Sitting of 14 November 1962

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

    Infantry Reorganisation (Report)
    Sir Richard Glynasked the Secretary of State for War if he has yet taken a decision on the reorganisation of the Infantry.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Profumo): Yes, Sir. I have now received the Bower Committee's Report and, after considering this question very fully, I have concluded that there is no requirement for any further radical reorganisation of the Infantry.
    However, I am sure that we should encourage a further move towards the idea of the Large Infantry Regiment. Experience with those Brigades which have gone some way towards the large Regiment concept is already showing its advantages. I hope this will continue to gather momentum.
    If in the future any further contraction or expansion of the Infantry becomes necessary, I am satisfied that there is more than one way of effecting this; and therefore that it is unnecessary to impose any uniform solution throughout the Infantry as a whole, such as making it mandatory for all the traditional names of Infantry battalions to be abolished.
    There is no doubt, however, that there are considerable organisational advantages in the four-Battalion as compared with the three-Battalion Brigade. I am satisfied that it would secure a greater improvement in the Infantry organisation to reduce the number of three-Battalion Brigades. I am therefore proposing to disperse the Forester Brigade
    350
    and link the Battalions concerned with other neighbouring three-Battalion Brigades. This will give us ten Brigades of four-Battalions and leave us with only three of three.
    I would like to take this opportunity of expressing my gratitude to Sir Roger Bower and his colleagues for the important work they have done in this connection.
    Sir Richard Glyn: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that this move will in no way reduce the number of Battalions in the British Army? Further, can he say whether it will have any effect on the identity of the present Battalions?
    Mr. Profumo: The move that I have announced does not constitute a cutting in any way, but the Infantry will now be in a stronger position to meet any minor reductions which might have to take place in the future.
    Mr. Shinwell: Since the Minister has come to a decision about reorganisation of the Infantry, may I ask him whether he has made up his mind about the rôle to be played by the Gurkha Battalions? Do they fit into this new scheme of reorganisation?
    Mr. Profumo: No, Sir. That is a wider question. The Gurkha do not fit into the announcement that I have made today, which purely concerns United Kingdom infantry of the line. It does not have anything to do with the Brigade of Gurkha. Later, the overall size of the Army will have something to do with the retention of the Gurkhas.
    Sir Richard Glyn: Will my right hon Friend deal with the part of my supplementary question in which I asked him to give an assurance that there will be no change of identity in the present Battalions?
    Mr. Profumo: Within Battalions, yes.
    Mr. Morris: Will this have any effeot on the size of the Battalion itself?
    Mr. Profumo: No, Sir. This is concerned purely with the grouping organisation, and it is being done because I am sure that the forward-looking concept of the Infantry organisation is that of the Large Infantry Regiment.

    British Troops, Aden (Training)
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for War what approximate proportion of the training time of British troops in Aden is spent on mountain warfare and desert warfare, respectively.
    The Under-Secretary of State and Financial Secretary for War (Mr. James Ramsden): Troops in Aden carry out about 60 per cent. of their training in mountainous country and 40 per cent. in desert conditions.
    Mr. Marten: Since the leader of the republican movement in the Yemen has openly invited the Adeni people to rebel, will my hon. Friend get the training programme balanced in order to leave no shadow of doubt that we intend to maintain our position in Aden?
    Mr. Ramsden: Yes, Sir.

    Gurkha Troops (Aden)
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for War if he will consider posting some Gurkha troops to Aden.
    Mr. Profumo: No. Sir, not at present. The Brigade of Gurkhas is at the moment fully deployed in other theatres.
    Mr. Marten: In thanking my right hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask him to bear in mind that this type of test is very suitable for them? If it comes to a question of running down the Brigade, will he please consider this place as a special one for employing them?
    Mr. Profumo: We should not feel debarred from using Gurkhas in Aden if the need arose. At the moment, the point I am making is that they are more usefully employed elsewhere.

    Research Establishment, Fort Halstead
    Mr. Maddanasked the Secretary of State for War how many of the staff at the Armament Research and Development Establishment, Fort Halstead, were, respectively, fully and partly engaged on work connected with Blue Water at the time of its abandonment; and how many of these are still working in the establishment.
    Mr. Ramsden: Forty-seven staff were employed full-time, with part-time staff equivalent to three more full-time staff. They are all still employed in the establishment.
    Mr. Maddan: Remembering that Blue Water was cancelled as an economy measure and while we are very glad that the individuals concerned are still employed, does my hon. Friend recognise how disheartening it is to workers in the defence industry that when economies come to be made the axe falls wholly upon them and not at all upon those in Government establishments?
    Mr. Ramsden: I see the point made by my hon. Friend, but the answer is that A.R.D.E. is a research and not a production establishment. The underlying principles of the research carried out there, in which these people have been engaged, are not by any means exclusive to Blue Water.
    Mr. Maddan: Would my hon. Friend agree that that explanation is simply an extract from Parkinson's Law?
    Mr. Ramsden: No, Sir. The work which those people are doing is immensely valuable, and the effect of their transfer to this work will be to get it done quicker. This, in turn, will be of value to the defence effort.

    Junior Leaders
    Commander Purseyasked the Secretary of State for War the pay of a junior leader on entry; what charges these other ranks are required to pay for non-Service clothes, such as jeans, shirts and basketball boots; and if he will provide these items free for orphans from large poor families.
    Mr. Ramsden: A junior leader on entry is paid 6s. 6d. a day. This will go up to 7s. in April of next year. The Army supplies a boy with all the clothing he needs. If he wishes to wear civilian clothes off duty he would buy them privately and I am therefore unable to say what he would pay for them. I regret that my right hon. Friend is not able to provide items of civilian clothing from Army funds for wear off duty.
    Commander Pursey: Why does not the Army treat the eldest son of a widow who

    353
    has four young children, who is entirely dependent upon National Insurance allowances, who has to go out to work—[Interruption.] I will put this question, subject to any ruling from Mr. Speaker, without interruption from hon. Members opposite, who do not want to help poor widows. This widow is entirely dependent on National Insurance allowances and has to go out to work school-cleaning from 6 to 8 in the morning and from 4 till 6 at night in order to earn sufficient money for food. Why does not the Army treat this boy in the same way as the local education authority would treat him and pay for this off-duty clothing instead of taking money away from him when he requires all the money he can get to send home to his mother for the financial assistance of herself and four young children?
    Mr. Ramsden: I know the case that the hon. and gallant Member has in mind, and 1 owe him another letter about it in reply to his last one to me. The position of a widowed mother in these circumstances could be a Government responsibility as regards any help which she might deserve from public funds, but it is not my responsibility. We supply these boys with the clothing they need on duty. We make arrangements to help them to buy and pay for other clothing that they may need, but we cannot go further than providing from public funds what is necessary for them to discharge their duty as soldiers.

    Pensions
    Commander Purseyasked the Secretary of State for War the last year in which privates were awarded pensions on the 1919 scale, after 21 years' service; what was the basic pension at that time; what increase has since been paid to privates who left in that year; and what pension is now being paid to them.
    Mr. Ramsden: To have been awarded a basic pension on the 1919 scale for 21 years' service, which amounted to 18s. 4½d. a week, a soldier must have been discharged not later than 1940. All these pensioners will by now be over the age of 60: with the age additions granted under the 1919 code and increases under the Pensions (Increase) Warrants of 1944–47, 1952, 1956 and 1959, they will now be receiving
    354
    £2 6s. 10d. a week, or £2 1ls. 0d. a week if they last enlisted before 10th October, 1925, and are now over the age of 65. These pensions will be further increased following the passage of the new Pensions (Increase) Bill.
    Commander Pursey: Will the Secretary of State discuss with the Minister of Defence the question of increasing the basic 1919 pensions, observing that privates pensioned at the age of 40 have to wait twenty years for their 60 years' increase compared with a much shorter period in the public services, and observing that many privates who served in the Second World War have received no increase in their pensions and are drawing pensions of only £1 a week plus, which is the scale established over forty years ago after the First World War, and that in spite of the figures that the Secretary of State continually gives, Army pensioners are still being paid to two decimal points—:53—of a penny?
    Mr. Ramsden: I have referred to the increases in these pensions which have been given in the past, and there will shortly be another increase, which will give us an opportunity——
    Commander Pursey: Not until they are 60.
    Mr. Ramsden: —of debating the points which the hon. and gallant Member has raised. In general, however, we must stand on the principle that we cannot adjust retrospectively the terms of service which give rise to a particular pension.

    War Office Dispatch (Newspaper Report)
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will take criminal proceedings against the Evening Standard and its political correspondent for referring to an alleged discrepancy in a War Office dispatch about the Battle of Alam Haifa as a political forgery.
    Mr. Profumo: No, Sir.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does not the Secretary of State regard a charge of this kind—one of political forgery directed against the War Office—as extremely improper and grave? Does he propose to take no action at all, not even reporting it to the

    355
    Press Council? Is it not time that some of these Press people were put in their place and not allowed to make charges which they cannot substantiate?
    Mr. Profumo: It is rather difficult for me. It was because I felt that the reported statement by the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) that on the face of it this was political forgery was so unjustifiably damaging to those who were responsible for the Army at the time that I took the very unusual step of publishing part of Field Marshal Alexander's dispatches. It seems to me that if there is any question here of improper libel, it would be one between the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and the right hon. Member for Smethwick and the Evening Standard, for none of which, thank heavens, I am responsible.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when a newspaper has attacked me, I have repeatedly declared that the last thing I would do was to sue it for libel? The only occasion on which I would sue newspapers for libel was when they stopped talking about me.

    Gunner W. J. Gordon (Death)
    Mr. Stratton Millsasked the Secretary of State for War why Gunner W. J. Gordon was not wearing a life jacket when he was drowned.
    Mr. Profumo: I regret to say that Gunner Gordon removed his life jacket after he had been told to wear it.
    Mr. Mills: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the family of Gunner Gordon are still not satisfied with the facts as disclosed? Is there any other procedure which can be pressed upon my right hon. Friend to take this matter further other than the board of inquiry, which has already sat?
    Mr. Profumo: I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety in this case. I can only tell him that the officer in charge checked that all members of the party were wearing life jackets when the canoe set out. Gunner Gordon asked whether he need wear a life jacket and was told that he must. The life jackets were being worn under a loose waterproof smock. That was why the officer did not realise that Gordon had subsequently taken off his life jacket.
    Mr. Mills: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, according to the Army statement, Gunner Gordon was the only man in the troop who asked whether he should wear a life jacket; secondly, that he was the only man in the troop who took his life jacket off; and thirdly, that he is the only man in the troop who is not alive today to tell a different story?
    Mr. Profumo: I can only give my hon. Friend the facts of the case. I have given them to him as clearly and as fully as I can. I am sure that the officer in charge acted quite properly and that if Gunner Gordon had obeyed the instructions—which, of course, he did to begin with—there would not have been this tragic accident.

    Trojan Armoured Personnel Carriers
    Mr. Morrisasked the Secretary of State for War what orders for Trojan armoured personnel carriers he has authorised; what were the dates on which such authorisations were given; on what dates the orders so authorised were placed with the manufacturers; and what are the expected delivery dates.
    Mr. Profumo: The decision to place a production order for over 1,000 of these vehicles was taken in August. Negotiations concerned with the allocation of the main contract have since been in progress and the contract is now about to be placed. I am afraid that the estimates as between the Ordnance Factories and industry leave me with no alternative but to place the whole order with industry. I expect delivery of the first vehicles early in 1964.
    Mr. Morris: With regard to the delays in this matter, will the utmost speed now be shown to ensure that the Army has adequate numbers of these vehicles at the earliest possible opportunity? Since the right hon. Gentleman is talking about as far back as March this year, if he has had encouraging reports from the field about these carriers, will the utmost speed be now shown?
    Mr. Profumo: Yes, certainly. We have been showing the utmost speed the whole way through. I think the hon. Gentleman will realise, when he considers the Answer I have just given, that I was not

    357
    anxious to depart from the preferred source policy and it was this important decision, to try to see whether the thing could be shared, which has been responsible for some delay, and, of course, everything will be done now to speed things up.

    Guns
    Mr. Morrisasked the Secretary of State for War what steps he is taking to provide the Army with a substitute for the Bofors light anti-aircraft gun; and when the Army will receive the 105 mm. gun that is to replace the 25 pounder.
    Mr. Profumo: The latest version of the Bofors gun now in service has electronic fire control equipment and will be effective against most aircraft, both by day and night, for some years to come. We are considering what is to replace it but it is too early yet for me to indicate its successor. Deliveries of the self-propelled 105 mm. gun, Abbot, are expected to begin in about two years' time.

    W.R.A.C. Private, Hounslow Barracks (Transfer)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which a Women's Royal Army Corps private, of whom details have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Brixton, was transferred from Hounslow Barracks.
    Mr. Profumo: Following certain allegations of unnatural friendships, an inquiry was held into the conduct of some of the W.R.A.C.s at Hounslow. One girl who gave evidence at the inquiry felt that her position there would be difficult and consequently arrangements were made for her to be posted elsewhere.
    Mr. Lipton: Is it not most unfair that the victim of improper overtures should be discharged or posted away—I understand there are more than one of them—while abnormal characters seem to be kept on? Are parents going to allow their daughters to join the Women's Royal Army Corps, a very fine branch of the Service, if behaviour of this kind even seems to be condoned?
    Mr. Profumo: I am glad the hon. Gentleman has paid tribute to this Corps, because it thoroughly deserves it. His facts are not quite right. In fact, the young lady I have just referred to in my Answer was not discharged. She was posted to another station, and that was done in her own interests, and I am sure it was the right thing to do. It was as a result of this very isolated incident that eight girls were discharged from Her Majesty's Service as being of no further value to Her Majesty. All these girls were girls who were implicated. As a result of the full inquiry they were found to have been implicated in this incident, and there was no question of innocent girls having been retired from the Service or of any of the girls who were guilty being allowed to remain.

  SCOTLAND

    Fishing Vessels (Grants)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the need of owners and workers in British shipyards of detailed knowledge of the procedure to be adopted by them in application to Her Majesty's Government for grants and loans under the legislation relating to the building of fishing vessels; and if he will now issue a detailed statement of that procedure and of the principles which Her Majesty's Government will apply in deciding between British and foreign shipyards in granting or refusing such grants and loans.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White): These grants and loans are made by the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board to the owners of the fishing vessels who are fully informed by them of the procedure for making applications. The main considerations are set out in the Schemes governing Grants for Fishing Vessels approved by this House on 16th July last.
    An applicant who wishes to build abroad will normally be required, in addition to a foreign tender. to obtain at least three tenders from British yards, all the tenders being based on the same specification. The Authority or Board

    359
    will not approve grant or loan for an order placed with a foreign shipyard shown to be in receipt of a material element of subsidy.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that that is a very unsatisfactory answer, that the procedure which he indicates does nothing to resolve or alleviate the gravely increasing unemployment in British shipyards and is in contradiction to the many promises made by various Ministers to tackle this problem in a practical way so that during the coming winter there will not be this increasing unemployment?
    Mr. Brooman-White: These arrangements are calculated to give British shipyards a full and fair opportunity to tender.
    Mr. Hoy: But surely, in view of the present position in British shipyards, the Under-Secretary is not going to say some preference ought not to be given to British yards over foreign shipyards? Secondly, in view of the fact that the White Fish Authority some eighteen months ago decided that no more grants or loans be granted for this purpose, can the hon. Gentleman say whether that rule has been broken, with a view to placing no orders at all?
    Mr. Brooman-White: On the second point, that has not been in my knowledge. On the point of competitive tenders from British yards, experience of the deep water fleet, where there has been no element of grant, over a considerable period of time has shown that British yards have succeeded in getting a considerable proportion of the tenders.

    Guest Committee (Report)
    Mr. McInnesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Guest Committee on Licensing was appointed; and when it is likely to submit its Second Report dealing with the sale of excisable liquor in areas of housing development and redevelopment.
    Mr. Brooman-White: Lord Guest's Committee was appointed on 13th August, 1959, and submitted its First Report on 20th October, 1960. I understand that it hopes to be in a position to submit its Second Report, covering the outstanding items of its remit, early in 1963.
    Mr. McInnes: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the question of permitting licensed premises on housing estates is not a very complicated or complex subject? I personally do not understand why the Committee should take almost three years to deliberate on this very simple subject. What steps does the Minister propose to take to expedite the Report?
    Mr. Brooman-White: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the second part of the remit covered the constitution of licensing courts as well as the point to which he referred. The Committee, I am informed, had 11 meetings before giving its first and very useful Report. It has had 14 meetings on the second part of the remit. I think it is pressing on with all reasonable effort to achieve its job.

    Conveyancing and Land Registration (Report)
    Mr. McInnesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Reid Committee on Conveyancing and Registration of Title to Land was appointed; and when it is likely to submit its Report.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn): The Committee was appointed in September, 1959. My right hon. Friend expects to receive its Report before the end of the year.
    Mr. McInnes: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the law on conveyancing and registration in Scotland is out-moded and is causing considerable hardship to those who desire to purchase houses? Has he consulted the Chairman as to when the Report is likely to be submitted?
    Mr. Leburn: Yes. I think the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this, at any rate, is a complex subject, and, as I told him in reply to his Question, my right hon. Friend expects the Report before the end of this year.
    Mr. Hoy: But is not the hon. Gentleman aware that, whether these reports are on matters which are complex or otherwise, apparently the rule seems to be that they must not take less than three years? Cannot he take some steps to speed up these reports, which are so important to the people of Scotland?
    Mr. Leburn: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but reports of this kind, involving busy professional people, normally take, I am advised, something like two years. In this particular case, with intricate problems involved, it has taken three.
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will investigate the effect of high legal charges on attracting new industry to Scotland; and if he will introduce legislation to ensure that Scottish conveyancing charges are no higher than elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Leburn: Legal charges are such a small element in the cost of setting up a new firm that I do not feel any useful purpose would be served by an investigation. As regards the second part of the Question, my right hon. Friend is awaiting the Report of the Reid Committee on Registration of Title to Land in Scotland.
    Mr. Thomson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when the President of the Board of Trade visited Scotland in the summer a number of smaller firms seeking grants under the Local Employment Act indicated that the conveyancing charges were an obstacle to them? In the light of that, will he not look a little further at this. especially when the Report of the Reid Committee finally, at long last, reaches him?
    Mr. Leburn: Perhaps it would be better if we looked at this after receiving the Report from the Reid Committee.
    Mr. Hendry: Declaring an interest in this matter, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that Scottish solicitors wish they could charge half what English solicitors do?
    Mr. Hoy: Does not the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's reply show how important it is to Scotland that it should have this Report very soon, and in view of his answer to this Question, will he now consult the Reid Committee as to when we can expect its Report?
    Mr. Leburn: We are really not very far away from the end of the year now—it is a matter of six or seven weeks—and I have already told the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) that my right hon. Friend expects the Report before the end of the year.

    Planning Appeals and Compulsory Purchase Orders
    Mr. Hendryasked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the average delay between the date of planning appeals and the holding of inquiries concerning property in Scotland;
    (2) what is the average delay between the date of application for compulsory purchase and similar orders and the holding of inquiries into these applications in Scotland.
    Mr. Leburn: The average for planning appeals is 35 weeks, and for compulsory purchase and similar orders 33 weeks. This average is heavily weighted by a limited number of cases which, for special reasons, take an exceptionally long time.
    Mr. Hendry: Will my hon. Friend not agree that such an average delay, which is very much worse than anything we have heard of in England, is today a very serious matter and can hold up most important projects connected with industry and housing and schools and lots of other things, and will he take steps to increase the number of reporters, if that is the cause of the trouble, either by paying members of the Bar increased fees [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—or will he consider the further use of retired civil servants who have in many cases a great deal of administrative experience of this sort of thing and are extremely capable and are very often living on very small pensions?
    Mr. Leburn: I should certainly like to see these delays drastically reduced, but while I could not go so far as to say there is never any delay before the reporter fits in a particular case, I am satisfied that it is not normal for this to cause the delay.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that these delays are quite disgraceful and, in certain cases, affect the supply of electricity to industry in Scotland and are likely to cause very serious damage? Instead of accepting his hon. Friend's plea to increase the fees of these advocates, who do this apparently as a spare time job, would the hon. Gentleman consider suggesting that they might

    363
    have a penalty on their fees if they do not produce reports in a reasonable time?
    Hon. Members: Answer!
    Mr. Hey: Surely my hon. Friend is entitled to an answer? There is a feeling in Scotland that far too many people engaged in the law are so busy in other directions that they regard this as a spare time occupation. If this is so, I should like to know what steps the Scottish Office proposes to take to put the matter right.
    Mr. Leburn: Normally, the reporters in planning appeals are not members of the Bar. As I tried to explain in my previous answer, the delay is not normally caused through the reporter. It is very much more normal for the delay to be caused through the need to await the observations of local authorities.

    Electricity Boards (Report)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has studied the recommendation made in the Report of the Committee on the Generation and Distribution of Electricity in Scotland, Command Paper No. 1859, that one electricity board for the whole of Scotland should be established to replace the two existing boards for the north and south of Scotland, respectively; and if he will make a statement indicating his plans arising from this in relation to trade, industry, commerce and employment in the north of Scotland.
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the policy of the Government in the light of the recommendations of the Mackenzie Committee on Scottish electricity development.
    Mr. Leburn: I cannot at present add to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) on 7th November.
    Mr. Hughes: Is it the Government's intention to implement the Mackenzie Report and, in the event of its being implemented, can the hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that the North of Scotland, and particularly the North-East,
    364
    will not be further deprived of trade, industry, commerce and employment, and that the Government will not continue the damaging and horrible work begun by the clearances years ago?
    Mr. Leburn: I am fully alive to the need for an early decision being taken by the Government, but I must also bear in mind the need for careful examination of the issues involved.
    Mr. Thomson: In coming to a decision on the question of merger, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is considerable concern and suspicion about this proposal not only in the Highlands but even in a lowlands city like Dundee——
    Mr. Hughes: And Aberdeen.
    Mr. Thomson: —which has been well served by the board? In the meantime, will he allow the Hydro-Electric Board to get ahead with its developments without delay, for, whatever the Committee may recommend, there is clearly ample scope for further hydro-electric development in Scotland?
    Mr. Leburn: With regard to the second part of the supplementary question, at this stage that is a matter for the Board but we shall take into account all the factors and the matters arising from the Report.

    Local Employment Act
    Mr. Steeleasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications have been submitted under the Local Employment Act for assistance under Section 5; how many have been approved; how many have been completed; and what was the total sum granted.
    Mr. Leburn: Twenty applications have been submitted, of which 13 have so far been approved for grants totalling £123,000. Four others are under consideration. Work on two schemes is complete.
    Mr. Steele: Surely this is a sorrowful story of dither and delay, and very little has, in fact, been done. Would not the Minister agree that more initiative is required from his Department to try to get local authorities to appreciate that many of these schemes should be carried

    365
    through if we are to bring industry to Scotland, and that it is important that suitable sites should be available, together with water and other facilities?
    Mr. Leburn: The initiative here lies with the local authorities, and I should be very glad to consider more applications for these grants.
    Mr. Steele: But only two schemes have been completed. Why is this? Surely the delay is caused by the Department?
    Mr. Leburn: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand that many of these schemes involve large earth-moving works, and these take a considerable amount of time.

    Water Supplies (Fluoridation)
    Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking fully to inform local authority councillors in Scotland of the desirability of maintaining adequate fluoridation of water supplies.
    Mr. Brooman-White: Copies of the Report of the Conduct of the Fluoridation Studies in the United Kingdom were sent in July to each local health authority in Scotland. This should enable the local authorities to reach an informed view on this matter.
    Dr. Mabon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this matter is going by default because, in the case of the Kilmarnock Town Council, inadequate information was presented and the councillors were misinformed? Will he circulate the information from the Standing Advisory Dental Committee to all local councillors in Scotland so that we may have a proper presentation of the case?
    Mr. Brooman-White: I will certainly consider that point.
    Dr. Stross: Can the hon. Gentleman give us some information as to the cost of fluoridation—for example, the cost to an average town of 100,000 population?
    Mr. Brooman-White: Not without notice.

    Housing Subsidy
    Mr. Manuelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the amount of subsidy which will be paid for each
    366
    approved house for each local authority provided under Section 3 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1962, for the year ended 1st November, 1962.
    Mr. Leburn: None of the houses completed in the year ended 31st October, 1962, has ranked for subsidy under Section 3. All have ranked for subsidy under earlier legislation, except for 32 houses ranking under provisions of the 1962 Act other than Section 3.
    Mr. Manuel: The sting is in the tail of the hon. Gentleman's reply. He will be aware that the subsidy provisions of the 1962 Housing Act are retrospective in their application to 1st November, 1961. It is astonishing that he cannot give me a clear picture of the number of houses completed since 1st November last year and so tell us the actual number of authorities which are receiving the lower subsidy figure.
    Mr. Leburn: It is true, as the hon. Gentleman says, that it is only houses for which tenders have been received since 1st November, 1961, which qualify for subsidy under the 1962 Act, but so far no houses have been completed and, therefore, I am unable to answer his question.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Manuel.
    Mr. Manuel: I could tell the hon Gentleman of many houses——
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot tell the Minister anything now. This is time for Questions.
    Mr. Manuel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did you call me for the next Question or on Question No. 23?
    Mr. Speaker: I called the hon. Gentleman without specifying, which left him at liberty to ask a supplementary question, but he then did not ask a question at all and so I was obliged to intervene.
    Mr. Manuel: My recollection is that I said "Could I tell the hon. Gentleman".
    Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that that is an interrogatory form which does not Impress me. Perhaps we had better get on to the next Question.

    Flood Prevention Schemes
    Mr. Manuelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many flood prevention schemes have been carried out under the provisions of the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act, 1961.
    Mr. Leburn: One scheme is under construction and nine authorities are known to have proposals under consideration.
    Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have had recurring —'[HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"] Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in many areas in Scotland we have had recurring and serious flooding, and that there does not seem to be the progress that was anticipated by the Government when the Act was passed? Does the hon. Gentleman intend to take any steps to obviate such recurrences and prevent the loss and damage to property which takes place every winter?
    Mr. Leburn: I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that a flood prevention scheme necessarily takes some time to prepare and that other interests have to be consulted. We know that nine local authorities have this matter under consideration at the present time.
    Mr. Ross: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us which local authorities are involved?
    Mr. Leburn: I could, but it would take some time. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied if I send him a note about the matter.

    Generating Stations
    Mr. J. Hillasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the recommendation of the Mackenzie Committee that a new coal-fired electricity generating station should be constructed in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Leburn: The Mackenzie Committee concluded that, if the price is competitive, there could be a major new coal-fired station in addition to the coal-fired station already approved for construction at Cockenzie. The South of Scotland Electricity Board has recently appointed consulting engineers to prepare a report on the problems in-
    368
    volved in providing the additional generating, capacity that will be needed after the Cockenzie station is completed in 1968.
    Mr. Hill: Will the Minister prevail upon his right hon. Friend to authorise the construction of this new power station, because it could mean the difference between thousands of miners being employed, as against their being unemployed? Will he also consider the fact that we are expecting new industries coming to Scotland, and that when we get them we shall need much more electricity than we have at the moment? In these circumstances, will the Minister go into the question again and authorise the construction of this coal-fired power station?
    Mr. Leburn: I am aware of the importance of this decision to the coal industry in Scotland. I am keeping in touch with the Electricity Board on the matter, but the next step is for the board to consider the report of its consultants, once this is available.
    Mr. Fraser: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if a decision on this matter is delayed too long there will be no possibility of going ahead with the coal-fired power stations in Scotland, because the pits which otherwise would supply the coal will have been closed, not because there is no coal there—there is enough coal there to take them well beyond the end of the century—but because the market will not be there? Will he see that all these considerations are taken into account at a very early date and see if he can reach a decision on this matter?
    Mr. Leburn: Certainly. The Electricity Board is in touch with the National Coal Board on this matter, and, further, I must inform the hon. Gentleman that the Electricity Board expects its consultants' report early next year.
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will give a general direction to the Scottish Electricity Boards to formulate a longterm programme for electricity production and a forecast of the coal required, in order that the local authorities in Scotland and the National Coal Board can plan with knowledge of future prospects.
    Mr. Leburn: The boards already plan their electricity programmes as far ahead as is practicable, bearing in mind the Changes in demand and development in techniques that are taking place.
    Mr. Woodburn: As the Secretary of State of Scotland is responsible for electricity and is also responsible for housing and the general work of the local authorities, does he exercise any control in bringing all these people concerned together with the National Coal Board to see that there is a comprehensive programme which everybody understands and which gives some sense of continuity to the future of Scotland? Does he realise that it is uncertainty that is helping to create difficulties in developing industry and other things in Scotland?
    Mr. Leburn: At the present time, the boards are forecasting their requirements seven years ahead. There is consultation between the board, the local authorities and so on, and I think that, taking into account the difficulty of assessing demand ahead by more than seven years, this is a fairly reasonable period.

    Foreign Fishing Vessels (Nets)
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will seek power to impose restrictions on foreign fishing vessels landing their catch in Scottish ports when they are in possession of nets with a mesh smaller than international convention permits.
    Mr. Brooman-White: No, Sir. The presence on board a vessel of nets having meshes below the minimum sizes prescribed in the International Convention is not proof of a contravention of the Convention, since it permits the carriage and use of such nets by vessels fishing for certain species of fish such as herring and sand eels.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is a matter of constant irritation to the fishermen in our own ports? Is he further aware that, in the interests of the industry as a whole, we cannot be too strict on the way in which we enforce the conservation of fish stocks?
    Mr. Brooman-White: I appreciate that there has been anixety about this, but I can only say that we are continuing to
    370
    do all we can through the permanent Commission to ensure the proper enforcement of the Convention by all the Governments concerned.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that it is time that the International Convention was tightened up in such a way as to protect the Scottish fishing industry?
    Mr. Brooman-White: I understand that there is a still further Convention, the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Convention, which will soon come into operation and will give us further power to tighten up.

    East Kilbride Development Corporation (General Manager)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether a new general manager has yet been appointed for East Kilbride Development Corporation; and what qualifications are expected of the successful applicant.
    Mr. Leburn: This appointment was announced on 10th November by the Corporation, with whom the full responsibility rests.
    Mr. Rankin: While recognising the hon. Gentleman's limitations in this matter, may I ask if he is aware that the gentleman appointed to this post is a civil servant in Kenya, where he has been employed for most of his career, and that he has no housing qualifications whatsoever? In view of the fact that a great deal of public money is engaged in this development, does he not think it right that at least he should make inquiries about this appointment in order to make sure that civil servants are not to be presented with jobs like this simply because they are to be displaced from their existing employment?
    Mr. Leburn: This is a Development Corporation appointment, and I do not think that it is for me to express a view about the choice it has made. I think it should be understood that the general manager is an administrative and not a technical official. and that he is assisted by the Corporation's chief officers, who have specialist technical responsibilities.
    Mr. Rankin: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that there is far more to it than he has indicated—that far more

    371
    falls to the general manager than he has detailed? In view of the importance of the matter and the concern which it has caused particularly in Scotland amongst those Scotsmen who are interested in jobs of this kind—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] —Yes, of course, many Scotsmen are interested in these appointments—surely, it is a matter for inquiry when an individual can be brought from so far away as Kenya for this job, and when we have applicants and men with qualifications in Scotland?
    Mr. Leburn: We are not responsible for this new town corporation. It has the responsibility for administration and management, and I do not think it is for my right hon. Friend to make his observations.

    Drugs
    Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will initiate a scheme for the quality testing of drugs similar to that of the Ministry of Health.
    Mr. Brooman-White: My right hon. Friend is about to seek the views of the chemists and those of the other bodies concerned on a model drug-testing scheme which would be suitable for operation by the Executive Councils in Scotland. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, this proposal is not connected in any way with the testing of new products such as thalidomide.
    Dr. Mabon: Will the Minister give an assurance that it will not take as long to set up this arrangement as it did in the case of the Reid Report?
    Mr. Brooman-White: We shall be as quick as we can.
    Mr. Woodburn: Has the attention of the hon. Gentleman been drawn to the charges of great misuse of drugs because doctors do not keep themselves acquainted with the proper use of antibiotics and these other new ancillaries to health? Can he give some assurance that in the National Health Service this education will be spread amongst doctors, who will be advised how to use these instruments?
    Mr. Brooman-White: That is another question. The object of this operation is to ensure that what is prescribed is properly dispensed.

    Domiciliary Midwives, Lanarkshire
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the average annual case load of a domiciliary midwife in the County of Lanark, and the range by which such case loads vary in different parts of the county.
    Mr. Brooman-White: The average case load is 55 to 60. I am informed that the case loads of midwives employed by the county council on a contract of service range from about 40 to about 100. There are in addition four midwives working on a fee-per-case basis, and one of these is understood to have a case load of about 120.
    Mr. Lawson: In view of the fact that the average given for 1961 is 42, is it not scandalous that one of these midwives should be carrying as many as 120 cases? Is not this something which indicates how badly off the County of Lanark is in this respect? Will the hon. Gentleman now look at it again and see what he can do to help Lanarkshire to meet this difficulty?
    Mr. Brooman-White: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Lanarkshire is suffering special difficulties in this matter, and we will certainly do everything we can to assist the county council, with which the primary responsibility rests.
    Mr. Lawson: Will the hon. Gentleman remember that it has been pointed out that 55 cases are as many as any midwife should be expected to carry in this respect, and that here we have a case of 120? Surely, this is absurd?
    Mr. Brooman-White: I agree that the Scottish average on the whole is considerably below the Lanarkshire average. There are exceptional cases in Lanarkshire which cause all concern.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    U2 Aircraft
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Air how many U-2 aircraft he has agreed with the United States Government should be stationed in Great Britain; to what extent their flights are controlled by Great Britain; and when they will cease to be stationed here.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Hugh Fraser): Three U-2 aircraft. We have further agreed that these aircraft may carry out flights over international waters in the North Atlantic area for the purpose of atmospheric sampling and weather research. The flights are notified to the appropriate Air Traffic Control authorities. The aircraft will remain in this country until their programme is finished; and this will depend in large measure on the ending of the present series of Soviet nuclear tests in the atmosphere.
    Mr. Allaun: In view of the three international incidents caused this year by U-2 aircraft flying over Russian territory, not to mention the Captain Powers affair, would it not be wiser to end these flights from British bases altogether?
    Mr. Fraser: No, Sir. I think that they are carrying out extremely useful research, and that research will continue until the Soviet nuclear test programme in the atmosphere ceases.
    Mr. Mason: Is the right hon. Gentleman's Department fully informed about all these patrols, particularly the flight paths?
    Mr. Fraser: Yes, Sir. I have examined the flight patterns myself.

    Radiation Detection Posts
    Mr. Masonasked the Secretary of State for Air how many radiation detection posts have now been built; whether the programme is now complete; to what extent they are manned; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. H. Fraser: 1,250 of these underground posts have been built and 150 are under construction. Contracts for the final 100 posts will be let shortly. The posts would be manned by the Royal Observer Corps in an emergency.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mason.
    Mr. Mason—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Rankin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be possible to lengthen the third back bench opposite in order to accommodate displaced Ministers?
    Mr. Speaker: Not in the middle of Question Time.
    Mr. Mason: Can the Secretary of State for Air inform the House what will be the eventual total cost of this programme and whether we are using the radiation network at the moment for assessing fallout from American and Russian tests?
    Mr. Fraser: The total cost will be about £2¼ million, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, these stations would only assess the high degree of fall-out which would result from atomic attack. The present fall-out from various weapon tests throughout the world can be read only by far finer instruments. If the hon. Gentleman has a question on that aspect, I would ask him to address it to the United Nations or to the Minister for Science here.

  ROADS

    Chequers Roundabout, Dagenham
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Transport when work is to start on the Chequers roundabout in Dagenham.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett): We are considering tenders which were received on 31st October, and hope that work will cornmence early next year.

    Bristol
    Mr. Awberyasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the Bristol City Council has plans for dealing with the acute traffic problems which exist in the city and for bringing the urban road system up to the standard necessary to meet the increasing traffic; and, in view of the fact that further progress to implement these plans cannot be made without his approval, if he will give an indication of his policy in connection with urban roads generally, and Bristol in particular, and give higher priority to grants for this purpose so that the work can be proceeded with immediately.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: My right hon. Friend's policy is to help and encourage towns in several ways to meet the growing problem of traffic congestion. These include road improvements, so far as is desirable and also practicable within the funds available. Bristol is doing conspicuously well in the current programme. We are in touch with the city council

    375
    about its future road plans, but many of them have yet to be submitted as amendments to the development plan. When firm proposals are put to my right hon. Friend he will consider what assistance he can give.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that traffic on our urban roads has thrown up very large difficulties similar to those on country roads, and that it is necessary to spend money on those roads? Is he aware that my authority has prepared plans involving expenditure of £6 million a year but is waiting for the Minister to give his sanction? Will he give priority to schemes for the open roads both in country and in town?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Schemes at present with a total cost of some £5 million are included in the programme for Bristol between 1961 and 1964. We shall consider any further schemes for grant when they are submitted.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that, at this rate, it will be the year 2000 before such roads are ready for traffic?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The programme for Bristol has to be spread over some time, and we cannot approve new schemes until we are satisfied that they are justified.

    Motorways (Remote Control Signs)
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Transport when the experiment with remotely controlled illuminated signs will be started; and on which lengths of motorway it will be carried out.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The design of the necessary equipment for this experiment is proving more difficult than expected. This may delay the start. Approval of the experiment must await preparation of detailed estimates of cost, but subject to this, we are hoping, to try out the signs on the 28 miles of the M.5 between Twyning and Lydiate Ash.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind the importance of having this experiment on the M.1 because of the heavy traffic and the prevailing weather conditions, such as fog? The Minister promised in summer to consider putting this in operation on the M.1.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The M.5 was selected because it so happens that its 28 miles are all within the jurisdiction of Worcestershire County Police, who will thus be able to control the whole scheme.

  SHIPPING

    Barry Docks
    Mr. Awberyasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the uncertainty created by the Rochdale Committee's report on docks referring to the closing of Barry Docks is preventing industrialists, who desire to do so, from extending their premises and is stopping others from considering, the establishment of new industries in the port; and if he will take steps to prevent any further deterioration in the position by giving an assurance that it is not his intention to close this port.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to a Question on this subject by the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) on 7th November, 1962, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the town in which I live depends mainly upon its docks? The local authority is responsible for the town but was not consulted in any way by the Rochdale Committee. Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Rochdale Report has already damaged the town's trade? People will not come in with new industries, nor will those already there expand because of the threat of the Report. Will he give urgent consideration to this so that all the people concerned there can get on with their jobs?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The Government have invited comments of representatives of the bodies concerned. Not all are available yet, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will form their conclusions on the recommendations of the Report as soon as possible and hope to make a statement thereafter.
    Mr. Gower: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that, in the last year or two, tremendous progress has been made

    377
    in establishing new industries near the docks at Barry? Is he further aware that the mere publication of this Report, even if it is never implemented, is having a very serious effect on the plans of those industrialists who wish to expand? Will he therefore please, at an early date, say that this Report will not be impdcmcnted?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I am aware of these factors. It is for this reason that I will give the future of Barry the earliest practicable consideration after the Government have reached their decision on the Report's main proposals.
    Mr. Popplewell: In view of the great importance of the Report to all the ports of the country, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman try to expedite the Government's decision? Does he appreciate that it is important that a decision should be reached before the Minister sets up the new Docks Board under the Transport Act, 1962, for it would appear that, if the Minister follows the Committee's recommendations, there will be no necessity for that Docks Board to be appointed?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I appreciate the point put by the hon. Gentleman, and we are alive to the need for speed. We asked for observations from the interested parties by the end of last month, but they asked for an extension to the end of this month. Our intention is to give our decision on the main proposals at the earliest possible date.

  RAILWAYS

    Meals
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minister of Transport if he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission that they should not introduce economies in meals provided by British Railways.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the recent action of the British Transport Commission in cutting out fish from railway meals has caused a great deal of discontent amongst fishermen? Dr. Beeching has already made enemies of the railwaymen. Does
    378
    the hon. and gallant Gentleman approve of his making enemies of the fishermen as well?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I hope that the hon. Member's fears of the effect of this on the fishing industry are exaggerated. But I must point out that changes in the composition or price of meals on restaurant cars is a matter for the Commission, and my right hon. Friend cannot interfere. There is the further point that, although the catering division as a whole made a profit of £750,000 in 1961, the restaurant car service lost over £250,000.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: Will my hon. and gallant Friend hear in mind that, although British Railways has reduced the number of courses from four to three, apparently removing the fish course—which has caused great concern to my constituency in Aberdeen—the main course can be either fish or meat? Will he publicise this fact and see also that large portions of fish are served?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: If that proves to be correct, I can assure my hon. Friend that we will publicise the fact.
    Mr. Thorpe: Is it not a fact that British Railways has enough fish in stock to continue serving the public for the next nine months?

UNITED KINGDOM AND JAPAN (COMMERCIAL TREATY)
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. HIRST: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement about the Treaty of Commerce, Establishment and Navigation between the United Kingdom and Japan.
The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): With permission, I will now answer Question No. 74.
Yes Sir. The Treaty was signed this morning. Copies of the text are available toy the House. together with a Command Paper summarising the history of the negotiations and explaining the effect of the Treaty and associated arrangements.

379
The essence of this Treaty is the exchange of most-favoured-nation rights and, yin some cases, national rights between the two countries as regards the treatment of persons, companies, shipping and goods. Safeguards against disruptive competition are provided in the associated arrangements.
The safeguards are, first, continued control of a number of specially sensitive items by export restriction in Japan or import restriction in the United Kingdom; and, second, a general safeguard for use in the event of disruptive competition developing in any sector of trade. When the Treaty comes into force, Britain will cease to invoke Article XXXV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, thereby entering into relations with Japan under the General Agreement.
Since the rapid expansion of Japan's economy was first accompanied, some two years ago, by real progress in the liberalisation of her import trade, the conclusion of a treaty on these lines has been a major objective of Government policy. To enable our exporters to reap the full benefits of the expanding market it was necessary to obtain guarantees that our trade would be as well treated as that of countries, such as Germany and the United States, who were in G.A.T.T. relations with Japan; and to provide a normal and settled basis of commercial relation's for trade between the two countries to replace the annually negotiated trade arrangements. The need for a treaty has been equally recognised by representative's of industrial opinion with first-hand knowledge of developments in Japan.
The rate of expansion of the Japanese economy in the last few years has far exceeded that of other industrial free-enterprise countries. Our exports to Japan have increased by about two-thirds in the last two years. Liberalisation of imports by Japan goes steadily forward. With relations now on a sound basis, I believe that our exports to Japan will continue to grow and there should be increasing opportunities for the profitable exchange of know-how between the two countries.
Some sections of industry have, I know, been doubtful whether the general
380
safeguard is an effective protection. I firmly believe that their fears are exaggerated. Under this safeguard we may consult the Japanese Government if there is an increase in imports of any product under conditions which cause or threaten serious injury to our manufacturers. In an emergency we can impose import restrictions at any time after consultation has begun, retaining them as long as they are needed. But we may hope that the necessity for this will rarely, if ever, arise, since it is reasonable to expect that the Japanese Government will readily co-operate with us to avoid a situation in which we would be compelled to reintroduce restrictions on Japanese trade.
The Treaty is likely to be ratified and come into force in April or May of next year. The current trade arrangement has been renewed to cover the interval. During this period there will be some relaxations on our side, not affecting textile goods. Relaxations on the Japanese side will offer substantially increased opportunities to our exporters of wool cloth, whisky, cars and machine tools.
Mr. Hirst: I thank my right hon. Friend for that important statement, which the House will want to study. At this juncture, may I ask him whether his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has had the conversations, which I was promised during business questions on 1st November, with a view to a debate which we desire before signature of the Treaty and which is still necessary in this important matter?
Does my right hon. Friend seriously consider that signature to a measure of great trust and mutual confidence is desirable at a time when Japan still retains the right to subsidise exports for at least a year after ratification? Does he appreciate that his unwillingness to accept the united advice of both employers and employees in the wool textile industry means that selective protection as given in the Treaty will of itself disrupt the very careful balance of this industry and might itself do harm?
Mr. Erroll: The question of a debate will be decided through the usual channels, should that prove to be necessary.
As for the Japanese arrangements for subsidising exports, my right hon. Friend

381
the Prime Minister said in answer to a Question a few days ago that the Japanese have given an undertaking to allow their present legislation to lapse and to sign the general declaration on export subsidies in the G.A.T.T. at a date no later than the date on which the legislation lapses. That means that Japan will be coming into line with other major industrial countries——
Mr. Hirst: When?
Mr. Erroll: Not later than March, 1964, and it may well be earlier. The Japanese have given the latest date before which they must have signed this arrangement.
I have been having conversations with the Wool Textile Delegation, as a result of which I think that the delegation now sees that the arrangements which we are proposing for the wool textile industry are likely to be more effective than they at first feared.
Mr. Jay: While hon. Members will no doubt wish to study these arrangements further before commenting an them in detail, is the President of the Board of Trade satisfied that the agreement is fair to British textile industries, the wool textile industry in particular?
Mr. Erroll: I am satisfied that it is entirely fair to both the cotton and wool textile industries.
Mr. Wade: May I press the right hon. Gentleman a little further on the subsidisation of exports? He will be aware of the concern felt by the wool textile industry over the dual pricing system by certain large trading concerns in Japan. Is there anything in the terms of this Treaty, or has any statement been made by the Japanese Government, which provides a firm assurance that the dual pricing system will cease, or are we to assume that the dual pricing system may continue?
Mr. Erroll: Dual pricing is not one of the export arrangements banned by the G.A.T.T. declaration. It is a matter for individual industries and firms to decide their export prices, and there are price differentials in respect of British exporting industries, too.
The Japanese dual pricing of wool cloth is partially made possible by the present high rate of duty, but the
382
Japanese have always explained that this high duty was temporary and that they intend to reduce it in the coming months and years. There is no import duty at all in respect of wool tops, so that in that important respect there is no element of dual pricing.
Mr. W. J. Taylor: In view of the period of several months which will elapse before the Treaty is ratified by the Japanese Diet, will my right hon. Friend agree to continue his discussions with the representatives of the wool textile industry with a view to ensuring that the safeguards which he has introduced into the Treaty are workable and adequate to give the protection which the industry undoubtedly needs?
Mr. Erroll: I am glad to tell the House that I had a most useful discussion with the Wool Textile Delegation last week and that we have together decided that we will keep in the closest possible touch in order to work out whatever arrangements may appear to be necessary when the delegation has had the opportunity of studying the details of the Treaty.
Mr. Rhodes: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that until we see the exact terms of the Treaty, we shall not know much about it, but that what little we know we do not like. Are the Government prepared to give time to debate this important Treaty? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the liberalisation which he mentioned is on 1959 figures and products only and that when the Japanese got to the point where ratification was likely they put on a swingeing tariff which could possibly cancel out any effects of liberalisation? Will the Government give time for a debate, out of which many useful and protective ideas could emerge?
Mr. Erroll: As I have said, the question of debating time is a matter for discussion through the usual channels with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
As regards the suggestion that the Japanese might impose swingeing duties a few days before ratification, I think it is unlikely that they would wish to do that because on ratification we would enter into full G.A.T.T. relations with the Japanese and they would in any

383
case wish to move in that part of the field in conformity with their present and existing membership of the G.A.T.T.
Mr. Tiley: My right hon. Friend has said that one of the safeguards for the wool textile industry is that it can take action in the event of disruption being threatened, not actually occurring. Is my right hon. Friend taking further steps to make sure that he has the information in time to take that action?
May I also press my right hon. Friend for a debate, because this Treaty, which concerns our constituents, has been signed outside the House and we should have the opportunity to discuss it. We are very anxious that the Japanese should not be allowed to pull the wool over our eyes.
Mr. Erroll: A goad deal of the wool will probably be British woollen exports to Japan, which are running at a high level at the present time.
As regards the threat of disruption, what my hon. Friend has said is correct. It is not only actual "serious injury", to use the words of the Treaty, but the "threat of serious injury" which can be covered by the Safeguards Protocol. One of the things which I am discussing with the Wool Textile Delegation is the means whereby the Board of Trade can be rapidly informed in the event, unlikely though it may be, of such a situation developing.
Mr. S. Silverman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nothing in his record so far gives the cotton textile industry any confidence whatever in his capacity to assess what is fair and what is not fair? While we appreciate that it is not for him alone to allocate time for a debate, can he at least undertake that this agreement will not be ratified
384
or put into operation until the House has had an adequate opportunity of considering and discussing it?
Mr. Erroll: As regards this Treaty, the normal precedents have been followed, of signing a treaty and then laying it before the House for a period of 21 days after which the Government are free to ratify it. There has been no departure from the normal precedents.
I think that when the cotton textile industry comes to study the details of the Treaty and the protocols it will realise yet again what a great deal the Government have been doing for the industry.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate this without a Question before the House.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS
  National Parks Commission
  Mr. Thorpe: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 30th November, I shall draw attention to the work of the National Parks Commission, and move a Resolution.
  Security Service
  Mr. W. Griffiths: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 30th November, I shall call attention to the operation of our security service, and move a Resolution.
  New Industries (Unemployment Areas)
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 30th November, I shall call attention to the urgency for establishing new industries in the areas suffering from unemployment, and move a Resolution.

