
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, asked me who might be the authority (the noble Lord specifically referred to Clause 5, but I think that in this connection he has Clause 2 more in mind) to enable the common services to continue. I suspect that the authority will be somebody nominated from here, whose only purpose will be to try to ensure that the common services carry on during an interim period, and until such time as all the territories get together, if they so choose, to set up a permanent organisation to run the services. Certainly if they want that it will be, so far as we are concerned, open to one and all of them to join in. But I must again stress to your Lordships that ours is not the option on this matter: it is to be decided by the people of the West Indies. However, I would hasten to reassure my noble friend Lord Tweedsmuir on this point: that we will do all we can to help if they wish the common services to continue, whether it be by technical assistance or other means which may be appropriate.
My Lords, I think I have come to the end of the various questions that have been asked. I am very anxious that your Lordships should agree that we should take this Bill in Committee at the earliest opportunity, because, unhappily, we are in great difficulty on timetables. However, I have no doubt that on this point we can confer in the normal way, and try to work out something for early next week. I would end this winding-up of the debate rather as I began, by expressing the hope that, out of what is a melancholy Bill, over the years something good may come.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before five o'clock.