TRIBUNALS OF INQUIRY (EVIDENCE) ACT, 1921
3.50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), because I know that he wishes to raise a point of order at this stage.
Mr. George Wigg (Dudley): Yes, Sir. As the House is aware, the Motion on the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, put on the Order Paper by the Government, reached the Order Paper only this morning and therefore the opportunities to move an Amendment have been extremely limited.
Mr. Speaker, I have given you and the Table notice in the normal way of Amendments standing in the name of myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Easing-ton (Mr. Shinwell).
The first Amendment is in line 1, after "tribunal" to add:
"composed of Members of the House of Commons".
For the benefit of those Members who have difficulty in following it, the opening line would read:
"That it is expedient that a tribunal composed of Members of the House of Commons. ."
My second Amendment is in line 5, to insert:
"to establish the responsibility and duty of the Prime Minister for security matters and to report on the extent to which there has been any failure to discharge this responsibility and duty".
The Motion, if amended as I desire, would read thus:
"TRIBUNALS OF INQUIRY (EVIDENCE) ACT. 1921: That it is expedient that a tribunal composed of Members of the House of Commons be established for enquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., the circumstances in which offences under the Official Secrets Acts were committed by William John Christopher Vassal!, and in particular:
(1) to establish the responsibility and duty of the Prime Minister for security matters and to report on the extent to which there has been any failure to discharge this responsibility and duty."
Before you give your Ruling, there is a further matter. Looking back at the precedents that we are asked to follow, it is evident that the basis is somewhat insecure. From case to case the circum-
386
stances alter, and the precedents seem to alter, and I submit that it is highly desirable that the House should know that if these Amendments, or any other Amendments submitted by any other hon. Members are called, it will be open to any hon. Member, if called by you, to speak first on the Government Motion and subsequently to speak on the Amendments. I would be obliged if you would give a Ruling on these matters.
Mr. Speaker: I am greatly obliged to the hon. Member for his courtesy in giving me time to consider these Amendments in the light of the authorities. For that reason I regret that I feel obliged to say, with regard to the first Amendment, that I do not think it right to select it, and that, with regard to his second proposed Amendment. it is out of order.
Mr. Wigg: I have no doubt that you have consulted the precedents, Sir. On page 421 of Erskine May it is quite clearly laid down that an Amendment relating to the constitution of a tribunal has been allowed. On a previous occasion it was competent for an hon. Member in a previous House to move an Amendment to the Motion in terms of the constitution of a tribunal. I ask you whether you have given consideration to that matter, Mr. Speaker.
On the second point, if it is ruled out of order, it does then, in my submission, seem to make a mockery of the whole proceeding, for what is here involved is this, that the Prime Minister, who is head of the Civil Service, head of the Armed Forces, and head of security, is then competent to come to the House of Commons and set up a tribunal, the membership of which he will select, on terms which he has decided, to receive a report which he will then subsequently decide whether or not to publish.
Mr. Speaker: With respect, the hon. Member is departing from matters of order in saying that. I do not have any doubt that his proposed second Amendment is out of order, and I so rule. I know that there is a precedent for an Amendment like the first one, but that does not mean that there is an obligation on the Chair to select it if it does not think it right to do so.
Mr. E. Shinwell: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, you will

387
have noted that in the Motion to be moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister no reference at all is made, not to the form of the tribunal because that is explicitly stated, but to who is to preside over it, or who are to be the members. Surely it is within the prerogative of the House of Commons, in a matter of this sort, which apparently concerns, or may concern, the honour of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is implicit in the Motion, or, at any rate, that is my interpretation of it, and apparently that is the Prime Minister's view about it.
But whether that is so or not, surely it is the right of hon. Members to express an opinion in the form of an Amendment to this Motion as to who should preside over a tribunal of this character. If it is proposed in an Amendment that a Select Committee of the House is an appropriate tribunal for this purpose, surely that is in order.
Mr. Speaker: I have not said that it is out of order. I said that I did not think it right to select it. I think that I would be wrong if I started giving reasons for not selecting it. What I have been saying—and the right hon. Gentleman knows all this—has no bearing on the propriety of urging in debate what should be the right kind of constitution of the tribunal.
Mr. Shinwell: This is an important point, Sir. Unless the matter is dealt with by means of an Amendment, the question of the appropriate form of tribunal, that is to say, the person who is to preside over it, cannot be decided by the House. This can be done only through the medium of an Amendment. If you do not select the Amendment, will you be good enough to say how the matter can be raised?
Mr. Speaker: If the right hon. Gentleman persuades the House to reject the Motion, no doubt something else may happen. I am sorry, but I cannot argue about selection.
Mr. Sydney Silvennan: On a point of order. I did give notice to the Table of a different Amendment which I desire to have leave to move as a manuscript Amendment, there having been no earlier opportunity of putting it on the Order Paper. My Amend-
388
ment proposes that the Motion should end with the word "Vassall", in the fourth line, so that the four matters to which the tribunal's attention would otherwise be drawn, in particular, would be left out of the Motion. It would be quite wrong to indicate any reasons for that Amendment now, but I suggest that it is well within the scope of such Amendments as are possible on an occasion like this.
Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member for giving me written notice of this matter, but I must answer that I do not think it right to select the Amendment, either.
Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order. Has not the House been put in very great difficulty over this matter? Is it not the normal custom, when a Motion placed on the Order Paper by the Government proposes to set up a tribunal of this nature, that the House should have been given some time to consider it and to see whether it was desirable to put down Amendments—and, with full respect to you, Mr. Speaker, to provide further time for you to consider whether such Amendments should be accepted?
Has it not been the case, on previous occasions when resort has been made to a tribunal, that the Opposition Front Bench has wished to move an Amendment, or to modify the proposal made by the Government? Would not it have been much more courteous to the House, and would it not have made this business much more appropriately done, if the Government had given adequate time for Amendments to be considered? Although you have said that you would not select any of the Amendments proposed, presumably it might have been the case that if the Amendments were put in different terms you would have selected them. Therefore, I suggest that the House has been put in great difficulty.
May I urge, even now, that because of the great difficulty in which the House has been placed you should reconsider at any rate the two Amendments which you have decided not to accept?
Mr. Speaker: I must tell the hon. Gentleman and the House, without intending any discourtesy, that I have had adequate time to make up my mind about the Amendments, which are the

389
only ones on which I rule. I cannot argue about selection. It would be a very bad precedent to start doing that.
Mr. Shinwell: May I direct your attention to a precedent, Mr. Speaker? In 1936, when a similar matter came before the House in connection with a tribunal of inquiry based on the Act of 1921, my late colleague, Sir Stafford Cripps, moved an Amendment to a Government Motion, which was accepted by the then Mr. Speaker. The Amendment added the words:
"and it is expedient that the Director of Public Prosecutions should forthwith make all inquiries and investigations for the purpose of laying all material evidence before the said tribunal"
and it was accepted by Mr. Speaker.
In view of that precedent, is there any reason why you should refuse to select the Amendment of my hon. Friend?
Mr. Speaker: Ruling only upon the Amendments offered to me at this time, if they are not in order I cannot accept them, and if they are in order it rests upon me whether or not I should select them, and I do not select them.
Mr. F. J. Bellenger: Following that last remark of yours, Mr. Speaker, are we to take it that after the Prime Minister has moved the Motion it will not be too late for an Amendment to be considered by you and, if necessary, accepted by you, even though it has not been put down by the Front Bench?
Mr. Speaker: Whether or not it is put down by the Front Bench—whatever that means—makes no difference. It is the merits of the Amendment which matter in that context.
Mr. S. Silverman: May I respectfully draw your attention, Sir, to the fact that my Amendment, if carried, would remove from the Motion certain additions to its main purpose which have the effect of extending the inquiry—which many people think an undesirable form of inquiry—into wider fields than are necessary for the principal object of the Motion?
Perhaps I might pick out two. Sub-paragraphs (2) and (4) seem to me to be very widely drawn—more widely drawn than the circumstances require. Would it not be suitable that the House should
390
have an opportunity of considering whether or not that is so before being called upon to vote for or against the whole Motion as it appears on the Order Paper?
Mr. Speaker: I did not take the view that it was right to select the hon. Member's Amendment. I beg to assure him and the House that when I reached that conclusion it was not on the basis of failing to understand what its effect would be. One of the matters in my mind is that in the debate the hon. Member, and other hon. Members who take his view, can urge every single point which can be urged on the Amendment. That would be in order. I hope that the House will soon feel ready to get on with the business.
Mr. Leslie Hale: On a point of order. In view of your refusal to accept my hon. Friend's Amendment, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether it will be possible to put the Question separately on each of the four sub-paragraphs? Otherwise, we are being reduced to the position where a Motion of great importance is being treated in exactly the same way as a Statutory Instrument.
Mr. Speaker: I will consider that question before we reach the point, without giving the hon. Member any encouragement.
3.59 p.m.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I beg to move,
That it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., the circumstances in which offences under the Official Secrets Acts were commited by William John Christopher Vassall, and in particular:

(1) the allegations made that the presence of another spy inside the Admiralty was known to the First Lord and his Service chiefs after the Portland case eighteen months ago;

(2) any other allegations which have been or may be brought to their attention, reflecting similarly on the honour and integrity of persons who, as Ministers, naval officers and civil servants, were concerned in the case;

(3) any breaches of security arrangements which took place; and

(4) any neglect of duty by persons directly or indirectly responsible for Vassall's employment and conduct, and for his being treated as suitable for employment on secret work.

391
I should like to explain to the House the motives which have led the Government to place this Motion on the Order Paper today, and the reasons why I ask the House to support it. About two months ago the First Lord of the Admiralty came to see me and told me that another spy had been discovered, and that the man involved was employed in the Admiralty. Committal for trial and an early conviction were likely to follow a charge before the magistrate. The Security Services had no doubt of the strength of the case which they would be able to present, and explained to me in general terms the circumstances in which it had arisen.
I must tell the House that my feelings were torn between resentment that yet another man could be found so degraded in character as to be ready to sell his country for money, and a certain satisfaction that, after a period when he had tried to lie low and then resumed his treacherous activities, he had been rapidly caught and would be brought to justice. In this perpetual conflict between espionage and counter-espionage it is, of course, never possible to present a complete account to the public. Yet, as the net closes and the formidable penalties are exacted, one may hope that those who operate for money will be deterred and that we will be left only with the more difficult problem of those who work for the enemy under a strangely perverted sense of duty.
At the same time, I feel it right to warn the House that hostile intrigue and espionage are being relentlessly maintained on a large scale. Massive efforts are being made by every possible method to undermine our security. We are doing all we can to meet this ever-growing threat; and the new procedures introduced as a result of the Romer and Radclyffe inquiries are yielding good results. But it would not be possible for me to promise that there will be no more spies or traitors. What I can say is that as the security arrangements improve so we shall be better placed to catch them by the heels.
As soon as I received this information from the First Lord I gave anxious thought as to the best course to pursue. It seemed to me that this was not a case
392
where it would be necessary or right to set up an inquiry such as that undertaken by Sir Charles Romer, and certainly not to call into play the machinery of the Committee under Lord Radcliffe, which was mainly concerned with considering the whole structure of security and laying down rules and regulations for Departments to observe. I thought that the quickest and most practical way of investigating the machinery and learning and applying the lessons of this particular case would be the appointment of a small committee of distinguished civil servants. My reasons for preferring this form of inquiry are shown in their terms of reference.
From the practical point of view of trying to draw the net tighter all the time, what we had to find out was the answer to these questions: would the spy have been caught earlier had the Romer and Radcliffe regulations been in force throughout Vassall's career as a spy? Or ought he to have been caught earlier under the regulations now in force? Was there a slip-up at any point in the observing of the regulations? Or was the lesson to be learned that an even more stringent system ought to be imposed than that which the Radcliffe Commission recommended? In other words, my purpose in proposing this Committee—which I still think was the right procedure for the end I had in mind and in the light of the position as it then existed—was to reach early and useful conclusions in order to enable us either to improve the present security system, if that should prove necessary, or to enforce it more stringently if there had been any laxity.
It can, of course, be objected that it was improper for civil servants to inquire into the operation of the security system within a Department since this must necessarily involve the responsibility of Ministers. Before I go further, I should like to say something on this question. "Ministerial responsibility", as the phrase is commonly used, is generally well understood. It means that a Minister is responsible to this House, and to Parliament, for maintaining in his Department an administrative machine which is efficient and economic. If anything goes wrong with that machine, the Minister is answerable for it. But the degree to which he will feel himself personally involved will, of course, depend

393
upon the circumstances. If it is an error which does not really reflect on the general efficiency of the Department, the chief duty of the Minister is to take steps to put things right. But if the efficiency of the Department is seriously called in question, then the Minister's own personal position may, of course, be involved.
It was that conception of Ministerial responsibility which I had in mind when I appointed the Committee of civil servants to investigate the Vassall case, and I have made it clear that the Committee was intended to ascertain the facts of the case, and to discover what it was that had gone wrong—if anything had gone wrong—[HON. MEMBERS: "It had.") Well, not necessarily; he may have got through the regulations as they now stand. But anyway, the Committee had to find out what had gone wrong as an essential first step in deciding—and the decision would rest between the Minister concerned and myself—how serious any breach or neglect of duty had been, and, therefore, how far the Minister involved must accept personal responsibility.
I have also made it quite clear that this was something I reserved to myself to judge, and I am still convinced that had it not been for other developments, which I will mention in a moment, it would have been both proper and sufficient to require a body of civil servants to establish the facts of the case. On this basis I could judge, in my responsibility as Prime Minister, whether any measure should be taken, either of a disciplinary nature or, even mare important, to secure improvements in our methods for the future, and I could reach my own decision on the degree of Ministerial responsibility involved.
But now we are dealing with Ministerial responsibility in a very different sense. What is now being challenged is a Minister's personal integrity and character. This, I agree, is a field in which civil servants should not be asked to advise and report. In this respect, since the Committee of civil servants started their work I have had to face a changed situation. Soon after the opening of the Session, during the debate on the Address, I became aware that there was building up, both in the Press and in the House, and to some
394
extent in various places where men meet and talk or gossip about public affairs, a dark cloud of suspicion and innuendo. Some words which were used by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), in winding up the debate on the Address, were drawn to my attention.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there were letters
"… which indicate a degree of Ministerial responsibility which goes far beyond the ordinary business of a Minister in charge being responsible for everything which goes on in his Department."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 5th November, 1962; Vol. 666, c. 714.]
These words were very obscure and seemed to me, frankly, at the time not to have any particular meaning. However, that is not unusual with the right hon. Gentleman.
Even though I read them as carefully as I could, I did not feel unduly anxious. I had not then realised that this was part of a general build-up of oblique suggestion which made imputations of a far more sinister kind and on a very different plane to those to which Ministers are ordinarily subjected. I had not at first understood exactly what it was that these letters were supposed to convey in terms of the
"degree of Ministerial responsibility which goes far beyond the ordinary business of a Minister."
All of us know that it is part of the hazards of political life that we must be subjected to heavy criticism. This comes from political opponents, and sometimes from friends, both inside and outside the House, and in the Press. We are, of course, all of us, accustomed to being called incompetent, lax, unimaginative and the rest. But this is part of the general conditions in which we live and we try not to be too thin-skinned about it.
However, I began to realise in the middle of last week that the accusations being made against Ministers, or building up against Ministers, were of a very different order and when certain rumours reached me about the letters written to Vassall by the former Civil Lord, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith)—rumours hinted in the Press and magnified by gossip—I felt that this was a different kind of attack from the normal attack on Ministers' efficiency and, in this particular case, was directed against the character of my hon. Friend.

395
Indeed, looking back I now see what right hon. Gentlemen had in mind when they started this whispering campaign about these letters which had passed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who is 'they'?"] This is common knowledge and I am coming to that—between the former Civil Lord and Vassall. The dark hints that were going about on Tuesday and Wednesday of last week were not connected with the hon. Member's efficiency. They were directed against his moral character. These letters, of course, had been communicated to the right hon. Member for Belper. He said that he had seen the copies; how, I do not know. It is true that part of the Press had built up the Vassall case, not into an ordinary spy case, but with suggestions of a great public scandal.
It has been for many years the practice, although I do not think it is a very laudable one, of some of the popular newspapers to attempt to purchase for large sums the autobiographies of well-known criminals. These life stories of murderers and others, whether written by themselves or by the "ghosts" in the publishing office, are a rather squalid form of journalism. They pander to a certain demand for horror and terror which is understandable, if not particularly praiseworthy.
So, when I read that the Vassall memoirs—if one can give such a name to such a compilation—had been purchased by one of the popular newspapers, I assumed that it was to meet a demand of the same kind. However, I now understand that this decision was taken not from any purpose of satisfying the appetite of their readers, but from a deep sense of public duty. At any rate, in one form or another rumours were circulating around these letters which I felt must be dealt with immediately. Therefore, on Wednesday, 7th November, I decided that the only possible course in fairness to my hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead was that they should be immediately published. This was done at my direction as an appendix to an interim Report from the Committee of civil servants.
The publication of these letters must have been a deep disappointment to those who thought that a great moral scandal was likely to be revealed. It is
396
no good pretending, it is no good beating about the bush. What was being gossiped and spread about was that the hon. Member had been guilty of perverted and immoral association with Vassall. I took, therefore, the only course I could take, with the consent of my hon. Friend, to protect him and I think that the publication of the letters had that immediate effect.
Nevertheless, because of a criticism which he recognised might be made, not of his character but of his judgment, my hon. Friend thought it right to resign his office. As I told him at the time, I was sure that in the long run this decision would redound to his credit and enable him, as I firmly believe, to continue his career with only a temporary check. It was, therefore, my intention, however regrettable the circumstances which led to the resignation of my hon. Friend, to continue in the path that I had set myself. On Thursday, therefore, after the statement I made in the House of Commons, this was my purpose. I urged the civil servants to complete their recommendations and report to me as rapidly as possible so that I could take the action of which I had already told the House.
I was ready to show the report to the Leader of the Opposition and those of his colleagues whom he should nominate for the purpose. This I did in the case of the Romer Report and also in the case of the Report of the Radcliffe Committee. I also intended, as I informed the House, to ask Lord Radcliffe, who has unique knowledge of the security position, to advise me especially on two points: first, whether there was some failure of the present regulations even if properly enforced, or some weakness revealed; secondly, whether there were any, and, if so, what, new procedures which we might have to adopt, however harshly they might operate upon ordinary private liberty.
This, then, was the situation on Thursday. I must now tell the House what are the reasons which have led me to put forward a Motion which calls, not for an inquiry on the lines of the Romer Inquiry or for an inquiry on the lines of the Radcliffe Inquiry, but a tribunal set up under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act. As the House knows, there is a very great distinction between the

397
two methods. The first is one in which men and women of good will are asked to give evidence in order to help the State, and out of loyalty and good citizenship. There is no power of subpoena, no power to commit to prison for contempt, evidence is not given on oath, it is not privileged, nothing can be done about perjury and there is no examination or cross-examination. It is a committee of people willing to help, and not a judicial body. The Motion that I now present is to set up a body of the second and more formidable character.
On Friday last a situation developed of which I hesitate to tell the House, but I must tell the House. There came to me an authenticated story which I shall describe as simply as I can. An hon. Member of this House was dining on Thursday night with one of the editorial staff of a national newspaper. In the course of the dinner, this gentleman said that one of the staff of the paper had been told by a member either of the police or of the security service—he was not sure which—that, had Vassall not been arrested on 12th September, it had been his intention to join my hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead in Italy and that Vassall then intended, in the words of the reporter of this story, to "do a Pontecorvo", with the clear implication that my hon. Friend also intended to defect to Russia or to assist Vassall to do so. It was also said that my hon. Friend was believed to have spent holidays abroad with Vassall before.
This story, which, if it were true, would amount to something akin to treason, was told to a Member of Parliament by a leading member of the Press. I must confess that when I was told it early on Friday morning I hesitated as to what I should do. If I did nothing it would enable the man to say that he had given this information to a Member of Parliament who told him, and rightly told him, that he proposed to inform someone in authority and that it could be passed to the Prime Minister, and to this course of passing it on this gentleman gave his consent.
Of course, having given his information, he was free from any other obligation and he might then attack me for negligence if I took no action upon it. If, on the other hand, I waved it aside as altogether absurd, as, naturally, my
398
own instinct was, I could, in the atmosphere of suspicion which had been created, have been accused of a dereliction of my duty. I heard, moreover, that a similar story was being put about on Friday. This caused me great anxiety, as I am sure it would any Member of the House in my position. However preposterous, however wicked and however vile such a suggestion, it is one of a most serious character and I came to the conclusion that I could not let the matter rest.
So much for that. Later in the morning my attention was called to a report in the Press in which it was alleged that the presence of another spy inside the Admiralty was known to my noble Friend the First Lord and his Service chiefs after the Portland case, eighteen months ago. It is true that this report referred to an article which had appeared on the previous day which, because of pressure of work from holding a Cabinet and other things, I had not read, but the restatement of the allegation was in a much more serious form.
I will read to the House the relevant passage:
"The First Lord's position is now very delicate. Yesterday on a sudden summons he hurried across to Admiralty House to see Mr. Macmillan. The reason: the revelation by Percy Hoskins in yesterday's Daily Express that the presence of another spy inside the Admiralty was known to the First Lord and his Service chiefs when the Portland ring was exposed eighteen months ago. Mr. Macmillan wanted to know from Lord Carrington why he had not been warned of this startling fact."
What does this really say? It says that my noble Friend the First Lord, aided and abetted by what are called "the Service chiefs", which I suppose means the Board of Admiralty—the First Sea Lord, Sir Caspar John; the Second Sea Lord, Sir Royston Wright; the Third Sea Lord, Vice-Admiral Le Fanu; the Fourth Sea Lord, Sir Michael Villiers; and, no doubt, the Permanent Secretary to the Admiralty, Sir Clifford Jarrett—have been guilty of culpable negligence during the eighteen months since the Portland case when, it is alleged, they knew of the existence of another spy in the Admiralty.
On referring to the Thursday article, I see that this charge is based upon a statement (that a document was found in the house of Mr. Kroeger, which

399
somehow connected the Vassall case with the Portland case. Upon this foundation has been built the allegation that my noble Friend the First Lord and the Board of Admiralty and perhaps other senior civil servants have been negligent to a degree which amounts to a betrayal of the Service over which they preside. I need say nothing of the incidental disloyalty of the First Lord, if this were true, to the head of the Government.
Now, this may be true. It may be that my noble Friend, after devoted service as an infantry officer in the war, after a very distinguished career as High Commissioner in Australia, after service in the Government as First Lord for three years, has, in effect, betrayed his trust. It may be true. And if it is true it should be known. But if it is not true, then it is right that its untruth should be clearly and fairly established after a thorough investigation.
These accusations have now left the area of vague insinuations and general charges which can never be easily pinpointed. They have been levelled, one by an individual disclosure, another in a publication which goes to millions of readers, against individual people on specific grounds. There may be other charges and insinuations.
For these reasons, therefore, I decided, with the approval of my colleagues, to Wing forward this Motion. I feel sure that, with a view to finding any faults, filling up any crevices, tightening any loose joints in our security system, the Committee of civil servants would have served us well. Nor, for the reasons which I have already explained, do I think that the purely formal question raised by the Leader of the Opposition about civil servants having to comment on Ministers in the ordinary work of responsibility as head of their Department would have caused any embarrassment or difficulty. I feel sure that after the Romer Committee and the Radcliffe Committee the need was not to go over the whole ground again, but rather to pinpoint any faults or weaknesses in order to get rid of them.
Should this Motion be adopted by both Houses of Parliament and the Tribunal be established, it will be the duty of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to make a formal announcement, but I
400
am glad to say that Lord Radcliffe has agreed to be chairman and Mr. Justice Barry and Sir Milner Holland are also willing to serve. I am happy to add that Lord Radcliffe has agreed that on the completion of the Tribunal's work and separately from it he would be ready to bring to my attention any weaknesses in existing security arrangements which come to his notice.
This Tribunal, composed of eminent men, and with a chairman with a very great knowledge of this whole problem, will investigate the charges which have now been made. They must be found to be true or to be untrue. The public confidence must be restored, either by the exposure of guilt or by public proof that those who pose as the protectors of the public have themselves been guilty of trying to destroy private reputations from motives either of spite or gain.
This is not a question for a Romer Committee or a Radcliffe Committee or any other voluntary committee. It is a question which can be tried only by a tribunal, and a tribunal armed with the power of subpoena, armed with the power to put witnesses on oath, armed with the power to pursue them for perjury if they tell untruths, armed with the power to examine and cross-examine, and where witnesses will be protected by privilege, irrespective of the evidence they give.
I repeat that none of us who has had any long experience of the ordinary thrusts, however wounding, of political life pays much attention to them. We try to control our temper and take as easily as we can the ups and downs. If one were to answer every falsehood that is put about, one would spend one's whole time in repudiation. Many things are best put aside and many criticisms find their own level.
I remember that over the Bank Rate case there was a long period of vague innuendo which could not be pinned down to any precise point. I then decided to ignore it, but when a specific accusation was made against Lord Poole—I think that it was by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson)—the very next afternoon, five years ago to this day, I asked the House to set up a tribunal.
If the result of the Tribunal's investigations shows that the accusations were

401
wholly without foundation, the House may think it right in due course to consider what action, if any, should be taken in relation to those responsible for their preferment. I have a feeling that the time has come for men of propriety and decency not to tolerate the growth of what I can only call the spirit of Titus Oates and Senator McCarthy. At any rate, let the judgment he made. If these men are guilty of what it is said they are guilty of, in the old days their heads would have fallen on Tower Hill and today they would never dare lift up their heads among their comrades again. If those who accuse them have done so falsely out of wantonness or malice, let them receive, in due course, not only those who come in the front line, but those who stand behind them, the reprobation which they will have deserved.
I ask the House to pass this Motion, which is the only machinery open to us for the defence of innocent men, if they be innocent, but for their condemnation if they be guilty, for the trial of the truth.
4.29 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: As I said yesterday, we welcome the appointment, belated as it is, of an independent committee of inquiry into the Vassall case. This we have pressed for from the beginning. We also welcome the appointment of a Tribunal under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act; this, also, we pressed for. My right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) made that perfectly clear in his speech in this House on Friday, 2nd November.
For some reason or other, the Prime Minister yesterday sought to give the impression that the Opposition were not in favour of a committee of inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act. He suggested that we had wanted an independent inquiry under a judge. In fact, what we asked for was an independent inquiry. but, in so far as we specified its character, we asked for it under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act.
I will quote what my right hon. Friend said—the words are important:
"We want a committee with the sort of powers that a committee would have under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd November, 1962; Vol 666, c. 478.]
In view of that, I cannot understand why the Prime Minister sought to give a
402
totally different impression yesterday. If he did not read the debate, he certainly should have done so and, if he did read it and nevertheless preferred to give the House of Commons a different impression, he was deliberately misleading us——
The Prime Minister: Suggestions were made at several stages of a committee of the Romer kind, but I would point out that the words quoted have no meaning. There is no committee with the sort of powers under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act except a committee under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act.
Mr. Gaitskell: That is the most feeble explanation I have ever heard in a matter of this kind. We know, of course, why the right hon. Gentleman said what he said yesterday. He did not want to appear to be conceding too much to the Opposition, but a matter of this kind ought not to be approached on that sort of basis.
The Prime Minister has discussed at some length the question of what sort of committee should be appointed, and he has urged that he was quite right to appoint a committee of civil servants. We do not take that view, we never took that view, and I want to explain why we believe that in matters of this kind a civil servants committee is wholly inappropriate.
The truth is that when it comes to matters of national security, Parliament cannot do its job properly if there is a major scandal. In ordinary matters, if the Government appear to have committed a very grave blunder, that can be thrashed out in the House of Commons in Question and Answer and in debate. Ministers are called upon to tell the House what happened, and it is the job of the Opposition—any Opposition—to probe and to criticise and to do everything they can to bring out the truth. That is how our democracy works and, in my opinion, in the normal way it works exceedingly well.
But when it comes to espionage cases, this kind of procedure simply cannot take place because, clearly, the Government of the day cannot tell—I have never made any bones about this—the whole truth. To do so would involve, or certainly might involve, giving away to

403
the enemy even more secrets than they may already have obtained. There is, therefore, a problem here for all of us, and I believe that there is only one way of solving this problem. It is not the ideal way, but I think that it is the best way of handling the matter.
First of all, there must in such cases be an independent inquiry. The Prime Minister's argument that he wanted civil servants to look into this is all very well from the point of view of the Government. "Of course", he says, "I want to know what's wrong. I want to be sure what mistakes were made. I want to see how the loopholes can be stopped." That is perfectly intelligible, but the right hon. Gentleman misses one point, he forgets one thing—such an inquiry may satisfy him, but it cannot satisfy the country. This is the whole point.
The very fact that the Prime Minister considered this procedure adequate shows how entirely neglectful he was of public opinion and of the House of Commons in this matter, for, of course, an inquiry conducted by civil servants may reveal things to the Prime Minister, but we cannot get away from the fact that the civil servants are the servants of the Government. They exist to serve whatever may be the Government in power. They are not there to criticise the Government. It is quite inappropriate—and it is no use airily brushing this aside—for civil servants to be put in a position where they may be expected to criticise their Ministerial masters.
That is what is fundamentally wrong in the Prime Minister's approach. That is why there must be an independent inquiry—not to satisfy the Government, but to satisfy the House of Commons and the country as a whole. And, in conducting that inquiry, the members of the inquiry must feel themselves not responsible to the Prime Minister, or even to the Government as a whole, but to the country as a whole. That is why I am answering the Prime Minister's arguments for a Committee of civil servants. That is why, irrespective of the particular arguments he alleged today, it would have been right all along to have had an independent inquiry and wrong all along to have a civil servants inquiry.
404
The second method to be used in dealing with these difficult cases is, somehow or other, to share the problem with the Opposition. Believe me, an Opposition usually do not like this—it hampers their activities in the House of Commons—but there are occasions when, in my view—and I say again, whoever may be in Opposition at the time—it is right that they should be brought into the picture so that they can, by their presence, give an additional assurance to the country as a whole.
That is why my right hon. Friends and I accepted the Prime Minister's proposals in connection with the Blake case. To some extent, this kind of arrangement had already begun with the Romer Committee, with the Portland case, but it was developed further in the case of Blake because at that time the Prime Minister was good enough to consult me from the very start about the nature of the inquiry, and about the personnel of the inquiry. My right hon. Friends and I, and the Prime Minister and his colleagues, discussed all this. When the Report came out, we were shown the full document. We agreed together what should be left out and What should be published. This, in my view, is the way to handle cases of this kind.
I deeply regret that on this occasion no such procedure was followed. There was, in fact, no consultation between the Prime Minister and myself when the Vassall case came to court, or afterwards. We were simply informed from the Press that a Committee of civil servants had been appointed. So we went to see the Prime Minister. We were seeing him about Cuba as well, but we took the opportunity of raising this matter with him. I hoped that even after he had appointed this Committee of civil servants he would listen to what we said, in the way he had done in the previous cases—but not a bit of it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper, (Mr. G. Brown) was not exaggerating, and the Prime Minister knows this to be the truth, when he described our treatment at his hands as a "brush-off."
That is what happened. The Prime Minister may have been very tired, and one can well understand that that could possibly account for it, but it was very unfortunate. We warned the right hon.

405
Gentleman at the time that in view of this we would have no option in fulfilling our duties as an Opposition but to raise the matter in the House of Commons. That we proceeded to do. Had we not done so, we would not have been doing our duty.
After that, of course, there was a series of steps backwards. I was glad to hear of them. The Minister of Defence, in his speech on that Friday morning, announced that the Prime Minister would be ready to discuss the report with me, although he did not know whether or not I would be shown it. Then it was announced that Lord Radcliffe was to be brought into the picture, and I certainly would have supported that action had it been put to me.
Now, at last, we are to have a Tribunal, but what a pity it is that that Tribunal was not appointed at the very start. It is all very well to talk about rumours, and the startling stories we have heard of this afternoon, but the truth is that had a Tribunal of Inquiry been appointed at the beginning there would have been no such rumours.
I must refer to some of the things which the Prime Minister said in the course of his remarks this afternoon about these rumours and insinuations. He particularly attacked my right hon. Friend the Member for Be1per because of the references which my right hon. Friend made in the House to these letters. [An HON. MEMBER: "He should not have referred to them."] I cannot agree with that. I think that my right hon. Friend was perfectly entitled to refer to something which had already appeared in a newspaper article which spoke of letters being in existence. [HON. MEMBERS: "He said that he had seen them."] It is true that he said that he had seen them. Do hon. Members suppose that the Opposition of the day, whichever Opposition they may be, are not given information by the Press from time to time? Are right hon. Gentlemen saying that when they were in Opposition they were not told anything by the Press? They had better think of something better than that if they want to attack the Opposition.
The truth is that when, very unfortunately, it appears that there was moderately extensive correspondence be-
406
tween a junior Minister and a man who has been convicted as a spy, it is no use pretending that it is not a matter of very considerable public interest. We cannot do the limited job available to us in matters of this kind if we are debarred from referring to this. Personally, I am glad that the Prime Minister published the letters. I agree with him, as I think everybody does, that these letters may show a rather closer relationship—may I put it that way?—between a junior clerk and a Minister than is perhaps normal, but that there is nothing in their content. I can only go on my own experience as a Minister, and I would think it unusual, but I would put it no higher than that. I entirely agree that the content of the letters is perfectly harmless.
I must, however, ask the Prime Minister a question. After all, he was at great pains, quite rightly from his point of view, to emphasise this. If he took the view that there was not the slightest—I will not say indiscretion—suggestion that there was anything in the least unusual in these letters, how does he explain that he accepted the resignation of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hill-head (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith)?
Sir Spencer Summers: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why, if these letters, in his judgment, were completely harmless, the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) need have alluded to them at all?
Mr. Gaitskell: In point of fact, my right hon. Friend had seen, I think, five out of the 24; that was all. The existence of these letters had been referred to in the newspapers. I must remind hon. Members that the Opposition have a job to do in the House of Commons, and they intend to do it.
The other matters to which the Prime Minister referred are completely new to me.
Mr. S. Silverman: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that the Prime Minister, after reading the report and the letters, came to the conclusion that his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith) was completely exonerated by that report from anything which had been said against him, and yet accepted

407
his resignation, was itself the principal foundation upon which a new stream of rumours was founded?
Mr. Gaitskell: I have no doubt that that may emerge in the course of the proceedings of the Tribunal. But I was coming to these other rumours, and I was saying that as far as I am concerned, I had not heard any of these before except the story, referred to by the Prime Minister, in the Daily Express.
Clearly, if the story about the hon. Member for Hillhead and Vassall going to Italy had appeared in public, it would have been a matter for criminal libel. There can be no question about that. We all feel anxiety at the spate of rumours, and I emphasise that I certainly have no desire to condone any of this sort of thing at all. I detest it. But in all of this we must remember that hon. Members, like other citizens, are protected by the laws of libel in this country, and that is at least some safeguard for us.
I come to the Tribunal itself, for I have a number of questions to put which, I hope, will be answered. I am not quite sure who is to reply for the Government and whether the Prime Minister will speak again today, but they are matters on which I think an answer is required.
I should like first, to ask this question: is the Tribunal meeting in public and is its report to be published, or are its proceedings to be secret and is its report to be secret? Personally, I should like to see as much as possible of the proceedings take place in public, but if it turns out that for reasons of security a great deal must be taken in secret and a great deal of the report not published, then it is of the highest importance that the public should not be misled by the partial nature of what happens to be published. If we get a quarter of the story in public and three-quarters of it is secret, it will give a very wrong impression indeed, and I therefore hope that those who are responsible—I take it that it will be the Tribunal itself—for making these decisions will bear this problem in mind.
I should also like to ask the Prime Minister, if it is the case that some of the proceedings of the Tribunal and
408
some of its report is secret, is it his intention to allow the representatives of the Opposition—the Privy Councillors, for instance, whom he was good enough to consult in the case of the Radcliffe Report—to have access to the proceedings which are secret and to the parts of the report which are secret? Naturally, this would give some assurance, again, as to the nature of the report as a whole.
The third question is rather different. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what part has been played by the police, the special branch and the security services in preparing the grounds for this inquiry? The reason I ask is that in the Lynskey Tribunal the Metropolitan Police carried out quite an extensive series of investigations beforehand which was obviously of considerable importance to the Tribunal. I am not quite clear where we stand on this. Have the police or the security services been assisting the Committee of civil servants? The Prime Minister told us that in any case all that the Committee had so far done would be handed over to the Tribunal. This was the case in the Lynskey Tribunal, but not in the Parker Tribunal. My view is that the police should be used for this purpose in so far as it falls within their normal sphere of operations, and, since this is espionage, that particular branch of the police which is concerned with espionage should, I think, be closely concerned with this Tribunal.
My next question concerns the Daily Express article, for I take it that No. 1 of the four particular matters into which the Tribunal is to inquire—the allegations made that the presence of another spy inside the Admiralty was known to the First Lord and the Service chiefs after the Portland case eighteen months ago—was inspired by the Daily Express article. Maybe there were other things, but, if so, I do not know. But that is exactly what the article of Mr. Percy Hoskins, chief crime reporter of the Daily Express, was about. Its title was
"Don't forget they knew for 18 months there was a spy around."
This confronts us and the Tribunal with a problem. It is this. Is Mr. Hoskins to be asked what his sources of information were? Anyone who has read that article will agree that it is

409
unlikely that he invented it. It is extremely detailed. Somebody must have talked to him. Somebody must have given him some information.
If he is asked that question then, as a journalist, it is only too likely that he will refuse to reveal his source. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am saying that it is only too likely that he will do this, for that is, whether we like it or not, the ethics of the newspaper profession; and if hon. Members opposite have any doubts about it, they need only ask the Ministers on their Front Bench. I suggest that they ask them whether they would like it if journalists always revealed the sources of what they hear.
However, events will unfold this and we shall see what happens, but I think it right to draw the attention of the House to this relationship which exists between individuals and the Press—and Ministers and other hon. Members of the House are involved—a relationship which we should be unwilling to destroy. Nevertheless, if the journalist in question is asked and refuses, what happens? Will he be locked up? Is he to be punished for contempt of court for standing by the ethics of his profession?
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. William Yates: I think that the journalist in question could not have any doubt on this point, because there is a book which anyone can buy, and which is called "The Secret War", published by Andre Deutsch, in which many of these things are discussed, including the facts in the Lonsdale case and events following it.
Mr. Gaitskell: That may well be, but I do not think that it deals with the point I am discussing, which is the question of what is the journalist to do and how do we judge him if he refuses to answer.
Sir Cyril Osborne: I remember that in the Garry Allighan case the editor of a London newspaper had to stand at the Bar of the House and, although he did not like to do it, was compelled to reveal the source of his information. Since that was done within the recollection of many hon. Members, why could it not be done in this case?
Mr. Gaitskell: It was a matter of Privilege. I recall the events about
410
which the hon. Member speaks. If Mr. Hoskins discloses the source of his information this problem does not arise. I am merely warning the House that both he and a number of other journalists may feel great difficulty in doing so.
Mr. Wigg: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way, for I would like to help Mr. Hoskins—and we have not to go very far back in time. I am referring to the events following the Lonsdale case, on the night of 23rd March. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) and I crossed swords on this point and my right hon. Friend will remember that it was established in evidence at the Old Bailey—and I heard the evidence myself—that after the Kroegers were arrested the signals were still coming from Moscow. I said that if anyone thought that this couple of sluts were the basis of this operation he came from cloud-cuckoo-land. The antiquarian bookshop was part of an organisation and there was clearly someone else at work.
Mr. Gaitskell: Let me ask, too, if journalists who have written reports which are unfavourable to the Government—as Mr. Hoskins did—are to be asked to disclose the sources of their information, are those journalists who also write reports which are favourable to the Government to be asked to disclose their sources? For instance, there was such a report, presumably in reply to this one, in the Daily Telegraph on Monday, 12th November. I commend it to hon. Members. It is headed:
"Reply to spy critics by the Admiralty."
I hope that we shall hear how that information was obtained as well and I dare say that there are many other examples.
The purpose of the inquiry is set out in the four particular points, as well as the more general sentences at the beginning. I was astonished that the Prime Minister spent virtually the whole of his speech on the first and second of the particular inquiries, namely, rumours and allegations—and practically none on what is really the basis of this inquiry: the fact that Vassall was spying in the Admiralty and conveying important information to the enemy after the Romer Committee had reported, right up to September, and no one up to that time had detected him. This is really the basic thing that matters.

411
I repeat that although the rumours are extremely distasteful, and it is quite right that they should be investigated, they would never have taken place if our advice had been accepted and a Committee of inquiry under the Tribunals Act had been set up from the very beginning. These rumours to which the Prime Minister refers would not only have been ruled out of court, they would have been made impossible by the Tribunal of Inquiry because the whole matter would have been sub judice. May I also say this? I do not believe that there would have been nearly so many rumours had it not been for the frivolous and flippant speech of the Minister of Defence, in replying to the debate on the Friday.
The inquiry will now proceed and I will conclude by saying that I hope it succeeds in revealing the whole truth about this case. I hope that it shows who was responsible for Vassall's activities, how they were allowed to continue, what the loopholes are and how they are to be stopped. I hope that it also reveals what the sources of the rumours are and that they will be stopped as well. But let us be clear about this. The purpose of the inquiry is not to save the reputation of the Government, but to protect the security of the nation.
4.57 p.m.
Mr. Nigel Birch: The right bon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said that the Opposition had a job to do. I do not think that he went about his business today with very much gusto. He seemed a little cautious. I remember that towards the end of the war my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) said that he detected in the German propaganda "the dull, low, whining note of fear". I am not sure whether I thought I detected that in the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
The line that the right hon. Gentleman takes about journalists and disclosures seems a little odd to me. What this journalist wrote was a venomous libel. Can any journalist get off simply by saying, "I will not disclose the source of my information"? If he does, he would be committed for contempt. That certainly would happen.
Those who organised this inside or outside the House have won a scalp.
412
They have won the scalp of one decent, honourable junior Minister.
Mr. Denis Howell: Who cut it off?
Mr. Birch: Now they are out for the scalp of the First Lord of the Admiralty, one of the most honourable of men. Anyone who knows him, or who has taken the trouble to find out, realises that he has the reputation of being the best First Lord since my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford. It may well be that he gets hounded out of office. Many Ministers have been hounded out of office, but I am not really so much concerned with that aspect.
I believe—I feel it in the innermost core of my being—that there are great things at stake. It is not simply a matter of the security services and their officials. There is more at stake than the conduct of Admiralty staff, admirals or civil servants. There is more at stake than the conduct of a junior or senior Minister. There is more at stake than the life of the Government.
What is at stake is the decency of public life in our country. I do not believe that anything less than that is at stake. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was right to set up a Tribunal. When a trickle of filth becomes a torrent it is the only thing one can do. One must do it. The only thing that worries me is whether the terms of reference are wide enough. I say this because of a ruling given by Lord Parker during the Bank Rate Tribunal, and I should like to give the background briefly.
At the time that Lord Parker gave this ruling, Mr. Frederick Ellis, the then City Editor of the Daily Express, was in the box and he, as the House knows, had taken a very active part in spreading rumours about all these matters. He had written article after article about them. In one of his articles he had said that top City stockbrokers were talking ceaselessly about "inspired selling". Naturally, he was asked about this. He was asked who were these top City stock-brokers. He said, with I think perfect truth, that he did not know who they were. There was a good deal of prevarication about that. After that he was

413
asked, "What are they saying, anyway?" and then he said, and again with perfect truth, I think, that
"Perhaps that was a bit of journalistic licence."
Then he lost his nerve and got Mr. Gerald Gardiner to get up and ask if he could be represented by counsel. The Tribunal and the counsel conducting the examination, Mr. Winn, now Mr. Justice Winn, were getting a bit bored with this prevarication and getting cross and Mr. Frederick Ellis lost his nerve.
Here Lord Parker made what I think was a most important ruling, when he said:
"At the moment, speaking for myself and I think for my colleagues, we are of opinion that 'a person appearing to them to be interested' within the meaning of the Act, is somebody against whom some allegation or suggestion has been made. I do not think, whatever we may think of Mr. Ellis, that any allegations have been made against him into which we are inquiring."
Therefore, nothing about him or the allegations and where they came from, was examined.
On the other hand, as the House will remember, the examination of those "who appeared to be interested" was very severe indeed. All their financial transactions were gone into. Their letters were read. Their telephone calls were discussed. Their conversations, in and out of the City, were inquired into. Their diaries were examined and even their lady friends were cross-examined as to what they had said at dinner. Everything possible was done to bring things out. Then it stopped. It went no further and there was no examination at all of those who made the allegations. If we are to preserve decency in our public life these matters must be inquired into. There was no examination into the slimy dishonour of those who fabricated allegations against Lord Poole, all of which proved utterly baseless.
Mr. Wigg: The right hon. Gentleman must realise that a change has come over the procedure. At the time of the Tribunal inquiring into the Budget leak the then Attorney-General gave an assurance that the investigation would be carried out by the judge and he would be in charge of the proceedings. At the Lynskey Tribunal and again at the Bank
414
Rate Tribunal—the right hon. Gentleman knows that I attended most of the time—it was clear that the Attorney-General had taken on the rôle of prosecutor and was carrying on a prosecution-in-chief which was fully reported in the Press and which I thought terribly damaging and which has caused me to have had the gravest disquiet about this kind of tribunal.
Mr. Birch: I do not think that that has any bearing on the point I am making. The point I make, which is of great importance, is that, if we are to stop this rot in our national life and if public decency is to return, both sides of the case must be examined. It is the business of the tribunal to discover the truth and nothing but the truth. But there is a third clause—"the whole truth" and, as the Prime Minister said, I very much hope that all those in Parliament and out of Parliament who spread these stories will be most rigorously examined.
There are lots of things which we should like to know. I should like to know about this keen competition between newspapers to provide for Vassall's old age. I think that many people would like more explanation from the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown).
Mr. George Brown: What about?
Mr. Birch: The right hon. Gentleman will have a chance of answering the Tribunal.
Mr. Brown: What was it the right hon. Gentleman said he wanted more evidence about from me?
Mr. Birch: About the right hon. Member's dealings over the letters.
Hon. Members: Innuendo.
Mr. Brown: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would be willing to be quite plain. What does he mean by that? May I refresh his memory? The passage from my speech referred to by the Prime Minister said, after having commented upon the speech of the Minister of Defence as being inadequate:
"We cannot leave the Vassall case where it is. There are letters in existence, copies of which I and, no doubt, others have seen, the originals of which are in the hands of

415
what are called the authorities', which indicate a degree of Ministerial responsibility …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1962; Vol. 666, c. 714.]
I then used the rest of the words which the Prime Minister has used and I went on to ask for a tribunal to be set up to inquire into the whole of this, including a determination of what the letters meant. What is thought to be wrong with that as conduct in the House, and to what is the right hon. Gentleman referring?
Mr. Birch: I wanted to know how the right hon. Gentleman acquired the letters and I have no doubt that that will be inquired into.
Mr. Gordon Walker Mr. Gordon Walker (Smethwick) rose——
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Birch: I should like to see——
Hon. Members: Smear.
Mr. Birch: I should like to see all the innuendoes inquired into and where they started. I also entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he said that it would be interesting to know what the views were of those who control the newspapers and what directions they gave by telephone or in writing or by dictaphone on these matters. Unless these matters are brought out into the open we never shall get things right.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to Titus Oates. He was the most venomous perjurer ever known in history. I have not had time to check my references but it will be recalled that he was flogged from Newgate to Tyburn. When the matter was raised later whether his punishment should not be reversed, a most respected Member of the House said that if it was reversed it should be only in the sense that he should be flogged from Tyburn to Newgate. We live in a less barbarous age and there is no question of anyone being punished in that way. What must come out is the truth if we are to have a decent public life. That is what I hope will come out, and that is what I will fight for.
5.10 p.m.
Mr. F. J. Bellenger: As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said, we on the Opposition benches are quite satisfied with the
416
form of inquiry which is now about to take place. From long experience in these matters, I doubt whether we shall get the full truth for which the right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) has asked.
I rise to protest about the way in which the Prime Minister introduced this Motion. I have the impression—and I do not know whether it is the impression of other hon. Members—that what the Prime Minister is seeking to do is not only to get at the whole truth about security in Government Departments but, if possible, to turn some of his guns against my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) who was attempting to do his duty. It may be that my right hon. Friend has access to sources of information in Fleet Street which many of us do not possess. But I remember, and I expect you do, too, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that during the war there was the famous case of Mr. Edgar Granville, when an inquiry took place into what he was alleged to have said at a private meeting.
I was struck forcibly by the words of the Prime Minister when he talked very airily about what had induced him to change his mind about the nature of the inquiry. He said that he was impressed Very much by a report that came to him, I think on Friday, that at a private dinner, something had been said which reflected on the honour of a Member of this House and a Minister of this House until he resigned. Something similar happened during the war. We were never given the whole truth, although I feel bound to say to the Government that all hon. Members were given the report of that inquiry. I believe, if my memory does not play me false, that it was a secret report inasmuch as the report was given to hon. Members. each copy was numbered and we had to return the copies of that report to the Government source after we had read it.
I support my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in this respect, that if in this report anything emerges which affects not only the efficiency of Government Departments but also the honour of any Member of this House—never mind whether it is the hon. Gentleman who has been forced to resign, but

417
the innuendo which it seems to me was made by the Prime Minister against my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper—all hon. Members of this House should know it. It should not be disclosed merely to a few of the senior members of the Opposition. Every hon. Member of this House should know the circumstances in which possibly some reflection is made on an hon. Member of this House.
Mr. Charles Pannell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. On the point that my right hon. Friend is now making—I put this to the Leader of the House to communicate to the Prime Minister—if anything comes out of that report that reflects on any Member of this House, surely as a matter of privilege any Member can insist on it being discussed hereafter. I take it that before the Tribunal anyone could plead privilege. If a Member were to plead privilege and gave evidence he must be protected subsequently in this House.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray): I do not follow that as being a point of order for the Chair to deal with. I think that paint can be made in the course of the debate.
Mr. Bellenger: There may be something in what my hon. Friend says. I am suggesting that not necessarily all hon. Members would know what had arisen from the evidence. They certainly would not be able to judge it adequately unless they were able to see all the evidence that was placed before the inquiry. Therefore, I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) in his suggested Amendment, which the Chair would not accept, that the investigation should be made by a Committee of this House. After all, is a Tribunal with three legal minds any better than this House for assessing the value of the evidence which is given? No doubt, in view of the terms of reference, these legal gentlemen can say what is evidence and what is not evidence, but I suggest that where any allegation is made against any right hon. or hon. Member—and that, I thought, was implicit in the Prime Minister's reference to my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper—that is a matter for the whole House.
Mr. Wigg: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for his support, but I must be honest and tell him that it is not an original idea of mine. My proposed Amendment was based on the principle adopted by the Labour Party, under the leadership of Lord Attlee, supported in a brilliant speech by Sir Stafford Cripps, that once the honour of a Member of the House of Commons is involved it becomes a political matter. Sir Stafford Cripps attacked with some violence the suggestion that lawyers had some peculiar lien on impartiality. He said that he knew all the leaders of the Bar and if anyone would tell him which members of the Bar were to be on the tribunal he could say in which direction their political bias lay.
Mr. Bellenger: Whatever reasons my hon. Friend now brings forward for wanting his Amendment debated, it is for him to say if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. What I am putting to the House is this, which I think runs on parallel lines to what my hon. Friend was saying a little while ago. All hon. Members, and particularly Ministers and ex-Ministers, know the relations between Members of this House and the Press. Some of them are more intimate than others. I am bound to say that I agree with the Prime Minister about the hon. Member who has resigned his office, judging from what I have read in the letters; but I have the impression that it was not entirely the Prime Minister's concern in getting at the truth which led him to accept the resignation of his hon. Friend, but that he was also trying to implicate in some way or another my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper for the speech that he made in this House, and was suggesting that my right hon. Friend had done something improper merely because he may be connected with the Press.
I think it is wrong of the Prime Minister to do that. I accept entirely everything he said which went to show that he wanted to keep everything above board, not only the honour and the propriety of Members of this House but also what goes on in Government Departments. But I thought it was probably lowering the purport of what he was previously saying to introduce those remarks about my right hon Friend the Member for Belper.

419
I believe that this Tribunal—for which, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition stated, we asked right from the start—will produce more evidence, some of it perhaps incriminating evidence against somebody, or some people, or organs of the Press—I do not know, because my right hon. Friend has referred to something which he said may even be held to be criminal libel if a court action were to take place—but, at any rate, we shall get something that we have searched for with all propriety right from the start.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper, too, showed clearly this afternoon that we did not on this side of the House accept a lot of the smears—and they were smears—which were made against the hon. Gentleman the former Minister. It may be that we shall have a lot to say about his conduct as a Minister, but not in the connection to which the Press has given full play. I would say only this, and it is apropos of what the Prime Minister said about some gossip that he heard at a private dinner. He referred to clubs. Who are the members of those clubs? Who are the biggest gossips? We had this sort of thing during the war in the case of Mr, Edgar Granville. They are mostly hon. Members opposite who belong to these clubs. Very few on this side of the House can afford to belong to them——
Mr. William Yates: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I have your Ruling. Do you think that such an innuendo is fair?
Mr. C. Pannell: That is not a point of order.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not regard anything that the right hon. Gentleman said as necessitating my intervention.
Mr. Birch: The right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) will remember that Mr. Edgar Granville was a Liberal and then turned Labour——
Mr. Bellenger: I am not going to be deflected from what hon. Members opposite know to be the truth. There are many on both sides of the House who have connections with the Press. They must accept full responsibility for what
420
they say to the Press, but I wish I could have the same confidence in some of the members of those fashionable clubs to which the Prime Minister referred and which, I say, are mostly peopled by hon. Members opposite, who are the biggest gossips going. If that is true, then small wonder that the Tory Party feels shame about the dismissal of one of their own Ministers, because I think that it was the gossip in some of those clubs which contributed to that end, and to which the Prime Minister has referred this afternoon.
5.21 p.m.
Mr. Humphry Berkeley: The Leader of the Opposition in the course of his speech said that the rôle of the Opposition was to probe, criticise and to bring out the truth. To that extent I had a good deal of sympathy with what he had to say and, indeed, in some measure I had sympathy with the efforts of the Opposition in recent weeks to get what they thought was a more satisfactory form of inquiry.
I personally had considerable respect and admiration for the way in which the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) deployed his case in the debate on the Address. Where, however, it seems to me that this rôle of probing, criticising and bringing out the truth utterly broke down was in the behaviour of the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) in the debate on Monday, 5th November. I informed the right hon. Gentleman earlier that I intended to refer to him in my speech, and he explained to me why it would be necessary for him to leave the Chamber—he had to go to another engagement—but I should like to say that I have been very deeply shocked at what I believe to have been a deliberate and squalid attempt at character assassination.
Mr. Shinwell: By whom?
Mr. Berkeley: By the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper.
Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. We have just heard an hon. Member opposite accusing my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) of having indulged in what he described as "character assassination". He also used

421
the word "squalid". What are we debating? Are we debating the conduct of my right hon. Friend or the Motion of the Prime Minister to set up a Tribunal to discuss the Vassall case?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct. We are in fact debating the Motion on the Paper. but in the course of the debate various hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House have become implicated. The only pity is that the right hon. Member for Belper is unable personally to be here at this moment, but that has been explained.
Mr. Gaitskell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I do not think that you have replied to my right hon. Friend's question as to whether the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) is entitled to use the language that he did about my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). The question of whether my right hon. Friend is present or not is surely quite irrelevant.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: May I reply to the Leader of the Opposition? The word "squalid" was used—[HON. MEMBERS: "And character assassination."]—I am obliged to hon. Members for that reminder, because all extreme expressions are undesirable in debate. I do not think that either of those two words will be found in Erskine May. I deplore—the Chair has always deplored—the use of extreme expressions, but I am reluctant to say in this connection that they were definitely out of order.
Mr. Wigg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I understand your difficulty up to a point. May I remind you, Sir, with respect, that the House is debating a Motion which once it is passed renders this matter sub judice, and one of the persons who will apparently be arraigned, judging by the implications made by the right hon. Gentleman, is my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). In those circumstances, to have an indictment, framed by the Prime Minister, backed by his hon. Friends—a story fed to every paper in the country—may be inside the rules of order, but are we not forgetting something like British justice. Further, if it is in order for
422
the hon. Gentleman to say that of my right hon. Friend, would it be in order for me to say the same thing about the Prime Minister?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I certainly do not propose to be hypothetical, but I think that, occupying the Chair, I had better confine myself to ruling on what I believe to be in order strictly or out of order. That is what I have done.
Mr. S. Silverman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I point out that the Motion is drawn in very wide terms? May I draw your attention to paragraph (2) of the Motion on the Order Paper? If the Motion is passed, we are to refer to a Tribunal under this Act:
"any other allegations which have been or may be brought to their attention."
What we are proposing to refer to the Tribunal will be the truth or falsity of any allegations made of any kind, made by anyone imaginable at any time which may have anything to do with any matter concerned in the inquiry. Would it not be better for the House of Commons in considering the Motion not to express any view about the truth or falsity of any such allegation?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that I am prepared to rule that the House should be debarred from expressing its opinion on these things. In discussing and debating this Motion, I have no power to rule that hon. Members shall restrict their speeches beyond keeping within the rules of order. That is all that I am endeavouring to rule on, and, up to this stage, I believe that the debate has been within the rules of order.
Mr. Berkeley: As I have not been ruled specifically out of order, I shall not withdraw the phrase that I used, which was in fact a very carefully considered one and is, I think, wholly justified by what occurred.
Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Gentleman has not the decency to withdraw it.
Mr. Berkeley: What I propose to do is to justify this by drawing attention to certain statements which the right hon. Gentleman made. First of all, he drew attention in this section of his speech of 5th November to the letters which were in existence. He explained that he had

423
seen them and he went on to say that they indicated
"a degree of Ministerial responsibility which goes far beyond the ordinary business of a Minister."
He then went on to say that
"the Lynskey Tribunal was set up to deal with a junior Minister for far less than is involved in this."
Do not let us forget that the junior Minister concerned in the Lynskey Tribunal was in fact found guilty of impropriety.
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The junior Minister responsible was not found guilty in that way. Another thing that I would say is that the word "assassinations" is out of order and therefore I should have thought that the phrase "character assassination" is out of order.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not accept the first point of the hon. Member as being a point of order. On the question of assassination, to call an hon. Member an assassin would, in my judgment, be out of order, but the words as I heard them—the House will inform me if I am wrong—were "character assassination".
Mr. Pannell: And the word "squalid."
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I see a difference between those words and the accusation of being an assassin.
Mr. Berkeley: The right hon. Member for Belper went on to say:
"Standards of Ministerial conduct and responsibility today seem to be about as low as they have ever been in all the years that I have been here".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1962; Vol. 666, c. 714]
I venture to suggest that those four statements taken together and linked with the production of the letters, which the right hon. Gentleman said he had read, were a deliberate attempt to increase the innuendo and rumour already circulating about my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith). In my judgment, this totally vitiates the argument of the Leader of the Opposition that the sole reason for the existence of the gossip was the refusal of the Prime Minister to grant the type of inquiry which would meet
424
the Opposition's wishes. On the contrary; the rumours and innuendoes were given a new lease of life by the totally unjustified observations made by the right hon. Member for Belper in the debate on the evening of 5th November.
One could understand the right hon. Gentleman's attitude if he had not seen the letters. If he had not seen them but had merely been told about them, one could understand his anxiety that the truth should be revealed. However, he had seen them, or seen five of them. I have read them all, as, I imagine, most hon. Members have. Since there is not in those letters one single act of impropriety, indiscretion or ill judgment——
Mr. R. H. S. Crossman: Why was he sacked?
Mr. Berkeley: I shall come to that. Since all that the letters did reveal about my hon. Friend was that he is a decent, kindly and honourable man dealing in a considerate way with a minor member of his staff who was plainly a pushful, tedious bore, I can only say that the right hon. Member for Belper sank below the standard we normally expect of him in his intervention in that debate.
Mr. Gordon Walker: Did not the Prime Minister, by accepting the hon. Gentleman's resignation, sink below the proper standard just as much, or, indeed, more?
Mr. Berkeley: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I have two further things to say.
Mr. Gordon Walker: Answer.
Mr. Berkeley: I shall answer that. First, I was about to say that I very much regretted that my hon. Friend thought it necessary to offer his resignation. Further, I was astonished that the Prime Minister accepted it.
Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am getting a little tired of this. May I ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether you detect in the Motion any reference to my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown)? Is there anything in the Motion about him at all? If not, why are you allowing the hon. Member opposite to indulge in all this talk?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: During the debate, references have been made fairly freely across the Floor to one or other protagonist from one or other party. That is not out of order in this debate.
Mr. Berkeley: I hope that the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shin-well) will not continue to interrupt me because I have one or two other things to say, and it might be desirable——
Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Member will not stop me interrupting.
Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Would it not be highly undesirable and out of accord with a long and honourable tradition of the House for the hon. Member to be allowed to persist in prejudging one of the most important issues into which the Tribunal will have to inquire and make it the subject of heated personal party political debate before any evidence is ever heard?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman's arguments are concerned with whether or not the Tribunal should be set up. What he says further to that is in order.
Mr. Berkeley: I was in the middle of answering the right hon. Member for Smethwick. I had not quite finished. I said that I was astonished that the Prime Minister had accepted my hon. Friend's resignation. However, I utterly refute any suggestion that the Prime Minister behaved with any lack of decency. My right hon. Friend went out of his way not only in personal correspondence but on the Floor of the House to uphold—unlike the right hon. Member for Belper—the honour of my hon. Friend.
Mr. Crossman: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that it is a mark of decency first to say that a man is entirely innocent and then to throw him to the wolves? Is that really the mark of an honourable man?
Mr. Berkeley: I do not think that my hon. Friend was thrown to the wolves.
Mr. Crossman: Then what was it?
Mr. Berkeley: The Prime Minister went out of his way to establish his belief in my hon. Friend's honour.
426
The right hon. Member for Belper, as I have already said, remarked that standards of Ministerial conduct and responsibility were as low today as they had ever been in all the years he had been here. I am bound to say that, when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, himself a Privy Councillor, behaves like a poor man's Senator McCarthy, the conduct of the Opposition today leaves much to be desired.
5.36 p.m.
Mr. J. Grimond: I hope that the House will forgive me, first, if I do not follow the hon, Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley), and, second, if I am unable to be here at the end of the debate.
The Prime Minister has told us that the reason why he felt it necessary to set up an independent Tribunal, a decision which I wholly welcome, was that the character of Ministers was called in question. If I may say so, the character of Ministers was called in question long before the weekend. The character of a Minister was called in question last week, very wrongly, I consider, but that does not alter the fact that, if the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) had his character assasinated, it was done not by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), but by a campaign of innuendo in the country, and this happened at the beginning of last week.
I think that the Prime Minister ought to have explained how, if his reason for changing the nature of the Tribunal was valid yesterday, it was not valid last Wednesday. He has said that specific accusations were made on Friday. Of course, every Member of the House rejects those specific accusations. But the question has been raised already and I should be grateful if the Law Officers of the Crown would advise us. Is it intended to bring an action for criminal libel? Surely, an action for libel, for slander or for criminal libel must lie from what we have heard. There may be reasons against it, but I think we are entitled to know from the Law Officers what legal action it is intended to take against people who bring entirely unfounded slanderous accusations against Ministers of the Crown.
It seems to me that the Motion deals with two matters. Though related, they

427
are, in fact, separate matters. The first is the affair of Vassall, who was convicted of spying. He was not only in the service of the Admiralty; he was also, as we know, at the embassy in Moscow. I take it that under the Motion it will be possible to inquire into what went on in Moscow, how he came to be there and how he first came into contact with the Russians. I think that paragraph (4) of the Motion is wide enough for that.
Secondly, we should not lose sight of the most important fact that all this arose from the activities of Vassall, who was a spy in contact with the Russians. We are doubly concerned here, in view of what has gone on before, about the state of security not only in the Admiralty but, possibly, in some of our foreign embassies as well. We have been assured by the Prime Minister that he is responsible for security. He has said that himself. I believe that questions arise from this. Is he to give evidence before the Tribunal? Is he to appear before it? He is ultimately responsible. on his own affirmation, for security.
The other side of the Motion is concerned with allegations, admittedly arising out of espionage, against the First Lord, the Service chiefs, the Civil Service and other people. I am not sure how wide this inquiry will go or how suitable the Tribunal will be for such an inquiry. Is it, so to speak, to put the people who started these allegations in the dock? Is it to have the widest power to compel members of the Press and other people to appear before it, as has been suggested? We know from past experience not only some of the difficulties which the Leader of the Opposition has already mentioned, but that often the effect of these tribunals is to make it extremely difficult to take criminal proceedings; and there may be a case for criminal proceedings against certain people who may be called to appear before this Tribunal.
I wish to say a few words about the position of the hon. Member for Hillhead. He has already been tried by a process unknown to anything resembling justice.
Mr. S. Silverman: Tried, acquitted and sentenced.
Mr. Grimond: We find from the hon. Gentleman's letters that it is absurd to accuse him either of the personal aberrations which have been mentioned, or of having anything to do with espionage. The most that has been even suggested is that he should or might have known that Vassall was a spy. If that is suggested, then it might be said of many other people. If it is seriously advanced that the hon. Gentleman should have known this, Vassall has been in the Government's employment for a long time and many other people also had good reason to know whether he was a spy.
I think that this whole incident is one of the more unsavoury incidents in our public life, and I must express my profound regret that the hon. Member's resignation was accepted. I feel that regret even more now that the form of the Tribunal is to be altered. I take it—and I hope that this will be confirmed—that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to appear before this new, independent Tribunal and to reinstate his reputation.
My last point concerns the whole procedure of tribunals. I have raised this matter before. In 1959, I asked the then Home Secretary if he would set up a committee to examine this whole procedure and would allow a debate in the House on it. That was refused. What happens at these tribunals? Things come to light which are unprotected by any of the normal processes of British justice. Let any hon. Member, or any of the people in the Press who are so sure that the hon. Member for Hillhead was a foolish man, reflect on the letters which they have written and think how they would look in a White Paper, or if they were produced before a tribunal. Consider the people concerned in the last two or three tribunals whose reputations have been besmirched for ever. Consider an ex-Member of the House who committed offences of the most trivial sort, if he committed any offences at all, and who has never recovered from them.
If this matter were brought before the courts of law there would be all sorts of protection. One would not be allowed to fish out documents from here and there or to make allegations against people right, left and centre. But we

429
have this extraordinary procedure which, apparently, has not a very happy history and which was born at a not very happy time. I do not suggest that we can go into all this now, but I beg the House not only to look at this procedure and the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, but to consider what happened when these three very eminent civil servants attempted to hold an inquiry. The whole inquiry was discussed in the Press right, left and centre. There was apparently no privilege and no question of contempt. If this is the way in which this country is to carry on its public affairs, its very justifiable pride in its traditions of fairness to individuals and incorruptibility of public inquiry will be called into grave question.
I have doubts about the form of the Motion, because it confuses two separate things. I hope that it will not be the means of losing sight of the main theme, which is the security of the country. But the other question also important, namely, the protection of our standard of public life, and, after this matter, the case for a full inquiry into that is also very well made out.
5.45 p.m.
Mr. G. R. Howard: I do not wish to detain the House long, but I should like to follow the remarks of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) on the question of criminal proceedings. They were, I thought, very relevant.
It seems to me that those sections of the Press which are wholly and completely irresponsible are able to get away with things in respect of which they should be brought to justice. If, as has been said, these grave slanders on the First Lord are proved baseless, I hope, like the right hon. Member, that nothing which happens in this inquiry will stop people guilty of such slander being brought to justice.
We in this House perhaps realise that these things do not matter much, but many people outside have a little more faith in what they read in the newspapers. A national newspaper, last Saturday, printed a long article by its political correspondent the theme of which was, "Tory anger grows". First, it dealt with the speech of my right hon.
430
Friend the Minister of Defence on the Vassall case, which was termed "frivolous". I sat through the whole debate—not many of us did so—and I listened to every word that my right hon. Friend said. This was not a frivolous speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am only expressing my own point of view. This, to my mind, was not a frivolous speech.
People are entitled to say what they like, but I wish to bring out the second point which this newspaper made.
Mr. C. Pannell: The hon. Gentleman keeps on speaking about innuendo, but he has not mentioned the name of the newspaper.
Mr. Howard: The Daily Mail.
The article went on to say, "The Minister of Defence addressed a defence committee on Wednesday night. Tories are very annoyed that he talked to them without warning them of the bombshell"—I am paraphrasing this, but hon. Members can find it in the Library——
Mr. Richard Marsh: This is not very important.
Mr. Howard: It is—"the bombshell of the letters that were going to be produced next day". The only trouble was that the meeting took place on Thursday afternoon, after those letters had been published.
If that is not misrepresentation, I just do not know what is. The public are given what appears to me to be a deliberately false impression of what Members of Parliament are thinking about a matter of this sort.
I do not propose to go into the question of innuendoes against Members of the House. I am merely trying to draw attention to the kind of Press statements which are put out and which are deliberate, or appear to be deliberate, misstatements in a case as serious as this. I hope that cases of this sort will be brought before the Tribunal.
Mr. Wigg: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the alternative? When the debate is finished, will he go to the Library and read today's national Press, starting with The Times in which its political correspondent writes a story, which is perfectly clear, every word of which was inspired by the Government's public relations office. This is the

431
choice: either we are spoonfed and inspired statements are given by Ministers, or journalists are forced to speculate. I prefer the speculation which involves falsities rather than hand-outs. If the hon. Gentleman hopes that the Daily Mail will be brought before the Tribunal, I hope that The Times and all the other newspapers which printed the Prime Minister's story this morning will also go before the Tribunal.
Mr. Howard: I am trying to point out that in this report the Minister of Defence was supposed to have addressed a committee meeting on the Wednesday night when, in fact, he addressed it on the Thursday afternoon after the letters were published.
Mr. Wigg: The hon. Member is quite right. The story was absolutely false. The poor man had got on the wrong trail. The stories in The Times this morning, however, are accurate, because the Prime Minister's representative gave it to them. I prefer the Daily Mail to The Times.
Mr. Howard: I am trying to point out that a great many statements of this sort which are put out have no foundation. In a matter as serious as this, what everybody in the House wishes to find out is the facts. We are worried about security. Do not let us get drawn away by these "red herrings", by people running here, there and everywhere and trying to destroy this or that reputation. Let us get at the facts and let the country realise that a lot of what people read in some of the newspapers has no foundation in fact.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Crossman—Mr. Woodburn. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I apologise to the House. I failed to see the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), who rose.
Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The Select Committee on Procedure recommended, and Mr. Speaker accepted, that priority should not necessarily be given to right hon. Members. Consequently, if you have given, as I am sure you have done, in good faith, the idea that you missed my right hon. Friend the Member for
432
Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), who has not been here all the time, I am sure that that is a slip on your part which you would not wish to repair.
Mr. A. R. Wise: Further to that point of order. Could it be stated from this side of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that we like listening to the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn)?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The second point is quite irrelevant. What the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) has said in his point of order is quite true. It is not obligatory upon the Chair to call a Privy Councillor, but it has been a fairly general custom and I would be reluctant at this time to depart from it. In error, I did so. I corrected myself and I hope that the House will allow me to correct what I did mistakenly.
Mr. Crossman: I thought I heard you call my name, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I have been sitting here patiently. If you called me, can you really say that you did not call me when, in fact, you did?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I fully accept that. By a slip of the tongue, I called the hon. Member, but I invite him to allow me to correct myself. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I invite the hon. Member to allow me to correct myself.
Mr. Crossman: With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that puts an hon. Member in a difficult position. To invite me to let you correct a mistake when you called me seems to me to be, frankly, a lot to ask of me. We have had three successive Privy Councillors. I cannot see why there is a mistake to correct.
Mr. A. Woodburn: I would be the last to wish to embarrass you in this matter, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but, contrary to what has been said, I have been sitting here all the time. I have not been out. Therefore, there is no question of my having just come in, as has been suggested. If, however, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) insists that he must speak first, I am quite willing that he should.
I have a special reason for wanting to speak on this matter because of the

433
hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), who has been involved, and to justify the honour of this side by making a few remarks on the matter.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I very much regret what has happened. I am entirely responsible. Through a slip of the tongue. I have thrown the House into uncertainty. The calling of right hon. or hon. Members must rest with the Chair. What I should like the House to allow me to do is to correct an error which I made accidentally. I should like the House to allow me to call the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire.
Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I cannot be as accommodating as I would normally like to be to the Chair and the House, but to do what you suggest we should allow you to do would create a precedent in the history of the House. If it is admitted, as I understand it to be, that whether by inadvertence or not you called my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman),he bas possession of the Floor and so long as he keeps in order in his speech, neither the Chair nor anyone else is entitled to deprive him of the privilege of addressing the House, which you called him to do.
Mr. Crossman: I accept my hon. Friend's argument. You have invited me to give way, however, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and as I do not want to waste any more time, I give way.
5.56 p.m.
Mr. A. Woodburn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member far Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), because I recognise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you have been placed in an embarrassing position. If, however, my hon. Friend had insisted upon speaking now, I would have given way.
A great deal has been made about what has been said by this side of the House concerning the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith). I am sorry that what happened in regard to the exchange between my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) and the Prime Minister led to this matter having been brought to the Floor of the House because the Prime
434
Minister would not listen to discussions privately. Therefore, the Prime Minister must bear a certain amount of responsibility for this incident in the House.
I As one who has known the hon. Member for Hilthead—and I think I speak on behalf of his Scottish colleagues, who have known him for many years—I want to say that not one of them has the slightest doubt about his integrity and his character. I am sure that all of us were greatly shocked that the Prime Minister accepted the hon. Member's resignation.
Today, the Prime Minister made a great deal about the additional rumours that have been started. The night hon. Gentleman must accept a great deal of responsibility for this, because had he accepted the innocence of the letters and stood by his hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead the public would have accepted that the Prime Minister believed in the hon. Member. In accepting the resignation, however, the Prime Minister created the impression throughout the country that there must be something behind this matter which has not come out in the wash.
When the Prime Minister proceeded to appoint the Tribunal another rumour went through the House—that he was appointing it for two reasons: to wash the Government whiter than white, and to bring discredit upon my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper. A good deal that has happened today has borne out that intention. We have had sneers from the right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch), who spoke from his side of the House following the Prime Minister. A great deal of what has been brought out shows that part of the reason for the Tribunal is to make an attack upon my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper and is a diversionary movement to draw attention away from the real purpose of the debate.
We welcome the appointment of the Tribunal because it seems to be the only instrument capable of doing the job. I agree, however, with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), the Leader of the Liberal Party, that our past experience of the tribunal procedure has been most disagreeable and unfortunate. It has allowed widespread slanders and attacks on

435
character to be made with no defence from the people concerned. The Lynskey Tribunal put people in their graves. It not only assassinated their characters, but actually brought about their premature death, because these men's characters were destroyed for no reason at all because they were smeared by that Tribunal.
One of the dangers of this Tribunal is that the truth is not necessarily going to come out, unless somebody is responsible for producing it.
Mr. Hale: I was engaged in the Lynskey Tribunal, and I have previously expressed precisely the view that my right hon. Friend is expressing now, but how is the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) to be defended against the allegation, which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has made today, that somebody, who, no doubt, can be identified, has said that rumours are floating about in Fleet Street, in respect of which he is likely to say that he cannot remember who told him, that it was perhaps Mr. Jones who got it from Mr. Brown who got it from Mr. Smith?
I ask: how can the hon. Member for Hillhead be defended without briefing counsel and appearing before the Tribunal to answer that allegation against him by going into the box and saying, "This is absolutely false"? The only other man he could call is Vassall. How does he answer it? This is what always happens when a man is charged with crime, but if he is charged with a rumour against him—whose character can be defended against that?
Mr. Woodburn: That, I agree, is just the danger—that people have their characters assassinated, and there is no way in which they can possibly clear themselves, because the public, unfortunately, like dirt, and if dirt is spread they will swallow it. They do not look for washing whiter than white, and this is one of the dangers of a tribunal of this kind.
I should have thought that the Prime Minister would have been on much surer ground if he had appointed a Select Committee of this House, or a Joint Select Committee of both Houses, since the First Lord of the Admiralty is involved, because that would have con-
436
ducted this investigation as privilege is conducted in this House, with a sense of responsibility and a great control of the kinds of things which are brought out.
Mr. Dudley Williams: Surely one of the objections to the Select Committee procedure is that the Committee cannot take evidence on oath and cannot subpoena people?
Mr. Woodburn: I thought that a Select Committee had great powers and could do almost everything. Anyway, this House can give powers of any kind, which override anything in this country, to any Committee. This is the High Court of Parliament and it has the right to give powers to a Committee, and I think that perhaps there could have been devised a new Committee of a kind suitable for this. But in any case the Tribunal is being appointed and we have got to accept it as it is.
I think that the discussion has shown that there is great risk of this Tribunal being led up the garden by looking into all these rumours and trifles which have nothing to do with the security of this country. The question is: are they important? Suppose that all this about the hon. Member for Hillhead were right. This is not our business. It is not our business to prosecute and persecute the hon. Member for Hillhead, even if he were guilty, but we believe he is innocent, and everybody who has any decency, and who knows him, believes that he is innocent. The problem is that in discovering the person who circulated the rumours we may not get on the right track of who it was who betrayed the country.
In the old days spies were paid, OT bribed, or seduced. Now we have a new brand of people who, as has been said, believe they have got a mission in life, a religion in life, who believe in a cause above that of their own country. We have found in the past scientists who painted out that they believed they were serving an international cause, and that that cause was above loyalty to their own country. This is the great danger and it is almost impossible to defend against it.
Who are to be the spies? Obviously, a spy will not put a label on himself, "I am a member of the Communist

437
Party", "I was a member of the Communist Party", "I am connected with all the Left-wing organisations". In that case he will not make a good spy. A good spy will be a staunch Conservative, a member of the Church, a member of the best clubs in London. He will be above suspicion. He wild have the old school tie. Rather like Vassall, he will be a vicar, or a vicar's son—so that he will be accepted as one of the old boys and nobody will ever suspect him on any count at all.
That is the successful spy, a man who will provide himself with a cover which nobody will ever penetrate. It is not a question of running McCarthyism. People who think that are not recognising the facts of history at all. Obviously, the last person we are to have as a spy is a person Who associates himself with that line.
Unfortunately, this man Vassall has disclosed another weakness. He has disclosed the fact that certain people are liable to be blackmailed. He says he was blackmailed. There may be no evidence of that. That may be a story. On the other hand, there are rumours going about about Vassall that we have not heard so much of. There are rumours that he was a kind of male Mata Hari, who was seducing lots of people in high places because they were his customers. It is actually said that he had a bigger income from them than he had from the Russians. This is another secret thing which should be worked out throughout the public service.
There are a great many things to investigate. For instance, may not one of his contacts have been Maclean, in Moscow, and Burgess? Had Maclean any responsibility for Vassall going to Moscow and later being compromised and blackmailed? Obviously they worked in the same group. Maclean could possibly have been subjected to blackmail.
I can remember a case in this House when it was reported by a Member now dead, a doctor, that a person had consulted him because he was being blackmailed by the Communist Party and he wanted to know how he could be cured of a weakness. Actually, he went abroad. Everybody knows that this goes on. There are great investigations
438
to be carried out and they may go to very high places, but we cannot rule out people because they have the right school tie, or because their fathers were vicars. We cannot just look at people who come from secondary and working-class schools as though they were spies. Maclean did not.
This is a matter we want to get to the bottom of, and we should completely disregard who a person is and what he is. We should get to his background, and we should find out who is liable to be blackmailed, who is liable to succumb to pressure of this kind, and investigate him.
It is a very difficult business, and there is no possibility at all of discovering all the spies, of course, but, obviously, they mostly arise from weakness or cupidity, or, as I say, from this new factor of devotion to an entirely new religion.
I hope, therefore, that the Prime Minister and his colleagues will drop all this nonsense about trying to whitewash themselves in order to blacken my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper and to whitewash the Government. This is not the purpose of this Tribunal. If it carries out this purpose then it will destroy any credit and any belief in such tribunals in the future. I agree with my hon. Friend that if this Tribunal betrays the trust being placed in it by sidetracking into all these whitewashing activities then this House will have to take steps to find some other method of getting at the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
6.9 p.m.
Mr. A. R. Wise: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) has, I think, been a little inconsistent in some of his remarks. He deplored the campaign of innuendo which drove my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. T. D. G. Galbraith) out of office. But from where did the innuendo come? Did it not come from his own party?
Mr. Woodburn: The Press.
Mr. Wise: Who was it made rumours about letters which I have seen——
Mr. Woodburn: It was in the Press.
Mr. Wise: —letters I have seen in this House, letters which were, of course, completely innocuous when they were published? But that is where the innuendo started. The less said from the Opposition benches about innuendo in this case, the better for everyone concerned.
The right hon. Gentleman was totally inconsistent on another point. He said the Prime Minister had set up this Tribunal as a great whitewashing institution. He then said he welcomed its setting up. Does he want the Government whitewashed? We on this side of the House do not. We want the truth. The reason why we welcome the Tribunal is that we feel we shall get the truth.
Any attempt to equate this with the Lynskey Tribunal is not comparing like with like. The Lynskey Tribunal was set up to investigate charges of direct corruption, not espionage. It was an honest Tribunal. I was out of the country at the time, but I read its reports, and I believe that it came to an honest result. In my view, it did not go quite as far as it ought to have done because it merely punished someone who was not really a guilty man.
Mr. Hale: It also punished many people whom it found to be completely innocent and whose motives were admirable, including an hon. Member of this House, a man of deep religious views, who tried to exercise a moderating influence. Because his name was mentioned, he never came back to this House and has never been adopted again. He is described as the man whose name was mentioned in the Lynskey Tribunal. We have been told today that everybody has forgotten what the Lynskey Tribunal said, because it has been said that this man was found guilty, but he was not.
Mr. Wise: If that is the case—and I am prepared to accept it from the hon. Gentleman—the fault surely lies not with either the Lynskey Tribunal or this House, but with the Labour Party's selection committee.
Mr. C. Pannell: Do not be silly. The hon. Member knows nothing about it.
Mr. Wise: That must be the case.
I turn to one reason for the setting up of the Tribunal. We are dealing
440
with a very serious question of espionage. I would ask hon. Members opposite in particular, but also hon. Members on this side of the House, how guilty we ail are of impeding the work of the security services. I have had fourteen years' experience of counter-espionage in one form and another, and I can tell hon. Members that it is a very difficult and arduous task. Whenever the security services try to do a check on loyalty, say, of the Civil Service, do at any rate some hon. Members opposite raise the shadow of Senator McCarthy, or do they not? Does it help the security services, or does it not? Even on this side of the House—I include us all in this pattern—I think that there is a certain amount of guilt for the leakages which take place.
Mr. W. Griffiths: From time to time through the years I have raised cases in this House relating to the operations of the security services, and there have been instances when I thought that the operation of those services had resulted not in greater security for this country but in the perpetration of an act of injustice against an individual. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that hon. Members should not always have regard to that and the defence of the security of the State?
Mr. Wise: I am saying nothing of the sort. I am merely saying that hon. Members should sometimes think of these things. Of course there may be cases of injustice, but the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that so-called cases of injustice are raised in this House, on both sides, with far less justification than he and I would think reasonable. I repeat that some of the guilt for these leakages may well lie with us.
To turn to another aspect, we know perfectly well that the pervert is peculiarly susceptible to pressure from outside organisations to bring him in as a servant of the enemies of the country. We all know that. But suppose we suggested the dismissal of suspected perverts, or even known perverts, from the Government service. What would be the reaction of the House? On the whole, we should find denunciation of our interference with the liberty of men to live their own lives.
But they are not living their own lives when they are in Government service.

441
This is the life of the nation, and we cannot afford to take any risk in these matters. There is no question that we have a right and, in my view, a duty to ensure that any persons susceptible to blackmail are not employed in any form of office where they can get hold of secret information. [An HON. MEMBER: "It would mean going wide."] As an hon. Member opposite says, we should have to go fairly wide. At the time that I was in the intelligence service in Germany under a previous Secretary of State for War, we should have had to go not only fairly wide but also fairly high. But the fact remains that we should have gone there.
If we want security, these are things that both sides of the House must make up their minds to do. We must forget some of our strong feelings—rightly strong feelings—about the liberty of the subject, the right of the individual to live his own life, and so on. We have to remember that the only thing that matters in these things is the security of the realm, and even if injustice is done, it is worth doing if the security of the realm is going to be maintained. That is all I have to say on that matter.
Mr. Eric Lubbock: I must confess that I find the argument which the hon. Gentleman is putting forward a most horrifying one. It seems to me—I should like to know whether he agrees with this—that he is advocating that we should use the very methods that the Communists use in order to combat espionage.
Mr. Wise: The hon. Member is, of course, talking the kind of drivel that one expects from the Liberal Party. Of course we are not using the tactics of the Communists. But I would ask the hon. Member to remember that leakages from the security systems of the Communist States are far less frequent than they are from ours.
Mr. Lubbock: Exactly. That is what I said.
Mr. Wise: Leakages from our States are just as dangerous as leakages from the Communist States. We have all accepted the fact that there is a cold war, and to fight this cold war we must have the necessary determination to ensure our own safety and security. It is no good trying to have a happy nineteenth century outlook on these matters.
442
I know that the Liberal Party is trying to live down the nineteenth century because in the course of those hundred years it had much to apologise for.
The fact is that we cannot allow this sort of thing to happen. The leakages are getting worse and not better. One of the greatest difficulties with which the security services have to compete is unjustified attacks from time to time in this House. I am merely pleading that we should use a little caution in attacking our security services when they try to examine the backgrounds, habits and so on of persons who might give away information of value to an enemy. I know perfectly well than one can say that we have not got an enemy; but, of course, we have an enemy, and we all know that we have, and we must deny that enemy information.
6.20 p.m.
Mr. R. H. S. Crossman: I am very glad to be following the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise), because I too, like him, spent some time in the security service, and I should like to tell him that, though it was, perhaps, a little before him—during the last war—I do not think that the view he has put forward would be agreed to by all who work in the security service.
What the hon. Gentleman said was that we have to forget about freedom and think of the safety of the realm as all that matters. That is the kind of exaggeration that leads to catastrophe. One of the jobs of this House is precisely to make sure that the secret Departments are not permitted, because of their secrecy, to get away with practices which are dangerous to the realm. One of our great problems with the top-secret security organisations—and the hon. Gentleman knows it as well as I do—is that they are not above lying and the suppression of vital facts in order to further themselves against other security organisations. Security is a horrible job. Unless we have a liberal-minded House of Commons, it is a nightmare.
Of course, all this has nothing to Jo with the debate. Let me come back to the debate. This debate is on the question of an inquiry. I want to make it quite clear that I am and have be-en for years passionately in favour of adequate inquiry. I was in favour of it

443
before last Friday when the Prime Minister decided that we should have an inquiry to get to the bottom of what is wrong with our security service. I tried to put down my Amendment, because I felt sure that this kind of inquiry, set up under this Act, is the wrong kind of inquiry. I am afraid that it will not be used—and I have every kind of support for this from the speeches that we have heard—judicially. It will not be launched in terms of investigating security.
One of the most striking facts is that we are having a political debate. I have never heard a more political speech than that of the Prime Minister. It was not the speech of a man concerned with a judicial inquiry who felt that, whatever we do, we must put party behind us and try to get this matter sorted out. It was the speech of an agile politician who had been caught on the hop, who was having to change his mind and climb down to the demands of the Opposition and the Press outside, and who was trying, to avoid admitting that he was doing so. So he adopted the oldest trick in the world, which is to attack the other side and use precisely the poison which one says one is concerned to obliterate.
We heard the Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) and the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) saying that we must have decency in our public life and prevent character assassination. But there has only been one object in all these speeches we have heard, and that is character assassination across the Table. That is what hon. Members opposite are concerned about—to switch it all and try to assassinate a leading member of the Opposition who committed the crime of raising this issue, and who mentioned—what was known outside—that a junior Minister in the Admiralty had been in intimate communication by letter with a spy. We now know that the letters were absolutely valueless and unimportant, but it was a little ridiculous of the Government to suggest that it was not an interesting item to the security services or to the House——
Mr. J. A. Leavey Mr. J. A. Leavey (Heywood and Royton) rose——
Mr. Crossman: I cannot give way in the middle of a sentence—to suggest that it was not a relevant fact to discover that a junior Minister had been for some time in communication and on friendly terms with a traitor.
Unfortunately, it was not the first time, by the way, that a junior Minister had done this, as I shall show later, though on the previous occasion it was somebody from our side who was in trouble. There have been cases in which not only civil servants, but politicians, have been mixed up with spies.
Mr. Leavey: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has referred to these letters as valueless. Can he say whether it is the case that they were purchased for several thousands of pounds, because, if it appears that they were, they could hardly be termed valueless?
Mr. Crossman: That is silly. I am discussing seriously the pros and cons of this inquiry. I am pointing out the perverse exaggeration of the Prime Minister's statement that the Tribunal must be set up suddenly because the situation had changed, and because a new situation required new methods. That is absolute nonsense. The case for the inquiry has existed now for ten years—since Burgess and Maclean.
The Prime Minister was then Foreign Secretary, and he made a fine speech about a charter of British liberty. I will quote what he said:
"It will be a sorry day when we try to elevate something called the Foreign Office or the Treasury or any other Department of State into a separate entity enjoying a kind of life, responsibility and power of its own, not controlled by Ministers and not subject to full Parliamentary authority.
Ministers, and Ministers alone, must bear the responsibility for what goes wrong. After all, they are not slow to take credit for anything that goes right. This does not mean that they have to accept responsibility for wrongful acts on the part of their officials of which they have no prior knowledge. But in discussing this case"—
that is, the Burgess and Maclean case—
"It is quite wrong to assert that the Foreign Office, if by that is meant ' officials', made decisions of their own. Ministers are responsible and, in fact, took all the important decisions. Moreover, they took those decisions in full knowledge of all the relevant facts so far as they were known at the time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1955; Vol. 545, c. 1484.]

445
I thought that that was an excellent speech. I and many other hon. Members spoke and we had an excellent debate, and I remember putting to the right hon. Gentleman same observations saying—I was quite certain about it—that the White Paper was a cover-up, just a method to avoid facing the fact that high officials in the Foreign Office knew the weaknesses of both Burgess and Maclean. We have not yet got to the bottom of how it was possible for the Foreign Office to keep these men in its employment.
I gave the warning that McCarthyism arises in countries when people outside have a suspicion that the security arrangements required of the small fry, such as aircraft workers, are not maintained so severely at the very top, that there are people at the top of a Ministry, civil servants and politicians, who permit themselves a licence to disregard security which would have involved expulsion from their jobs if practised by anybody lower down.
That was my view. What was wrong was that we did not have a proper investigation to tackle the Burgess and Maclean case in the Foreign Office, because there were higher officials, who, if the truth had come out, would have had to go. It was quite clear that they had been covered up. Now, exactly the same thing seems to be happening in the Admiralty. Despite the fact that the Promotions Committee has not recommended his promotion, a spy is given jobs far above his level. This can only be done if the people at the top are in his favour.
We need an inquiry which will really inquire into that factor and which really goes into the Foreign Office and the Admiralty and finds out about the people at the very top—and that includes both the First Lord and the unfortunate hon. Member who resigned. The sacking of the former Civil Lord was outrageous. I say this not because I know whether or not he is innocent, but because I believe it to be outrageous to sack a man even before a committee has reported. He should have had justice. The Prime Minister should have listened to the facts and not have dropped him before he had heard and had judged them. I do not want to see either the hon. Member
446
or the First Lord judged before we hear what the investigations reveal.
The atmosphere of this debate gives me no indication that such an investigation will take place. The whole tenor of the Prime Minister's speech was to protect the First Lord. He was careful to say that, technically speaking, "We all know that certain people are suggesting that there is something wrong at the top. We will have them."
I began to think, as I listened to the Prime Minister, that I was in the Bundestag while Der Spiegel was being discussed. We were all condemning Dr. Adenauer last week for using a security matter to try to muzzle the Press. I have heard today some speeches uncommonly like this. They said, in effect, "We cannot have the Press saying this", I do not like innuendo, either. But newspapers have to do their job and in doing so say things which Ministers may not like. The newspapers may get things wrong, but I would rather have investigation by a Press which is sometimes wrong than a dumb Press intimidated by a Tribunal of this kind and daring to do nothing.
After all, the British Press is not noted for its bravery. This morning, every single newspaper carried a Press release from the Prime Minister's office. Let us take one example of the popular Press, the Daily Mail. It said:
"The decision to have a tribunal inquiry sprang chiefly from a fear that if speculation, rumour mongering and political in-fighting went on much longer no one's reputation would be left safe."
That was the way in which it was put by the popular Press.
Let us turn now to the others. The Times, for instance, distilling, the same truth, said:
"… he may be confidently expected to show that he and the Cabinet are determined to have an investigation armed with powers strong enough to bring to an end the irresponsible bandying about of imputations."
This is to save the reputations of Ministers. There is nothing that a Minister dislikes more than something which gets near his reputation.
The Press release goes on:
"… the flow of rumour has long passed the point of tolerance …"
That was the tone used by Dr. Adenauer: "Stop it. Stop talking. Stop

447
attacking. Stop embarrassing us." I myself want to stop dirty innuendo, but I warn the right hon. and hon. Members opposite that they must be careful that in the course of stopping innuendo and imputation they do not destroy the necessary atmosphere of free criticism in which, if a proper investigation takes place, the Minister in charge of counterespionage—the Prime Minister—will be the chief man in the dock.
One has to interrogate the Prime Minister because, as Prime Minister, he has chosen to take on himself the sole personal responsibility for counterespionage. He has said that anyone who takes credit for success must also take the blame for failure. But I did not get the impression today that he was prepared to resign if his secret organisation was found to be at fault. The suggestion, on the contrary, is that this Tribunal should be used to smash people who are uttering criticisms and that it is the kind of committee which might possibly do the job.
At first sight one might say that a Tribunal with legal luminaries should have a degree of skill in investigation and the impartiality to do the job. I have a great respect for legal luminaries—I was born into a legal family and I liked it—but I agree, rather, with Sir Stafford Cripps on this point. In 1936, when speaking on the proposal to report the Budget leakages to a similar Tribunal—although the case was different it is relevant to this issue—Sir Stafford said:
"It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say what a marvellous thing it is to get this complete impartiality from a judge and two members of the legal profession. I have had many discussions with many eminent members of the legal profession at the bench of my inn on many political matters and I have never found that they are less political than I am. I do not know which of these paragons of impartiality is to be chosen."
Then he goes on, as a House of Commons man:
"… it seems to me to be very unfortunate that the House of Commons should be regarded by the Government as a body which is incompetent and unsuitable to carry through the inquiry into this matter. Everyone knows that Members of the House of Commons are just as much human beings as judges, or eminent lawyers, or anyone else; they all have their biases and their predilections but I should have thought that a Select Committee of this House would be just the type of jury that should try this case".—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 5th May, 1936; Vol. 311, c, 1571–2.]
448
That is a powerful argument, coming from a leading lawyer. This case, too, has nothing to do with law. This is a discussion in which questions of common sense and the understanding of human nature are uppermost, together with some knowledge of security and Communism. A law committee is the last thing we need to deal with spying.
What is needed is to get men with the courage to investigate at the top level and to put the Prime Minister through investigation. We know what briefing the Prime Minister has given the men he has selected. We know that his instructions are that they are to concentrate on rumours and imputations. We know that he wants them to look on the security aspect in such a way that will help the Prime Minister in his political battle to assassinate my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). That is the Tribunal's main job—and the members will not be appointed to another tribunal if they do not help.
I now turn to another person who spoke in the discussion in 1936 in support of an Amendment similar to the one I and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) would have liked to have moved today, with the effect of changing the character of the Tribunal. It is extraordinary how Earl Attlee managed to predict the process and the questions which need to be asked today. I will read the passage without changing a word. He said:
"… what is to be the method of procedure by this tribunal. The essential method of procedure by a tribunal is where there is a judge, where a case is investigated, and that case is put before him by counsel."
A little later, he said:
"Will the Attorney-General be conducting this case? It might be extremely awkward if so, and … there was some lapse due to one of his colleagues."
As a matter of fact, there was some lapse due to one of the then Attorney-General's colleagues. That was a premonition by Earl Attlee. He went on:
"I do not think that the Government seem to appreciate that the Government are in the dock in this matter. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say, ' We cannot have an inquiry by the House of Commons because there is partiality. …. A person brought before a court might say … they will not be quite impartial between me and the Crown.' It is all nonsense, This House is concerned for the honour of this House and I consider that the right hon. Gentleman would

449
have done far better to have proposed an Inquiry by this House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1936; Vol. 311. c, 1556.]
I must say that I find Lord Attlee's argument difficult to confute. I find it difficult to meet on two grounds. First, he said that if there were a Tribunal in which the Attorney-General played a part, as Lord Shawcross did in the Lynskey Tribunal, dominating the cross-examining rôle, no one could say that it was done by somebody impartial, for he would be as deeply prejudiced and partial as any other Member of the House of Commons, or any other member of the Government.
Therefore, if anyone says that we cannot do these things ourselves because we are partial, we must remember the partiality of lawyers. Secondly, we have a certain common sense in our investigations which fails in the legal profession I would have thought that there was everything to be said for the House undertaking this inquiry on those two grounds.
The Tribunal procedure as we have seen it operating in half-a-dozen cases is a procedure in which the Government completely control the investigation and investigate on their own behalf to discomfort their opponents. Indeed, the Prime Minister made that quite clear today. He said that the Tribunal was to attack the imputations. We are having a Tribunal to clear Ministers or friends of the Prime Minister, and that is the Government's view of the function of a Tribunal.
I suggest to hon. Members opposite who say that they care about security that they must know as well as I do that this kind of Tribunal will not put the Prime Minister in the dock unless the House of Commons this evening expressly desires and insists that that should be done. Of course it is possible, if the whole tone of the debate from now on is in that sense and if hon. Members opposite say that they agree that the Prime Minister should go into the dock and be cross-examined openly and fairly, and that he shall not be criticised any less partially than my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper and that all politicians and all civil servants concerned should be brought to the dock and cross-examined impartially.
450
Then there is some chance that Lord Radcliffe will be able to do a decent job. My own view is that even then it would be an extremely difficult job to do, but there is some chance of it being done if the House of Commons can forget party warfare and demand that the investigation must succeed, and if we can genuinely not try to score off each other.
Mr. Wise Mr. Wise rose——
Mr. Crossman: I am trying to make a speech about the investigation. Do hon. Members opposite regard it as partisan for the Opposition to be praying for an investigation which really investigates what has gone wrong in the Burgess-Maclean case, the Blake case, and the Admiralty, where the most primitive laws of security have been violated with consent at the topmost level?
If that has to be investigated, then I pray that hon. Members opposite will join me in insisting that we get an assurance from the Attorney-General this evening that if this kind of Tribunal comes, there will be a cross-examination of all the relevant Ministers. That must be our first requirement. The second must be that it must not be conducted by the Attorney-General, who knows his dependence on the Prime Minister and who is one of the Prime Minister's agents.
Surely he should hand over that job to the Public Prosecutor, or someone else who could do the job impartially and be known to be impartial? That would stop this mockery and hypocrisy—and it is mockery and hypocrisy after the experience of the Lynskey Tribunal—of having the Attorney-General come forward and say, "I shall be able to be impartial as between the right hon. Member for Belper and the Prime Minister when we go to the court of the Tribunal".
The Attorney-General (Sir John Hobson): I would have thought that the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) knew perfectly well that when the Attorney-General appears in tribunals of this sort, he appears on behalf of the tribunal only. He operates under the instructions of the tribunal. He is instructed by the Treasury Solicitor and he appears on behalf of the tribunal. Lord Shawcross, as he now is, made it

451
perfectly plain in the Lynskey Tribunal that his interest as a Law Officer was to endeavour to discover the truth, without political or personal motives and whatever the consequences. I hope that the hon. Member will accept from me that I intend to endeavour to follow the traditions of my predecessors in cross-examining members of the Government and all other witnesses whom the Tribunal consider necessary to be called, whoever they may be and whatever the consequences may be.
Mr. Crossman: Of course I accept that the right hon. and learned Member will follow the traditions of this Tribunal procedure, which I have been showing to be absolutely hopeless for carrying out an impartial investigation. I have no doubt that he will do as well as Lord Shawcross did against his own side. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did a good job."] It may be that he had a directive to.
All I know is that the ordinary people whose suspicions, I am told, hon. Members opposite are concerned to allay, so as to stop the rise of McCarthyism, will not take this kind of Tribunal seriously, because they will know that the Tribunal was organised so that the Government could get advantage from it, and on all previous occasions it has worked out that way. It worked out that way in the Bank Rate Tribunal and it seems certain that it will work out that way this time, because the people concerned have been warned that it should.
My job is to put it on the record that there are people in the House who for the first time are insisting that this Tribunal should be unlike its predecessors and that the Attorney-General should not do what his predecessors did, but should be afraid of no person and a respecter of no person in his insistence on discovering the truth. If we could achieve that by this debate, I would be relieved.
In my view, on balance it would be better for the House of Commons to have enough self-respect to say that, because frightful political issues are involved. Heaven knows, we have enough politics mixed up with this case. That is Why it would be better to have a Select Committee of the House of 'Commons to do the job for ourselves and lo have majority and minority reports,
452
because at least there would then be obvious politics instead of the cryptopolitics which would be found in the kind of Tribunal which we are likely to have as a result of this Motion.
6.47 p.m.
Sir Cyril Osborne: The hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Cross-man) seems to have done less than justice to this case, for at the beginning of his speech—and I carefully took down his words—the said that the Tribunal would not be used judicially. I should like to know how he knows. The whole of his speech——
Mr. Crossman Mr. Crossman rose——
Sir C. Osborne: Perhaps the hon. Member will let me finish my sentence as he finished his—the whole of his speech was almost a smear of Lord Radcliffe, who is to conduct this inquiry.
Mr. Crossman Mr. Crossman rose——
Sir C. Osborne: You are obviously not listening. You like to talk, but not to listen.
Mr. Speaker: We must keep the rule that observations are addressed to the Chair, and I was listening very hard.
Sir C. Osborne: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. Member spoiled his case by exaggeration and by implying that Lord Radcliffe would not do an honest and straight job, and he would not accept the specific assurance of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General who, in answer to his challenge, said that he would direct his questions to all sorts of people, high and low, important and unimportant. It was rather below the hon. Member's usual standard that he should refuse to accept that assurance.
May I direct the hon. Gentleman's attention to one other thing? He questioned whether the Tribunal could get at the truth or not, or whether we should be smearing people's reputations. I think that everyone in the House feels deeply sorry far my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), who has to listen to all this. I feel deeply sorry for him. Nobody in the House feels that he is anything but innocent of the terrible things that have been said behind his back. The

453
third and fourth paragraphs of the Motion give the Tribunal all the power that it needs to get to the truth, and the absolute truth, and what hon. Members on both sides of the House want is the truth of the position.
What are the facts? No matter who is implicated, or whose reputation may be tarnished in the meantime, we want to get at the truth, for this important reason. Outside this House those who send us here regard us as honourable people doing our best for our country. If we start to doubt the honour of each other and the honour of our motives, we destroy the function of this very ancient and honourable House. I deeply regretted some of the earlier speeches from both sides of the House during which innuendoes were being thrown across the Floor. It does not help us at all, and I should have thought that the hon. Member for Coventry, East would have been the last person to throw innuendoes at the distinguished gentlemen who are to conduct the inquiry.
I have three points to make. I cannot understand the impassioned plea of the hon. Member for Coventry, East against the acceptance of this Tribunal, bearing in mind that a week ago his right hon. Friend pleaded for this type of inquiry.
Mr. Crossman: I disagreed with my hon. Friends.
Sir C. Osborne: The hon. Gentleman said that this Tribunal would not be used judicially.
Mr. Wigg: I sought to move an Amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) The hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) could not have been in the House. The purpose of the Amendment was to alter the Committee, because we have never agreed with the request for this independent Tribunal. We have always held that the prime responsibility rests on the Prime Minister's shoulders.
Sir C. Osborne: I was in the House, and I heard the hon. Gentleman seek to move the Amendment. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman because I thought that he moved it in his name only. I missed the fact that the Amendment was
454
also in the name of his hon. Friend. I apologise to both hon. Gentlemen.
The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), who speaks officially for the party opposite, demanded this type of Tribunal. I do not understand how the bulk of the party opposite can vote against the Motion. Further, the right hon. Gentleman having pleaded for this type of Tribunal, the Leader of the Opposition rather took credit for having secured it.
Mr. Wigg: My right hon. Friend has a right to claim credit for it, but we happen to think that he is wrong.
Sir C. Osborne: The hon. Members above the Gangway who support the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition would, I think, find it difficult to vote against the Motion.
I regret the accusations and smears which have been made from both sides of the House. We like to call each other, as we do, honourable Members. This is one of the saving graces of the House of which we are all very proud. It is a pity that such smears and accusations crept into speeches both from behind me and from the other side of the House. I make the plea that, if possible, we should refrain from doing this in future.
The Leader of the Opposition, and I am sorry that he is not here, said that it would be difficult to get from newspaper editors the source of their information because they had a code to keep and would not disclose the source from which they got it. I interjected to remind him about what had happened on a previous occasion. I apologise to the House, because it was not the Allighan case but the Walkden case. Those who were in the 1945 Parliament will remember that it was a very impressive sight. The editor of the newspaper had to stand at the Bar of the House and answer questions from Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker asked:
"First, did you refuse to answer the Committee of Privileges when they asked you to, disclose the name of the Member of this House from whom you obtained information?"
The answer was, "Yes, Sir", Mr. Speaker asked:
"Are you now prepared to answer the question which you previously refused to answer?"

455
This is in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. The editor said, "Yes, Mr. Speaker". Mr. Speaker then asked:
"Was Evelyn Walkden the name of the Member which you previously refused co disclose?"
The reply was, "Yes, Mr. Speaker". Mr. Speaker then said.
"I direct you now to withdraw".—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 12th August, 1947; Vol. 441, c. 2276.]
The Leader of the Opposition doubted whether this Tribunal could get from the editors of newspapers the sources of their information. The powers of this Tribunal wild be as strong as were those possessed by the Select Committee which investigated the Walkden case.
Mr. Hale: I have not looked at the facts of the case, but I remember them. I knew Walkden well at the time. My impression is that the Editor of the Evening News refused, on the ground of journalistic privilege, to answer any questions until the information had come from some other source, and I think that it was only after Evelyn Walkden's own admission was finally extracted that he was the guilty party that the editor agreed to answer questions. The hon. Member referred to the question in which Mr. Speaker used the name of Evelyn Walkden and put to him, "Is this the guilty man?". In other words, the facts were known before the editor of the Evening News agreed to confirm them.
The same thing happened about the late John Carvel. Mr. Dalton was bitterly attacked from that side of the House, and there was talk of the use of the Official Secrets Act. My hon. Friend and I were on the Select Committee. It was only after a full admission had been made that John Carvel answered questions, because there was nothing left in dispute then.
Sir C. Osborne: I am trying to get from the Attorney-General whether or not the Tribunal will have powers to extract from newspaper editors the source of their information, because it is very important that they should have those powers.
Sir Lionel Heald: Surely there is a complete distinction between
456
the two cases, because the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) have been speaking of a case before a Committee of the House, whereas in this case the Motion gives the Tribunal power and authority to commit for contempt, and, therefore, impliedly, power to dead with all such questions. It was unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition suggested that we should become involved in that at all, because that would be a clash between the judiciary and the House. It must be a matter for the Tribunal to decide, and we cannot dictate to it.
Sir C. Osborne: I am obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend. All that I, as a non-lawyer, am hoping is that it will be made clear whether this Tribunal will have power to get to the source of the information, because what we need is not more mud-slinging but the real truth, and no matter how highly placed a person is, if he is implicated he should come before the Tribunal. People outside will then have it clearly in their minds that everything has been brought out in public and there has been no whitewashing. In the end not only will my hon. Friend be vindicated, but all hon. Members will as well, because the smear has come on us all.
If it is not out of order, I make the plea that the speakers who follow me should not try to do the work of the Tribunal, and that we should be as charitable as possible to one another.
7.0 p.m.
Mr. George Wigg: I find myself in considerable agreement with the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) in his plea that we should approach this subject in as reasonable a way as we can, remembering that we have a common task. What is that task? It is, I think, clearly tied up with making sure that the security services of the country do their job, for if they do not, the peril is shared by all. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) that an inquiry into the security forces of this country has been overdue for about ten years.
I am concerned for, as the House knows, I am interested in defence, and security is a part of defence. The theme which I have constantly advocated in my

457
defence speeches is that we should try to elevate defence above party, so I was pleased indeed today to listen to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when he argued in favour of an all-party approach because the breakdown in the present case had occurred because the Prime Minister had departed from his previous all-party attitude. Perhaps, therefore, some good will come out of the debate if from now on the Prime Minister realises that he would be serving his own interests, and those of his party and of the country, if he approached defence problems on a non-party basis and from the angle of securing the best return which can be got from the limited funds available. That can best be secured not by emphasising the differences but by recognising the points on which he can get the major area of agreement.
Let us turn for a moment to the Lonsdale case and the inquiry which subsequently took place. The trial ended on 22nd March, and on 23rd March the Prime Minister came to the House and described some of the things which had happened as "a bitter blow". That evening I forced a debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, and the theme which I then enunciated was the responsibility of the Prime Minister. I relied, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East today, on a speech by the Prime Minister on 7th November, 1955, which I thought was the speech of a wise man and of a statesman, for he laid it down quite clearly that it was not a question of chivalry but a question of constitutional practice that the responsibility rested with Ministers.
I spent a number of days at the Old Bailey. I listened to the proceedings, read them, studied them and thought about them. There in the dock was a man and woman, not very intelligent, who were engaged in what I think were some pretty low-level activities. They were accompanied in the box by two professionals, the Kroegers and then there was Mr. Lonsdale, to give him the name which he uses, a Russian officer, a man of great courage, a professional, a man who was serving his country's interest and who no doubt holds high rank in the Soviet Army.
But to ask me to believe that the transmitting apparatus in the house at Ruislip was operating in order to send
458
out the junk which was collected by Mr. Houghton and Miss Gee is asking too much. Some of the things which we had to listen to were fantastic—for example, Fleet orders dealing with precautions against venereal disease. Those no doubt were all very interesting to the medical department of the Soviet Union, but the idea that men risked their liberty and that vast amounts are spent in operations for that purpose seems to me most difficult to believe.
What were Houghton and Gee doing? At the week-end they were taking out of the underwater establishment at Portland not an odd paper or two; they were taking out suitcases of papers. Apparently, the whole central registry was moved at the week-end from the under-water establishment at Portland to the Soviet Embassy, and on Monday morning it was taken back again.
On 29th March we had a statement in the House. In the meantime the Prime Minister had gone to the Bahamas. The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) came to the House and announced the setting up of the Romer Committee. The Romer Committee reported.
We had no report at all on the circumstances which had enabled these people to operate in the way they did—no comment at all. Evidence was given at the Old Bailey that the transmitting station in Moscow was still sending the call sign out to these boys. We had no examination of what I regard as a fatal fact—nothing of the way in which the warrant office at Bow Street organised leaks to the Press when Lonsdale and company were arrested which enabled a number of birds to fly. There was no examination of the fact that there were obvious leaks from the First Lord's office which enabled the Daily Mail to report that Vice-Admiral Sir Geoffrey Thistleton-Smith was going on the Romer Committee.
There was no examination at all of the basic security facts involved, except, of course, by the Romer Committee, which in turn followed the Radcliffe Committee, which followed the committee of Privy Councillors. These committees breed like rabbits. In my judgment every one of them was formed with the sole purpose not of getting down Ito the fundamental facts, not of dealing with the

459
truth, not of trying to establish what had gone wrong, but in order to deal with the particular political difficulties which happened to arise at the moment.
What then happened has been repeated in the Vassall case. This is an operation which the Prime Minister told us was forced upon him last week-end following the events of the previous few days. I share the detestation expressed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition of the innuendoes and slanders which have caused pain and anxiety to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) and his family. We ought not to forget that. I detest It and I hate it. I hope very much that, as an act of simple restitution, the Attorney-General and the Government will consider that if this young man has to defend his reputation before this Tribunal, at least they should have the decency to pay the legal expenses involved. That is a gesture which could be made, because everyone in the House feels a great deal of sympathy with him and regrets the circumstances in which he finds himself.
But what does the Prime Minister do? Once again, we have another committee. I want for a moment to examine the history of the kind of tribunal which is being set up. First of all, it must be remembered that it had a rather unfortunate birth. It was called into being at the time of a major scandal of the 1921 Coalition Government, who found themselves in great difficulties, because suggestions were being made about the way in which the Munitions Ministry was being run. The late Mr. Bonar Law came to the House and promised an inquiry. He was in political difficulties, too. But he was promising an inquiry into a particular case. Hon. Members found themselves late at night faced with a Bill of general application to deal with a particular case. I read the report of the Second Reading late last night, and I found that there was at least one hon. Member at the time who looked into the future, for he warned the House that forty years hence—this was in 1921 and we are now in 1962—the House of Commons would find that it had landed itself with a version of the Star Chamber.
How has this operated? I went to the Lynskey Tribunal and I was perhaps the only hon. Member who was
460
regular in his attendance at the Bank Rate Tribunal. I used to be staggered to come from Church House back to the House and to talk to my hon. Friends about the Tribunal, for they were reading the reports of the Bank Rate Tribunal in the Evening Standard, the Evening News and the old Star, and they were getting a totally different picture from that which I was getting. I wondered how this was happening, and I referred in an intervention this afternoon to the point where the leakage occurred.
If one looks at the proceedings in the House which led to the setting up of the Tribunal to deal with the Budget leaks in 1936 one finds that Mr. Attlee and Sir Stafford Cripps, in their wisdom, were concerned about how the investigation was to take place. They were given an assurance by the Attorney-General then—an honourable and able man, as honourable and able as is the present Attorney-General—in an answer which he believed to be true he said that this investigation would be kept in the hands of the judge who had been appointed. He believed that to be true, but it did not operate in the Lynskey Tribunal. It certainly did not operate in the Bank Rate Tribunal. Sir Hartley Shawcross and the present Lord Dilhorne, for whom I have great respect for the judicial way in which he discharged his duties during that Tribunal, were relentless in their cross-examinations. There was no case before the Tribunal. No individuals were there facing a specific charge. Reputations were shattered, people were smeared and harm was done, without any right of representation, without any charges being made and without any idea of what evidence could be given.
I share with some of my hon. Friends their respect for members of the legal profession. I remember that when I first entered the House I used to listen with astounded wonder to some of them laying down the law. But as the years passed I discovered to my horror that some of them were appointed, by some means or other, as recorders and as I got to know them a bit better I wondered how they could possibly be put in a position to deprive others of their liberty. I remember how I tried to translate what I thought about them in military terms. That is a habit of mine.

461
I remember how I said that while some of them might be recorders, as far as I was concerned I would not have them as unpaid lance-corporals in an unarmed company of the Pioneer Corps. I recall saying that many of them were without the necessary virtues of common sense, objectivity and impartiality which they required to discharge their duties. In my opinion we must be sure that we have the best people we can get, not just lawyers, for we are up against an organisation which is backed with great resources and which so far seems to be having a singularly successful time, because we now get these cases quite regularly at half-yearly intervals.
The House should remind itself that regarding the Tribunal of 1921 it was never laid down that it should be comprised exclusively of members of the legal profession. It was never even laid down that the chairman should be a member of that profession. One of the complaints of the hon. learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) on Second Reading was that the Tribunal might be composed of lay members who need not have any experience at all and that such people were to be given vast powers.
I regret that, as in many other defence matters, I am at variance with my Front Bench. Fortunately, I am in company with some old friends, my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East. We are at variance, I think, because we start off on the good Army principle of trying to appreciate the facts first and then endeavouring to make an assessment of that appreciation before we commit ourselves to a plan of operation. My hon. Friends on the Front Bench do not always do that and, if I may say so, they constantly get into difficulties about defence because they fail to appreciate the facts of a given situation. I say that by way of explanation because they tend to dash in and demand an inquiry without really finding out what is involved.
The way this matter should have been dealt with is on the lines of a court of inquiry on Service principles where one, behind closed doors, ascertains the fact to give guidance to the man who is responsible. I do not care how many inquiries the Prime Minister has. He can have one every day of the week if he likes—and two on Sundays if it helps
462
him. I believe, in my innermost being—to borrow a phrase used by the right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch)—that the Prime Minister and the country cannot get away from the fact that the responsibility for this matter rests fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Prime Minister.
Sir C. Osborne: The hon. Gentleman is now suggesting that there should be a military type of inquiry behind closed doors. Does not that smack of the very Star Chamber about which he was speaking?
Mr. Wigg: The hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) has had his ways cast differently from mine so I suppose that 1 should not talk in shorthand. I said that in these sort of cases, involving Service matters—and the Admiralty is a disciplined Service—the problem should be approached from the point of view of the Naval Discipline Act in the same way that a similar matter affecting the Army should be approached from the point of view of the Army Act so that the facts can all be ascertained.
However, that is only the first stage. If, subsequently, as a result of statements made by the Prime Minister, he cares to ask the House of Commons to set up a Select Committee, then that is his business.
Mr. Wise: I rather sympathise with the idea of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) that the Tribunal should consist of people like himself and myself. We would probably do the job very well, although I doubt whether the idea would be acceptable to the country. Regarding the 1936 Tribunal, about which he speaks at such length, and about which I was not permitted to intervene when one of his hon. Friends was speaking, does he not consider that it was, under Mr. Justice Parker, an adequate and complete inquiry? It certainly bad no political bias and it ended in the destruction of one Minister of the Crown and an hon. Member of the Government party.
Mr. Wigg: For what my opinion is worth regarding the Bank Rate Tribunal, I do not think that it was a satisfactory way of tackling the matter.
Mr. Wise: What about the 1936 Tribunal?
Mr. Wigg: I was not active in politics at that time, so I prefer not to go into that. I prefer to speak only about those matters of which I have knowledge. Perhaps the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) will apply the same rule in future and will not make remarks about he and I discharging our duty as part of a court of inquiry. Neither of us is subject to the Naval Discipline Act or the Army Act.
I am suggesting that when anything goes wrong in a Service Department the sort of procedure I have described should automatically be applied. In this matter the Prime Minister has chosen to fall back on an antiquated procedure which, by common consent, has an unsound basis. Its origins are steeped in expediency and it is clear that each tribunal, has tended to adopt different methods of procedure and certainly when the accused, as it were, although not in the dock, emerges he has no right to defend himself.
It became perfectly clear in the 1936 Tribunal—and I say this only as a result of reading the proceedings involved—that the Attorney-General had to consider legal proceedings against Mr. Thomas and told the House of Commons that he could not undertake the prosecution because of the "continental nature" of the inquiry. I should have thought that this is alien to the British way and is less than justice.
I say this because, I hope, I am a fair-minded man. I am more concerned with the final conclusions, though I have nothing against the Prime Minister. I am one of his greatest admirers. He is the perfect polician, but he is often extremely slick in his performances. If he is too slick he is the one to suffer and not me. But in matters of security the simple fact is that he has run away from his responsibilities. I do not say that in an unkindly way, but to point out that he has never stopped for sufficiently long to see just what the consequences of his actions in the long run will be. He has not stopped to realise that he, and he alone has the ultimate responsibility. He has not stopped to ascertain the facts but has acted in a way that has led us to the proliferation of a
464
variety of committees, none of which has any real responsibility or capacity for effective action.
I can give two examples of this and hon. Members can judge the facts for themselves in the Privy Councillors' reports. Their great wisdom led them to the conclusion that in the modern world Communists, not professional agents, are the great security risks. Any one who went to the Lonsdale trial quickly realised how untrue their statements was shown to be. Houghton was not a Communist but a drunk who got caught up by the Russian secret service. Miss Gee was the only person with any political affiliations, and she admitted that once she had voted Liberal.
Those who sat on the Committee of Privy Councillors, as it were, enunciated what they thought to be a proved fact but, in the event, exactly the reverse is true.
Another piece of nonsense has also been trotted out. The last time things went wrong we were told, "We must have positive vetting." If we are to have positive vetting we would need a whole Department to do the job. The tendency is, in our sort of class society, that if a man is found to be an Etonian or the relative of a high person in the legal profession, or if he has an uncle who is a bishop, a tick is placed against his name and no one worries about him afterwards. When one considers the implications of positive vetting one must remember that changes are taking place all the time, including changes in the Russian secret service—and they are no slugs at this business. The changes go on and there can be more changes tomorrow. So we must be flexible in our approach.
One must have somebody who has his eye on the ball all the time, and it is to that extent that the Prime Minister's responsibility does not emerge only in the House, when something goes wrong. He is responsible all the time, for 365 days a year. He is not Prime Minister because we like the look in his eye, but because he has won the eternal party battle. This responsibility lies on the shoulders of the man who has the honour of being the Prime Minister of a country which up to twelve years ago was known as Great Britain—for in the last twelve years we have got rid of the "Great".

465
But what does the Prime Minister do? After the Lonsdale case he makes a statement in the afternoon, says, "Cheerio", and goes to the Bahamas and we have the Romer Committee and that Committee does not even begin to deal with what was wrong, let alone take precautions against its happening again. Now we have a Tribunal of inquiry for which the Prime Minister selects the judges, lays down the terms of reference, appoints the prosecutor, receives the report, and only then will it be decided whether or not it will be published. In those circumstances what possible chance do hon. Members opposite, even if they regard their leader as a superman, think there is of facts seeing the light of day which are critical of the Prime Minister? Only to pose the problem is to answer it.
I hope that something good will come out of all this. I am sure that the Attorney-General will discharge his responsibility. Here I part a little from my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East. The Attorney-General, of course, will do his best to serve the Tribunal and will try here to establish the truth. I am quite sure that the Tribunal, with its terms of reference, will try to establish the facts, but I do not think that this is an impartial Tribunal. This is a political body, in the same way as the Bank Rate Tribunal and the Lynskey Tribunal were political bodies. It is a body called upon to pass judgment on Members of this House and it is not competent to do it.
This is a deplorable fact, and I should have thought that the hon. Member for Louth, and many hon. Members opposite who are just as interested and know just as much—and many of them far more—about defence, than I do, would join with me in trying once again to get defence, of which security is a part, on to an all-party level, and trying to elevate it above the party struggle.
If we must have our differences, let it be only after we have tried here to obtain the maximum measure of agreement. If that could happen and that approach could be made, it would be most satisfactory. It seems to me that the hour is very late to get it, because we have to accept that the Soviet Union in this field is on the march. I think that what the Prime Minister said is
466
absolutely right. This is a very formidable Challenge, and unless we are prepared to meet that challenge, with courage and with the desire to do the best we can with very limited resources, it seems to me quite inevitable that we must lose the fight. If we lose that fight, irrespective of whether we are Conservatives or sit on these benches, we shall be all in it together.
I certainly shall not vote against having this Tribunal, although I think it is wrong. I hope that in this, as on some other defence matters, I am proved wrong and that the Tribunal is successful in establishing the truth. If we can deal with this unfortunate series of accidents, remembering our duty here towards this present victim, and perhaps discharging it in the way I have suggested, then in future we might have a firmer basis on which to conduct our defence discussions.
7.25 p.m.
Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I find myself in agreement with much of what the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has said. I think that the tone of his speech and that of the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) was a great deal better than the tone when we started the debate. On this matter, the House of Commons is entitled to speak as the voice of the country, and it is perfectly clear to all of us that these questions of security are national and beyond party. That being the case, I wonder why both the hon. Member and the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) think that a Select Committee of the House of Commons is the ideal way of arriving at a non-political answer.
I do not know how the hon. Member for Dudley has spent his summer, but his hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East, whom we are so pleased to see back after so long an absence, might well have taken the opportunity of reading a book which has come out on the Marconi case. That case was a perfect example of the complete failure of a Select Committee to produce a satisfactory answer to what was, in essence, a political problem. After a great many sittings, which did no credit whatsoever to the Parliamentary system, a majority Report was produced which whitewashed the Ministers, and a minority Report was produced which did the opposite.
Mr. Wigg: I have not read the book, but I have made myself familiar with the Marconi case and also with the Campbell case, in which the Conservative Party asked for a Select Committee. But that was a long time ago. If the class and political divisions in the country are as sharp now as they were at that time, there is no doubt that we shall lose the cold war. I am proceeding on the assumption that the things which unite us are very much greater than the things that divide us. I am assuming that that would be the common basis of action, and that we would be much wiser and more successful than both the Conservative and Liberal Parties of that time.
Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I agree, but the hon. Member is still deluding himself if he thinks that a majority of the House, on a political matter, will bring in a vote of censure on the Prime Minister. He deludes himself and nobody else. A Select Committee is formed with a Government majority and an Opposition minority, and on that basis two reports on a contentious situation like this are produced. If the hon. Member had read the book on the Marconi case he would haw found that its conclusion was that such a Select Committee was useless for the future.
Mr. S. Silverman: I remember an occasion when a Chancellor of the Exchequer of my own party was accused of having committed a breach of what was incumbent upon him. The Conservative Opposition of that day asked for a Select Committee to inquire into it. We appointed a Select Committee, of which I had the honour to be a member. We had no difficulty whatever in producing a unanimous Report which was accepted unanimously by the House.
Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I think that the hon. Member is referring to the events Which led to the resignation of the late Lord Dalton. I do not think that I need to go into that now, because I do not think that it is germane to this discussion.
The fact is that a Tribunal of the sort we are discussing now is a very blunt instrument, and a blunt instrument inflicts a good dead of damage on quite innocent people. I can go back in my memory to three. I remember the Thomas Tribunal, the Lynskey Tribunal
468
and the Bank Rate Tribunal. I think that we would all agree that the position of the Attorney-General who acts as the chief ferret far the Tribunal is not a happy one. He is not by nature a detective. If he were he would probably have adopted that as his profession instead of being the eminent lawyer that he is. The Attorney-General is given that difficult job, and it is a tribute to the character of previous Attorneys-General that they did the jab very well. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the present Attorney-General will do his job very well. But it is not the job that he should be doing. If he had the assistance of the Director of Public Prosecutions and his staff it might help him in elucidating these extremely difficult matters.
But this is an imperfect world and I wonder whether we have any better instrument nearer our hand than a judicial Tribunal of this sort. I think also that the hon. Gentleman, who is perfectly fair-minded, and the hon. Member for Coventry, East are deluding themselves if they say that somebody like Lord Radcliffe, who must be nearly 70 years of age now, is waiting anxiously to undertake further arduous tasks. This is a man who has served his country to the full over many years. He will not become greatly ennobled, or enriched, or otherwise rewarded by taking on this task. Any work that he does now at this stage of his life is done for his country, and out of a sense of patriotism, and not for any other reason, certainly least of all to curry favour from the Government. That was an unworthy suggestion from the hon. Member for Coventry, East, and I hope that in the fullness of time he will find it possible to withdraw it.
I now want to make a point which I think must be made. Why do spies exist? They exist because, as has been said, they can be bought, seduced, or blackmailed. The suggestion has been made that every person with homosexual tendencies in this country is a potential traitor. This is a sentiment which ought not to be acceptable to us in this House. I should like, if I had the time, to turn my energies to producing a list of homosexuals who have rendered great service to this country. It would not be very difficult. Particularly if one turns to the war years, there were certain branches

469
of the Services in which enormous service was rendered to this country by such people. I hope that we shall not in this House lend ourselves to the theory that all homosexuals are potential enemies of this country.
Having said that, are they liable to blackmail? I have not followed the Vassall case as closely as the hon. Member for Dudley, but I very much doubt whether, if photographs had been taken of Mr. Vassall in compromising circumstances, this would have been disastrous to his career. Whether or not he was blackmailed for that I do not know, but my impression is that he was a spy for gain. Where it comes to spying for gain it seems to me that our security services are really backward. When people are spying for gain they usually spend considerably more than they apparently earn. This is known to the local police. It does not seem to be known at the level that the security services operate and the sort of inquiry which seems to me to be desirable is into how people get their money when they spend a great deal more than they earn.
The Tribunal which we are being asked to set up is the most useful tool that we have at our disposal. I agree that it is far from ideal. Anyone who followed the proceedings of the Bank Rate Tribunal will know how many honourable people never fully recovered their reputations. One can certainly say that as a result of the Lynskey Tribunal many honourable people suffered grave disadvantages. I have no doubt that reputations will be damaged by this Tribunal, too. But I would say that this Tribunal can in no sense be regarded as a means of whitewashing or hushing up the situation.
This Tribunal is a blunt instrument which will cause pain to many people, but I am glad to be convinced that one hon. Member of this House will not suffer from the Tribunal, and that is my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith). It must be a matter of satisfaction to us all that he is above this battle and that whatever the Tribunal says, and whatever evidence is called, one can rest assured that his honour will emerge totally unscathed. That is the one satisfactory feature of this distressing situation.
7.35 p.m.
Mr. Michael Foot: The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) has devoted the main part of his speech to a discussion of the nature of the Tribunal that is to be set up, and I entirely agree with him that that is really the main subject that we should be debating. It is the main part of the subject to which I wish to return in a moment.
The hon. Gentleman said that he did not think that a Select Committee of this House could do the job and that he preferred the blunt instrument of this Tribunal. It seems to me rather surprising that after all these years this House should be content with a blunt instrument for dealing with such delicate matters as this.
The hon. Gentleman also questioned the verdicts which the House of Commons might pass on such matters as this. Yet there is one thing on which every speaker today, except possibly the Prime Minister, has been absolutely agreed and that is that no scintilla of discredit whatsoever attaches to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith). In other words, this House has managed to arrive at a conclusion on that matter much more successfully than the Prime Minister did. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are agreed that whatever may be thought of the letters, they do not cast any doubt on the hon. Gentleman's honour. Everyone agrees with that except the Prime Minister.
The only Member who has passed any bad reflection on the hon. Member for Hillhead is the Prime Minister, by his action. If we are told that we are to have full inquiries into all the circumstancs surrounding this case we must presumably have inquiries into how the resignation was forced. We must be told. if we are to have all the conversations brought out, why the Chief Whip went round to visit the hon. Member for Hill-head, what was the conversation between the Chief Whip and the hon. Member, whether the Chief Whip had been in conversation with the Prime Minister before he went to see the hon. Member and whether he took instructions or advice from the Prime Minister. At any rate, the nature of that conversation will obviously have to be brought out if

471
these matters are to be investigated in the way suggested.
Before I come to discuss further the nature of the Tribunal which the House is being asked to set up—I am thoroughly opposed to this form of Tribunal, and I will explain why—I should like to refer to the most remarkable speech in this debate in one sense, the speech of the right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch). He made some remarkable suggestions. He said that we were concerned in this debate with preserving decency in public life.
I must say that from an hon. Member who is the greatest master of the smear in this House, that came very ill. I have hardly heard a speech of the right hon. Member for Flint, West in which he has not cast aspersions on the patriotism of some hon. Members on this side of the House. He has not been courageous enough to name them, because if he did he would be called to order by the Chair. I have heard dozens of speeches, relevant and irrelevant, made by the right hon. Member for Flint, West in which he has suggested that some hon. Members, in effect, owe allegiance to a foreign Power. He always does it. He is a master of the smear and he is the last person in this House who should give us instructions on how we should maintain public decency.
The right hon. Member said that what appeared in one of the newspapers was a venomous libel. It may be. He also said that it was a criminal libel. If anybody writing for the newspapers perpetrates a venomous or criminal libel there are laws to deal with it. If it is said that the laws are inadequate for dealing with it, then we ought to change those laws. What is quite improper and would give an extraordinary privilege to members of the Government and officials would be to say that whereas ordinary citizens must rely for their protection on the law as it stands, members of the Government and of the Civil Service and hon. Members of this House can resort to this blunt instrument of a Tribunal for protection.
Let us have one law for everybody—one law to protect this House, Ministers and citizens outside. If there is anything wrong with the law of libel, if it does not provide sufficient protection, then the Attorney-General has it in his
472
power to change the law, and we can debate whether it should be changed. But when the right hon. Member for Flint, West—I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber; I did not need to give him notice—spoke earlier, said that a venomous libel had been committed, he should have gone on to explain to the House why he thinks that there should be some special law invoked to protect Ministers or officials who have been the victims of libel which is not available to other citizens of the country.
Another claim made by the right hon. Member for Flint, West was that a Minister was in danger of being hounded out of public life. That has not happened. The only Minister who has suffered, as I said earlier, has suffered at the hands of the Prime Minister himself and, therefore, when it comes to the inquiry, and if the right hon. Member for Flint, West wanted to protect his friends, he should have demanded that we should have a full investigation into the manner and the means in which the resignation of the hon. Member for Hill-head was forced by the Chief Whip and the apparatus of the Government.
However, what I am mainly concerned to do is to oppose the nature of the whole of this procedure which we are asked to support. There have been many references to the previous Tribunals which have been set up under this Act. I have looked at most of those cases, and I think that it is true to say that, with the single exception possibly of the Tribunal set up to deal with the Thurso case, in the case of every other of these Tribunals which have been set up, after they have reported there have been widespread suggestions that innocent people have suffered in the process.
The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) admitted that a good number of innocent people might suffer damage. I think that this is a very serious matter. I think that it is a very serious mater for the House of Commons deliberately to take an action which it knows will cause injury to innocent people, particularly when we are told what grievous damage has been done to the hon. Member for Hillhead. I sympathise with him and I agree with all the sympathy expressed for him. But here the House of Commons, which is

473
saying that we must show our utmost sympathy to the hon. Member for Hillhead, is proposing to take action which, on the evidence of the hon. Member for Walsall, South, is almost certain to do grievous damage to other innocent people.
I think that he is quite right. I think that if this procedure is set up and this tribunal operates, a large number of innocent people will suffer. Take one example. Vassall will have to come into court, presumably. He will have to give evidence. I presume that he will be represented by banisters; he is as much entitled to protection as anyone else who goes into court. He will be cross-examined. He may be able to say much more—the may be able to say much more than he has already said in the Sunday Pictorial. Is anyone certain that what Vassall will say in court will not injure a number of innocent people? And what will be said by the others? The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) said earlier, referring to the Budget investigation in 1936—the "Jimmy" Thomas case—that it was a fairly good result.
Mr. Wise: I did not say a good result. I said that at least it was an impartial result.
Mr. Foot: That is not the view of some of the victims. It was not the view of Sir Alfred Butt, Conservative Member for, I think, Balham and Touting at the time. This is what Sir Alfred Butt said. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh at it, but he was a respected member of their party and he was driven out of public life without any chance whatever of defending himself. This is what could happen in this case. I ask hon. Members to listen to what Sir Alfred said at the most critical moment of his life:
"When I received information of the appalling decision of the Tribunal, I had one definite conviction. Conscious as I was of the grave injustice done to me, I knew I could rest assured, after reading the recent speech of the Lord Chancellor, that the matter would not be allowed to remain where it is, and that I should have an absolute right to be tried in a court of justice, where my case could be tried alone, where I should have full notice of the charge made against me, where only properly and admissible evidence would be given both for me and against me, but where no matters concerning other people of which I had never heard and whose very existence was unknown to me, would be intro-
474
duced, with all the prejudice that such introduction might invoke. To my horror I learned yesterday for the first time that no such opportunity was to be afforded to me. There is to be no prosecution; my case is never to be tried.
I would ask right hon. and hon. Members to visualise the position in which I now find myself. I have been condemned, and apparently I must suffer for the rest of my life from a finding against which there is no appeal, upon evidence which apparently does not justify a trial, and there is now no method open to me by which I can bring the true and full facts, before a jury of my fellowmen."
Does anyone justify that? That was the verdict of an impartial inquiry.
Sir Alfred Butt went on to say—I think that it did him great credit:
"If any good may come from this, the most miserable moment of my life, I can only hope that my position may do something to prevent any other person in this country being subject to the humiliation and the wretched-nests which I have suffered, without trial, without appeal and without redress. Can it be wondered that I feel from the bottom of my heart that I am the victim of a grave injustice?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th June, 1936; Vol. 313, c. 415–6.]
I think that he was the victim of a grave injustice. I think that anyone, whatever offence he may have committed, and who is not given a proper trial, is a victim of grave injustice. What we are proposing to vote for is a procedure which may repeat the grave injustice in that case. It is all very well for hon. Members to say that there is no question of damage to innocent people. The damage looks a bit different from one end or the other. We are inflicting the damage. I hope that the political career of no one in this House will be broken by this Tribunal. But it could happen.
There was another speaker in that debate. It may be that hon. Members may dismiss Sir Alfred Butt and may have a suspicion which was never proved that he was guilty. No one has ever proved it. The Prime Minister of the day, Stanley Baldwin, gave this verdict on this kind of Tribunal which the hon. Gentleman called impartial:
"There is one other thing, and I think, perhaps, the older I grow the mom conscious I am of it; when I see a man put before a Tribunal of that nature, to answer questions on episodes in his past life where anything may be brought up. I ask myself: 'Which of us would escape?'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th June, 1936; Vol. 313, c. 420.]
That is exactly the same procedure which the Attorney-General defends and

475
hopes to defend again later in the House, a procedure described by Stanley Baldwin where "anything may be brought up". That is a very clear definition of the procedure under these kind of Tribunals—"Anything may be brought up". As Stanley Baldwin said, if anything may be brought up, which of us may escape?
Some of us might have written letters which some would regard as foolish, such as those writen by the hon. Member for Hillhead. We might have done something else. But whatever we have done, whether Ministers, Members of Parliament or citizens of this country, we have a right to be tried by a court of justice, and not by a Star Chamber and pillory. That is what we are voting for tonight, that certain people may be tried by a form of pillory. Can any hon. Member say that that will not happen? It happened, as it appears to me, in the case of Sir Alfred Butt and in the case of John Belcher.
Mr. Wise: I was in the House at the time. What the 1936 Tribunal found was not that any of the persons concerned had been guilty of any crime, but that they had been guilty of conduct which was not expected of Members of the House. To impugn the impartiality of Lord Porter is something which nobody who knew him could possibly countenance.
Mr. Foot: I am not impugning Lord Porter's impartiality. He was doing what he was instructed by the House to do, as, I have no doubt, Lord Radcliffe will do. The hon. Gentleman must try to comprehend the point which we have made over and over again from this side of the House. This procedure inevitably leads to injustice. Of course it does.
Why have the courts, over the years, established rules of evidence and arrangements whereby people in danger of suffering at their hands may have an opportunity to defend themselves? No one can say that people who have been before these tribunals do not suffer. Sir Alfred Butt suffered; he was driven out of public life. He suffered a much more severe penalty than would have been inflicted if he had been charged with some of the allegations in court. It is no good the hon. Member saying that the decision of the court was a fair one. One
476
must have regard to the penalties inflicted on the victim. I say that in the case of Sir Alfred Butt a grave injustice was done. That is one of the reasons why I am against continuing this procedure.
These things have happened time and again. Take the Belcher case. Some of us on this side of the House—my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and I and some others—protested bitterly at the time of the Belcher case because, we said, a grave injustice had been done to Mr. Belcher and, indeed, to many others involved in the same inquiry. If Belcher had known what was the charge against him, he would have had a better chance of defending himself and calling witnesses. A person tried before one of these Tribunals does not have a chance to call witnesses even in his own defence.
We said in the House at the time that the result of the Belcher Tribunal was grossly unfair. We pleaded with the Government then to examine the whole of this procedure to ensure that no other person would ever go through the misery, agony and injustice suffered by people in that case. Each time we have one of these Tribunals set up, the same pleas are made but nobody takes any notice.
The flippancy with which the Prime Minister has resorted to this extreme course horrifies me all the more. He started off by saying that he must have the most restricted kind of inquiry to deal with this particular matter of security. Now, he goes in for the most wide-ranging kind of inquiry. The excuse has nothing whatever to do with security. He made that quite clear today. The Prime Minister's excuse is that he must deal with these innuendoes, vile accusations and prejudiced statements. But nothing could possibly multiply innuendoes, vile accusations and prejudiced statements more than a Tribunal of this nature.
Do hon. Members understand what will happen when the Tribunal sits? It may go on for weeks. The papers will be full of it. Vassall has only to get up in court and name a few people, and they may be finished for life. That is what hon. Members will be voting for

477
tonight, voting for it to happen again after all the innumerable examples we have had of how this procedure has led to grave injustice in the past without ever, as far as I know, assisting the security of the State. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has said, the provision of proper inquiries for dealing with the security of the State is a quite different operation from invoking this kind of Tribunal procedure.
There have been references to the question of what journalists are to do when they are hauled before the Tribunal. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition referred to this, and referred to it very well, I think. I do not know what I should do. I am a journalist. It is not easy to say what one would do in the circumstances if one were called before the Tribunal, but I must say that it would be my very strong inclination to make my mind absolutely resolute before ever I went to the court. I should not dream of telling any such Tribunal where I had been given information. Of course not. No court in the country, nor, indeed, the House of Commons, has the right to instruct a man to do something dishonourable. The hon. Member for Rugby may think that it has, but I do not think so. What would a journalist do?
The brave right hon. Member for Flint, West, who is so eager to raise the standards of decency in our public life, referred to the Bank Rate Tribunal, in which he himself happened to be implicated. He did not refer to that fact in his speech, but he took the occasion to attack a journalist who had appeared before that Tribunal. I think that the right hon. Gentleman was more pursuing an old vendetta of his own than contributing to the wisdom of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to an answer given by an eminent City journalist when the journalist had appeared to stutter and stammer and not be able to give a very clear indication of where he had obtained information. Of course, it is easy enough to guess what happened. The journalist was confronted with this dilemma. If he gave the name of his source, he would be doing something dishonourable and he would be implicating people very high up. If he refused to give the name, he would be
478
had up for contempt of court, would he not? So what did he do? He thought that the best thing he could do to save his informant and to prevent himself from being had up for contempt of court was to invent another innocuous story about where he got the information. [HON. MEMBERS: "Dishonourable."] Hon. Members may say that that was dishonourable. I do not know what the hon. Member for Rugby would have done in the circumstances. Perhaps he would have gone gaily to the court and said, "I was given this information by the civil servant or City informant I have spoken to for years and who always gives me that kind of information".
Mr. Wise: I certainly think that it would be dishonourable to get information in that way.
Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman may say that. The members of the Government will not say it. The Leader of the House would not say it. The Minister of Health, for instance., sitting there, talks to journalists. Indeed, as my hon. Friends the Member for Dudley and the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Grossman) have pointed out, the papers this morning are stuffed with information given to the Press, most interested and prejudiced information, information designed to assist the purposes of the Government and to influence this debate. Does the hon. Member for Rugby carry his purity so far as to say that Prime Ministers should not even have public relations departments?
Mr. Wise: No. What I do say is that there would be very little hesitation on the part of anyone confronted with those things in disclosing the source of his information.
Mr. Gordon Walker: If there had been a Lobby conference, the great concern of the people concerned would be not to disclose that sort of thing.
Mr. Foot: Of course. If the members of the Lobby here were to disclose exactly how they are given information, they would be breaking their oath. Perhaps The Times was given a special brief; we know that that goes on, also. However, if the other Lobby correspondents were to say which Minister had talked to them, or which Minister they had had tea with—if that is what they

479
drink—and if matters of that kind were to be disclosed, they would be breaking their oath. The members of the Lobby are under an absolutely binding obligation. When they become members of the Lobby, each one says that he will not reveal the source of his information; and I do not believe that they would. In that sense, they show a higher standard of honour than the hon. Member for Rugby.
Mr. S. Silverman: Although I know that he does not need it, will my hon. Friend allow me to assist him? In the case of the Dalton inquiry, where what happened was that Lord Dalton had made a communication to a Lobby correspondent who had promptly telephoned it to a newspaper which printed it too early, it was said by so experienced a Member of the House as the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) that if, during the war, there could not have been confidential relationships of this kind, inviolate between Ministers and Lobby correspondents, it would have been very difficult to carry on the war at all.
Mr. Foot: What my hon. Friend says is quite true. It happens in a variety of ways. It happens at a Press conference which is arranged and where it is understood that journalists are not to say who is the Minister concerned. It happens in a more intimate fashion in other ways. Much vital information in the Press about matters of the greatest public interest appears only because there are relationships between journalists and people in the Government service. It is no use denying the fact. It would be very bad for the country if this were not so.
I am the first to agree that in many respects some journalists degrade the great profession, but I am equally convinced that we cannot sustain a free Press in this country without the journalists abiding by their oath not to reveal their sources of information. This Tribunal, as the Prime Minister made clear, will have nothing to do with security. This is to be the grandest trial of the newspapers that we have had for years. That is what the Prime Minister is after. What will happen? There will be a trial of the newspapers in which it will not be possible to obtain most of the facts.
480
Perhaps some journalists will say, "Under pressure, with the pistol at our heads, or under threat of transfer to the Tower of London, we will reveal the names." But it would be wrong for them to do so. It would be better for them to go en masse to the Tribunal and say, "We want all of you in this Tribunal to know that we refuse to reveal the sources of our information." If they all said that they would make this Tribunal the mockery that in fact it is, and they would be doing what I fear the House has not the courage and intelligence to do tonight, namely, to say, "Let us kill these Tribunals. Let us examine the whole contraption before we use it again."
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley said, they have a very shady origin. No one need think that there is all the majesty of the British law behind the institution that we are bringing into operation today. It has been said that this is a very blunt instrument. Why should we vote for blunt instruments? Why should not we have sharp weapons? We have urged the Government time and again to consider this matter. They have never done so. They like to have this kind of procedure up their sleeve.
The Prime Minister, with matchless insolence, talked of McCarthy, but he is the man who is asking the House to institute the McCarthy procedure. He is the most brazen McCarthy of the lot. The Prime Minister's capacity for hypocrisy staggers even me. He is prepared to talk of McCarthy in the same breath that he asks the House to take action which on the evidence of past experience, on the evidence that I have tried to cite and on the evidence of the right hon. Member who spoke last is almost certain to do severe and possibly deadly injury to the reputations of innocent people. That is disgraceful, particularly when we have had so many tears rightly shed about the hon. Member for Hillhead. Since every hon. Member says how disgraceful it is that the hon. Member for Hillhead should have been so badly treated, it is wrong that we should vote for doing a similar injustice to unknown people.
I therefore ask the House to reject the Motion. Of course it would have been better if it could have been amended. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson

481
and Colne tabled an Amendment. Why it was not accepted it is difficult for me to say. The effect of his Amendment would have been to confine the inquiry to the security aspect. I think that it would have been better still if the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley for bringing in the chief criminal, the Prime Minister himself, had been adopted. But, if this House is concerned with security, then it should have been prepared to adopt the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne, because it confines the inquiry precisely to security. Why the Speaker, in his wisdom, decided that an Amendment of that nature could not be called I find very difficult to understand, particularly—and this only adds to the offence—since, as I have said, it is possible that innocent people will suffer as a result of what we do today.
The House should have a little more time to consider these matters. I do not think it good enough for the Government to change their mind on the nature of the inquiry and to table a Motion at eleven or twelve o'clock at night so that hon. Members have not time to consider what Amendments to it they wish to table. These are very serious questions. It would do great credit to the House of Commons, would save some innocent people, and would secure a better procedure if we threw out the Government's proposal. But that will not happen. We will have the procedure and for three or four weeks we shall have far bigger headlines in the Press than the ones we have had so far.
If anyone wants headlines used to injure people, as Vassall goes into court—I do not know how long he will be in court—any names associated with him will suffer. All this will be done in the name of justice. Perhaps the First Lord will be vindicated. I hope that he is. Perhaps other people will be vindicated. But in the process other people will suffer. Then we shall have a debate in which a few hon. Members on this side will say, For heaven's sake let us change this procedure. Let us try to devise something that is just. Let us refuse to accept the Prime Minister's idea of turning a tribunal into a trial in the newspapers". Then it will all be for-
482
gotten again until some other innocent person——
Mr. Wigg: Until the next spy is caught.
Mr. Foot: Perhaps when the next spy is caught it will come up again.
The House should realise what it is doing. The responsibility for any suffering inflicted on innocent people that there may be rests on this House and on those who approve and support this measure. It will rest particularly on the Prime Minister Who, to cover up his own political activities in this matter, thought that it would be suitable for him to have a great trial of the newspapers in which he would emerge as the hero, whereas what we should have is a proper inquiry to examine and to discover his own delinquency as the man chiefly responsible for the security of this country.
8.8 p.m.
Mr. William Yates: I followed with interest the speech of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot). I think that he may have exaggerated the dangers of this particular inquiry, but I agree with him that when one casts one's mind back to Mr. Sidney Stanley and to all the accusations that he made about innocent people he had brought before that Tribunal one has doubts about this one. I therefore hope that at the end of the debate the Minister will try to enlighten us about how much of this inquiry will be held in public and how much of it will be held in camera.
If ever there was an opportunity for an enemy of this country like Vassall to injure people connected with our Armed Forces, the Admiralty and the security services, surely this is an absolutely splendid opportunity for him to do so, because, if he makes accusations against people just as he feels inclined, I do not know what the position of the Tribunal will be. I presume that the Tribunal will have to call the person whom he accuses in order to ascertain whether Vassall's accusations are right or wrong. I am a little distressed to think that, although this Tribunal means to do extremely well and to get at the truth, a considerable amount of damage may be done to the

483
reputations of senior people in this country, to Service officers and to many other people who are absolutely and completely innocent.
Another thing which disturbs me is this. This Tribunal will be set up because of the courage of our Press. I do not think that anyone in this country has any doubt that the Press as a whole is grossly dissatisfied with the state of our national security, and there is wide support for that. I believe that they have every right, speaking in the name of Britain, to force the issue of national security as far as they think fit, because it far transcends the battle of party politics. The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) mentioned the matter in correct perspective. It is essential that matters of security and defence are taken outside the party battles in this House.
I will be one of those who have to vote in favour of the Tribunal. I have grave doubts about what will happen if Mr. Vassall starts making accusations against all sorts of people. I can see irreparable damage being done and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will give us guidance about whether when this man gives evidence he will be allowed to have other people brought before the court and questioned and cross-examined.
Although we are adopting this system, I feel that our national Press has done a great and valuable service. I shall vote for the Tribunal and will rely upon what my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General tells us concerning, first, secrecy, and, secondly, whether this man will be allowed to call all sorts of people before the court to be examined and cross-examined. I wish that the House had devised another system to deal with a delicate security matter of this nature. All I can do is to support the Motion, but only provided that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General can give me assurances on the matters I have raised.
8.12 p.m.
Mr. Charles Pannell: I do not know what assurances the Attorney-General can give to his hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates). The hon. Member is asking the wrong questions at the wrong time
484
and in the wrong place. One has only to consider the context of the matter. The Attorney-General is anxious to get to his feet. He made an intervention in which he assured my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Cross-man) how he would conduct himself before a Tribunal. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he would be in the hands of the Tribunal; he was the servant of the Tribunal and would do as his predecessor, now Lord Shaw-cross, had done. The Attorney-General cannot give that sort of assurance here at this time of the evening. It will be for the court to direct when the time comes.
Mr. W. Yates: I only hope that on matters raised by the Leader of the Opposition concerning proceedings in camera and secrecy, the Attorney-General will be allowed to make a statement. If certain proceedings are held in private, some security witnesses will certainly be protected.
Mr. Pannell: The hon. Member is asking rhetorical questions. The Attorney-General is not in a position to give any of those assurances, because he will not know which way the court will direct.
To give another example, and it is this more than anything else which brings me to my feet, I deplore the attacks made on my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), who is more than conventionally a friend as far as I am concerned. What is the indictment concerning my right hon. Friend? Nobody has yet mentioned that when the leaders of my party—the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) and the right hon. Member for Belper—went to discuss the Cuban situation privately with the Prime Minister, as they wished to do, the Prime Minister said that he did not want to talk about it. In so far as we have been brushed aside, it is not for the Prime Minister now to complain that my party deputes its deputy leader to raise the matter in public. Having read every word which has been said, I do not consider that anything which my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper has said bears the impression which has been put upon it.
My right hon. Friend is a fairly forthright sort of person, but in the main it

485
is not the forthright sort of persons, it is not the people who practise frontal diplomacy, who make snide remarks. It is the deviationists, the oblique sort of people, the nice fellows in life, whom I always fear. I was reminded very much of that when the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'AvigdorGoldsmid) spoke about the Marconi scandal. I reflected upon the courage of the then Prime Minister and the character of the present Prime Minister. In some ways, they match.
I want also to say this with regard to secrecy and the Press. I served on the Select Committee when we considered the accommodation of the Press in this place. The late Dick Stokes was Chairman and I heard the representations of the Press. The thing that went round the all-party Committee was the name of the journalist who had betrayed his trust to the late Lord Dalton. It was enough to shut up the whole Committee. There are precedents in this place of Mr. Speaker withdrawing the Lobby pass from a journalist who is considered to be in breach of an agreement with a Member. That happened in the 1930s, too. It seems to me odd that this sort of thing is being raised in this way today.
I am very worried in case Vassall, in open court, is asked questions and, with nothing to lose, with all the years before him and with no responsibility to anybody, even obliquely refers to certain names. What protection will we have from that? This is not a dedicated spy, as some people have been, serving an international ideology. This is one who, the judge said, spied for gain. This is an unscrupulous man.
I very much hoped that we might get another sort of Tribunal. I dislike this one intensely. If anybody wants to know the sort of people except Belcher who were ruined by the earlier Tribunal, Mrs. Belcher's health was completely ruined. That is no small thing. Most of us know what our wives have to suffer for us in the line of duty. It is bad enough when this sort of thing is dragged on here.
Reading the Belcher case now in cold print, one's opinion is that he was found guilty of very little. There are Members who occupy leading positions in the country, whose names I do not mention for obvious reasons, who have been before a Select Committee, who have
486
done far worse and have got away with far more. This is known on the other side of the House. We know that this sort of thing has happened.
Therefore, we have to choose between the Tribunal, with its hit-or-miss methods and all sorts of hearsay being brought in, and, presumably, a Select Committee. Having recently read, because I reviewed it, the book on the Marconi scandal, I cannot say that a Select Committee commends itself to me. People who talk glibly about Select Committees had better read Mrs. Donaldson's book. In effect, what was it but a complete ganging up on both sides to protect and counter-protect people on both sides?
Most of the drive in the Marconi scandal was completely anti-Semitic. But that does not entirely explain it. After all, what was at stake was the Government, in a great degree the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, after all, was spared to be a great leader in the First World War, the Attorney-General of the time, who—I thought of this so much the other day—if he was guilty showed a degree of naivety far exceeding that of—the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), if he will read the Marconi case, and yet emerged as Viceroy of India and Ambassador to the United States.
Nobody can read the Report of the Select Committee on the Marconi scandal—I spent several days over it—and suggest that that is the instrument with which we want to deal with this. The Prime Minister's speech about my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper would stop any objective consideration by it. It could never proceed after hearing a speech such as that, in which, of course, the Prime Minister, who has made every bloomer in this case, attempted to slap it in the lap of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. William Ross: He has been wrong from start to finish.
Mr. Pannell: Of course he has been wrong from start to finish. He not only refused this, but he brushed my right hon. Friend off when he attempted to deal with it privately, he set up a Committee of civil servants who were themselves to consider the question of Minis-

487
terial responsibility, and the civil servants acquitted the hon. Member for Hillhead——
Mr. Ross: After a direction.
Mr. Pannell: —after the Prime Minister had directed them. The Patronage Secretary probably told the hon. Member to get out. The next day the Prime Minister accepted his resignation.
I happen to believe that the hon. Member for Hillhead was right to offer his resignation and that the Prime Minister was absolutely wrong to accept it. We want friends: not friends to stand with us when the tide is flowing; we want friends who will fight in the teeth of the wind. I should not have thought that the Prime Minister was a friend. What he did a few weeks ago with regard to those Ministers shows what a cut-andthrust opportunist he is. He is an unscrupulous as could be. Then, of course, we have this sort of thing trotted out against my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and after the Prime Minister has made that speech, of course, there is no hope of the case being tried except on a political basis.
When they speak about these sorts of things, as though these leaks in the Press were something new, let them read the biography of Lord Randolph Churchill, and they will see that he rang up the editor of The Times every night to tell him what happened in the Cabinet. These things are part of history, and they have been done and repeatedly done in the past. We know full well that during the recent Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference on the Common Market the complaint of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers was that there were deliberate leaks from Whitehall to the disadvantage of Commonwealth Prime Ministers. Everybody knows that that sort of thing happens.
I see that the right hon. Gentleman himself, the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch), is back in his place, the apostle of decency in public life. He slung out his usual snide remarks against my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper. I do not think they came very well from him. After all, he is never very particular about how he chooses
488
his weapons or how he thrusts out insults. I can remember how, soon after I came to the House, he kept bobbing up and down all afternoon and the Speaker did not call him, and I can remember that Sir Stafford Cripps said that what was the matter with the right hon. Gentleman was that he had not been able to make one of his vulgar interventions in the debate. I remember that. We do not take this from him as an apostle of decency in public life. It is a great pity he did not hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot).
But as to the Prime Minister's attitude, he not only dismissed the matter as irrelevant but he sent down the Minister of Defence to make an absolutely flippant speech. There was not a paper in the country which did not refer to how flippant the speech was of the Minister of Defence. Actually, the Prime Minister thought he was just going to ride away with ail this sort of business. But he did not. It came back on him, and the thing has hotted up and hotted up all the time, and these terrible charges have come out and now the Prime Minister is bound to do something.
I do not think that we really have to choose between a Select Committee, with all its bluntness, and this sort of thing. I should have thought that we had had enough experience since 1921 to know that this is not quite the sort of weapon we want, and that we ought, after this is over, to have another sort of inquiry which could deal with all the objections that have been raised here, and the cruelties which we know are inherent in this.
Take the question of J. H. Thomas. There was a great deal of hatred of him over what was considered to be gross betrayal in 1931. I have no doubt that on this side of the House that was a hang-over until 1937.
I can mention someone who commands great honour in this House—the right hon. George Isaacs, who was Mr. J. H. Thomas's P.P.S. in the thirties. I remember George Isaacs telling me about him and saying he was convinced in his own mind that J. H. Thomas did not betray his trust as a Cabinet Minister. Speaking as one who knew George Isaacs, though not J. H. Thomas, I can say that I would take the view of George

489
Isaacs—and so would a great many more of us—before we took that of the Tribunal on the hypothetical uncertainties that it dealt with at that time.
This has occurred time and time again. We then had the Lynskey Tribunal. This sort of thing gets completely out of hand when one starts it. I venture to say that when we have finished with this Tribunal, whoever goes down in this House and whoever goes down in the country, on the morrow of its verdict we shall regret that we ever set it up.
8.26 p.m.
Mr. Elwyn Jones: There is one aspect of this debate which I confess fills me with some concern, and that is that the Attorney-General is to conclude it. I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not regard any observations that I make about his part in any other spirit than that of the utmost friendliness, but I would ask him to consider both the desirability and the propriety of his taking part tonight as the Government's final spokesman and advocate in what has been a highly charged political debate.
If the Government's Motion is carried, it will fall to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be, as he put it in his earlier intervention—and I do not quarrel with it—a servant of the Tribunal. His function will be to be the amicus curiae. His task—I have no doubt that he will fulfil it faithfully—will be to pursue every allegation and every accusation against whomsoever it may be directed. In that capacity he will not be acting—I am sure that he will accept this view of what the Attorney-General's duties ought to be—as the spokesman of the Government.
Tonight, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is the spokesman of the Government, and I cannot help thinking that he will confuse and embarrass his position intolerably if he takes part in that rôle in a debate which was begun by the Prime Minister with as much prejudging of issues which are to be sent to a Tribunal as I have ever had the misfortune to hear. How can the Attorney-General be other than embarrassed if tonight he has to stand as the spokesman of the Government in this situation?
I have taken the trouble to look into what happened in other debates that have taken place on the setting up of
490
Tribunals. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I say this in no way to embarrass him, and I am sure that he does not need that assurance from me. But when the Motion to set up the Bank Rate leak Tribunal was discussed, the debate was opened by the Prime Minister, in rather more measured tones than he used today, and the only intervention by the then Attorney-General was in answer to a direct invitation from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who asked him whether he would regard himself at the Tribunal proceedings as an agent and spokesman for the Government or as one who had the function of pursuing every matter that called for investigation.
The Attorney-General then intervened and said:
"If I appear before that tribunal it will be to give the tribunal every possible assistance in the discharge of its duty by bringing before it all relevant information, from whatever source it may come."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1957 Vol. 557, c. 1169.]
The closing speech for the Government was made by the Lord Privy Seal. I invite the learned Attorney to consider that precedent.
When the earlier inquiry took place—the Belcher inquiry, as it has come to be known—on that occasion also, the Attorney-General made no speech in the debate. I have also read the speech of my right hon. Friend the then Prime Minister—Mr. Attlee, as he then was—in that debate, and the contrast between that and the kind of partisan tirade which we had from the Prime Minister today suggests that there is on this side of the House a greater regard for propriety in a debate which is to culminate in a judicial inquiry, and that we have a greater respect for these proprieties, than those who ought to know better.
I invite the Attorney-General—I know that it is late to make this suggestion, but that is not for the lack of trying since half-past four—even now to consider the desirability of being called upon by the Government to intervene in a matter wherein, in perhaps a fortnight's time, he will have a difficult enough task in appearing as an impartial servant of the Tribunal uninfluenced by any political or Government considerations. It is hard enough for anybody, lawyer or anyone else, to accomplish that degree of objectivity in that

491
task. Let not this task be made intolerable by requiring him to have to take part in this debate.
The Leader of the House is here and he has great influence in Government circles. I ask him to intervene to protect the learned Attorney-General from an intolerable situation.
8.33 p.m.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: I do not desire to keep the House for more than a few minutes, but I should not like to give a silent vote at the end of this debate. Yesterday, I think I was the only Member who raised doubts, when the Prime Minister made his statement about the necessity of an independent and serious inquiry into the security situation, which is obviously long overdue, as to the form of the Tribunal which he had selected.
I asked the right hon. Gentleman why he had selected this kind of inquiry. I did not get an answer. I have not sought to take part in today's debate—not, at least, after the point when Mr. Speaker indicated that he did not propose to select the manuscript Amendment which I had submitted to him—although I have sat here throughout the debate from the beginning until now.
I have not heard any explanation from anybody as to why this particular form of inquiry has been selected, and I am puzzled to know why. This kind of Tribunal has not a friend in the House. I happen to have been here long enough to have been a Member of the House of Commons when every one of these earlier investigations by this kind of Tribunal took place. I think that those who were here with me at the time—those who were here to hear the debate which followed the report on each occasion—will agree with me that there was in everybody's mouth a nasty taste as the result of it.
Many may have thought that an awkward situation had been dealt with and got rid of and could be forgotten, but I think that everybody felt a little ashamed as to how it had been got rid of and how it would be forgotten.
I have never met an hon. Member, whatever he may have thought before a Tribunal was set up, or possibly even during its hearing in some cases, who,
492
when it was over, was not glad to see the end of it and who did not hope that there would not be another. It is a hopeless form of inquiry. It cannot do justice. There is no point in setting it up unless the matters to be investigated are serious matters.
But how can one justly investigate serious matters on the basis that there are no charges, no accused, no convictions, no acquittals, no right to know beforehand what, if anything, is alleged against one, or to hear the evidence concerning it, and no right to call witnesses on one's own behalf—unless one can persuade the Tribunal or whoever assists the Tribunal, as the Attorney-General does, to do so for one? And even if one does persuade him to do that for one, he conducts the examination by means of cross-examination designed to establish, if he can, that the witness is not telling the truth.
It may be that there are occasions when really this is the only thing one can do. I have tried to conceive of some occasion when this would be the only thing to do, and I cannot think of one. Look at the width of this present inquiry. I say nothing about the opening paragraph, which is the substance of the whole matter, but after that, what?—
"the allegations made that the presence of another spy inside the Admiralty was known to the First Lord and his Service chiefs after the Portland case eighteen months ago;"
That is part of the inquiry anyhow. One does not have to set that out. Then, paragraph (2) says:
"any other allegations"—
note the word "any"—
"which have been or may be brought"—
that means not merely the allegations made already but any that anybody may think up in the course of the proceedings—
"to their attention, reflecting similarly on the honour and integrity of persons"—
What is meant by "similarly"? Similar to what? As a matter of grammar, "similarly" must refer to paragraph (1). But what is charged in paragraph (1), or what the Tribunal is to inquire into under paragraph (1), is not anybody's honour and integrity but his conduct in his office, his responsibility for breaches of security. His

493
honour and integrity are not involved. What does "similarly" mean? If one leaves out "similarly" as being meaningless, one has the instruction to the kind of Tribunal I have described, which is to inquire into
"any other allegations which have been or may be brought to their attention, reflecting … on the honour and integrity"—
of whom?—
"of persons who, as Ministers, naval officers and civil servants, were concerned in the case;"
What could possibly be wider without any necessity to formulate any charges?
Paragraph (3) says:
"any breaches of security arrangements which took place;"
But that is part of the inquiry anyhow. Then paragraph (4) says:
"any neglect of duty by persons directly or indirectly responsible"—
for what?
"for Vassall's employment"—
but it does not stop there, for it adds
"and conduct …"
Who were the persons, not limited to Ministers, naval officers or civil servants, who were responsible for Vassall's conduct—not just his conduct in his office but his general conduct? Who are the people who could be held indirectly responsible for that? It is quite unlimited. TI. Motion concludes with the words:
"… for this being treated as being suitable for employment on secret work."
What good will this Tribunal do? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), the Leader of the Liberal Party, was perfectly right when he said that two utterly different things were involved in this inquiry. There may be some connection between them, but in their nature they are utterly different. One is the state of security in the Admiralty. Does anybody think that he will get out of the Tribunal anything which will help him about security in the Admiralty or anywhere else?
I should like to say in passing, without dilating upon it, that anyone who imagines that by any kind of inquiry or any kind of precaution it is possible to build up some sort of system which is absolutely proof against espionage is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. No such thing can be done. I wonder whether we are more successful
494
in preventing our spies from being discovered than they are in preventing their spies from being discovered. Or is it that we pretend that we do not have any? If so, why are we spending so many millions on building up espionage and counter-espionage services of our own? It is a vain endeavour and an illusion to think that that can be done by stopping every possible source or leakage, supposing that were possible and supposing that they could be found by such a Tribunal as this. A security system cannot be built out of a public inquiry with virtually no terms of reference, no rules of evidence and nothing specific to inquire into.
The sort of committees which was presided over by Lord Radcliffe or Lord Romer or a Select Committee of the House could go into many things and might be able to stop flaws and improve security systems and security arrangements. Because they cannot be prevented altogether, that does not mean that they cannot be prevented at all. Of course they can if the proper course is taken, but a public inquiry of this kind will not help to do it.
The other matter involved here is the honour, reputation and future of an unspecified but large number of public and private individuals in a kind of general fishing inquiry, which is what it will have to amount to in the end. Does the Prime Minister imagine that this is the way to stop rumours and protect reputations and stop people talking and stop newspapers speculating and people saying, "If you had only known the real truth! Look how much came out! But do not think that everything came out".
When the Prime Minister made his fatal blunder—and I should have thought the almost criminal blunder—of accepting the resignation of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) after himself saying that the hon. Member had been completely exonerated from anything which had ever been alleged or imagined against him, what did he think would result? Did he believe that it would stop the rumours against the hon. Member? Would not everybody have said, without feeling that he was doing anything very sinister, that if the Prime Minister had accepted that he had been exonerated from anything

495
said against him so far and then accepted his resignation, it was because he knew of something else, some dark secret, some rumour, some allegation; that the Prime Minister had to accept his resignation, that he had done his best to put a good face on it and say how he had been exonerated and that all the allegations had been refuted. Having now accepted his resignation, does not the Prime Minister believe that the public will undoubtedly say that he has something up his sleeve, something he had not told? Is not that the inevitable result of this kind of thing and more and more the inevitable result of this kind of inquiry?
Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: This is an interesting line of argument, but surely it is an argument against what the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is suggesting? Is it not the position that the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act is the only public way of determining questions of fact? Secondly, is it not the case that each of these is a question of fact and that the only way to end a vilification campaign is by this procedure, as no other procedure can stop a vilification campaign as wide as that which has been recently canvassed through the Press? Surely the hon. Member cannot suggest any other way of stopping a vilification campaign of this kind except by an inquiry of this nature.
Mr. Silverman: Suppose for a moment that the hon. Gentleman is right. It is not a bad way of testing a proposition. If he is right, what is the consequence? That we must keep these wretched Tribunals for ever? That we must give up the attempt of trying to find an instrument less blunt, an instrument less unjust?
Mr. Rees-Davies: There is no other now.
Mr. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman says that there is no other now, but if there is no other it is not beyond the ingenuity and invention of this honourable House of Commons to find a way. I think that if the hon. Gentleman were properly briefed he could produce one tomorrow morning. I could. I am not going to keep the House speculating as to what it would be, but
496
if someone finds that a thing is wrong he does not go on using it merely because he can find nothing else.
What I am saying is that even if the hon. Gentleman is right—and I think that he is wrong—in saying that only in this way can we establish the facts, we are not dealing in this part of the argument with facts. We are dealing with people's reputations, with their honour, with their integrity, over a wide undefined field and in circumstances where they are pretty impotent to defend themselves. In spite of the insults which have been thrown at lawyers during the debate, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should commit himself to the proposition put forward by him, and I am sure that he would not have done so if he had thought it over first.
I do not want to keep the House longer. I maintain that on grounds of security, or on grounds of clearing people's reputations, this is the worst way of trying to do it. If we have to find a better way, let us do so, but the procedure proposed here is unjust, unsuitable, and inappropriate in every way and in the end will turn out to be completely futile.
I do not know whether other hon. Members will vote against this Motion. I shall vote against it. It is difficult to do so because it is so easy to be misunderstood in voting, misunderstood on the basis that one is represented as voting against an inquiry into security when there have been so many breaches of it.
I wish that it were possible for the Amendment that I sought to move to be called and voted on. I think that we might have got all that was needed. It would still have been unsatisfactory on my argument, but it would have been less unsatisfactory than it is as it stands if we could have cut out all these directions to the Tribunal and left it to investigate, if it could investigate anything, the question of security and nothing else.
8.48 p.m.
Mr. Ede: I find it very difficult to vote for this Motion. I know that when this Tribunal has completed its task and sends its report to the House it will have the same reception as the last three reports have had, that

497
is to say, regret on the part of responsible people who took part in the debate that this instrument is so blunt that in the end no clear-cut decision is possible.
A good deal has been said about what is to happen to Mr. Vassall if he is called as a witness, and, of course, he can be. I hope that hon. Members will pardon me if I tell them what happened to me during the course of the Lynskey Tribunal. I was sitting opposite the Despatch Box one night, at a time when the country was being well-governed, and the Attorney-General of the day sat down beside me and asked, "Did you ever go to one of these Stanley dinners?" I replied, "Certainly not". He said, "Do not be so unnecessarily indignant. In Mr. Belcher's diary there is a note". I will give the effect of that note. I do nut pretend at this length of time that I can recite to the House exactly what it said, but it was to this effect—that on a certain date, which the Attorney-General did not give me, at Grosvenor House——
Mr. Hale: Hear, hear. I was there.
Mr. Ede: "It was, "Grosvenor House, Dinner by Stanley. Guest of honour J. Chuter Ede". I said, "I cannot recollect anything which corresponds with that".
Mr. Hale: It was Mr. Arthur Greenwood. I was there.
Mr. Ede: I went to my private secretary the next morning and said, "Have you any recollection of my ever going to Grosvenor House at the invitation of Mr. Stanley? He replied, "Sir, you do not think that we should let you accept such an invitation, do you?" I hope that that man, who is now of considerable eminence in the Department, will not get into trouble for having so wisely vindicated the honour of the Department to his Departmental chief.
Mr. Hale: I was there. I had been invited by Mr. Morgan Phillips at short notice to attend a dinner in honour of Mr. Arthur Greenwood, who had just retired.
Mr. Ede: That may not be the one I am talking about.
Mr. Hale: It may not be, but it is a fair example. We were asked whether we would subscribe a small sum as a tribute
498
to Arthur Greenwood, whom we all loved. It is the only time I have been to Grosvenor House in about ten years. That is why I remember it. I signed a note to say that I would subscribe. Mr. Stanley was shuffling it among other things at the Lynskey Tribunal when I was there acting as solicitor for John Belcher.
Mr. Ede: It is clear that my hon. Friend attends Grosvenor House more often than I do. I go there only when Surrey celebrate winning the cricket championship. I recollect that Stuart Surridge said, "I cannot see where you are sitting. I have forgotten where we have put you". I replied, "I can see it. I shall sit exactly opposite that large jug of orange squash. That is always put in front of me when I go to the Grosvenor".
To continue what I was trying to relate to the House, for a fortnight tried to think of anything which might correspond with my alleged presence at one of Mr. Stanley's dinners. In the end, after a fortnight in which I had had very little sleep, and in which this suggestion was never out of my mind—I never had such a fortnight in the whole of my life—I said to my private secretary, "Do you think that the Attorney-General's private secretary would tell you what the date was?" He replied, "I am sure that he will". I said, "I wish that you would ask him". The next day, when I went into the office, my private secretary said, "Sir, we have settled all that matter about Grosvenor House. We got the date. You were invited by the Jewish secondary schools movement to make a plea at a dinner there, presided over by one of the house of Rothschild, for the erection of further Jewish secondary schools under the Education Act, 1944. We have ascertained from the promoters that Mr. Stanley did have a table there on that occasion and that Mr. Belcher was one of his guests."
That was a mere note in a diary which had been seized among other documents that were to be investigated. I have no doubt that there were other names in that diary under certain dates and that Mr. Stanley might well have said, had he been questioned on his relationship with the law of the land, "I dined with the Home Secretary the other night". I realise that these inquiries must be very exact.

499
In saying this to the Attorney-General, I hope that he will believe that I speak to him in as friendly a fashion as did my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones). I ask him, when carrying out this fishing inquiry, to remember that he may be inflicting intolerable anxieties on a number of people who have no guilty association with anything that may have gone wrong. I have no doubt that there will be names, dates and places in the papers which will have been collected from Mr. Vassall and which will appear to have as much connection with this inquiry as the Attorney-General of that day no doubt thought this entry in Mr. Belcher's diary had with the inquiry he was conducting.
I am certain that when this inquiry is over there will be the same complaints about the way in which smears are being spread. The mere calling of a person as a witness will be held as some indication that if he had not been up to something he would never have been called, just as on previous occasions. I would have thought that it was the duty of the House and the Government to try to see if they could not find another way, some other tribunal, Which could be established to do the necessary work that must be done when these accusations on great matters of State are made so that the kind of inquiry we are to embark upon can be avoided in the future.
I hope that at some time during the proceedings the right hon. and learned Gentleman will try to think of himself as going down in history as being the Attorney-General who managed to find a better way of conducting future inquiries, better than anything we have been able to attain up to the present.
8.58 p.m.
Mr. Gordon Walker: I am sorry, although I understand the reason, that the Prime Minister is not in his place. He explained to me that he had a very important engagement and I have had to explain to him that I will have some sharp things to say about him in his absence.
The Prime Minister made a characteristic speech this afternoon. It was adroit, deliberately calculated and very political. It was much too political for a speech
500
introducing a Motion which will lead to judicial proceedings. It was indeed far too political. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) said, it compares unfavourably with the speech Lord Attlee made when Prime Minister in introducing a corresponding Motion setting up the Lynskey Tribunal.
The Prime Minister today was critical of everyone else's faults, but he came out of this story badly, very badly indeed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) said, his speech has made it harder for justice to be done. It may be that this Tribunal is not the best system but, granted that we have it, justice will be harder to do since that speech than it would have been had it not been made.
This is a very grave charge to level against the Chief Minister of the Queen. I do level it. I felt it deeply when he said it. I have thought a great deal about it since he made his speech and I think that it was a speech unworthy of the Prime Minister of this country.
But of course I can understand why he made it. The Prime Minister has played a very ambiguous rôle in many ways as the whole story has developed. He had to explain today why he changed his mind since Thursday, because up to Thursday and, indeed, up to yesterday, he was saying that a Committee of three civil servants was the right thing and he was going to stick to it through thick and thin. But most of the evidence, or a good deal of the evidence, he gave us referred to things that had happened before Thursday and some of them long before Thursday. He went out of his way to quote part of a speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) as long ago as 5th November—nine days ago. This was part of the reason why since Thursday the Prime Minister has changed his mind.
I shall have to read the Prime Minister's speech very carefully tomorrow. One goes by one's memory at this point, but it seemed to me that the Prime Minister came perilously near alleging or hinting with innuendo that my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper had been deliberately at the bottom of a sort of rolling-up of rumour.

501
This is what the Prime Minister implied. He talked a lot about innuendoes by somebody else, but this was an appalling innuendo made out of a little speech made in the hearing of all of us. Out of this was built this appalling innuendo that my right hon. Friend had been at the bottom of this. "When I look back upon it I realise its significance," the right hon. Gentleman said. This is something which ought to be investigated by the Tribunal. If any innuendo and character assassination is to be investigated by the Tribunal, this attempt by the Prime Minister to assassinate character by innuendo should be investigated by it.
The Prime Minister gave us a good example of the things which he was denouncing, the things he said were so grave that a Tribunal had to be set up to inquire into them. The Prime Minister gave a good example of that kind of behaviour. I hope that he will go before the Tribunal and will justify or withdraw these innuendoes made against my right hon. Friend. On reading the speech I think that there will be no doubt in anybody's mind that they were intended. I hope that he will go before the Tribunal, where he will be questioned and cross-examined, because he is guilty of political innuendo arising out of the Vassall case—and this has all arisen out of the Vassall case.
The Prime Minister, in effect, suggested that the Tribunal should go into the exact balance of meaning of parts of a speech made by a right hon. Gentleman, that is, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper, in this House. This is a curious thing to suggest that the Tribunal should do, because things said in this House really are privileged. It is very essential that they should be privileged. The Prime Minister was inviting the Tribunal, and presumably the Attorney-General who was sitting beside him at the time and heard the invitation, to go into the exact balance of meaning of words said in this Chamber. This is an improper suggestion for any Member, be he Prime Minister or anything else, to make about the speech of any other hon. or right hon. Gentleman in the House.
Mr. Rees-Davies: Surely that knocks skittles through the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the Prime Minister
502
should be examined, because if the Prime Minister made any such innuendo this afternoon he also would be privileged.
Mr. Gordon Walker: I would not have said this if the Prime Minister had not made this suggestion about my right hon. Friend and, of course, I knew what I was going to say as the second point of my speech whereas the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) would not know. I said what I said earlier about the Prime Minister because I knew what I was going to say about his innuendo about my right hon. Friend, and I would not have done it if the Prime Minister had not made the innuendo.
The Prime Minister is playing an ambiguous rôle in another respect. He has drawn up extraordinary terms of reference for the Tribunal. They consist of two sets of terms which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) said, do not really ride together at all. These are two separate sets of terms of reference and it is very hard to build them into a single whole. It was significent that the Prime Minister spent nearly the whole of his speech on the first two terms which deal with things that I shall be coming to—inquiries into innuendo and so on—and said practically nothing about the security aspect of this case.
This is the first time the Prime Minister has spoken to us since the Vassall case on the Vassall case. The Prime Minister is responsible for security in this country. He bears the highest responsibility. There has been a tremendous breach of security which has worried and disturbed the minds of hon. Members and of the public, and the man responsible for these matters comes to make his first speech in this case and hardly refers to this aspect for which he is responsible. He tries to divert attention by talking about all these other things. He does not talk about the security aspects. He spends the whole of his time talking about these other things which are to be put before this Tribunal which has now got to try to make sense out of two completely different sets of terms of reference.
The Prime Minister made his speech, which of course will get immense

503
publicity, immediately before the matter becomes sub judice. He makes a prosecuting speech for this Tribunal—for that is what it was—just before the whole case becomes sub judice, when it is very much more difficult for the rest of us to counter it. He will get all the Press and radio. The Prime Minister, who is a very shrewd and adroit politician, knows this. What he said in effect was: "I invite the Tribunal to clear Ministers of implications against their integrity and I hope the Tribunal will manage to blacken in some way the reputation of right hon. Gentlemen, or some of them, on the other side of the House."
Mr. Rees-Davies: And the irresponsible Press.
Mr. Gordon Walker: I am coming to that. This is part of the evidence as to why he changed his mind since Thursday. There have been few speeches on the issue of security. Very few Members have said that the security of the country may be in grave danger. All the speeches have been about the Press, about allegations and innuendoes and other matters which I shall not dodge, but all this has had the effect of diverting attention from the security aspect, which is of vital importance, to these other aspects. It is perfectly clear that this is what the right hon. Gentleman intended to do.
I hope that the Tribunal will keep a much better balance than the Prime Minister. It will have the job of inquiring into great security matters. This is certainly among its terms of reference, and I therefore hope that it will keep a much better balance than the Prime Minister did.
But it cannot have escaped any of our minds, and certainly not the Prime Minister's, that it may well be the case that that part of the evidence which will be headline-catching and which does not deal with security will be heard in public. That part of the evidence which may well be embarrassing to Ministers will be heard in camera. This is an almost inevitable conclusion of putting the terms of reference together in the way that they have been put together, and hon. Members cannot possibly not have known this. The Attorney-General, with all his legal knowledge of these matters, cannot possibly have ignored
504
the fact that this may very likely be the consequence. The headline-catching and the attention-diverting part of the evidence will be in public and the part that may embarrass Ministers will almost certainly be in camera because it will be dealing with security matters.
It seems to me that the Prime Minister by taking such a political stand today has put the Attorney-General in an extremely embarrassing position, and I agree with everything that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South said. The Attorney-General sat today as a Minister, sitting beside the Prime Minister, who was making a deliberately political speech about a Motion which was going to lead to judicial procedure. He intervened, and we accept it without question when he said that he would endeavour to be impartial to the best of his ability—he will prosecute, and all the rest—but I do not think that even he will disagree that the Prime Minister today has made it much more difficult, because he has to appear to be doing all this as well as actually doing it.
I do not know, but it seems to me that whatever he may have thought as a Minister this afternoon, and as a political person sitting by the Prime Minister, he must in his judicial capacity greatly regret that the Prime Minister made the speech that he did. It must be greatly embarrassing to him. I agree with what my hon. Friend said about the odd fact that he will be speaking tonight on behalf of the Government as a Minister and will be appearing shortly before the Tribunal, as a result of this Motion, as the Attorney-General.
I think that the Prime Minister—and this has been the cause of nearly all the trouble—has made two immense errors in the course of this whole case. Of course, it has been a difficult thing to get right, I concede that. He has been under great strain for this and other reasons, Cuba and so forth, and that may be one good explanation why these errors have been made, but two great errors have in fact been made when- we look at the whole sequence of the facts. The first was the Prime Minister's stubborn, prolonged refusal to have an inquiry of any kind right up to yesterday. That was the first great error that he made. The second great error that he made was in accepting the resignation of the hon.

505
Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith). Nearly all the evils—and there are evils in this—have flowed from these two great errors.
If this Tribunal had been set up or, indeed, if any independent tribunal had been set up at once, none of the rumours would have started, everything would have been sub judice, and everyone would have been happy from that time. It is because the Prime Minister insisted upon this particular kind of inquiry, which I will come to in a moment, that so many of the rumours originally started, because there was very widespread doubt, reflected in the most respectable newspapers, that this Committee of three civil servants was of a kind that would create the impression that something might be covered up. I do not say that it would be, but this was the impression that was created.
Many of the most respectable newspapers and other commentators said this. Also people were very worried and it helped to set rumours going because of the evident intention of the Government to play things down, including the too-flippant-by-half speech of the Minister of Defence. This was all part of playing down something which the public instinctively felt was very important. The public felt that if it was being played down there was some reason for it that ought to be probed. Rumours started for that reason.
This Committee of three was set up within one hour of the end of the trial. The Prime Minister had in fact decided to set it up before the trial started. He must have done. One cannot set up a Committee of three civil servants at the end of a one-day trial unless one has gat it all fixed up before.
Then there came this breakneck-speed publication of the letters. The Patronage Secretary spent an hour—photographs were published—with the hon. Member far Hillhead the evening before. I hope that the Patronage Secretary will be willing to go before the Tribunal to say what happened then. It has a good deal of bearing on this matter. If it was the intention of the Patronage Secretary then to persuade the hon. Gentleman to resign, he was guilty with the Prime Minister of this great error. He was the instrument of it
506
because, of course, the Prime Minister could not accept the resignation unless it was offered. If it was the visit of the Patronage Secretary which brought about the offer of resignation which led to the great error of the Prime Minister in accepting it, then the Patronage Secretary has a great deal a blame to bear in this matter, blame of the sort which ought to be inquired into by the Tribunal.
On the whole subject of the resignation of the hon. Member for Hillhead. I want to say that, in my view, it does him very great credit, much more credit than it does the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister seems to come out of this part of the whole business with no credit at all. His acceptance of the hon. Gentleman's resignation started rumours going again. People asked the simple question, "Why?" Here were letters which showed that the hon. Member for Hillhead was completely exonerated from the implication of any stories which might have been going round or improperly put in the Press, yet the Prime Minister accepted his resignation. Inevitably, this set a whole lot of rumours going. The Prime Minister is himself responsible in part for the fact that rumours started. If one creates this kind of atmosphere and acts in that way, one cannot expect rumours not to start.
I come now to the things which the Prime Minister said made him change his mind since last Thursday. Presumably, the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper cannot conceivably have done that because that was made nearly ten days before he changed his mind. There were two things which the Prime Minister told us about very dramatically and at immense length today. We all listened spellbound to him. What are they?
The first of the two things which made him change his mind was the Daily Express story that there was a document found in the Kroeger house which could not be explained as having come from Houghton and Gee and, therefore, came from a different part of the Admiralty, this being eighteen months before Vassall was caught. It is certainly important to find out whether this story was true or not. But this was not the first time the allegation was made in the Press. It was said almost immediately after the trial in a number of newspapers. I have here the

507
Daily Mirror of Tuesday, 23rd October, which says the same thing. I agree that the Daily Express said it in rather larger headlines, but it was the same story weeks before. If what the Daily Express said was near treason and all that, so was this other story.
If the Government are so worried about what the newspapers say, presumably they read them. They must have known that this story had appeared in other newspapers long before it appeared in the Daily Express, with all the implications and other considerations about which the Prime Minister told us.
Then there was the dinner last Thursday at which, as I understood the Prime Minister, an editor or some person high up in a newspaper had a meal with an hon. Member of the House. The story, as the Prime Minister told it to us today, is, of course, a very grave and horrible story. It made the Prime Minister change his mind. But, of course, it is all hearsay so far. It is a one-sided story of a conversation at a dinner party. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will tell us whether the Prime Minister has checked the story. Has he talked with the editor or whoever it was and heard whether or not he accepts this version of the story? Otherwise, it is hearsay evidence. It may or may not be true. It is a very grave thing which must be looked into, but it is not such a very strong basis on which to build the enormous construction which the Prime Minister has put before us. Like, probably, the Daily Express story, this is something which should be gone into.
Incidentally, if this hon. Member is playing so big a part in this, the biggest part played so far in the whole Vassall case, because it is he who made the Prime Minister change his mind, then we should know his name. He must appear before the Radcliffe Tribunal. We have been given a one-sided hearsay story without being told the name of the person telling that story. I do not say that he is not telling the absolute truth. I do not know who he is. A person tells things as he remembers them, but when he makes an allegation about things said to him by somebody else it is simple justice to check with the person who it is alleged has been saying those things. Perhaps the Prime Minister did
508
that, but he did not say whether he did or not.
I think that if either or both of these charges are true they should be prosecuted in the courts. These are two grave charges, one very nearly criminal libel and the other very near to the corresponding offence to treason because it is not possible to have a charge of treason in peace time. These are tremendously grave matters. They should be prosecuted and heard in a court where charges can be formulated, and then we could separate them from the other great issue of security and not mix them up, as is being deliberately done by the Prime Minister.
I say to the Attorney-General that if the Prime Minister or the Government attempt to make this into a political trial—it sounded like this when the Prime Minister was speaking—in an attempt to arraign right hon. or hon. Members on this side, then the Attorney-General cannot possibly appear as a political Minister unless we too are given corresponding rights. He cannot alone decide which witnesses shall be called. He cannot alone do the examining. It would be intolerable if an attempt were made—and it sounded very much like this when the Prime Minister was speaking—to turn this into a political trial. That would not be the normal use of this kind of tribunal before which the Attorney-General appears on behalf of the Crown and State. This would not be the same thing because it would be impossible for him to separate his judicial rôle from his political rôle.
Sir C. Osborne: That is a reflection on Lord Radcliffe.
Mr. Gordon Walker: It is not a reflection on Lord Radcliffe. If the hon. Gentleman knew anything about this he would know that the man who determines who shall be called as witnesses is not Lord Radcliffe but the Attorney-General. The man who examines is not Lord Radcliffe——
The Attorney-General: The usual procedure is that all the evidence which is available is submitted to the Tribunal. The Tribunal asks for proofs to be taken from witnesses. It inquires what evidence is available and it knows what is available. The Attorney-General calls the

509
evidence, but he is subject to the Tribunal's direction as to what should be called.
Mr. Hale: In the course of the Lynskey Tribunal, Sir Hartley Shaw-cross suddenly summoned Mrs. Belcher to the witness box in spite of the fact that she had been told that she would not be called. She was dragged from her home in north London to the witness box at the behest of the Attorney-General.
Mr. Gordon Walker: That bears out what I am saying.
Who presents the evidence to the Tribunal? Who selects it? Who does the examining in the first place? The answer to these questions is, the Attorney-General.
Many hon. Members today jumped in to follow the Prime Minister's lead and there was a great deal of discussion about the decency of public life, particularly by the right hon. Member for Flint. West (Mr. Birch) and the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley). Both of them made a rather negative contribution to the decencies of public life. The right hon. Member for Flint, West simply set out in a brief speech to smear my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper. All that it came down to was, how did my right hon. Friend get hold of the letters? I will tell the right hon. Gentleman the answer. There is no secret about this. My right hon. Friend got hold of the letters because they were offered to him by the Sunday Pictorial. They were offered to him by the Sunday Pictorial after it had given the letters to the Government and after the fact had appeared in print in the Press that such letters were found in Vassall's flat.
What is an Opposition to do? Here was a grave breach of security. One is told that there are letters which have a bearing on it which, I imagine, were originally in the possession of the police. When told that letters are available, what would be said of an Opposition which decided not to look at them? It must look at them. Otherwise, it would not be doing its duty.
When the late Lord Dalton's trouble occurred, it was because the Evening Standard tipped off a Conservative Member that he should look at one of the
510
very small number of copies of an edition of the Star. Obviously, the Conservatives did not worry then about being given information by a newspaper, and that was not quite as clear, honourable and good a case as ours is now.
The right hon. Member for Flint, West asked why my right hon. Friend, having seen the five letters, which were innocent enough—they are among those which have appeared—said what he did. These are not the only letters. It is clear from the Report of the three civil servants that there are other letters which have a bearing on other aspects of the case, because it states:
"These are the only letters in Vassall's possession at the time of his arrest which have so far been identified as having any bearing on this aspect of the case."
That means that there are other letters which have a bearing on other aspects of the case.
Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: Not necessarily.
Mr. Gordon Walker: In the circumstances, it is clear that if my right hon. Friend had not said what he did, nobody would have heard of these letters. If they had been 100 per cent. in the possession of the Government, does anyone think that they would ever have been spoken of? Will the rest of the letters be published? Will they be put before the Tribunal, and in the public part of it, or published separately in another White Paper? We have had 22 or 23 of them. We do not know how many there are, but we know that there are others. Why cannot the whole thing he published? The Committee of three has finished its job. Why should not these letters which it has looked at now be published?
Mr. R. H. Turton: One point worries me. In what capacity did the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) receive the letters—as a Member of the Opposition or as a paid adviser of the group of newspapers including the Sunday Pictorial?
Mr. Gordon Walker: That is an extremely unworthy thing to say. My right hon. Friend is Deputy-Leader of the Opposition. He happened to be telephoned. It might have been me or one of a number of other people on this side of the House. It happened to be my

511
right hon. Friend as Deputy-Leader. There was no wish to bother the Leader of the party, who was busy and may not even have been able to be reached.
What was wrong with that? My right hon. Friend is Deputy-Leader of the Opposition. He was given this information——
Mr. Turton: As Deputy-Leader?
Mr. Gordon Walker: Of course—to be made available to responsible people in the Opposition. That is the position. That, I suppose, is how the Evening Standard acted at the time of Lord Dalton's trouble, to somebody or other on the opposite side of the House.
There are two issues before the Tribunal. One concerns security. These are grave and great matters which should be looked at alone and separately. Any responsible Government would have seen to this and would not have tried to divert attention from these matters by bringing in these other admittedly grave charges, but charges of a wholly different nature, and putting them in the same terms of reference before the same Tribunal. It may be that the first two terms of reference are properly submitted to the Tribunal. If that is so, the security issue should have been separately examined, although I would sooner have seen the whole thing done in court in an open, decent way with charges made known and people properly defended.
I do not like this tribunal system very much. [An HON. MEMBER: "Then why ask for it?"] I asked for it because it is the only thing that we have under the Statute. I do not like it very much and would sooner have another one. On the other hand, I agree with the Government's Motion, because this is the only Tribunal we have. I do not agree with the whole way it has been done, on the terms of reference and all that, but I agree that we wanted an independent inquiry. It has been set up. We are glad of that.
We are confident that the Tribunal will be far better than would have been expected from the Prime Minister's speech, that it will not mix up great issues of security, of extreme importance, with these other, wholly different things of the red herring kind, though they are very important. I am sure that this
512
Tribunal which is set up will keep a balance, which the Prime Minister failed to keep altogether, and that at the end of the day we will probe the thing I want to see probed above all, which is the security of this land of ours. This is the important issue. We should not allow it to be put away in a sort of smokescreen. as it was this afternoon by the Prime Minister.
9.31 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Sir John Hobson): The Prime Minister has asked me to inform the House that he very much regrets that an important official engagement which he has this evening prevents him from being here now, and he knows that, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) was good enough to say, it will be understood that there is no discourtesy either to him or to any Member of the House by the absence of the Prime Minister.
The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) did point out that there is perhaps some embarrassment for me in replying to this debate if I am to take part in the Tribunal which may or may not be set up. I take the point. The difficulty is this, that, of course, it was impossible to see, when this debate began, how far ranging it would be, or what were the issues which would arise.
The issues which did arise have been of a highly charged and political nature; and others have been of a highly technical nature. Anyone who had to reply would have had to try to deal with one or the other and might have found himself in great difficulty in not dealing with the one in which he was most skilled.
I think that it is right for me—and I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Ham, South—to try only to deal at this stage with the legal aspects of the Tribunal, how it will work, and whether it is desirable that a Tribunal of this nature should be set up in the circumstances of this particular case; and if, therefore, I do not endeavour to embark on much of the political argument that has gone on during the course of the afternoon I am sure that hon. Gentlemen on both

513
sides of the House will understand that I am inhibited from engaging in arguments of that sort.
I think that it has—has it not?—throughout the day been almost universally agreed that there is a necessity for independent and powerful inquiry. There has been no dispute as to that from first to last. The only real note of dissent that there has been on the issue as to the type of inquiry has been as to whether it should be a Tribunal under the 1921 Act or whether it should be a Select Committee of this House.
That seems to have been, to a certain extent, a dispute between hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, but it is the fact, nevertheless, that the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party have both themselves welcomed the fact that a Tribunal under the 1921 Act is being set up. There have been criticisms from hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side below the Gangway of the way in which such a tribunal has worked in the past, and, of course, all those who have experience Or knowledge of the history of these tribunals must be aware that there are difficulties in these tribunals, and I will try to deal with them in the course of my speech.
If, then, we are all agreed that there should be an independent and powerful inquiry, and the only dispute is as to its nature, the questions which have been much debated, as to who first thought of it and first suggested it, and whether it ought to have been set up at one stage or another, and ought to have been this sort of inquiry or another, become a matter of important record but are not material to the actual decision which we have to take this evening, which is a Motion to set up a tribunal in accordance with the 1921 Act.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition put a number of questions to me Which I think are proper and reasonable for me to answer, speaking from the purely legal and technical point of view about such a Tribunal. His first question was: will it sit in public? This matter has been raised by many other hon. Members, and is, of course, of considerable importance. The most I can do is to say that this is entirely a matter for the Tribunal itself. It will have to make up its own mind about the extent
514
to which and the occasions upon which and the purposes for which it will sit in public. I am bound to tell the House—it must be fairly obvious because of the very nature of the inquiry and the matters that are being inquired into, particularly on the all-important security side—that there must be a number of occasions upon which the Tribunal will necessarily have to sit in private.
Mr. Gordon Walker: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that this would refer almost wholly and exclusively to the third and fourth terms of reference and not the first and second?
The Attorney-General: No; I do not think so necessarily. That is a point which I was just about to make.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether this would not be of advantage to Ministers in one sense, because matters which were critical of them would be excluded and in private. I do not think that that is so, and certainly the Tribunal itself will have no such position in mind. It will judge of itself only as to whether it is proper at a particular part of the evidence, whoever it affects, whatever it affects and whatever the issues to which it is directed, whether such evidence can be given in public or ought to be given in private. Therefore, the whole of that is under the control of the Tribunal.
I hope that the House will think that the Tribunal can be trusted and will believe that a Tribunal of this stature would never decide to sit in public or in private out of consideration for either helping the Government or helping the Opposition, or doing the exact reverse.
Mr. Bellenger: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether any representation on that point would be possible and permitted for him before the Tribunal?
The Attorney-General: Representations to me?
Mr. Bellenger: I mean a representation by the Attorney-General that evidence should be in private.
The Attorney-General: It is plain that at some stage there will have to be a discussion about which part of the

515
evidence, when it is known what evidence there is to be, can or cannot be taken in private. That is correct.
I advise the Tribunal as counsel to the Tribunal. One right hon. Gentleman opposite was asking whether the Attorney-General selects the witnesses. Another right hon. Gentleman is saying that the Attorney-General discusses or submits whether evidence should be in public or in private. If I were acting in my capacity as an agent for the Government, this would, of course, be wholly improper.
What is misunderstood, and what I hope the House will understand, is that when appear at the Tribunal shall be appearing solely in my semi-quasi-judicial capacity to see to the administration of the law and purely as the adviser of the Tribunal. I have already given an undertaking to the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Cross-man) that I will not allow, and I certainly would not allow, questions of this sort to be decided or my advice to be directed towards' the question of whether it does or does not help the Government.
All I am concerned with in discussing with or advising the Tribunal on this matter is whether Section 2 of the Act applies. It is provided by Section 2 of the 1921 Act:
"A tribunal to which this Act is … applied … shall not refuse to allow the public or any portion of the public to be present at any of the proceedings of the tribunal unless in the opinion of the tribunal it is in the public interest expedient so to do for reasons connected with the subject matter of the inquiry or the nature of the evidence to be given".
Mr. Wigg: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give the House an assurance that the parts which are heard in public will be included in the report, or do we take it that at some stage the Tribunal will be able to decide what should be published and what should not be published to this House?
The Attorney-General: That is the next question which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition asked me, and I am coming to it.
First, then, there will be a question for the decision of the tribunal on the extent to which it should sit in public or in private. Secondly, its report is made, not
516
to the Prime Minister, who, actually, does not appoint the Tribunal, but to the Home Secretary. The latter appoints the Tribunal, and its report is made to him. One of the difficulties at this stage is that nobody knows in what form the report will be, what will be contained in it, and to what extent security matters will or will not be intermingled with the first and second headings of the terms of inquiry.
It will, therefore, be necessary at a later stage for the Government to consider very carefully indeed what ought to be done about those parts that are secret and what ought to be done about those parts which can be published; that is, first, the report, and, secondly, the transcript of the evidence which has been taken in camera. I can assure the House that the most careful consideration will be given as to how this shall be dealt with, and as to how the rights of the Opposition, the Leader of the Opposition, and of Privy Councillors to see the report may conveniently be dealt with.
Mr. Hale: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that I have a profound respect for him. I have not the slightest doubt that he will bring to this task the high quality of integrity and a desire to be absolutely honest about it. But the question he will be called upon to examine is whether the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland was influenced by a personal friendship, and the question which the public will have to judge is whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself, in the exercise of his duties as Attorney-General, is affected by the fact that one of the accused is the Prime Minister, who has the appointment of the Lord Chancellor. Surely these are questions on which the public are entitled to be clear.
The Attorney-General: Certainly. I do not think, though, that the hon. Gentleman's little tribute to me, for which I am grateful to him, was quite in conformity with the latter part of his sentence, but I will leave that where it is.
Mr. Woodburn: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has jumped from the composition of the Tribunal to its report. Could he give us his ideas about this question of the evidence that is to be

517
placed before the Tribunal. I gather from what he said that it has available scraps of evidence now, which this high-powered Tribunal is to be set up to examine. Will it have any power to investigate what it thinks is necessary to produce the truth about the other aspects, which seem to be much more important than some of the trivialities that have been discussed in public?
The Attorney-General: That was the next question which the Leader of the Opposition asked me, and I was about to answer it. Perhaps right hon. and hot,. Gentlemen opposite will let me get on with answering these questions, and then we may get on quicker.
The position is this. The Tribunal is assisted by the Treasury Solicitor, who, in these matters, always acts as the agent of the Tribunal, under its direction. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that this is intended, in a way, as an inquisitorial form of inquiry, and that is why some hon. Gentlemen object to it. They cannot have it both ways. It is either inquisitorial, or it is not. I can assure the right hon. Member for Clackmannan an and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) that the Tribunal itself is charged with the duty of investigating these matters within its terms of reference, and can, and I have no doubt will, indicate whether it thinks some line of inquiry ought to be followed, and can say that it wants particular witnesses called before it and all the available evidence and documents brought before it.
If it does, the Treasury Solicitor will be the person who will do it. He will have at his disposal—and this also answers the Leader of the Opposition—the police and its Special Branch, if it is suitable and appropriate that it should be brought in for that particular inquiry, and will also have 'available and at his disposal the security service and any persons, if they are suitable persons, for making any inquiry.
I will of course—and this is in answer to the right hon. Member for Smethwick—take some part in deciding what inquiries should be made and what witnesses should be called, although I am always subject to the directions of the Tribunal. I will always he acting, not as the mere agent of the Government, but in the discharge of my duties to the
518
Tribunal. It is in this way that it is hoped to assemble all the evidence which will be available.
The Committee of three civil servants has already collected a good deal of evidence and was aware of a number of relevant witnesses who were about to give evidence before it. All this will be made available, together with what those witnesses can say which is relevant and proper, to the Tribunal. This is the way in which it will work.
The final question which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition asked was what would be the position of Mr. Hoskins if he were called before the Tribunal and asked for his sources. The Tribunal has exactly the same powers and is in exactly the same position as the High Court of Justice. It can ask precisely the same questions as if a relevant question were asked of a witness in court. Under Section 1 (3) of the Act, it is provided that
"A witness before any such tribunal shall be entitled to the same immunities and privileges as if he were a witness before the High Court or the Court of Session."
How he is dealt with, what questions are asked, what are the consequences of refusal to answer and whether that is reasonable in the circumstances, are within the discretion of the Tribunal, which will have to deal with each case as it arises. We all know that priests of the Church of England and any other Church have no right to refuse to answer questions in the High Court, but these questions do not always arise, and clashes do not occur. But whether such circumstances will or will not arise in this case cannot be foretold now, and if they do it will be entirely a matter for the Tribunal.
The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) asked about costs of those who appear before the Tribunal and who may have to be represented—in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), who is to be very much concerned. There is no provision in the Act for payment of costs to anybody, but I will certainly draw the point to the attention of those who are responsible, and I will consider it myself and see what can be done and what would be proper to be done. I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising this point, which is of some importance.

519
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) asked why the Law Officers did not proceed by laying an information for a criminal libel in respect of some of these matters. I would like to know what the position would be in this House if the Government started to protect themselves by the methods of Castlereagh and Lord Liverpool. It is a long time since it has been suggested that the proper way of protecting Ministers against whom allegations of this sort are made is to bring proceedings for criminal libel. I also think that the absence of knowledge as to whether allegations are true or not makes it wrong to launch prosecutions of that nature. It is better to proceed by an inquiry which can discover the facts, if any, upon which allegations are based, particularly as those facts will be subject to investigation.
As for civil libel, that is not under the control of the Law Officers. Every citizen has a right of action in civil libel, whether he desires to bring one or not. The Government have no concern with actions of civil libel. I would not have thought that anyone would suggest that it was appropriate in the present circumstances to revive what is perhaps a rather ancient remedy for the protection of Ministers. The Attorney-General was always known in the old days as the "bloodhound of Ministers "because he brought actions for criminal libel, and I am glad to say that I am not in that position now.
Mr. M. Foot: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying something worse? He suggests that those who have had alleged criminal or civil libels committed against them cannot protect themselves in the courts, but he is now invoking for the protection of Ministers a quite ruthless and different procedure.
The Attorney-General: That is to look at only half of the procedure. First, whatever happens we have to look into whether there has been any negligence or breach of duty. That is the first question and that is the one which is being investigated and upon that will depend also the truth of the allegations against Ministers. The two are inextricably linked, and that is why it is right to proceed by joining them in one inquiry.
520
As I have said, it is frequently a matter of complaint that tribunals of this nature can cause great hardship and suffering to some persons whose names are introduced, but that is inevitable if one is to have an inquisitorial inquiry. One cannot have it both ways. Either one has to find out the truth and do so ruthlessly and without regard to personalities, or politics, or Governments, or Oppositions, or anybody else; or one has got to play it down and not discover the truth, and then perhaps one will save some people suffering.
It is necessary in the circumstances of this case and in the grave breaches of security, which everybody regards as vital to the future interests of the country, that one should have a powerful and it may be a ruthless instrument which can divine and get to the bottom of whether Ministers have properly taken the necessary steps for the security of their office and whether allegations that they have not done so are well founded. The necessity for security must surely be over-riding and for security reasons, as the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) suggested, one must have an inquiry which can really get to the bottom of some of these questions.
Mr. Wigg: The Attorney-General, who is one of the principal Law Officers of the Crown, has now laid down a new principle—that the truth can be established in our democracy only by the use of inquisitorial methods. Is that so?
The Attorney-General: I did not say anything of the sort. I said that, in the particular circumstances of this case, everybody was agreed that some form of inquiry, which must by its nature be inquisitorial, should be set up. No hon. Member who has spoken today has disputed the view that there ought to be an inquiry into the breaches of security, which obviously took place because Vassall has pleaded guilty to serious charges under the Official Secrets Act.
Therefore, if one is to have an inquiry, the only question which remains is whether one should have this or some other form of inquiry. Those who oppose this form of inquiry have made no suggestion other than a Select Committee of the House of Commons. I am bound to say that if it is agreed that there has to be an inquiry, then one must

521
accept this form, because there is no other instrument except a Select Committee.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) that when one reads the account of the Marconi Inquiry one sees that such an inquiry by a Select Committee would almost inevitably divide upon political grounds. Not only that, I do not think that the public generally would feel the same confidence, or the same satisfaction, that true inquiry had been properly and independently made if we were to rely on the findings of a Select Committee, which might have a minority report. It surprises me very much that the conclusion of the hon. Member for Dudley on the view that the Tribunal which is to be set up is a political body is to suggest as an alternative that we should have a Select Committee on the basis that it is not a political body.
I was shocked—and I hope that it is not really what they intended to say—when the hon. Member for Dudley and the hon. Member for Coventry, East suggested that this Tribunal was in any way a political body. I am sure that that is wrong. The hon. Member for Coventry, East said that the Tribunal would be used for political purposes. I think that anybody who knows Lord Radcliffe, Mr. Justice Barry and Sir Edward Milner Holland knows perfectly well that they would never allow their actions or the discharge of their duty under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act to be influenced in any respect by political considerations.
Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. Does not he realise that while one makes no aspersions whatever against the learned judges and others who are members of these Tribunals it is still possible to regard the outcome of a Tribunal such as this as completely political in effect by reason of the fact, amongst many others, that the Attorney-General of the day is the man who takes the witnesses in private without any representation and schools them and then decides whether or not to call them? Is not that in itself sufficient to vitiate this type of inquiry?
The Attorney-General: I deeply resent the suggestion that I school any witnesses at all. I certainly would not school witnesses, and I should have thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that.
I have tried to explain to the House what is the position of the Attorney-General. It was set out very cleanly indeed by the then Attorney-General at the Lynskey Tribunal, Lord Shawcross. He said:
"As the Tribunal, of course, knows very well, but as perhaps is not always understood elsewhere, although the Attorney-General is a member of the Government he has certain duties which he cannot abdicate in connection with the administration of the law, especially of the Criminal Law, and more particularly that branch of it which is concerned with the prevention of corruption."
There, of course, he was concerned with corruption. We are here concerned with official secrets, and I am responsible for my fiat before any prosecution can be brought under that Act.
Lord Shawcross went on to say:
"These duties are sometimes said to be of a quasi-judicial nature. The Attorney-General has to decide them with complete independence of the Government, and, I must add with complete indifference as to their political or personal results."
He further said that it was his duty to concern himself, and to concern himself only, with the representation and protection of the public interest, and that is the standard which I hope to set myself and which I shall endeavour to follow as the representative of the public.
The Tribunal is being set up for the safety of the State, for the discovery of truth, and for the protection of the public, and I shall appear before it in the discharge of my duties to the public and not as an agent of the Government.
Mr. E. L. Mallalieu Mr. E. L. Mallalieu rose——
The Attorney-General: In conclusion, I say that the terms of reference do, first, deal with the circumstances of Vassall's offences. This is the principal, subject of inquiry, and the other four items are all subsidiary to, and appended to it. Breaches of security and neglect of duty by Ministers are matters of high importance for which I am sure, and I hope the House will agree, a Tribunal of this power, this force and this independence was needed. When they have been determined, one can see whether allegations

523
about the conduct and responsibility of Ministers are true or not. These two hang together, and I hope that the House will accept that this is the proper procedure for dealing with all these important and difficult questions.
Mr. Speaker: While the clock and the Standing Order permit, I should like, as a courtesy to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), to say that I have satisfied myself that I cannot as a matter of order put the Question save in the manner in which I am now about to put it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., the circumstances in which offences under the Official Secrets Acts were committed by William John Christopher Vassal!, and in particular:

(1) the allegations made that the presence of a nother spy inside the Admiralty was known to the First Lord and his Service chiefs after the Portland case eighteen months ago;

(2) any other allegations which have been or may be brought to their attention, reflecting similarly on the honour and integrity of persons who, as Ministers, naval officers and civil servants, were concerned in the case;

(3) any breaches of security arrangements which took place; and

(4) any neglect of duty by persons directly responsible for Vassall's employment and conduct, and for his being treated as suitable for employment on secret work.

DISABILITY PENSION (MR. J. BLAKEMAN)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]
10.0 p.m.
Mr. Leslie Hale: Last Sunday, Her Majesty was present at the Cenotaph to express the common mourning for those who died in the war. In circumstances which I think are personally unfortunate—because I have come here today rather against medical opinion and I have been here already for thirteen hours—I want to raise the case of someone who, it might be said, had the misfortune to survive the war and has been in the hands of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance almost ever since.
524
Joseph Blakeman lives at 8, Lynton Avenue, Hollins, Oldham. Before the war he was a young man of no great education but of considerable ambition. He had studied and had qualified for a secretarial certificate and was on the way to having some sort of career. He joined the Armed Forces. He was passed A 1. He saw service abroad. He was perfectly fit and managed his service abroad until unhappily, towards the end of the war, he had an attack of meningitis, on which he was hospitalised for some weeks. He was released, said to be cured, was sent back again a few days later for further treatment and was finally released in a medical condition which was certainly not as good as when he joined the Forces. Ultimately, having completed his service, having continued right through the war, he was released with a medical grade lower than that with which he had joined.
I have had many unhappy thoughts as to how far to raise this case, because I have always known that no matter how I raised it, it would cause a good deal of heartbreak and a good deal of suffering to the relatives involved. I have, therefore, delayed if for a long time.
After the war Blakeman began to suffer from lapses of memory, from an affection which obviously had some medical cause, from suffering which was ultimately, after years, diagnosed by the psychiatric specialist at the Oldham General Hospital as schizophrenia. first heard of the case during the General Election of 1955, when the wife saw me and consulted me about his position. He had been—and heaven knows, who would not be?—reluctant to make an application for a pension on the ground of mental disease. He had delayed it, he had worried about it, and finally he had been pushed into it by the poverty of the family, by the need to raise two young children and by the fact that the wife was in difficulties. He was pushed into making his application for pension, which he ultimately made in 1955.
There is a rule in the Royal Warrant, which I think might well be reconsidered—although perhaps that is not an appropriate matter to discuss on the Adjournment—which says that if one delays one's claim for seven years the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance may object. One would have thought that delaying a claim was a virtue. One would

525
have thought that reluctance to claim on public funds was not a matter which one should condemn. But if one fails to make the claim for seven years, it is open to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance to say, "We object to this claim, and the onus of proof will be shifted on to you."
The Ministry is under no obligation to do so, and no decent people would do so under normal circumstances. No honourable company ever pleads the Statute of Limitations in any action unless it can say, "Because of the delay in presenting this case, we are unable to contest it. We have not gat the evidence. We have destroyed our papers." That did not occur to the Ministry of Pensions, about which I now wish to say a few wards.
During the last few years it has always been the theory of the Ministry that "mother knows best". It has always been said that one has only to look at the Ministry's medical records and consult them to find the answer. Those who know about these matters concerning the last war know that many hospitals were established at a moment's notice, that overworked doctors did their best in almost impossible circumstances and were being called upon to try to operate in a single day on 100 wounded. On another day, which might be called a rest day, they would attempt to keep their records. To keep accurate records under such circumstances was almost impossible.
I recall that in 1946 I was interviewing people in Oldham when a constituent called on me and said, "I am worried about a bullet in my chest." I said, "How did it get there?" and he replied, "In 1916, on the Western Front." I asked him if he had been examined and he replied, "Time after time, in and out of hospital." I had a medical man with me at the time and I suggested that we send the man to the Oldham Infirmary for an X-ray. I telephoned and arranged for the X-ray to be done and when my constituent had gone the medical man said to me, "That seems a waste of time and public money." I said "No. The fellow believes he has a bullet in his chest. If we can show him the X-ray and show him that a bullet is not there he might get over the psychosomatic disfunction of his mind."
526
Having said that, rather pompously, I sent my constituent to the infirmary and half an hour later made inquiries about the X-ray. The person on the other end of the telephone in the hospital asked me, "What do we do about this bullet?" and I asked "What bullet?" The person replied, "The bullet in the muscles of the man's chest." I tell this story to illustrate how this man had attended one hospital after another for thirty years, but had never had an X-ray to clear this matter up. However, told the person an the telephone from the infirmary, "Yank it out" and they did and I think that the man still has that bullet as a memento of his visit to me in 1946.
I do not believe that the Ministry should talk as pontifically and pompously as they do. In 1955, Mrs. Blakeman was a very worried woman. She was virtually the character in a Strindberg play. She told me, "These people are saying that my husband's illness is due to hereditary and congenital reasons. I have a son and daughter. What can I say to them?"
I would have thought that no one with any conception of public interest would plead as a defence to an application for pension—without medical evidence to support it except the seven year rule—that this was a congenital disease, especially when the man had a son and daughter reaching manhood and womanhood respectively and who had to face their lives in marriage, with the inhibition, the worry, the concern that would shadow over their lives.
It will be said by the Parliamentary Secretary—sincerely, because he has been in that office for only a short time—that this sort of defence is put forward only after careful consideration. For this reason I quote for the attention of the House another case of mine, the case of a man named Arthur Taylor. o This man joined the Forces and was passed Al. He was eventually discharged as medically unfit. The only question was whether his ailment was as a result of his military service, but the Ministry found that in his early years he attended a school for retarded children.
That was enough. He was a five-star. soldier. Five-star soldiers were good stuff. I think that I was about a one-and-a-half star man. However, this man

527
is condemned at once because he surmounted an infantile difficulty which looked like menacing his life. The Ministry wrote to me about Arthur Taylor and said that it was not only the opinion of the Ministry's doctors that the man was suffering from a congenital ailment, but that the Ministry knew and could establish that his father had the same ailment. "We know he inherited it because we have the medical reports on his father," they wrote, in effect.
I think that that was an 31st December, 1959, and I went to Arthur Taylor and said, "How did you let them get hold of these certificates? Did you send them?" He said, "No". I asked, "Do you know how they got them?" He replied, "No". I wrote and said that I should like an explanation and the Ministry rather reluctantly and rather coyly said, "In fact, we got them by mistake. The doctor having two Arthur Taylors in his books sent us documents about the older man instead of the younger man, but we copied them out". In thirty years of professional practice I do not know of any firm getting documents by mistake and copying them and using them.
I therefore went back and said, "They got your documents by mistake. They were your father's medical certificates." Arthur Taylor said, "They could not have been, because he has been dead six years and he died in Birmingham, fifty miles from Oldham". We found that the older Taylor was no relation to the younger Taylor and the Ministry had said, In exercise of our high function in administering justice in the interest of the country we have copied these documents and will use them in evidence against you", and I wish now I had let them.
I come back to Joseph Blakeman. I do not want to go into the details of the symptoms he suffers. I saw him a few days ago and I have seen him many times. He is a fine fellow but the hopes of a career have gone. He is now working carrying boxes in Oldham market, and doing it only because the man who employs him has an affection for him and is anxious to keep him as long as he can. I cannot tell the full story of Blakeman tonight because some issues remain to be dealt with. When the
528
Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance found him bleeding on the steps of their building they were not finished with him and tried to deprive him of his social benefits as well as his pension.
I put down to the former Minister of Pensions and National Insurance a series of Questions designed to deal with the seven-year rule. The former Minister was courteous and said finally, "Come and talk about the case." I went at 11.30 a.m. on 14th March last. I was received for the first time rather in the way, geographically speaking, a cinema magnate receives an applicant for a job. I do not say that in the form of criticism, but I am saying that geographically I was a long way away. The Minister said, "What have you to say?" I said, "What is the necessity of saying anything? You know what I have to say. Why waste time?" The right hon. Gentleman walked across to me and whispered a few words. I said, "That is all right" and at ten minutes after 11.30 a.m. I left the Ministry of Pensions, feeling quite happy.
Perhaps out of a certain excess of anxiety—and, Mr. Speaker, you will realise the position of any advocate dealing with a case in which the evidence has to be called—I felt that I could not write to a medical specialist and say that the Minister had said, "If only you would get the right medical evidence "and suggest what he should say. So I wrote to the medical officer of health that in the case of Blakeman I was happy to tell him that the Minister of Pensions had now said, "Get me a stronger certificate than the one produced and I will be able to make an application for Treasury approval for a special grant "I said that I should be happy to pay the cost of an investigation if necessary, but that I would leave the medical officer to deal with the matter as he thought proper.
The Medical Officer of Health for Oldham is one of the finest men I know. He has a deeply humanitarian conscience. He told me that there was a new and brilliant psychiatrist at the Oldham Hospital who would be happy to examine Blakeman and give an honest report. On 1st July I was able to write to the Ministry and say, "Here is the report on Blakeman. He is suffering from schizophrenia. Here is a strong

529
report. Justice can now be done." In the exercise of the wisdom of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet the former Minister of Pensions has now passed to some other occupation the nature of which for the moment I forget, and I found myself addressing somebody else. I believe that it was the Parliamentary Secretary who wrote to me.
I promise tonight that I shall not use any adjectives, but I would say that if a weekly newspaper had offered a prize for a facetious letter written by an eccentric Parliamentary Secretary to a Member whom he regarded as morally and mentally retarded, the formula would have been the same. I was told that I had completely misunderstood what the Minister had said, and I had a letter fourteen weeks afterwards to say that on consulting the former Minister of Pensions he confirmed that to the best of his recollection the contemporaneous note which had been made at the time and of which I have a copy—it was supplied after twelve weeks and was made by a Mr. T. A. H., who, I am told, was a civil servant and who was not even within earshot at the time, and was dated the day after for some curious reason—recorded that the nature of the interview was that the former Minister saw me and said that all I had to do was to get some evidence of what happened in the hospital. I leave this to the judgment of mankind. I do not want to be controversial. Indeed I think that I am being extremely moderate.
There were two hospitals; one was No. 6 and one was No. 12. They were both temporary hospitals and they were both in Palestine. They both existed in 1944 and they have both been pulled down since. If anyone thinks that I retired from the interview after ten minutes happy in the assurance that if I produced some evidence from a hospital which I had never seen, from a staff of whom I knew nothing, to confront a Ministry which had all the records, on behalf of a man admittedly suffering from some mental disease, I would be able to submit a proper case on behalf of this man, I think that is a view which most people would not be likely to accept.
That is the case of Blakeman up to now. I shall have to refer to it again
530
shortly, when the present inhibitions which prevent me concluding the case have been disposed of by other proceedings. For the moment I should like to say this. This man was decent, kindly, humble, generous and thoughtful, and with all these years of mental agony and mental controversy, with all these years in which the repudiation of his claim has aggravated his disease, years in which a decent wife has had to go out and work to bring in enough money to maintain the family because Blakeman could only work three days loading in the market, with all these years in which the son and daughter had been brought up, it is right that I should ask myself whether he is a man who is worthy of a little consideration even from the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance.
Mr. Blakeman happened to be a member of one of the two brigades that came from Cairo to Alamein to join the 8th Army, untrained and inexperienced, but, presumably because Field Marshal Lord Montgomery demanded some reinforcements from the nearest place, he happened to be a man who fought at Alamein. When I saw him last to speak to him, he said, "I should like to go to the Brotherhood of Alamein before I die." He thought that he might lose the chance of his lifetime. He served with the 8th Army right through to Palestine. His hospitalisation was in Palestine. He served in Italy.
At the invitation of Field Marshal Lord Alexander—I admit that it was only a printed invitation; field marshals are not so matey as all that with private soldiers—he attended the thanksgiving at Padua where they sang:
"Now thank we all our God".
Then they turned to Kipling and recited the words that are remembered by us all:
"God of our fathers, known of old,
Lord of our far-flung battle-line,
Beneath whose awful Hand we hold
Dominion over palm and pine."
He gave his thanksgiving.
I hope that before we have another cammemoration ceremony, before we again say,
"They will not grow old, as we that are left grow old",
we might remember those who are growing old in misery, in pain, in destitution

531
and in neglect and who have been treated as Mr. Blakeman has been treated and denied justice by the Ministry of Pensions—by both the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary—with a contempt which hurts.
10.20 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon): I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) in his feelings of emotion for this very sad case. There is absolutely no doubt at all that mental disease has gradually but relentlessly ruined this man's life and prevented him from following his career in which he had good prospects. It has also brought great sorrow to his unfortunate wife.
Nevertheless, the basis upon which war disablement pensions are awarded is that the cause of the disability must be war service, or that the disability must be aggravated thereby. Neither of these conditions is fulfilled in this case. The Minister's advisers are upheld in this decision by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal of 13th March, 1956. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that my right hon. Friend has no power to vary decisions of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal. If there is a dispute upon a point of law there is, of course, the right of appeal to the High Court.
Mr. Hale Mr. Hale rose——
Lieut.-Commander Maydon: If the hon. Gentleman would let me continue. If I have time I will give way to him later. If there is a dispute of a point of law there is the right of appeal to the High Court; or if it appears to my right hon. Friend that new factual evidence not submitted to the Tribunal and which would have led to a different decision, now becomes available, my right hon. Friend can seek special sanction to pay a pension outside the terms of the Royal Warrant and that is what the hon. Gentleman wanted my right hon. Friend to do.
But, of course, such action depends upon new factual evidence not known to the Tribunal. There is no other course that my right hon. Friend can follow. If cases were to be judged on the hardship of the unfortunate people concerned
532
that would make bad law, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that even if we had power to set aside decisions of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal variations would tend to be grossly unfair to many thousands of disability pensioners whose cases have been treated in accordance with the rules. Sympathetic response to one very unfortunate case cannot justify that much wider injustice.
The hon. Gentleman contends that he has submitted new factual evidence which will enable my right hon. Friend to use procedure for reopening the case of Mr. Joseph Blakeman after the decision of the tribunal which is legally final and binding and on which there can be no appeal, except on a point of law when an appeal can be made to the high court as I have previously described.
He has submitted a letter from a consultant psychiatrist in his constituency, a distinguished gentleman, whose opinion far be it for me to belittle. This consultant gave a factual account of his examination of Mr. Blakeman and his opinion on the evidence, but he put forward no new fact having a bearing on the case which was not known to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal and which would have led it to a different decision on Mr. Blakeman's mental state and the cause of it. This is opinion and not new fact, so my right hon. Friend cannot initiate the special sanction procedure which the hon. Gentleman wanted him to initiate.
The hon. Gentleman in the course of his speech said that he was asked to provide a strong report. This is not in accordance with our record of the interview which he had with my right hon. Friend's predecessor at the Ministry. He was told then quite clearly that new facts must be made available which were not——
Mr. Hale: Quite clearly?
Lieut.-Commander Maydon: Quite clearly.
Mr. Hale: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that I have written to his right hon. Friend and told him that I would challenge his account tonight? I gave him notice that I should be here to do so, and he is not here to deny it.
Lieut.-Commander Maydon: The hon. Gentleman knows quite well that he has had a reply to that letter which tells him, in almost precisely the same words as I am telling him now, that our account of that interview has been agreed with my right hon. Friend's predecessor.
Mr. Hale: The letter speaks of the right hon. Gentleman's best recollection of an interview on 14th March, and it says that the note produced to him confirms, to the best of his recollection, what he said. That is what is said.
Lieut.-Commander Maydon: That may be so but——
Mr. Hale: Then why tell another story?
Lieut.-Commander Maydon: I was not telling another story, as the hon. Gentleman must know if only he would listen to me carefully instead of continually interrupting. He knows perfectly well what was said in the correspondence. I do not propose to quote the correspondence here. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that what he has been told is an accurate account of that interview.
Mr. Hale: It is quite false.
Lieut.-Commander Maydon: I want to make clear to the House——
Mr. Hale Mr. Hale rose——
Lieut.-Commander Maydon: No; I will not give way.
Mr. Hale: The Parliamentary Secretary says that it is an accurate account, and he says that dogmatically. I tell him that it is a lie. I say that it is a lie, Mr. Speaker, whether it is——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Parliamentary Secretary is at present in possession of the Floor. The hon. Gentle-
534
man must not persist if the Parliamentary Secretary does not give way.
Lieut.-Commander Maydon: I must make clear to hon. Members that my right hon. Friend is very properly bound at this stage in a case by the finality of the decisions of the tribunal laid down by the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act. Justice to all pensioners requires this. Without this finality in cases where there is a conflict of medical opinion, much harm would be done by continued uncertainty. Despite that, we never close our minds to the possibility that the discovery of some new fact may enable us to reopen a case and to find a more generous solution than we could without it. Until such fresh evidence is found. my right hon. Friend's hands are very properly tied by the procedure laid down and approved by the House.
Mr. Hale: In view of the Parliamentary Secretary's reply, may I add that——
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman requires leave. That is all that matters.
Mr. Hale: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. With the leave of the House, may I say that, in view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply and in view of the fact that this particular issue in the Blakeman case is only one of two issues to which I cannot refer again now, I shall tomorrow write to Lord Montgomery of Alamein and see whether in another place there is more liberty and freedom of criticism so that justice may be brought to this man who fought with Lord Montgomery. I hope that, under his pressure, perhaps, Ministers will accept the desire to do justice.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

BRITISH ARMY
  Land
  Land
  Gunner W. J. Gordon
  Gunner W. J. Gordon
  Personnel, Aden (Families)
  Personnel, Aden (Families)
  Commonwealth War Graves Commission
  Commonwealth War Graves Commission
  Boating Accidents, B.A.O.R. (Deaths)
  Boating Accidents, B.A.O.R. (Deaths)
SCOTLAND
  New Technical Colleges
  New Technical Colleges
  Mental Patients (Detention)
  Mental Patients (Detention)
  Technical Colleges, Lanarkshire
  Technical Colleges, Lanarkshire
  New Teacher Training College
  New Teacher Training College
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Fighter Squadron, Thailand
  Fighter Squadron, Thailand
  Personnel, Aden (Families)
  Personnel, Aden (Families)
  Mercy Flights
  Mercy Flights
TRANSPORT
  Motor Cyclists (Crash Helmets)
  Motor Cyclists (Crash Helmets)
  Fares Concessions
  Fares Concessions
  Motor Cars (Safety Belts)
  Motor Cars (Safety Belts)
  Motor Vehicles (Hire)
  Motor Vehicles (Hire)
ROADS
  A.20 Road, West Kingsdown
  A.20 Road, West Kingsdown
  Swanley By-pass
  Swanley By-pass
  Southampton (Road Communications)
  Southampton (Road Communications)
  Tintwistle-Woodhead Road
  Tintwistle-Woodhead Road
  London-Yorkshire Motorway
  London-Yorkshire Motorway
  Hyde Park Corner Underpass
  Hyde Park Corner Underpass
  Traffic Signs (Committee's Report)
  Traffic Signs (Committee's Report)
  M.6 Motorway
  M.6 Motorway
  Lancashire
  Lancashire
  Western Avenue, Cardiff
  Western Avenue, Cardiff
  North Circular Road-Harrow Road
  North Circular Road-Harrow Road
  Three-Lane Roads (Extra Carriageways)
  Three-Lane Roads (Extra Carriageways)
RAILWAYS
  Proposed Closures, Wales
  Proposed Closures, Wales
EMPLOYMENT
  Training Centre, Tursdale
  Training Centre, Tursdale
  CONGO
  CONGO
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Aircraft Carriers (Future Requirements)
  Aircraft Carriers (Future Requirements)
BECHUANALAND
  Currency
  Currency
EDUCATION
  Schools (Water Sanitation)
  Schools (Water Sanitation)
  Heathrow Primary School, Harmondsworth
  Heathrow Primary School, Harmondsworth
NYASALAND
  Constitutional Conference
  Constitutional Conference
  Finance
  Finance
RHODESIA AND NYASALAND
  Grants and Loans
  Grants and Loans
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Central Advisory Water Committee
  Central Advisory Water Committee
POST OFFICE
  Special Stamps
  Special Stamps
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Old People (Telephone Rentals)
  Old People (Telephone Rentals)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Civil Servants (Private Work)
  Civil Servants (Private Work)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Undischarged Bankrupts
  Undischarged Bankrupts
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Poliomyelitis
  Poliomyelitis

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

COMMON LAND LEGISLATION
2.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: 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 still intend to introduce legislation relating to Common Land, as forecast in statements made by them in December, 1959, June, 1960 and November, 1961: and whether they are aware that continued uncertainty as to their intentions in this matter is leading to difficulties in certain cases.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, I regret that so far it has not been possible to introduce legislation on the lines indicated by my right honourable friend on November 6, 1961, but it remains the intention to do so as soon as Parliamentary time permits. I hope that this will remove any uncertainty as to the Government's intention, but I am aware that problems will remain in the meantime.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for the courteous terms in which the reply was given, perhaps I might ask a question arising from it. Since the Royal Commission was set up no less than seven years ago, does he not think that any definite information, even though it may be negative, would be preferable to this policy of "jam to-morrow", which has been going on for the last four years? In other words, if my noble friend really means that there is no likelihood of something being done before, say,
602
the next General Election, would it not be better to say so?
LORD ST. OSWALD: No, my Lords; I could not possibly give that negative information. To begin with, I do not know when the next General Election is to be; and further, it has not been decided in any way at all how soon or how late Parliamentary time will be found for this legislation.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Dartmoor Commons are disastrously overstocked, the grazing never rested and fertilisation rarely carried out? Could not the commoners rest the moor from January to March, and then use the commonland, as was done in the past, to graze only the number of stock which they can raise on their own pastures in the winter?
LORD ST. OSWALD: If I am to reply literally to my noble friend, what I can tell him is this. I have heard such reports, but I have had no official confirmation and I am making inquiries. In reply to his second question, certainly the commoners could do exactly what my noble friend thinks they should do, but no Government can oblige them to do so.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of the wording of the Question and in view of the difficulties of interpreting this monumental work which the Royal Commission have produced, would the noble Lord consider making known from which quarter, if any, some information would more easily be obtained on the many difficulties covered by the Question with regard to the interpretation of matters arising from this law of commons, including the difficulty of procedure for setting up manorial courts and the appointment of the officers therefor?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I do not know how I can help my noble friend at this juncture. As he knows, my right honourable friend has already forecast legislation on the first of the recommendations of the Commission; that is to say, the registration of commons and rights. We think that this is the first stage to be undertaken, and the chief cause at the moment of the uncertainty described by my noble friend who asked

603
the original Question. If my noble friend Lord Barnby has any questions on the interpretation of the Report, which is what I understand is disturbing him, and he will communicate them to me, I will do my best to pass them on to quarters where they can be interpreted. But I am not certain that any interpretation of the Report exists at the moment other than is contained in the terms of the Report itself.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for his reply, and recognise that he says the delay must inevitably occur, may I ask whether, in giving thought to this matter, he can bear in mind the problems which have been developed by the massively increasing registrations of automobiles and the reaction of these on commoners' rights and the manorial rights? There appears to be difficulty in finding what authorities would be or should be applied to and what interpretation should be given.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I think those matters must rest until legislation is framed.

BRITISH WATERWAYS BOARD CHAIRMAN
2.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: 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 is delaying the appointment of a chairman for the new British Waterways Board, whose vesting date is now close upon us.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, my right honourable friend is concerned to find the best available man for this important appointment. He hopes to announce the appointment soon.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, is not one of the troubles that he is suffering under the remarkable shortage
604
of executives of sufficient calibre and experience in this very specialised industry who agree with the Minister's policies?
LORD CHESHAM: Not that I am aware of, my Lords.

GRANTS FOR MUSEUM EXHIBITS
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: 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 when a decision can be expected with regard to special grants which have been applied for by National Museums and other interested bodies to enable them to purchase exhibits of historic interest at present owned by the Royal United Services Institution.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, I would refer the noble Lord to the reply I gave on November 8 to the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, about the National Maritime Museum. The purchase grant of the Scottish United Services Museum is being increased to enable certain items from the Royal United Services Institution Museum to be obtained. The Trustees of the Imperial War Museum have been advised that a special grant of up to £1,500 will be approved should it prove to be necessary. Any requests for special grant from other national museums for this purpose will be considered on their merits.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply. It was these other institutions in which I was interested. Could the noble Earl say that it is still the policy of the Government to facilitate the keeping of these historic relics in this country?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes, my Lords. We will consider any applications that we reoeive from the other museums as sympathetically as we can, having regard to the usual criteria on which we judge these applications.

SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS BILL [H.L.]
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1958. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Somers.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, my moble friend the Leader of the House does not propose to move his Motion on the Order Paper, because it has been agreed, through the usual channels, to take the Motion standing in his name, on the setting up of the Tribunal, not as first Business but at a convenient time after half-past three in order not to anticipate proceedings in another place.
I should also like to take this opportunity of letting your Lordships know that my noble friend Lord Derwent proposes to make a statement on the Japanese Treaty of Commerce, Establishment and Navigation. I accordingly propose that the debate on the Motion in the name of Lady Burton of Coventry should be adjourned art some convenient moment after half-past three, that we should then take the statement of my noble friend Lord Derwont, followed immediately by the Motion of my noble friend the Leader of the House on the setting up of the Tribunal. On the conclusion of that Business the proceedings on the noble Lady's Motion will be resumed.

THE MOLONY REPORT ON CONSUMER PROTECTION
2.46 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY rose to call attention to the Final Report of the Committee on Consumer Protection (Cmnd. 1781); and to move for Papers. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper this afternoon, I think I cannot do better than to start with last July, when several Questions had appeared on the Order
606
Paper, and a noble Lord opposite said to me, "I wish you would tell us who this Molony is." I hope to do that to-day, and I hope that the noble Lord will not regret his request.
It seemed to me that the best way to explain all this was to start at the beginning, and show how I came in. A long time ago, in 1952, I was told that some manufacturers were fighting strongly for the legal interpretation of the word "woollen" to mean merely a process of spinning. This, if it were agreed, would have meant that the terms "woollen" and "worsted" would have been acceptable in the courts as describing rayon suits and dresses. I was no technical expert, but this would have been manifestly absurd—an opinion shared by many trade associations. But it would have been pushed through if the matter had not been brought to the attention of the House. The Drapers' Record on December 20, 1952, said:
"The claim of the Yorkshire firms is absurd. One might as well contend that it would be lawful to describe as 'gold' any article made of a base metal that is processed in the same way as gold. Consumers are entitled to know what they are buying…"
We now come to the case of the pillow and the duck. There was a very downy duck on the cellophane cover of this pillow, but what was implied was not correct. After raising this matter in another place an aggrieved shopper, who had bought one of these pillows, wrote to me and said:
"If the President of the Board of Trade requires proof of these statements you made I can supply it. I recently bought a pillow labelled as having been made by this firm. If any of the feathers in it are not more suitable for decorating a hat, I am prepared to eat the same hat, I will give a representative of the Board of Trade permission to open the pillow and examine the contents for himself."
I may say, my Lords, that the Board of Trade did not feel able to bother with this suggestion. My third and last illustration concerns the problem of "should it be washed or cleaned?"—a problem not only for the customers, but for the laundries and cleaners. On this I received much abuse—pleasant abuse, of course, couched in very Parliamentary terms, including suggestions that I had better go and work in a laundry to see what all this was about; or, alternatively, that I wanted everything run from Whitehall. The debate was not

607
on a very high level, and I think perhaps it was best exemplified by the Conservative M.P. who said:
"I do not know what my shirt is made of but it has got lots of stripes in it. It has been to the laundry several times and still looks respectable…"
Those are only three stories from a wonderful collection, culminating in the advice from the then President of the Board of Trade that people who thought they had cause for complaint should go to a solicitor. The Drapers' Record of April 10, 1954, said on this:
"What an instruction to consumers in general, including all those who cannot afford to consult a lawyer, let alone pay him to compile the necessary evidence and, if need be, launch a prosecution …".
Going on to speak of the Merchandise Marks Act, the Drapers' Record had this to say:
"Unless this legislation is rigorously enforced its provisions will soon be ignored by the dishonest. We regard it as the duty of the Board of Trade to protect consumers and traders in this matter."
I would add here—although it is quite unnecessary, I am sure—that the Drapers' Record is not a political publication but one of the highest reputation in the drapery trade.
In all these matters, over all this time, the Board of Trade were completely unhelpful—unhelpful presumably because the Government did not believe that these were matters meriting their attention. In fact, the maxim for the Government was caveat emptor!: let the buyer beware! However, during 1955 their attitude showed signs of changing. Gradually more prosecutions were undertaken; sometimes at Question Time answers were, "Yes" instead of, "No"; and suddenly, in July, 1959, just prior to the General Election, a Committee was set up under Mr. Justice Molony to review the working of the existing legislation relating to merchandise marks and certification trade marks and to consider and report what changes in the law and what other measures, if any, were desirable for the further protection of the consuming public.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble Lady, but just for the Record and to get her speech right, he is not Mr. Justice Molony; he is Mr. Molony.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: I thank the noble Lord very much. I obviously promoted him as such.
Three years later, in July of this year, the Committee reported. My Lords, the Government, with what might almost be called indecent haste, accepted the main proposal on the following day, July 26. The main proposal really consists of two parts—and I quote:
"There is need, we think, for two positive measures of a general character: the provision of a local advisory service to which the consumer can turn for guidance and help, and the creation of a national body charged with the overall duty of protecting his interest."
We on this side of the House accept and welcome such a recommendation. Molony says—and I hope noble Lords will not take amiss references to the Molony Report being shortened to "Molony"; no discourtesy is intended:
"In the last 25 years, particularly in the last ten, enormous changes have taken place in commerce in ways profoundly affecting the consumer. We instance the marketing of new synthetic materials, the introduction of self-service buying, the development of advertising and packaging techniques. There is no reason to doubt that the next 25 years will see equally startling changes."
I think that people should be better informed about such changes, and not told what to buy but given the information on which to buy; and I think an apt comment on this point could be taken from the Observer newspaper of July, 1960, when it said:
"'Let the buyer beware' is not only the law's general attitude, but sound practical advice as well. His trouble may be, however, that he does not know what to beware of…".
As I said a moment ago, the Government accepted the main proposal of the Molony Report when the Prime Minister said on July 26 last [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 663, col. 1765]:
"The Report of the Molony Committee was published yesterday…The Government have decided to accept the proposal to set up a Consumer Council."
For the purposes of this debate I am assuming that this means acceptance of the proposal linked, in my opinion, in-dissolubly with it for the provision of a local advisory service.
My Lords, in Great Britain a good deal of consumer advice work has been going on for many years and various organisations, particularly the women's organisations, have done much consumer

609
advice work, while some Consumer Councils have been set up in connection with nationalised industries. All this work, however, is loose and disjointed. Some people do not even know that it exists; and those who do have no idea how to get their view expressed in the right quarter. The two organisations which are probably best known to the general public are the Consumers' Association Limited, publishers of Which?, and the British Standards Institution, whose Consumer Advisory Council published Shopper's Guide until very recently but for which a new and independent Consumer Advisory Trust has now been established. As we know, one is always in a difficulty in mentioning some names but not all. However, I wish to pay tribute to the Retail Trading Standards Association and to its Director, Mr. Roger Diplock, who has done so much to help the consumer as well as the trader.
I turn now to a matter which I think we should examine in some detail, the Citizens' Advice Bureaux. But immediately before I do so I must put on the record that my noble friends and I, and indeed all the consumer organisations with whom I have discussed the matter, would have made this Consumer Council much more radical. We are doubtful if it has been given teeth strong enough really to do the job. What I am going to say to-day is based on this foundation, because I and my friends want to see this Council work. The section dealing with the Citizens' Advice Bureaux commences on page 160 and the relevant recommendations are 108, 109 and 110. As I said a moment ago, part of the Report's main proposal is the provision of a local advisory service to which the consumer can turn for guidance and help. Molony suggests that this can best be done by Citizens' Advice Bureaux who would thus handle all complaints.
I have a very high opinion of the work of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux. I am sure it is known to us all and I would think everyone in this House shares that high opinion. It has become particularly well known to people in connection with its work concerning the Rent Act, but, as you and I know, it handles all types of complaints and I think specifically I would mention here complaints arising out of hire purchase. The system is that the majority of these complaints are dis-
610
posed of at local level. Some are recommended to trade organisations such as the R.T.S.A., and some to Members of Parliament, as many of us know quite well. Secondly, where the Bureaux worker is in doubt the case is referred to the centre, their own national Committee. Thirdly, where legal advice is necessary the local bureau can direct the inquirer on the right lines because they keep lists of solicitors on the voluntary and statutory Legal Advice Panels, and forms of application for advice under the statutory scheme.
I myself have always favoured and recommended that in connection with some central Consumer Council responsibility locally might rest with a C.A.B. or with an extra person at the offices of the local authority. But I had not envisaged that this responsibility nationally should be taken away from the Central Council. The first reactions from consumer organisations and from people knowledgeable on consumer matters was one of doubt, and I was myself doubtful too; but for two reasons I felt this must be given a trial. The first reason was one I have already mentioned, my high opinion of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux; and my second opinion was a realisation we all share, that this must be a political decision and if the Government are prepared to agree then we must see if it will work.
I have had, since the publication of the Report, personal lengthy discussion with the C.A.B. centrally. There were, and there are, certain doubts in my mind and it is these that I should like to mention now, but I would wish to emphasise that anything I say should be laid at my door and not at the door of the C.A.B. The first problem that I raised with them was one concerning technical appraisement or technical advice. I ask them how they are going to deal with this, because throughout the country some bureaux must be stronger than others but everyone would have this problem. If somebody comes in to see you with some goods on which they want an opinion they may be goods they have brought with them and you can look at them on the spot; or they may be goods they want somebody to come and see. In many cases they may require real technical knowledge. I wanted to know how the bureaux were going to cope with this.

611
Obviously they had given it a great deal of thought. They realised that the cost of such investigation would not be small and might be out of all proportion to the value of the articles involved. Furthermore, even if the customer could afford to pay this he might well not be willing to do so. Yet the bureaux argued that to expect that the cost of every investigation that seemed to be justified should be made by public funds would be uneconomic, and they hoped that the majority of complaints would be covered by these three aspects: one, enforcement of the Merchandise Marks Act; two, by the help of trade associations with good testing facilities; three, by the help of local authorities in instances of outstanding importance or need.
I do not think that is going to meet the case. I believe it is absolutely essential that this problem of technical advice is dealt with, and I wish to make a proposal to the Government. I think that, attached to this central Consumer Council, as part of its set-up, there must be technical advice available; and to begin with I think this technical advice should cover four main classes of goods, the four main classes of goods mentioned in the Report as giving rise to the largest number of complaints over past years (that is to say, clothing and textiles, footwear, carpets, and electrical appliances), so that any local citizens' advice bureau which has merchandise brought to it on which it cannot get good technical advice itself or locally would refer the matter to the centre.
The second point I asked the Citizens'Advice Bureaux was whether they felt that a complete picture of the complaints position throughout the country would be made available to the central Consumer Council; in other words, would this central Consumer Council, at the end of each year if you like, know the position in the country and be able to recommend to the Government if certain changes were necessary in any type of procedure? The Citizens' Advice Bureaux told me that they did envisage this being done, but they said it would have to be done by sample; they would not have the staff for more detailed analysis. I want to tell the Government quite definitely that it is essential, if
612
this Consumer Council is to work, that this complete picture is presented to it, and I want to tell them what I am sure the House will realise, that a skilled technical staff will be necessary for this purpose.
The third point I raised with the Citizens' Advice Bureaux, and I did it with some diffidence, was the question of finance. I did it with some diffidence because it is quite obvious that Molony has arrived at his financial estimates after discussions with the Citizens' Advice Bureaux, and I do not think that they asked for nearly enough money. As your Lordships will know, the Citizens' Advice Bureaux centrally receive a grant at present from the Minister of Housing and Local Government of £5,000 per annum, and it is suggested in the Report that they should receive an additional grant rising at the end of two years to £35,000 per annum. I said to the Citizens' Advice Bureaux, "Do you really think this is enough money to do the job?"I understood from them that they had two problems here, and the first problem was this: they were very anxious that they should not seem to receive from anywhere a grant greatly out of proportion to any other grant (received toy them for any other aspect of their work; and, arising from that, as of course the Minister of State will know, was the anxiety of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux that this particular work, this local advisory service, should not seem to dominate the other work done by them.
The second point which they made to me and which I thought was of great significance was that they did not feel they would have sufficient staff at the beginning to justify asking for more money, because it takes three years for the Citizens Advice Bureaux to train their workers, and after that training is continuous.
My fourth point leads on from that before I comment on it. I asked whether they were not alarmed at the rush of work which would probably ensue if this Council were set up and this local advisory service were given to them to run. Because I assured them that I should certainly do my best to see that a lot of publicity gave rise to a great deal of work coming their way. They had considered this and were worried about it.

613
The point I want to make, with great emphasis, is that I do not think all the implications here have been sufficiently recognised. If a local advisory service of this nature is to be set up I consider this to be of even greater urgency than the setting up of a Consumer Council, because the Consumer Council cannot function without it.
Now I would make three remarks on behalf of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux, although they have not asked me to do so. The first is that if they are asked by the Government to accept this work, and if they accept, they would hope that their decision would be acceptable to all political Parties. Secondly, they could not function on any Party basis. Thirdly, they would not be willing to embark on work which might be changed according to which political Party was in power. I am quite sure that the House would accept all those points. I personally should desire the Citizens' Advice Bureaux to succeed, but I am left with one doubt. Can this job be done by the Citizens' Advice Bureaux without its becoming a very large proportion of their work. I do not believe that it can. I wonder what the Citizens' Advice Bureaux would feel about this if I were to be proved right.
My Lords, we come now logically to the second part of the main proposal, the proposal to set up a Consumer Council, and to the acceptance by the Government of it. I do not intend to weary the House by reading pages from the Molony Report. All details in connection with this point will be found on page 315, in recommendations 197 to 205. But I think your Lordships will agree that recommendation 197 is an effective summary—and I quote:
" We recommend the creation of a Consumer Council to ascertain and review the problems experienced by the consumer. and to devise and advance the means of resolving them."
This is amplified in paragraphs 849 and 850. But there are certain definite jobs that the Council is not to do. It is not to be entrusted with the preparation and publication of comparative test reports. I myself, in a booklet published in January, 1955, never envisaged the Council doing such testing itself; rather should it make use of the many first-class testing laboratories and testing
614
houses in operation to-day. But I did envisage it making the results known to a mass audience.
There is considerable anxiety on this point, especially among consumer organisations, and perhaps the Minister of State would help us there when he comes to reply. As we know, the Council is not to receive or deal with shoppers' complaints. We have discussed that already. Neither is it to be entrusted with criminal or civil enforcement action which has to be done by local authorities. On this point I find experienced opinion very divided. I do not know what the Minister has found. One school of thought is prepared to give it a trial, if it can be assured that the Consumer Council will be kept fully informed of the position throughout the country; in other words, what cases have been brought, and the results, and what further cases local authorities would have liked to bring. Others say that only the larger local authorities could cope and that many would have to be strengthened considerably for the job. Furthermore, they make a very relevant point: how will local authorities accept guidance and suggestion if this seems to conflict with their local autonomy?
The third point of view is that it seems essential for the Consumer Council or the Board of Trade to have a planned system of prosecutions so that local authorities could send the substance of cases to the centre for advice, if they so wished. For example, the R.T.S.A. has had to warn against taking cases in the past; and so, I am sure, has the Board of Trade. My last school of thought felt that this would be much better left with the local authorities, taking the viewpoint that nothing could be worse than leaving the initiative with the Board of Trade who had failed so lamentably here in the past. Noble Lords will perhaps be aware that in another place on Monday last this same criticism was voiced from all sides of the House, even from the Government side. I will not add to the Government's burden by giving figures, but as the Minister will probably know they offer much to be ashamed of until the tide of public opinion forced a change of attitude in 1955. I have the figures here, if the Minister wants them. But we should all welcome some further enlightenment from him when he speaks,

615
because this aspect is worrying many people.
Obviously, the success of this Council will depend primarily upon its Chairman, who will be expected to devote half his time to the business of the Council at a payment of £3,000 per annum. The full Council, it is suggested, should consist of 10 to 12 persons other than the Chairman, at a payment of £500 per annum. It is further suggested that an interest in trade, industry or advertising should not be a bar to appointment on the Council. Although there are conflicting opinions here, I think the proviso is right. I should, however, like to ask: does it apply to the Chairman; and, if it does, should it? It is not a case of doubting the impartiality of any Chairman. As your Lordships know in some matters that is not enough. It is not only a case of being impartial, but of being seen to be impartial. Perhaps the Minister would comment on this point, and also on the actual amount of time which the Government envisage members of the Council will be expected to give to the work. Other speakers will be commenting on the Consumer Council; so I will leave that matter for now, merely adding that I am quite convinced Chat the proposed budget is inadequate.
This brings me to a matter that has caused me some anxiety—what I would describe as the defeatist attitude of Molony, which keeps reappearing from time to time as one goes through the Report. I have felt that at times undue attention is given in the Report to cost. Obviously, the spending of the taxpayers' money is something to be considered most carefully, but in certain instances (and I will quote some of them) I should have thought that the gains would far outstrip the cost; and I should greatly welcome the opinion of the House, and of course the Minister, on this particular point. In so far as mass media are concerned, on page 283 (paragraph 860) the Report says, speaking of the Council:
"We would not permanently deny it the right to use other methods of disseminating consumer information, e.g. Press advertisements, television; but the initial grant we recommend is not intended to cover such expensive forms of publicity."
Why on earth not? I am sure that everyone in this House is in favour of competition. But let it be fair competition.
616
I would ask the Minister, what is the use of having competition if one of the contestants has one of his hands tied behind his back? I would warn him, here and now, that I am quite convinced that this Consumer Council will not have any chance of success unless it is able financially to compete on mass media with other trade organisations.
The second point that I want to raise under this defeatist aspect is the question of the Kitemark. As noble Lords will know, the Kitemark is the mark of the British Standards Institution denoting a certain standard. I have had a lot of hard things to say about the B.S.I. in the past, and I am sure that I shall in the future, but I think their Kitemark was useful. The Molony Committee apparently found it useful, too, because they say, at page 86, paragraph 273:
"Recognising as we do that British Standards are of value to the consumer, we would not argue against attempts to make them better known. But we consider that the cost of a major publicity campaign would be altogether disproportionate to the likely results in terms both of public reaction and of ultimate benefit to the consumer, and that any such effort would be a waste of public funds from which it is alone realistic to suppose that such an operation could be financed."
I do not accept that, and I would ask the Minister whether he would consider that paragraph 69 in this Report is regarded as defeatist in outlook by a great many people other than myself, who feel that it is far too ready to accept the views of people who do not like the Kitemark. That is an honestly held opinion.
My last point under this defeatist aspect is the question of consumer research—I am sorry to give your Lordships three quotations in a row; I have tried to avoid them. At page 287 (paragraph 873) there is a sentence which reads:
"We regard consumer research, in the sense of investigating the type and characteristics of goods needed by the consumer, as a consumer luxury and not an essential feature of a system of protection (except in regard to safety aspects)."
I, and many other people, reject this entirely. Surely,
"research into consumer needs, such as work study problems of the home and the housewife, is much more constructive than collecting consumer complaints after the wrong products have been manufactured. This is recognised in other countries."

617
I took that comment from a letter in The Times on August 4 last, but I feel with this whole question of consumer research that marketing should start with the customer's requirements and not with what is produced.
I would suggest with due diffidence to this House that today we are faced with the problem that market research has inevitably become involved with advertising, and advertising now not only notifies a given supply but stimulates and directs demand. So I think it is true to say that, at the present time, while a large part of our economic activity is obviously devoted to supplying known needs, a considerable and increasing part of it goes to ensure that we consume what industry finds it convenient to produce. Is this wrong? I do not think so. But it leads me to one definite conclusion—namely that basic research is urgently needed to supplement the limited objectives of existing consumer organisations, to research into the goods and services not on the market, into the consumer's image of the product, into the basis of his purchasing habits and decisions, into his real needs, and, finally, into choice itself.
Paragraph 873, from which I quoted the opening sentence, concludes in this way:
"We accept the possibility, however, that the Council might legitimately wish to commission research into the scope and impact of certain consumer problems, not presently identifiable."
This is not strong enough, and I trust the Government will make financial provision for such essentials as I have outlined here, and others in the same category.
Now I come to advertising, which noble Lords will find dealt with in the Report from page 238 onwards, covered by a mass of recommendations numbered 176 to 196. The Report says:
"Much disquiet was expressed to us about modern methods of advertising."
As your Lordships may know—I have said it before—I am no opponent of advertising. I think it has two main functions—to inform and to sell; and I think we would all agree that honest advertising and sensible consumer protection both have a part to play in making our economy more efficient and more dynamic. We shall probably not
618
get a better ruling upon advertising than that given recently by the United States Supreme Court:
"Advertising as a whole must not create a misleading impression even though every statement separately considered is literally truthful."
The Board of Trade has obviously become aware of public disquiet, just as Molony had. Mr. Niall Macpherson, then Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, speaking at the Advertising Association Conference in May last, said this:
"As people become more and more aware of advertising, they are becoming more and more conscious and critical of the content of advertising."
Mr. David Price, now in the same official position, speaking at the Fourth Conference of the Advertising Clubs, on September 29 last, said this:
"In the months that lie ahead, advertising practice is bound to come under close scrutiny in Parliament and elsewhere, and the judgment of the public on the value of what is done in advertising will, to a large extent, be influenced by decisions made by each of you as individuals."
Mr. Price went on to say that he was sure the conference would bear in mind how their decisions would affect not merely those directly concerned—clients, agents and the media—but, much more importantly, the public as consumers. That is Government opinion, my Lords.
What does the industry feel about it? Well, the industry has recognised the criticism, and the Advertising Association has set about improving the situation. The British Code of Advertising Practice has been revised; and for the moment I will leave this point with the comment that a great deal will depend on the way in which its provisions are interpreted and applied. There has been set up a special joint committee, to be called the Code of Advertising Practice Committee, charged with the duties of co-ordinating interpretation of the Code. This will, I hope, remove one considerable drawback, which is that at the moment some advertisements rejected by one medium are accepted by another. Molony continues, on page 258 of the Report:
"To ensure that the standard of judgment of the Code of Advertising Practice Committee and of the Copy Committees is properly maintained, there is also to be established a further body—to be known as 'The Advertising Standards Authority'…".

619
As your Lordships will know, this has now been established with Sir Arnold Plant as chairman. Most fair-minded people with whom I have discussed this matter are prepared to give this new setup a fair trial. Even those who have been most critical realise that the advertising industry has obviously recognised the criticism and done something about it. My Lords, have they done enough? Here I have one general comment and three specific details by way of practical illustration, because I think we have to be practical about this. The general comment is that the Advertising Association and its affiliates are prepared to meet the expenses of this Authority while allowing to it autonomy and authority. But I must ask, would this autonomy and authority not have been better exemplified if either the Code of Advertising Practice Committee or the Authority under Sir Arnold Plant had been invested with the right to initiate proposals for the amendment of the code? I have looked at this very carefully and can find no indication that they have this right. I would greatly appreciate the Minister's comment on this point.
My three specific details by way of practical illustration are these: switch selling, bait advertising, and one-day carpet sales. I do not know whether any of your Lordships has ever had people on your doorstep trying to sell goods to you by the technique of switch selling. If you have, I can only rest assured that your one criticism of me on this particular point to-day will be that I am being far too moderate. There is an excellent description of switch selling in paragraph 743 and Molony comments:
"Sometimes the advertised article is not even produced for inspection, 'stocks having been exhausted due to unprecedented demand …'."
There was certainly no defeatism about his feeling that there should be the most stringent switch selling provisions in the new Advertising Code when he said:
"We emphasise that this is no matter of taste or opinion but a case where newspaper columns are used to promote a most reprehensible trading practice."
On the question of bait advertising the prescribed reading for your Lordships is paragraph 746, but recommendation 190
620
of Molony reminds us that this is a very real problem, When it says:
"'Bait advertising' still continues and may be resumed on its earlier scale unless vigilance is maintained."
One-day carpet sales will be found in paragraph 753, but, commenting on this in recommendation 195, Molony says:
"The most objectionable feature of 'one-day carpet sales' should be kept in check by the recommended amendments of Merchandise Marks law."
My Lords, I return to the advertiser much more than to the Merchandise Marks Act, and for this reason. In the Report, as the Minister will know, we are told that established retailers are irritated to see the newspapers in which they regularly advertise carrying the necessary announcement of the impending sale. I should like to give your Lordships one example of this—I am conscious of the time, my Lords.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): It is perfectly all right.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: I thank the noble Viscount. It is very good of him. For example, a carpet sale in East Anglia produced so many complaints that investigations were made. The newspaper concerned was not helpful. In regard to this advertisement I hope your Lordships will just listen to these four paints. The firm was not registered at the Business Names Registry; the address given in the advertisement was a semi-detached bungalow in a residential district; there was no visible indication that a business was being conducted from this house, and inquiries made disclosed that no person with the relevant name lived at this address. The hawker's licence number shown in the advertisement was granted to a person at a particular address. This last address was that of a turf accountant, who stated that a person of this name stayed for a short time in her caravan in the rear of the premises. I know—and I hope the Minister of State does not mind my acknowledging his nodding his head in assent—that this sort of thing cannot be allowed to continue. It is dishonest and a disgrace to advertising. To my way of thinking, on a practical basis, if the industry and its new Authority allow such practices to continue it will

621
mean that both are ineffective or insincere—which I do not believe. But the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
Now, my Lords, I come to the last section, and I thank you for your patience. On page 6 of the Report, paragraph 16, there is a statement which I regard as fundamental to this whole Report and to these proposals. I should like to read it:
"We further recognised that the welfare impulse of modern society requires intervention in aid of those least able to protect themselves as soon as the threat of exploitation becomes active."
These are the people we must help, those least able to protect themselves. In the following examples, three in number, but really coming under the two heads of "Guarantees" and "Hire purchase", the Report fails to do this. I think that both are of sufficient social importance for the Government to reconsider ultimate policy. In the section on "Guarantees", on page 131 onwards, the Report has this to say:
"Most important of all, the manufacturer may make himself the sole judge of whether or not there is a defect, and whether or not it was inherent. The effect is to deny the purchaser any enforceable claim to have a defect made good free of cost. For reasons such as these the purchaser's rights under the guarantee card are extremely restricted—although it might take a skilled interpreter of documents to demonstrate it—and if he gets reasonable satisfaction on complaining of a defect it is because the manufacturer chooses to be generous."
And this generosity, my Lords, is not universal.
The Report goes on to say, speaking of the customer:
" He has spent good money for an article which has broken down for reasons which, if divulged at all, are shrouded in such a technical fog that he can neither understand nor verify them, and which have arisen in the course of careful and reasonable use."
I am sure that all reasonable people will agree with this—I certainly do. You might well say, apart from anything else, "Then why bring it before this House?" I am bringing it before you, my Lords, because of the incredible recommendations following such statements. Recommendation 90 tells us:
"The difficulties and demerits of any system of control requiring registration or approval would outweigh the benefits."
622
Nothing could be more defeatist than that. Paragraph 91 says:
"In view of the potential value of guarantees for the consumer the proper course is for manufacturers to amend their terms so as to match legitimate consumer expectations."
My Lords, that is well-wishing of the worst quality, and worth exactly nothing. The arguments in favour of these recommendations I just do not accept. Nor do the people with whom I have discussed the matter; and I would emphasise that these are people with a great deal of experience. I would ask the Minister of State to understand that these people say, concerning paragraph 423, that they see no reason why there should not be a creation of a new criminal offence. They feel, and I agree with them, that this particular paragraph is very strongly a "trade" paragraph—and I put the word "trade" in inverted commas. They were also of the opinion that the Report is incorrect when it states that action might deter manufacturers from further issue of guarantees. On the contrary, my informants believe that reputable manufacturers would cooperate. I believe that all guarantees should be registered and approved by the Board of Trade.
Now, my Lords, on the matter of hire purchase there has been a strong plea for the simplification and compulsory standardisation of agreements, but the Molony Report, in recommendation 115, does not agree. It says:
"Neither simplified language, standard form agreements, nor larger print would markedly restrain the over-persuaded or impetuous hirer from undertaking imprudent obligations."
That statement, again, I do not accept, and neither does the informed opinion I prefer to accept. But there is in the Report a suggestion that there should be a 72-hour cooling-off period, allowing people who have signed hire-purchase agreements to give notice in writing within 72 hours of that—but only at a place other than a retail establishment.
I was the Member of Parliament for Coventry, South, for ten years, and during that time many complaints about hire purchase came my way. I think I should not be exaggerating if I said that practically every one came from the type of shop that you and I, and the reputable side of the hire purchase industry, would like to see swept out of business—the shoddy, flashy type of shop, where the

623
types of customer whom I have in mind are so terrified by the overbearing salesman that they have no chance. Not one of those shops, and not one of those complaints which I dealt with over ten years, would be covered by this recommendation. I could take your Lordships to shops here in the central part of London which are a disgrace to the community, and where these practices, these shocking hire-purchase practices, still go on. I would ask the Government to agree with the many people with whom I have discussed this matter, who say that the 72-hour delay should apply to all hire-purchase transactions, and who think that reputable shops would not dissent if the matter were put to them in the proper light.
Now, thanking the Lord President for his patience, I see that my notes say at the top, "In conclusion". My Lords, none of us here would deny that voluntary action is often greatly helped and expedited by the realisation that, should it not be forthcoming, something will be done. I refer your Lordships to the problem of women's wear and, while I speak only for the seven women Members of this House, your Lordships' families will echo what I am going to say. In sizing we have chaos, and even the Molony Report speaks of the "jungle" of O.S., 38 and size 18. I do not know your problems, my Lords, but I can tell you our problems when we go into a shop and ask for a size 16 or a size 18. Some hang on us like a sack, and others we cannot zip up, because we cannot get into them. All we have been asking—and we have asked it for many years—is that the same number should mean the same thing in all shops and for all manufacturers. As the Report declares:
"there is a sorry history of many years of trade argument and bickering which has prevented the evolution and adoption of this useful aid to the woman shopper".
It comes out with the recommendation that if agreement is not reached within twelve months action should be taken.
What do we get? We get the Drapers' Record (I have no interest in it, but perhaps three quotations over ten years are not too many) saying this on August 4 last:
624
"Molony Sizing Jolt Looks Like Doing The Trick. The sharp nudge on women's sizing given to the trade last week by the Molony Report will undoubtedly lead to a voluntary agreement within the next twelve months…all sections now seem determined to prove that it is not they who have delayed settlement on a reasonable nomenclature."
It just shows, my Lords, what can be done. With great trepidation I ask the Lord President of the Council if he will excuse what I have been told is dog-Latin, because I have none better, but in fact we are no longer having the caveat emptor! of the 'fifties, but the caveat vendor! of the 'sixties.—Let the seller beware!
I apologise for the length of time I have taken. Your Lordships may find it hard to believe, but I have tried to condense my remarks as much as possible. However, it seemed important that basic points should be discussed in some detail before the Government announced definite steps in procedure, especially where these are recognised unequivocally to be the responsibility of Government. My Lords, I have an axe to grind to-day, one in which I hope most people in this House on all sides will share, the axe of the consumer and reputable industry, both of which have much to gain from what we are discussing to-day. I beg to move for Papers.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think this is the first time I have heard the noble Lady from the Dispatch Box, and perhaps she will, therefore, allow me to take the opportunity to do what I am about to do—to congratulate her on what was, at any rate so far as I remember, her first appearance there, and to say that the House very greatly enjoyed her well arranged and well informed speech. However, as we have now reached what the advertisers call a natural break in the programme, I feel that this should be the moment that I, by arrangement, move that the debate be now adjourned, in order, first of all, to allow my noble friend to make a statement, and, thereafter, to allow the House to discuss the Motion which stands in my name.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

TREATY OF COMMERCE, ESTAB LISHMENT AND NAVIGATION WITH JAPAN
3.38 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade has this afternoon made a statement in another place about the Treaty of Commerce, Establishment and Navigation between the United Kingdom and Japan. This is the statement in my right honourable friend's own words:
"The Treaty was signed this morning. Copies of the text are available to the House, together with a Command Paper summarising the history of the negotiations and explaining the effect of the Treaty and associated arrangements.
"The essence of this Treaty is the exchange of most-favoured-nation rights and, in some cases, national rights between the two countries as regards the treatment of persons, companies, shipping and goods. Safeguards against disruptive competition are provided in the associated arrangements. The safeguards are: first, continued control of a number of specially sensitive items by export restriction in Japan or import restriction in the United Kingdom: and, second, a general safeguard for use in the event of disruptive competition developing in any sector of trade. When the Treaty comes into force, Britain will cease to invoke Article XXXV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, thereby entering into relations with Japan under the General Agreement.
"Since the rapid expansion of Japan's economy was first accompanied, some two years ago, by real progress in the liberalisation of her import trade, the conclusion of a Treaty on these lines has been a major objective of Government policy.
"To enable our exporters to reap the full benefits of the expanding market it was necessary to obtain guarantees that our trade would be as well treated as that of countries, such as Germany and the United States, who were in G.A.T.T. relations with Japan; and to provide a normal and settled basis of commercial relations
626
for trade between the two countries to replace the annually negotiated trade arrangements. The need for a Treaty has been equally recognised by representatives of industrial opinion with first-hand knowledge of developments in Japan.
"The rate of expansion of the Japanese economy in the last few years has far exceeded that of other industrial free-enterprise countries. Our exports to Japan have increased by about two-thirds in the last two years. Liberalisation of imports by Japan goes steadily forward. With relations now on a sound basis, I believe that our exports to Japan will continue to grow and there should be increasing opportunities for the profitable exchange of know-how between the two countries.
"Some sections of industry have, I know, been doubtful whether the general safeguard is an effective protection. I firmly believe that their fears are exaggerated. Under this safeguard we may consult the Japanese Government if there is an increase in imports of any product under conditions which cause or threaten serious injury to our manufacturers. In an emergency we can impose import restrictions at any time after consultation has begun, retaining them as long as they are needed. But we may hope that the necessity for this will rarely, if ever, arise, since it is reasonable to expect that the Japanese Government will readily co-operate with us to avoid a situation in which we would be compelled to reintroduce restrictions on Japanese trade.
"The Treaty is likely to be ratified and come into force in April or May of next year. The current trade arrangement has been renewed to cover the interval. During this period there will be some relaxations on our side, not affecting textile goods. Relaxations on the Japanese side will offer substantially increased opportunities to our exporters of wool cloth, whisky, cars and machine tools."
My Lords, that is the statement.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the Minister for giving us this statement. I understand that the actual

627
terms of the Treaty will be laid on the Table and that we shall have a limited period in which we can raise certain questions. I note the safeguards referred to in the statement, and I just wonder whether the noble Lord can tell me in advance if, in cases of commodities which are already restricted by voluntary agreement in the case of Hong Kong, India and Pakistan, the same conditions will apply from the beginning of this Treaty in respect of Japan.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I just add that I think this agreement will be welcomed by all the House, but that I would call it a rather nervous and tentative Treaty? On the other hand, we are glad to see that, after all these years, the Government are reducing tariffs and abandoning protection, and aiming towards the target of free trade. As regards the noble Viscount's question on what he calls the voluntary restriction of commodities from Hong Kong, I rather trust the same principles will not be applied in this case.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am not sure that I can answer the noble Viscount. As I understand it, the arrangements under this Treaty are temporary arrangements, and eventually we shall come into full G.A.T.T. relationship with Japan. The Treaty will lie for 21 days, I think, and the details of the safeguards will be attached to it and will be able to be seen. I do not think I can quite answer offhand the point put by the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I should have thought that that information would have been readily available to the Minister from his Department. You know what the actual arrangements are at present in respect of Hong Kong, and how much they have been debated, from one side or another, by manufacturers in this country. I should have thought we ought to be able to know straight away. We will examine the facts themselves when the Paper is laid, but we ought to have been able to know this afternoon on this one vital point.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I myself felt a certain amount of difficulty
628
as to the exact point which the noble Viscount was seeking to put to my noble friend, and I know he felt under the same difficulty. For that reason, I hope the noble Viscount will be able to put it down on the Paper so as to give him a chance of considering it. On a matter of this kind it is very much more important to be accurate than it is to be quick in one's answers. I would therefore ask the noble Viscount to bear with us and to toll us precisely what it is he has in mind, in order that we may be quite sure to give a right answer.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I wonder if I might ask whether there is in this Treaty a ratification clause. Is it subject to ratification?
LORD DERWENT: Yes, it is; and, as I said, it is likely to be ratified next April or May.
LORD KILLEARN: That bears on the point which the noble Viscount made.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I had precisely the same point in mind as the noble Viscount opposite. Perhaps I can explain it to my noble friend. Hong Kong, India and Pakistan are at the moment voluntarily restricting their exports of cloth, and made-up garments to some extent, to this country to avoid ruining the Lancashire industry. Is the Japanese cotton industry going to be allowed, from the beginning, to export cotton goods freely to this country, or is there going to be some corresponding restriction on them?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think that inevitably answers itself, if arrangements are voluntary in one case and are regulated by what my noble friend has just said in another. I should think that the correct course would be to read carefully what my noble friend has said, and to compare it with the nature of the voluntary arrangements; but they are clearly not quite in pari materia.
LORD REA: My Lords, whilst this point is, of course, important to manufacturers, I hope the Government will remember that the consumer is much more important than any manufacturer.

THE VASSALL CASE TRIBUNAL
3.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM rose to move to resolve, That it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., the circumstances in which offences under the Official Secrets Acts were committed by William John Christopher Vassall, and in particular:

(1) The allegations made that the presence of another spy inside the Admiralty was known to the First Lord and his Service chiefs after the Portland case eighteen months ago;

(2) any other allegations which have been or may be brought to their attention, reflecting similarly on the honour and integrity of persons who, as Ministers, naval officers and civil servants, were concerned in the case;

(3) any breaches of security arrangements which took place; and

(4) any neglect of duty by persons directly or indirectly responsible for Vassall's employment and conduct, and for his being treated as suitable for employment on secret work.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I now rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Your Lordships will, I think, have observed that the terms of reference contained in this Motion are apt to cover both the original terms of reference submitted to the three civil servants and certain other matters with which I will deal in more detail in due course. My Lords, in view of these terms of reference the House will wish to know—and I think probably at an early stage in my remarks will wish to know—the proposed composition of the Tribunal. This is not an easy matter, as there are now two broad types of question which are closely interlocked. The original subject-matter of the inquiry for the three civil servants is, at least in my judgment, and perhaps in that of the House, just as important as it ever was, but it cannot now be separated from the more sensational matter, which personally I regret but which has since supervened through, I think, no fault of our own.
The Tribunal has therefore got to be such as is competent to deal, both with
630
the limited and highly technical subject-matter of security and with the broader inquiry which has now become necessary—and, quite obviously, this makes the choice of personnel both crucial and, I would say, difficult. Happily, we think we have succeeded. If the House passes the Motion, the new Tribunal will take over from the civil servants and also will embark upon the broader terms of reference. Two of the members have special experience and qualifications in addition to their legal qualifications: the remaining member has previous experience of a Tribunal of this type. My Lords, his special combination of qualifications and experience render, I would have thought, the noble Viscount, Lord Radcliffe, almost an inevitable Chairman. I am happy to say that he has agreed to act; and that Mr. Justice Barry and Sir Edward Milner Holland would also be willing, as they are in my judgment well qualified, to serve.
My Lords, since I do not anticipate that the Motion will be opposed, I could, of course, pass this moment off with a purely formal speech. Since, however, there has been a change in Government policy, and since there are certain matters upon which both I, as an individual, and my colleagues in the Government feel strongly, I feel that Parliament is entitled to an account of the reasons which have led us to our change of view, and I know that my right honourable friend in another place is taking the same view on the parallel Motion.
Your Lordships will not require to be told that this Motion—in identical terms with that in another place—constitutes the constitutional mechanism whereby is set up a Tribunal of Inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921. My Lords, this is, in my judgment, a formidable engine of (inquiry, with compulsory powers of inquisition, and, in my opinion, it should be set up very sparingly. It is within my recollection that on every occasion I can remember when it has been set up in my professional career or in my public life—for example, the "Thomas" Budget leak, the Lynskey Tribunal, the Parker Bank Rate Inquiry, and the Caithness Police Inquiry—the Press has, on every one of these occasions, rightly commented on the inquisitorial nature of the procedure

631
and the hardship endured by witnesses and others submitted, without a charge being made, to searching examination on oath about their affairs and transactions originally, ordinarily and properly intended to remain private. I notice—I could not help noticing—that the same point was taken by Mr. Silverman in another place yesterday.
I was close enough to the centre of events—the House will forgive me—in the Bank Rate Inquiry to know that bitter feelings were aroused in persons wholly innocent of any offence who were perfectly properly submitted to impartial comment and examination by the then Attorney-General or by the members of the Tribunal itself. We should not overlook the fact that this is a formidable instrument of Government, and I should not like it to be thought that we have invoked it lightly here.
Your Lordships will be aware that the Act enables the Tribunal in its own discretion to hold the whole or any part of its hearings in private. It may be—it is not for me to say, but it may be—that the Tribunal here may decide to avail themselves to some extent at least, of this right. If so, the criterion in doing so would be, under the terms of the Statute, the public interest—and only the public interest—and not the feelings of any parties who may be interested.
Of course, if it were and to the extent that it were held in private some of the disadvantages to which I have referred would be overcome. But other and not less serious dangers would surely be incurred. A private inquisition of this kind would be—almost literally—a Star Chamber, with the solitary though vital difference that it has no powers of punishment and that its Report will be public in so far as it affects the integrity and honour of individuals. I should not like the House to think that I move this Resolution without a measure of reluctance. Yet I do so without doubting that in recommending it the Government have taken the right course.
My Lords, though we are at peace in matters of security we live in the penumbra of a ruthless and diabolical war, the like of which has scarcely been seen in Europe since the time of the
632
Borgias. Of this war only the occasional episodes seem to be made public—or even known—outside a restricted circle. A Soviet agent defects and tells a sensational tale of murder by a cyanide pistol; an air pilot tens of miles above the earth is shot down by a device of exquisite sophistication and ingenuity; a prominent diplomat forgets his loyalty to his country; a scientist changes sides and flees abroad; vulnerable men are enticed into a net of blackmail by their sexual perversions; corrupt men are bribed to betray their country for money. In the main, however, the battle is fought in the dark. Neither side admits to its successes. Both are occasionally compelled to admit their failures. The whole story is a grim and horrible commentary on the predicament of the human family.
On the free side of the Iron Curtain we are faced with a terrible dilemma. In public life we must all be security minded, guard our own tongues, examine our own characters for weaknesses which are never wholly private but may make us vulnerable, be careful of our documents, ensure that security procedures are observed and that those procedures in operation are the right procedures for the purpose.
But it is important to emphasise that the nature of these security procedures is itself a highly professional job. This is no world for the amateur spy-catcher to blunder about in. Moreover, there is another reason why it should be kept professional. My Lords, we must be on our guard against McCarthyism. At the beginning of the First World War two great public servants, Prince Louis of Battenberg and the late Lord Haldane—innocent, loyal, and great patriots both—were hounded from public office by a combination of gutter journalism, second-rate politics and mass hysteria, and the general persecution of less prominent persons was thereby encouraged. My Lords, let us all resolve that this shall not be allowed to happen again.
One of the greatest weapons we hold against our enemies is the mutual confidence and trust of the members, one with another, of a free society. Let us keep fast bold of it or we lose the war—for that is what it is—by losing both what makes the war worth fighting and the best means of winning it.

633
My Lords, when the Vassall case emerged as the second serious security case within the Admiralty in recent months, and my noble friend made what I thought was his honourable and manly acceptance in this House of his departmental responsibility—though by far the worst breaches of security were before his term of office—(and after the resumption by Vassall of spying activities, one gratifying feature was the speed with which he was caught). I was myself hopeful that the matter would be left at that stage to a professional inquiry by senior civil servants. But whereas that inquiry was admirably suited in my judgment to investigate breaches of security by whomsoever committed, it would equally, in my opinion, not be suited to imputations affecting the honour or personal conduct either of Ministers or senior officials or naval officers.
No sooner had my noble friend made his statement in your Lordships' House than an announcement was made by a particular newspaper and by a Member of another place of the existence of letters indicating, as it was said, a degree of Ministerial responsibility which went far beyond the ordinary business of a Minister in charge of a Department. My Lords, it is not perhaps proper for me to inquire how those letters came into the possession either of the newspaper or of the Member, but as a man of the world I inferred—and no doubt I was not alone in that inference—that the deliberate insinuation was being made that the letters to Vassall, a known pervert, would be found to contain matters of improper familiarity or even eroticism.
I have no doubt whatever that it then became immediately imperative that those letters should be published, and I am myself delighted that they were published. It is not for me now to comment upon them. Your Lordships will have read them, and it is for your Lordships to say if you agree with Sir Charles Cunningham and his colleagues that they:
"do not in themselves appear to contain any implication of a relationship constituting a security risk"
or whether either they or any other of the known facts justified the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, in saying in your Lordships' House on October 31
634
[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 244 (No. 2), cols. 32–3]:
"the former Civil Lord …seemed to me to have social relationships with a minor official of the Admiralty which were quite inappropriate."
At all events, Mr. Galbraith found life in office had been made intolerable for him and he resigned. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister, who has the public interest to consider, thought it right—and since he has been criticised, I should like to say that I agree with him—to accept the resignation. Whether, however, the nation or Parliament or the Opposition or the Press or his colleagues in the Government can feel particularly proud of the chain of events which has led to the interruption of an honourable and useful public career is something which, I think, we must leave until the result of the present Motion is known.
However that may be, in my own innocence, I had hoped that that would be the end of this side of the matter. Instead of this, with the generous comment "Exit, One Chump", the newspaper, which had presumably paid the traitor and criminal Vassall in hard cash for Mr. Galbraith's letters—rumour put the figure at something approaching £7,000—and shown them to its paid political or industrial adviser—and other newspapers went on with the attack. Incidentally, can I be the only one who deplores the practice of the Sunday Press of buying the confessions of criminals and thus, as it seems to me, perverting the public morals of the nation? And, if the sum mentioned is anything like right, one must infer either that the Russians got Vassall at half price or that the newspaper thought that his value was doubled as the result of his infamy. One may be pardoned for trembling for the future of this country when popular newspapers sink to such depths of degradation as this.
Later, on November 8, there was an article in another paper under the heading: "Don't forget they knew for eighteen months that there was a spy around". This, at any rate, I thought, clearly insinuated that not merely high and honourable officials, but perhaps even my noble friend himself, had stood by for eighteen months with knowledge about the traitor in their possession and

635
had failed to inform the proper authorities or the Prime Minister—perhaps even had conspired with one another to suppress the truth. It is not for me to say whether such allegations would entitle the officer concerned or my noble friend to institute proceedings. What is material to this Motion is that it is clear that this allegation goes far beyond the competence of any committee of civil servants. The allegation was repeated in an aggravated form in the same newspaper the following day and reappeared again under various guises in the Sunday Press.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I should like you to name them.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am informed that the Thursday article was based on a statement that a document was found in the house of Mr. Kröger, who was concerned in the Portland case, and this document somehow connected the Vassall case with the Portland case. This statement, according to the information in the possession of the Government, is incorrect. No doubt the Tribunal, if set up, will wish to inquire whether the newspaper concerned is prepared to support its allegation and with what evidence.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, may I ask the Lord President, if he is going to castigate the Sunday Press, whether he would state to which journal he refers? He is protected by privilege for that very purpose and it is only fair not to lump all the papers together.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think that if this is to be submitted to the Tribunal, the Tribunal will know what to say about what newspapers. But this is not the end and it is not the worst. On Friday night, a report came into the hands of the Government, perfectly properly, that an even uglier insinuation was being circulated in private. This was that the arrest of Vassall had been made on the date it was in order to forestall his escape with Mr. Galbraith, either for homosexual purposes or to defect behind the Iron Curtain. So horrible is this suggestion that I should like to give it more or
636
less as my right honourable friend told it to me. What he told me was that on Friday morning a new sitaution had developed.
My right honourable friend the Patronage Secretary came to the Prime Minister early on Friday morning and told him this story, which I will describe in words as simple as I can. An honourable Member of the other House, acting in accordance with his public duty, had been to see the Patronage Secretary late on Thursday night with the following information. He had been dining that night with the political editor of a national newspaper. In the course of the dinner, this gentleman said that one of his staff had been told by a member either of the police or of the security service—he was not sure which—that had Vassall not been arrested on September 12, it had been his intention to join Mr. Galbraith in Italy and that Vassall then intended, in the words of the reporter of this story, to "do a Pontecorvo", with the clear implication that my honourable friend intended to defect to Russia and put his knowledge and information at the disposal of the Communists. It was also said that my honourable friend was believed to have spent holidays abroad with Vassall before. Again, I would only say that, according to the information of the Government, and we have sought to find the truth, this is not correct in any particular.
The Prime Minister was in this difficulty. This information had been brought to him. He was not sure whether it had been brought to him in good faith or as a trap, and he did not think that he could leave the matter there—and I do not think that he could. Things like this cannot be put about in private. Unfortunately, we came to know that this story in various forms and guises was being put about in private not only by the source which I have described but quite widely during the course of Friday. However preposterous, however wicked and however vile such a suggestion may be, if it comes to be passed about in the same kind of the way as the story about my honourable friend's letters passed about earlier last week, could anyone let it rest?
It was in these circumstances that my right honourable friend the Prime

637
Minister read the Press later that morning and this Press contained the aggravated form of the Thursday article, to which I have already referred. It said:
"The First Lord's position is now very delicate. Yesterday on a sudden summons, he hurried across to Admiralty House to see Mr. Macmillan.
"The reason: the revelation by Percy Hoskins in yesterday's Daily Express that the presence of another spy inside the Admiralty was known to the First Lord and his Service chiefs when the Portland ring was exposed 18 months ago.
"Mr. Macmillan wanted to know from Lord Carrington why he had not been warned of this startling fact."
What does this report mean? One possible construction, at least, is that it means that my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, aided and abetted by the Service chiefs, by whom I understand could only be meant the other members of the Board and the Permanent Secretary, had conspired together to conceal, during eighteen months since the Portland case their knowledge of the existence of another spy in the Admiralty. I have already said that the statement upon which this allegation is founded is, according to the information in my possession, not correct. Nevertheless, upon this foundation has been built the allegation that my noble friend the First Lord and the Board of Admiralty and perhaps other senior civil servants have concealed the truth and in doing so have committed an act which can be described only as appalling disloyalty to the Service over which they preside and, I would add, to their country.
Now, this may be true—it may be true. It may be that my noble friend, after distinguished and gallant service as an infantry officer in the war, after being High Commissioner for Australia and serving in the Government as First Lord of the Admiralty for three years, has in effect betrayed his trust. But surely such an allegation cannot be allowed to rest uninvestigated? My noble friend must be entitled to have his character cleared if he is innocent and so are the other members of the Board of Admiralty, who it seems to me have been traduced in the same way.
My Lords, it is for these reasons that the Government now come before Parliament with this Motion. I feel sure that,
638
with a view to investigating a security problem in the technical sense, the Committee of civil servants would have served us best, even though they might, in delivering their report, have cast aspersions on Ministers in their ordinary work of responsibility as departmental chiefs. But allegations like these are something altogether different, at least, in my submission. There is only one remedy for this, and that is a thorough investigation under the power of oath and subpœna; and for this purpose, at any rate, an inquiry by the civil servants is not enough. Their work must cease. We must have the Tribunal to find the truth, to explode calumny, if it be calumny; to convict the guilty, and to acquit the innocent. Painful as it is, this is what we must do.
The charges that have been made must be thrashed out under the full sanction and majesty of the law. They must be found to be true or false, and the public confidence must be restored either by the conviction of guilty men of by public proof that those who pose as the protectors of the public have been guilty without cause of trying to destroy the reputation of a fellow citizen. My Lords, this a question which, in my submission, can only be tried by a Tribunal set up under the Act of Parliament with power to put witnesses on oath, under the sanction of the law of perjury if they tell lies; a Tribunal at which the witnesses may be protected by counsel, and the evidence of accusers tested by cross-examination.
Those, my Lords, are the reasons which have led the Government to change their mind and to place this Motion upon the Order Paper. Of course one must learn in public life to ignore much that is said against one. If one were to answer every falsehood that was made one would spend one's whole lifetime in repudiation. Many things are best put aside, or overlooked, and many criticisms find their own level. But this, at least in my judgment, is not a case for that. I remember very well over the bank rate case that there was likewise a long period of vague innuendo, which could not be pinned down to any precise point. For as long as that persisted we ignored it. But finally a specific allegation in that case was made against my noble friend Lord Poole, and the very next day we asked the House to set up

639
a Tribunal in the matter. In my opinion in that case many who were responsible for that allegation got off much more easily than they deserved. But I think now, whatever may be the case, the time has come for men of propriety and decency not to tolerate the growth of McCarthyism in our midst.
At any rate, let the judgment be made. If public servants are guilty of what it is said they are guilty of, in the old days they might have faced a trial for their lives; and even to-day they could never again lift up their heads amongst their fellows. But if those who have accused them have done so falsely or recklessly, or out of malice, or out of simply a desire for the commercial exploitation of sensationalism, then I would say that a formal condemnation by society, through the mouth of its appointed commissioners, and possibly through Parliament itself, is the proper remedy. My Lords, I ask the House to pass this Motion, the only machinery now open to us for the defence of innocent men, if they be innocent, or, for their condemnation if they be guilty. In any event, my Lords, let us discover the truth.
Moved, to resolve, That it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., the circumstances in which offences under the Official Secrets Acts were committed by William John Christopher Vassall, and in particular:

(1) the allegations made that the presence of another spy inside the Admiralty was known to the First Lord and his Service chiefs after the Portland case eighteen months ago;

(2) any other allegations which have been or may be brought to their attention, reflecting similarly on the honour and integrity of persons who, as Ministers, naval officers and civil servants, were concerned in the case;

(3) any breaches of security arrangements which took place; and

(4) any neglect of duty by persons directly or indirectly responsible for Vassall's employment and conduct, and for his being treated as suitable for employment on secret work.—(Viscount Hailsham.)

4.14 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, we have listened to a speech which was remarkable for a number of different things. I am not myself aware of any comment having been made from this side of your Lordships' House in the course of the last two or three weeks which could have been in any way detrimental to the persons who have been referred to—not even the quotation made against my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth put in his speech to-day by the noble and learned Viscount who leads the House.
I must say that I think the Government have had considerable difficulty to contend with to undo their constant refusal on more than one occasion to appoint a more effective tribunal to inquire into the particular case than was afforded by a Committee of three civil servants. While I am quite certain that the course now proposed, to have a Tribunal, composed as it is of the members whose names were given to your Lordships' House by the Leader of the House, with all the powers under the Tribunals Act, is the right thing to do, I am rather concerned about the detailed nature of the speech which has been made by the Leader of the House, and the references which have been produced, with, at the end of all, the kind of stuff which he has given—some of it from tittle-tattle—to the public at large. And then for him to feel that it was quite unholy for him to name anybody in the shape of an editor, or an actual newspaper against which the charges are to be brought, because there is a Tribunal to be set up, leaves us in a very, very doubtful state of mind as to what are the complete motives of the Government.
The position, as I see it, is this. I see it from the point of view of one who was a Service Minister for more than twelve years, of which almost nine years were spent as First Lord of the Admiralty. I am quite certain that there is nobody in this House more jealous than I am of the reputation of the First Lord and the Board of Admiralty or of the actual safety conditions required for that great Senior Service. Therefore, perhaps I can make one or two comments upon the matter.
I am quite certain of this: that if the First Lord of the Admiralty had had any

641
information further than he was able to give to the House at the time the matter was raised here he would have given it. I have watched his career in this House for a good many years now, and I have found nothing in his personal aspect of controlling business and doing public service that is not to be commended. I want to make that perfectly clear. I said at the time that he addressed your Lordships that I thought he was doing quite the right thing in accepting departmental responsibility for anything which might be proved to have gone wrong under his leadership; I said then that he was to be congratulated on having made a public statement, and I say it again. I shall read the noble and learned Viscount's speech very closely, but as I feel at present, having listened especially to the middle part of it, I should feel happier about the Tribunal if the noble and learned Viscount had not said so much as if he were opening the case before the Tribunal. That was most extraordinary to me.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: It is sub judice.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: These are matters which, as my noble friend behind me reminds me, will in a day or two be sub judice. I hope the noble and learned Viscount, for whose ability I have great respect, when he has read his speech again and examined it, in the light of what are going to be the duties of this Tribunal and what are the full extent of the powers they will exercise, may feel that he could have left unsaid some of the things he said this afternoon and left it to the judgment of your Lordships' House on the simple question as to whether this was the right course—namely, to have a much more authoritative and powerful Inquiry into the whole question of the espionage in this place and what has arisen from it. I think that all noble Lords would have accepted that practically without question or comment, if it were not for the type of speech we have listened to.
LORD REA: My Lords, apart from endorsing the noble Viscount's tribute to the First Lord of the Admiralty, whom I hope I may claim as a friend of some standing, and in whose integrity I have
642
complete faith, I personally think it quite out of place for me to add any further words from these Benches, which, after all, are a Party political forum. The best thing about this matter to me is that it is going sub judice from to-day, and I hope that when the matter is resolved there will be no sort of Party gain or loss in any sort of way from a political point of view, and that the matter will be completely finished.
4.20 p.m.
LORD POOLE: My Lords, on Monday, December 2, 1957, the Tribunal to inquire into allegations that information about the raising of the bank rate was improperly disclosed, opened its proceedings. As I was the subject of that inquiry, I hope that your Lordships will allow me to-day to make certain observations about the proceedings of such tribunals which I hope will be helpful, and which I hope will commend themselves objectively to all sides of the House. Whether I was or was not the accused on that occasion is a matter of opinion, but it suffices to say that The Times, in its leading article after the tribunal had reported, headed its leader, "Not Guilty".
I know nothing, except the little I have read, about the circumstances leading the Government to institute this new inquiry, except what we have heard from the Leader of the House to-day. I am quite ready to accept that it is necessary and desirable that this inquiry should take place. In the case of the bank rate tribunal, I went to the Prime Minister myself, after months of the sort of innuendo which I understand has taken place now, and felt it necessary to ask him to institute proceedings. He was good enough to accept my wish and put the necessary Resolution to Parliament. I say that anybody who does that, either as an individual or as a leader of a political Party, bears a very heavy weight of responsibility and certainly one from which I am never likely to be wholly free. So I will hope that no one—and I put this to the noble Viscount—will criticise the Government for any delay in coming to the decision to institute a tribunal. As my noble friend the Leader of the House has said, this is a most dangerous and severe instrument of Government, and it offends in almost every respect the normal tenets and understandings of British justice.

643
I would concede at once that such inquiries may become necessary from time to time. It is necessary for public life in this country to be upheld, and the position of individuals has always been secondary to that. But let no one underestimate the far-reaching and searching effects of such a tribunal. In case there should be any misunderstanding, I wish to say at once that I have never, either then or since, allowed myself to doubt the sincerity of those whose actions or words may have been the cause of my asking the Prime Minister for such a Tribunal. I feel that this is extremely important in public life. They did, I am sure, what they thought was right. I have no recriminations, and I wish to make none. I do, however, wish to make certain suggestions for changes in the procedure, to which I hope the Government will give very careful consideration indeed, and which I believe would make the proceedings rather more acceptable to the general public as a whole. After each of these tribunals almost every newspaper and almost every responsible politician says, "You must never have anything quite like that again"—and yet nothing is done, and I am very much concerned that the procedure should be the same.
My first proposal is that the Attorney General in his opening statement, and in his examination of witnesses, will quite rightly deploy the "charges", if that is the right word, and will refer to the evidence of rumours. As in theory no one is charged with anything, then no one has the immediate right of reply. It may be that at the end of the tribunal, many weeks later, many of the charges will be proved unfounded and many of the rumours shown to be ridiculous or groundless. I would urge them, subject to the permission of the members of the tribunal, that any person involved must be allowed to make a statement of (his case either himself or through his counsel, immediately after the Attorney General so that he can immediately refute—and no doubt the Press will refute if necessary—many of the loose allegations that are made.
It really is not enough to say that someone should be subjected to the present procedure when there is no charge. I am a little concerned at the
644
suggestion that it is sub judice. I seek advice. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding was that there was no such thing. There are no rules of evidence, and no rules of procedure. I do not think the witnesses—if that is the right word for them—have any protection at all. I think it right that they should have a statement made on their behalf as early in the proceedings as possible. It is also right that, if a tribunal is going to be set up—and here again I take issue with the noble Viscount—whatever the terms of reference are, it must have complete freedom to get any information from anybody who it thinks can lead it to come to a proper conclusion. This means that, whatever the terms of reference are, any witness can be called before it; every aspect of his private life can be examined. Indeed, Mr. Charles Russell—Lord Justice Russell, as he now is—who was my counsel at the time, at the end of the Tribunal, at page 288 of the proceedings, called attention to the fact that, whereas few witnesses had been called and few documents produced, every single conversation I had had for many weeks, every business transaction in which I had been involved, every social engagement at which I had been, had been investigated and the documents taken and, where necessary, people were seen. The President of the Tribunal immediately afterwards thanked him for calling attention to that.
This is my point. This is right, but in almost every tribunal that has taken place there has been at some time some political pressure. Members of another place have either made statements in another place or have received documents, as I understand it is suggested has been done for a newspaper or newspapers. Leaders of the political Parties have met to discuss what action should be taken. Leaders of the Opposition meet, and then go to the Leaders of the Government to present prima facie evidence which they think it their duty to disclose. I suggest, in all fairness to the ordinary people, that nothing that is said in Parliament or given to Members of Parliament should be subject to Parliamentary privilege; that if, in fact, Leaders of a political Party, whichever Party it is, feel it their duty to go and formally disclose rumours or evidence which they think they have received, then

645
that information should be available to the tribunal just as much as information regarding the private lives of many hundreds of people who are concerned. I would strongly urge that something should be done in this case to see how this point can be met.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, may I say that, from the way the noble Lord's speech opened, it seems that he was at variance with myself on certain points. I must make it quite clear that I have received information from nobody, and I have not discussed it with anybody on any occasion, either in this House or outside.
LORD POOLE: May I please apologise to the noble Viscount. I have not completely made myself clear. I thought the noble Viscount said that he considered that the terms of reference of the Tribunal as put forward by my noble friend were too wide.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: No, not at all.
LORD POOLE: I therefore withdraw. I am not in fact trying to refer either to the Tribunal in which I was involved or the present one; I am trying to make an objective statement. It is known that on many occasions in the past leaders of political Parties have met to discuss these things. I am not suggesting that either the noble Lord, anyone on the Government Bench or on any other Bench have done so this time. But there have been discussions, I understand, this time and I say that these should be made public so that the evidence of the people who are subjected to this inquisition, which is what it is, the whole evidence and the whole story, is disclosed. I am bound to say that I have very real feelings for wishing this were so.
The third and last point I wish to make is on the question of costs. We are told constantly that no one is accused. The Inquiry is not a legal proceeding and as a result of that no one can recover any part of the heavy costs involved. Is it really right that someone against whom vague charges, if that is the word, or vague suggestions of impropriety are made should be subjected to examination by a Tribunal of this sort without having to assist him all the help from learned counsel, juniors and solicitors?
646
These Tribunals go on for many days; there are days of preparation beforehand and seventeen, eighteen or twenty days of proceedings. The costs are very heavy indeed, and I think it quite wrong that some people can afford to ask for Tribunals and get what (help they need and others cannot. If the Government impose these Tribunals on people, I think the Government have a duty to defray the costs, whether the people are innocent or whether they are not. I very much hope that these three points will be looked into.
My Lords, these Tribunals are very serious matters. I cannot believe that anybody in public life can do anything but regret and deplore them. I would only end up by saying what I said in the beginning: that those who demand them and the Government who are prepared to ask Parliament to set one up carry a very heavy load of responsibility. I am grateful to your Lordships for allowing me to give these observations, as I think I have had some experience which may help to make the procedure more acceptable.
4.34 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, we all understand, not entirely without sympathy, the personal feelings that the noble Lord, Lord Poole, has in the light of his own experience in connection with an earlier Tribunal of Inquiry. I understand that and I am not brutally unsympathetic about it. On the other hand, the possibility of a Tribunal of Inquiry under the Tribunal of Inquiries Act exists, and, as I understand it, it exists because in some cases the ordinary course of inquiry by a departmental committee, let alone a committee of civil servants, is not adequate to the situation, or because ordinary proceedings in the courts of law would not be suitable or adequate to the situation. It was in order that there could be a more thorough inquiry, and an inquiry of a certain type, that the Tribunal of Inquiries Act was passed. The noble Lord who has just sat down has come pretty near to challenging the right to use a Tribunal of Inquiry at all—pretty near to it.
LORD POOLE: My Lords, that is not what I said or, indeed, if I said it, it was not what I meant. What I meant

647
was that it ought only to be very carefully thought about. I specifically said that I thought it was essential to have the power to bring in a tribunal instrument of this kind. I also said that I thought the personal feelings of the individual were quite secondary to the national interest.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, if I have misrepresented the noble Lord I withdraw, but I thought that the purport of his speech was that this was an inappropriate instrument in this case. That is what I thought. I have a right to think what I think. But there it is. I quite agree, if that is what the noble Lord meant, that this is an instrument which should be used only in appropriate and sufficiently serious cases, because it is a heavy-handed instrument and good thought must be given before it is utilised.
I rise to support the Motion which has been moved by the noble and learned Viscount, the Leader of the House, and in supporting the Motion which he has moved I cannot support the speech which he has made. I thought it was a wrong type of speech, when a Minister is moving that a Tribunal of a judicial character be set up for the purpose of making inquiries, for him to make a speech which almost completely prejudges the issues which are to be gone into by the Tribunal. I think that was quite wrong and I am surprised that the noble and learned Viscount, the Leader of the House, should go in for that kind of propaganda against proceedings which are almost pending, just because he does not like them. I do not think it was right. I think it was a speech which was wrong and calculated to prejudice the whole of the proceedings before they have started; and I consider it was quite in error on his part to do it.
The noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House has quoted from my observations at the time when the First Lord was good enough to make his statement and I will just repeat what he quoted. I said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 244 (No. 2), cols. 32–33]:
"May I ask the noble Lord"—
that is, the First Lord—
"whether he is aware that I personally am very worried about the position of the former
648
Civil Lord, who seemed to me to have social relationships with a minor official of the Admiralty which were quite inappropriate?"
I was quite entitled to make that statement. It had no moral implication. I happen to have views about appropriate relationships between Ministers and civil servants, nationally and locally; between aldermen, councillors and chief officers and any officers of the local authority. They ought to be one of mutual respect for mutual work which has to be done; of encouraging frankness of observation; but they should not be a close relationship. It is not good for the spirit of the service; it is not good if the Minister is to be held in proper respect.
I still say—still more in the light of the correspondence—that the relationship established between the Civil Lord and Mr. Vassall was an inappropriate relationship in all the circumstances of the case. That is what I said and that is what I say again—and there is not to be read into it any implications of relationships of a moral or other character between the Civil Lord and Mr. Vassall. Indeed, I do not know what they were; and I have not said and would not say unless I knew. But I have views about these relationships which may not be shared by all noble Lords. It is not a question of snobbishness; it is a question that the Minister represents the nation, the State, and the civil servant the rest of the Service; and it is so also between the municipality and the chief officers of local authorities. I have known times when they have become "too thick", with the result that the business of the council and, in some cases, the business of the State has not been run as well as it might have been. There were the visits and there is the character of this correspondence. That, again, I say is inappropriate as between a Minister, even a junior Minister, and a civil servant not very high up in the Service, and I think that has all to be taken into account.
The Government at the beginning decided to appoint the committee of high civil servants. I said at the time that I had no personal objection to these three civil servants. They are men deserving of wide public respect, and I have no criticism to make of them. But we did think that it was inappropriate,

649
in a case of this kind, that a committee of civil servants should be the instrument of the inquiry and to make the report. The Government would not listen. This Government do not listen enough, either to noble Lords in this place or honourable gentlemen in another place. The Government therefore make more mistakes than they ought to do.
The Government ought to have known when they set out on this course that there would be trouble about the appointment of the committee of civil servants for this purpose. The Prime Minister ought instinctively to have known, from his knowledge of the House of Commons; and the Leader of the House of Commons ought to have known, but he evidently does not know his House of Commons. Before his speech this afternoon I thought that possibly the Leader of this House would make a better Leader of the House of Commons than the present Leader there——
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: You have to be a Member first.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: —but I am not so certain now, and I cannot promise the noble Viscount to back him for that position. He bag gone down in my estimation, because he brings forward a Motion for a judicial Inquiry and then proceeds to make one of the most injudicial speeches which could possibly be made; and he is a counsel learned in the law; he has appeared in the High Court; he is a lawyer of no mean distinction. He comes here and does a thing like that which I, not a lawyer, would not do—and which, indeed, an elementary schoolboy would not dream of doing. I think it was most improper to come and make that speech.
What has he done? He has retailed all these rumours, given them extended circulation. As my noble friend Lady Summerskill said to me on the Bench: "Good gracious ! he is spreading the allegations now wholesale". She is right. He has brought it out and spread all these things which could have been the subject of inquiry by the Tribunal, and anybody who has said any of these things of course can be called by the Tribunal—and I hope he will be. I suppose I could be called by the Tribunal, but my offence, the noble Viscount will
650
agree, is not as bad as those he quoted earlier on. If they called me I would go and give them this modest lecture about the proper relationship between Ministers and civil servants. That is all I could do for them.
I do say to the noble Viscount—for whom I have high regard, as he knows; we are good friends—he has been naughty this afternoon and made the wrong speech in a situation which called for a judicious speech on the case for this Inquiry. Now the Government have scattered these three civil servants to the four winds. Having set them up they have knocked them down, which I think is a little rough, merely because the Government cannot judge public reactions and Parliamentary reactions. And that was particularly true of the House of Commons and the Leader of the House of Commons, who, I suppose, is so busy doing other silly things in connection with London government that he did not have time to think how the House would react. We support the Motion. I support what has been said by my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and I hope the House will approve the Motion and let the inquiry proceed, because after to-day everybody will have to be careful what he says before the Tribunal has reported.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Viscount could tell us this afternoon, arising out of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Poole, whether provision for legal aid will apply to impecunious people who may be represented at the Tribunal.
4.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not want to embark upon a long reply. I would only say that I thank the noble Lords opposite for supporting the Motion, and that I remain somewhat impenitent about my speech. I should like to say at once that I have not, with one qualification, retailed any gossip. I read out charges which were made in newspapers. The one piece of information which I gave to the House is, I understand, being given to the House of Commons and was considered far too serious a rumour to be in private circulation and not to be brought out into the open and nailed firmly as one of the

651
things the Tribunal will inquire into, whether it be true or false.
I thought it also right to say that the only information in the possession of the Government is that it is not correct. I made only one charge: I read out charges of others, which had been allowed to go unanswered. I said that I thought the practice of buying confessions from criminals and retailing them to the public was deplorable and perverted the morals of the nation. This is not prejudicing the hearings of the Tribunal, because, so far as I can see, it is not within the terms of reference of the Tribunal. I have not the smallest hesitation in saying that this was a perfectly proper sentiment to hold and to repeat.
As regards the speech of my noble friend Lord Poole (he and I were very closely associated), I should like to do the best I can with his questions, and with that of the noble Lord from the Liberal Benches. This Tribunal is set up under Statute, and we are limited in this House and in the Government by the terms of the Statute. The actual procedure is within the power of the Tribunal. I do not know what this Tribunal will say about my noble friend's proposal. I am sure they will read this debate, and I cannot say what they will do about it. I think anyone who has been present, as I have been, at three of these Tribunals—indeed anyone who has been present at all—will realise the force of what my noble friend says, even though the particular remedy he proposes may not be the right one.
As regards Parliamentary privilege, again I am speaking without my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack and without previous notice. As I understand it, the position is simply that of an ordinary witness. The Tribunal has the power to subpoena evidence and, in effect, to subpoena duces tecum documents. But the ordinary rules of privilege, I take it, would apply unless Parliament thought fit, for any reason, to suspend them, and we could not by any executive act of the Government suspend them. That, I think, would be the only answer I could give on that point. I appreciate very much what he says about costs, but there again, so far as I understand the Statute, which I read again last night,
652
I do not find any provision in it for costs. It would, I think, require statutory provision—and that is the answer to the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches—for costs to be given; and it would not completely meet my noble friend's point if legal aid were made available, although even that could be done only by Statute, because legal aid does not apply to the kind of cost incurred in this kind of Tribunal, which may amount to thousands of pounds. So that people not qualified for ordinary legal aid may find it a considerable burden. Whether it is right, and in what circumstances, for Parliament to authorise money to be raised from the Consolidated Fund for this purpose is something I cannot answer this afternoon.
I accept entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, said about his own position the other day, and I quite accept that he had not the intention to say more than he did. I also as a matter of fact—although I find that opinions differ very much about this issue on both sides of the House—favour his view that there should be a degree of formality between officials and Ministers in order to safeguard the position of the State. This is not universally believed. I noticed that the practice differs, among both my friends and my political opponents. But this is the doctrine which I share with him.
All the same—and I say no more than I said to him on the occasion—I was sorry myself that, coupled with this serious security situation, in which a man had been convicted of, in effect, disloyalty to his country and of selling his country's secrets, was a horrible story which he brought in himself, of perversion. I wish this had not been confused in the public mind with whatever minor indiscretion—if it was an indiscretion; and that I am not accepting—took place between the Civil Lord and this criminal. I think myself—I quite accept what he says about it—that it was an error of judgment on his part, but I would certainly not say anything worse about him than that. The noble Lord and I have maintained, I think, as he says, regard for one another, notwithstanding that we have oft-times in the past accused one another of errors of judgment without impairing our fundamental affection or respect.

653
Having said that, I think I have answered everything that was raised in the debate. I am sorry that noble Lords opposite did not like my speech; but I remain, as I say, quite impenitent about it, and I hope the House will now accept the Resolution.
On Question, Resolution agreed to.

THE MOLONY REPORT ON CONSUMER PROTECTION
4.52 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD MARKS OF BROUGHTON: My Lords, we are beholden to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, for drawing our attention to the Molony Report on Consumer Protection. I confess that when I listened to the noble Baroness's speech I found it difficult to follow. If I understand it aright, it would appear that she is in favour of a bureaucratic organisation which is to be superimposed upon a lot of dishonest traders who are well known to the community. If I am wrong, perhaps the noble Baroness will inform me; otherwise I will go on with my few remarks, and I promise not to be long.
We must express our thanks to the Molony Committee on Consumer Protection for their painstaking and most informative effort in the production of their Report. They cover a wide field, dealing with many types of merchandise sold to the public by different methods of distribution. There are over 300 pages in the Molony Report. An abridged version would not be helpful, but perhaps advisory pamphlets for each type of selling organisation might be appropriate and certainly more readable to the majority of traders—a Report which they can understand.
I will confine my remarks to clothing and textiles and foodstuffs, but I would draw your Lordships' attention to paragraph 896 and to the fact that the consumer must protect himself. The paragraph reads:
"The measures we recommend in aid of the consumer do not aim to relieve him of the duty to look after himself. No system of protection can avert all the consequences of folly or eliminate every possibility of hardship. We have not tried to achieve this and we are sure it is neither possible nor desirable to do so."
It is the function of the enlightened retailer, in concert with the suppliers, to
654
protect the customer against inferior quality goods. Most retailers would say that the large majority of shoppers are most discerning and discriminating as to quality and value. There are a few, of course, who are not so discerning and have sometimes to be protected from their own follies. But, believe me, the customers reject what they do not want, and buy what they want, and they are the arbiters of the success or failure of any business. The reputation of a firm is mirrored in the kind and the quality of goods they offer, and particularly in their selling methods. It is of importance, I agree, to label the goods with the kind of material and their special characteristics, so that the customers know what they are buying. But the confidence and the good will of the customers can be gained only by the quality of goods they can buy, and over a period of years—a long period. All this may sound elementary; nevertheless, it is the essence of sound business and proper public relations.
The Committee rightly said in paragraph 911:
"There can be no doubt that if a higher standard of quality control were generally adopted the consumer would have much less cause for complaint."
Quality control is a complicated problem. Many firms are involved in the production of a garment. The spinner is concerned with the yarn, the weaver with the construction of the cloth, and the textile finisher with dye, print, and with applying chemical processes to produce the required effects. Each of these processes requires technical control to ensure quality. The function of the garment manufacturer is to style the garment, to produce efficiently, with up-to-date machinery and with modern manufacturing techniques. All these people and firms are concerned with the production of that garment, and it would be wrong to lay at the door of the retailer responsibility for something which might have happened throughout the chain of production.
I come back to help those who are perhaps not so knowledgeable about trade, to a source of help which is not sufficiently appreciated or recognised by many firms—I refer to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. Attached to the D.S.I.R. are 50 research

655
stations which serve industry in many fields. It is estimated that they cover some two-thirds of our national production. The quest for better raw materials, better techniques, better methods of production and improved values is never ending and one which is the subject of continuous research.
The noble Lady spoke of a sum of £35,000 that had been made available for research on the part of the Consumer Councils, or whatever it was, and believed that it would not go very far. My own firm allocated some £600,000 to the development of quality merchandise. The D.S.I.R. in a recent Report stated:
"There are too many small or medium-sized firms which remain unaware of the nature and the amount of information at their disposal. They often do not recognise the problems which face them."
Such an approach to a pool of knowledge based on research and experience would, I feel, be helpful, not only to the manufacturers supplying the home market but also to those who are interested in the export market. It is to be hoped that the National Productivity Year will do much to publicise the kind of specialised help which is available to industry.
Now, my Lords, I turn to foodstuffs. I regret that the Committee have not given attention to problems which fall within the scope of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955. None of the reasons they give is, in my opinion, good enough for avoiding some expression of view in a field where the consumer must be specially protected. In the few paragraphs which appear in the Report there is no mention of quality foods, or of hygiene and cleanliness, either in the factories producing foods or in the shops which sell them to the public.
The Annual Report of the Ministry of Health states that during 1961 over 5,000 cases of food poisoning were reported in England and Wales. This does not take into account all those who have suffered from nausea and vomiting owing to bad food and who must run into tens of thousands. It is obvious that in the field of production in factories and in selling foods to the consumer, public health can be seriously affected if scrupulous attention is not paid to hygiene and cleanliness. The only mention which
656
may have some remote connection with quality is on page 4, paragraph 9, which states:
"The appropriate Ministers are empowered 'so far as appears to them to be necessary or expedient in the interests of the public health, or otherwise for the protection of the public' to regulate the composition and preparation of food …".
Does this mean that another Molony Committee should be set up to satisfy themselves that the authorities should enforce these regulations in the interests of public health and for the protection of the consumer? Do the authorities satisfy themselves as to the standards of hygiene and cleanliness in many food manufacturing plants? And do they approve the methods of handling and the display of foods in the shops? Who has not seen perishable foods, like meat and fish, displayed on open slabs, exposed to all the dirt and flies that may be around?
My Lords, the Molony Report presents only half, or less than half, the picture on consumer protection. There are many progressive food manufacturers and retailers who have set their sights at a level much higher than called for by present legislation. But are there not, too, many food manufacturers and shopkeepers whose standards are far too low? If the public health is to be protected, what steps should be taken to remedy the unsatisfactory position? Much can be done by attention to common-sense standards of cleanliness and to the principle: "Clean as you go". Infestation of all kinds can be eliminated both by attention to cleanliness and by effective measures such as the screening of doors and windows to keep out flies; and also by the use of suitable methods of disinfestation against rodents and other vermin.
My Lords, it is good that these problems should be publicly ventilated. Constructive criticism can lead only to better standards and raise the efficiency of all concerned for the ultimate benefit of the trader, and, above all, the protection of the consumer.
5.8 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I do not think there is any need for me to attempt to repeat the eloquent tributes that have been made to the Molony Committee and to the great industry

657
which they have shown, and also to the excellent speech we have heard from the noble Lady this afternoon when making her maiden speech from the Dispatch Box, if that expression is a permissible one. I had one or two things I was proposing to say which have already been said a great deal better. That always happens, so I am afraid what I do have to say will be rather a rag-bag of ideas and suggestions. At any rate, I shall try to keep it short.
I should like to begin with definitions. The Molony Committee on page 154 of their Report deal with the definition of "consumer sale". Perhaps it is surprising that the definition does not arise until page 154; but perhaps, on the other hand, it is not so surprising. I think it was Professor Kenney, in his classic The Outlines of Criminal Law, who said
"Definitions belong rather to the end of one's study of a subject than to the beginning."
But, be that as it may, the Committee have put forward one definition in which they do not seem to have complete faith because they go on to put forward an alternative. I am going to suggest to your Lordships that the alternative is possibly superior to their own favourite. They suggest that a "consumer sale" should be defined as a sale by way of trade of goods not exclusively for use or consumption in any trade or business.
I should have thought that completely in that way to exclude from consumer protection goods bought exclusively for business purposes was unfortunate. Take a simple example. A farmer buys a typewriter for the purposes of that large amount of office work that farmers have to do. If a farmer buys a hundredweight of manure he does not need consumer protection for, being a farmer, he is supposed to know something about manure. But a farmer, surely, is not as a farmer expected to know anything about typewriters. It therefore seems unfortunate that, simply because the typewriter is used or required entirely for business purposes, it should be by this definition taken out of the field of consumer protection. For those reasons, my Lords, I would suggest that the second horse the Committee put their money on is a better one. They suggest in the next paragraph, Paragraph 470, that a consumer sale might be defined as a sale by way of
658
retail trade or business at or from any place whatsoever, leaving it to the courts to decide in cases of dispute and difficulty whether or not a particular sale was a retail sale. My Lords, I think that most people can recognise a retail sale when they experience one, and I should not have thought the courts would, in fact, be troubled very much, and that this second definition was superior to the first.
The subject appears to lend itself to division into two quite distinct categories. There is the protection from danger, and the protection from being deceived. Now I apprehend that the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, will probably be dealing with the danger side of this great question. I propose, therefore, in the few further remarks that I am about to make, to deal with the protection from deception angle. Early in the Report, in paragraph 346, the Committee deal with seals of approval. They start by going in some detail into the seal of approval of the Good Housekeeping Institute, which they say is perhaps the best known to the general public. Noble Lords may have had the experience—I have—of going into a retail shop and asking whether or not a particular item on sale is recommended, and being given the reply: "I have not tried it myself, but it is advertised on television and it has the seal of the Good Housekeeping Institute, which is supposed to be a recommendation."
My Lords, it is rather disquieting, when one reads in paragraph 347 of the Report, to find the Committee saying:
"We are bound to say that the impression left upon us was distinctly unfavourable."
In paragraph 350 they say:
"We are left with little confidence in the Institute, in the quality of its standards, in the reliability of its testing"—
and so on. Then in the next paragraph they say:
"In reaching this unhappy conclusion, we do not imply that the Institute is cynically and deliberately misusing its seal for private profit. It makes little or no money from the operation."
Their final words about this Institute are that,
"the trust which a considerable section of the public places in this seal as an independent assurance of sound quality is without foundation."

659
What the Committee say about this well-known Institute, they say in a good deal stronger terms about another, the British Safety Council. In paragraph 360 they describe this Council as a body which is,
"a potential menace to the public."
They say that its seal of approval was discontinued in December, 1960, and the Committee seem to be thankful for that. That is a sad story. I am quite sure that up to now great faith has been placed by many purchasers in these seals given by Institutes, and it is very disquieting to find them reported on so badly. The Committee say, in paragraph 372, that their recommended remedy is registration of the particular seal as a true certification trade mark and the prohibition of the use of all others. They say:
"Our examination of seals of approval leads us to think that few existing seals, as at present operated, would survive. We do not think that the consumer would lose by the passing of the rest."
My Lords, as I say, I think that is a sad story.
I should now like to say a word or two about manufacturers' guarantees, whereby in exchange for certain assurances given by the manufacturer with one hand, so to speak, other and possibly more valuable rights are taken away from the consumer with the other. The Committee put it in this way:
"A deep objection, already noted, to exclusion clauses"
—as they call them—
"is that they deny, or appear to deny, the consumer his general right against both retailer and manufacturer and confine him to the discretionery rights conferred by the guarantee. We think this is an excessive price to pay in return for the limited benefits of a guarantee".
They go on to say, in paragraph 435:
"The overriding argument in favour of prohibiting 'contracting-out' is that it enables well-organised commerce consistently to impose unfair terms on the consumer and to deny him what the law means him to have."
They say that a particular consumer
"will find it difficult and sometimes impossible, to avoid submitting to the terms of business …adopted",
because he possesses no bargaining power of sufficient weight to control and to compel. Even more are the Committee of this opinion, when it comes to the question of possible actions for damages for negligence, where injury is done as
660
the result of dangerous and defective goods. The Committee deal with this aspect in paragraph 475. They say that consumers:
"are ignorant of, and indeed unthinking about, their rights in the event of an accident attributable to negligently-caused defects. They do not realise what they are signing away."
They recognise that manufacturers, on the other side of this argument, may be afraid of heavy claims arising from negligence and could insure against the risk. Well, my Lords, the manufacturers should not put themselves in this position, in my submission, and they can, indeed, if they choose to do so, insure against that risk.
The only other topic that I should like to say a few words upon is hire purchase. The Committee had a good deal to say about hire purchase. They point out that when the Hire-Purchase Act, 1938, was passed, hire purchase was almost exclusively the province of the poorer sections of the community who, quite rightly, were protected by that Act, and given greater protection than applied to the general public under contracts of sale under the old Sale of Goods Act, 1893. But since that time, of course, hire purchase transactions have increased in popularity tremendously, and the point has now been reached where, in many cases, the hire-purchase customer is in a better position, a more secure position, than the person who pays cash. My Lords, the Committee, in my submission quite rightly, do not favour that situation. Hire purchase has its great advantages, but it has its dangers, too. In an economy which is bound to have its ups and downs, surely the proliferation of hire purchase commitments is bound to accentuate those rises and falls in the national economy, which is an adverse thing. For that reason, surely the cash customer should not be at a disadvantage in any respect as against the hire purchase customer. The Committee therefore recommend that there should be at least equation of the two.
The Committee make one specific recommendation in paragraph 512, in deference to their conviction that there are many cases of ignorant customers being persuaded by high-pressure, door-to-door salesmen to sign hire-purchase agreements without realising that they are signing a hire-purchase agreement. They put forward what they regard as

661
a simple remedy for this situation. They suggest that on the document there should he a place for the hirer's signature in a "box" which should also contain, partly above and partly below the line carrying the signature, the words,
"I realise that by my signature I am offering to commit myself to a hire-purchase agreement on the terms contained in this document."
My Lords, even that is 24 words, and I wonder whether the sort of person who might be deceived in this way is really going to read even 24 words while preparing to sign a document, probably while the high-pressure salesman is carefully talking about something else. I would recommend that, instead of 24 words, you have in the "box" on the document for signature the three words,
"Hire-purchase agreement".
The words, "hire-purchase" can be in the "box" above the place where the signature goes, and the word "agreement" can be below the place where the signature goes. I feel that in those circumstances the most ignorant person could not fail to realise that he or she was, in fact, signing a hire-purchase agreement.
The noble Lady referred to this next matter: that, in the case of hire-purchase agreements induced by door-to-door salesmen, there should be a "cooling-off" time, as the Committee call it, granted to the customer; and in paragraph 526 they make their appropriate recommendation to this end. Finally on this subject, my Lords, the Committee recommend the abolition of the £300 value limit which has stood now since 1938 under the Hire-Purchase Act of that year, and point out that nowadays hire-purchase transactions are frequently carried out in cars and caravans—and, of course the £300 value limit does not apply in many cases of hire-purchase agreements for cars or caravans.
The next part of the Report deals with the Merchandise Marks Act. I should not in any event feel competent to venture into this field, particularly as I understand that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cawley, is going to deal with this subject. But I hope that the few random suggestions I have felt it valid to make will commend themselves to Her Majesty's Government.
5.24 p.m.
LORD SAINSBURY: My Lords, I rise to speak with considerable nervousness, only somewhat lessened by the knowledge of your kindly indulgence to those who address your Lordships for the first time. In welcoming the Final Report of the Committee on Consumer Protection, I should perhaps declare an interest in so far as I am the chairman of the family firm which bears my name and which is a large retailer of food.
I should like, if I may, to make a few general comments. In my opinion, the Molony Committee had to hold a very delicate balance. This is very well put, I thought, in a leading article in the Financial Times on July 26 last. I quote:
"The Molony Committee had to balance the advantage of protecting the weak against the disadvantage of multiplying restrictions on other people's freedom of action. It is plainly right to stress continually the fact that the consumer's hand cannot be held all the time and that the world cannot be legislated into perfection."
The second point I should like to make is that it is easy to exaggerate the amount of consumer dissatisfaction, and it will not surprise your Lordships that, as a retailer, I welcome the Committee's conclusion that, on the whole, the consumer does not think he or she is ill-served. I am sure my noble friend Lord Marks of Broughton, who I regret has left the Chamber, would agree with me in saying that success in retailing in this country largely depends on customer good will, and that equally the manufacturer or processor, if he is to be successful in the long run, has to concern himself with the reputation that is attached to his brand.
In saying this, I do not for one moment want to suggest that there are no sharp or undesirable practices, or to suggest that there is no need for further consumer protection. In my own experience there are, for example, cases of visual deception in certain packages which are deliberately designed to look as large as those of competitors' packages that contain more. There are also manufacturers who, instead of putting the weight in a prominent position on the package, seem deliberately to put it in a place most difficult for the customer to find. There are also instances of ullage,

663
which the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines as
"What a package wants of being full."
These are just three examples of misguided practice, in my view, by the manufacturers concerned. But I should like to stress that only a very small minority of firms adopt this misguided policy.
My Lords, I think it is obvious that there is a much greater need for consumer protection in the case of consumer durables, that are infrequently purchased and are expected to have a satisfactory life of some years, than in the case of food which is frequently purchased and soon consumed. In the latter case, if a consumer feels, for example, that she has been misled by an advertisement, she is quickly aware of its false claims. This is obviously one of the reasons why food gets comparatively little mention in the Report.
I should like to express complete agreement with the Committee's view on price control—and here I quote:
"So long as there is (as now) vigorously competitive trade in consumer goods, and no fear of scarcity or monopoly, price control is an unwanted weapon of consumer protection".
If I may say so in all humility, as one who served during the last war on many Ministry of Food consultative committees, the fixing of prices which are fair both to the consumer and to the trader is very difficult. It is easy for people who do not know the complexities of a particular trade to advocate it. I am reminded of this by what my noble friend Lord Trenchard said in another connection in The Times Agricultural Supplement a few months ago
"…indulging in the easy game of criticising someone else's business when one is not handicapped by a knowledge of the facts".
I should like now, my Lords, if I may, to refer to another form of price control—namely, resale price maintenance imposed by individual manufacturers, and to express a mild regret that the Committee sought direction from the then President of the Board of Trade and, as a result of that direction, did not pursue the subject further. The Committee also stated—and I now quote:
"We subsequently learnt that your predecessor had decided to institute a fact-finding inquiry into this matter, and that the inquiry
664
would be confidential and we have had no news of its outcome".
I think I am right in saying that we in this House also as yet have had no news of the Government policy decision as a result of that fact-finding inquiry. The Committee, however, towards the end of their Report, in paragraph 902, state:
"Restrictive practices of any kind which keep up costs or prices are inimical to the consumer. Consumer interest might require an extension and stiffening of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956. The repeal of its provisions permitting enforcement of individual resale price maintenance might greatly benefit consumers."
In the retail food trade one can say that very few, virtually no, manufacturers, outside possibly confectionery, enforce resale price maintenance. This, coupled with the work of the Restrictive Practices Court, has led to very keen competition at both the manufacturing and the retail level. Of course, this competition is welcomed by some, but not by all the parties concerned.
I do not wish to weary your Lordships and I am very conscious of the tradition that a maiden speech should be short and not unduly controversial; but before sitting down I would say something about the growth of what I personally consider to be undesirable promotion practices. Hardly a day passes without the announcement of some new gift scheme. Recently, for the lover of what I believe is called in certain circles "pop" music, there was a free jazz record with every pound-packet of a certain well-known brand of margarine. For those who like artificial flowers, there have recently been plastic roses with a packet of detergent, plastic carnations with a rival brand, artificial orchids with a famous brand of soap, and only last week I heard that, with the approach of the festive season, there was artificial mistletoe with a liquid detergent. Would it not be better if the manufacturer, instead of playing on the customer's psychological weakness, reduced his price? It is axiomatic that a free offer is never free—somebody pays and that somebody, in my opinion, is ultimately the consumer. My Lords, I believe that a Consumer Council could do a great deal to educate the public and to persuade manufacturers to discontinue these undesirable practices.
May I conclude by expressing the wish that a strong Consumer Council may

665
soon be appointed and that it may have a beneficial effect on the well being of the people of this country?
House adjourned during pleasure and resumed by the Lord Chancellor.
5.38 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, before I perform the pleasurable and traditional task of offering my congratulations on the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, may I hope he will agree with me that ladies come first, and therefore allow me to offer a word of congratulation to the maiden speech of a maiden lady, the maiden speech from the Front Bench of the noble Baroness who introduced the Motion before your Lordships House? I have to be very careful because I think it was a tour de force. I have never heard so many words delivered in such a space of time and never such a very fine review of the mass of words in this document as the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, gave this afternoon. I would congratulate her. Some time ago I asked her if she had read the thing. She blushed a little. She did not like to say "No". She said "I have read nearly all of it. I am going to finish it. I have been on it for two and a half months." She showed us this afternoon that she has a mastery of it which I envy.
And now to the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. It gives me particular pleasure to congratulate him on a maiden speech. It was not at all controversial, because I agreed with everything he said, and I am going to follow him into some of it. If there is one thing that your Lordships always like, it is to listen to a speech from someone who knows what he is talking about. I think that we are very fortunate in having the addition of the noble Lord to our deliberations, just as we are fortunate in having, on the other side of the House, his counterpart, the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Broughton. I hope that we shall hear the noble Lord very often, and that sometimes he will be able to break away from the inhibitions of a maiden speech and be highly controversial, as I know he well can be. Now, to the subject of the Motion.
The Molony Report contains a lot that is good. It says a lot that needed
666
to be said. But, if I may say this in an attempt at a little humour, while there is a lot of good in Molony, there is also a lot of boloney in Molony. I am going to deal with only three things, because I think that we can discuss this Report to better advantage when legislation which is before another place comes to your Lordships' House, if it ever reaches us. It was here in this House some time ago and never reached another place, and I understand that the Bill before another place is little different from the Bill which left here. However, I am not going to pass judgment on that.
The Molony Report says very well that competition is the consumer's best friend. Then, as the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, has said, in paragraph 902 the Report skates lightly over the one predominating fact in retail trade today that militates against competition—that is, resale price maintenance. But the Report shows its cloven hoof—or its Achilles heel, whichever you like to call it—in paragraph 7, which the noble Lord quoted. This paragraph shows that even the Molony Committee were not independent. They went to the President of the Board of Trade to ask whether they could deal with resale price maintenance, and were told that they were to sheer off it, because that was to be the subject of a private and confidential report. That was in 1959. The President of the Board of Trade told them they could not deal with this subject because it was to be referred to the Monopolies Commission at some future date. It never has been. That is not surprising.
The noble Baroness cast some doubts on whether the Board of Trade ever had the consumer's interests at heart. Of course, it never has. It has always been subjected to the pressure of vested interests. It was the pressure of vested interests that kept Sections 25 and 26 in the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. Section 25 makes individual resale price maintenance still operative. Manufacturers can bring sanctions against any sellers trying to pass on in lower prices to retail purchasers the benefit of efficiency; and the consequential part of it, in Section 26, even gives the producer of a branded price-maintained article power to control the price of second-hand products taken in part exchange for his new product. I have

667
never heard such arrant nonsense as that.
As your Lordships will remember, we argued this out in 1956, when the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill was before your Lordships' House, but the Government would not give way, because that was the result of a bargain made behind the scenes. I do not know whether your Lordships have read an informative article which appeared in The Times the other day. The writer discussed the way legislation is framed behind the scenes of a Government Department between the official level and vested interests, so that when it comes before Parliament, Parliament is almost impotent. In another place the other day, the President of the Board of Trade admitted that in connection with the Weights and Measures Bill before the House of Commons his Department had already consulted 200 vested interests. That Bill will largely be the result of the bargains that have been made.
The Molony Report, in spite of saying that competition is the consumer's best friend, did not deal at all with solo selling, which is one of the iniquities of retailing at the present time. Petrol is one of the outstanding examples, but there are others, where retailers are paid a higher discount to refuse to stock the goods of other manufacturers. There are restrictive covenants in many retail agreements to-day that make it impossible for a retailer to stock a range of goods. The result is that the consumer is denied freedom of choice. This practice is still allowed, and I do not know any enactment that can alter it. I believe that some of it is before the Monopolies Commission at the present time, but this kind of thing is rife in the retail selling of consumer durables. There are the keeping up of prices and restrictive practices of the worst possible kind, which the Molony Committee, like the Pharisees of old, ignore by passing on the other side.
After side-stepping the important matters referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury—incidentally, the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Broughton, did not build up their huge and efficient businesses by resale price maintenance. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Broughton, that his business has been built up on
668
selling articles with a branded name, the only guarantee of quality that the consumer has, because it means that the manufacturer's goodwill is behind the brand—the Report goes on to say, in paragraph 847:
"…the consumer needs an independent and forceful body to speak and to act on his behalf."
Then they propose that the way to do that is to set up a Consumer Council, which can never be independent; which can never be forceful, and which is absolutely devoid of all power of positive action.
LORD DERWENT: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I wish he would develop his statement that the Council can never be forceful and never independent.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I will leave the noble Lord under no illusions. I am going to tell him precisely, if he will let me finish.
Perhaps the biggest piece of boloney in the whole of Molony is paragraph 853, where it sets out the argument against allowing this Consumer Council to have any teeth at all. The noble Lady said that it must have teeth. What does it say in this paragraph? It says that the Council if it is going to do its job as an independent and forceful authority to act on behalf of the consumer, will be continually at odds and in acrimony with trading interests. But if it is going to do its job properly the Council will lead its life at odds with all the people mentioned by the noble Lady and by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. If it is just going to cut out anything that is going to be acrimonious, it might as well never be set up. I know that it will be inconvenient for the Board of Trade, because I imagine that the Board of Trade's idea in advocating this Consumer Council is to have a nice feather-bed or mattress between the consumer and the functions of the Department.
Let us look at the Council. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, wants me to tell him why I say that it will never be independent and will have no force and no authority. It is going to be set up by the President of the Board of Trade. The Committee let one small cat out of the bag in paragraph 824, where they say:
"For the most part it was said or implied that the power of appointment might most

669
appropriately be placed in your hands as President of the Board of Trade; but we note two suggestions (possibly inspired by the Board of Trade's traditionally close links with trade interests)"—
that is a masterly understatement—
"that this duty should rest upon the Lord President of the Council."
But the President of the Board of Trade has said in another place that he hopes to announce the name of the Chairman and the members within a short space of time. So we can now take it that he will be the appointing Minister. The Council is going to issue a Report. May I ask the noble Lord if it will issue the Report to Parliament, or will it issue the Report to the President of the Board of Trade? Who is going to speak on behalf of this Consumer Council? I suppose that it will be the President of the Board of Trade. All we shall get, in reply to any questions we want to ask about the functions of the Council or what it is doing, will be the departmental reply. Is that the beginning of an independent authority?
The Chairman is to be paid £3,000 out of public funds, and the members of the Council £500 each. They will be officers of profit under the Crown. So no Member of another place will be able to accept one of these positions, and any noble Lord or noble Lady who accepts one will be gagged: because we have at the present time noble Lords who are Chairmen of public bodies, and some supposedly independent bodies, who are inhibited from speaking in your Lordships' House. I suppose the best way for the Government to gag the noble Lady who moved the Motion on any of these subjects is to offer her £500 to be a member of the Council. She could then sit in splendid isolation and hear the Government spokesman giving forth about the work of the Consumer Council.
Let us at least learn from experience. Parliament has set up a Council on Tribunals. The purpose of that Council is to safeguard and be the watchdog of the interests of the citizen against the Administration and against bureaucracy. It was to be absolutely independent. If your Lordships remember, you fought tooth and nail right through the whole of the procedure on the Bill in this House to get some teeth in it in Clause 1(1)(c), which is written across my heart.
670
That was achieved over almost the dead bodies of the Establishment. But time has gone on, and now the Council on Tribunals, the watchdog of the rights of the common citizen and his privileges against the creeping paralysis of bureaucracy, is almost an appendage of a Government Department; and, if the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack will not mind my saying so, it is the appendage of his Department. From an Answer given by the Government the other day in your Lordships' House, and from the subject of a very informed article in The Times the other day, it is clear that we can expect no more real progress in that direction. The Chairman of the Council on Tribunals is a Member of your Lordships' House, inhibited from speaking in the House, and when anybody interested in the work of that body raises any subject he has to be content with the departmental reply. The same thing will happen with this Consumer Council. That is why I say to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, in answer to his question, without any equivocation and from past experience, that that is what the end of this Consumer Council will be.
I think we have to make up our mind whether a Consumer Council is necessary. It is set out clearly in this Report that at most it is going to be advisory. The Molony Report sets out four things with which the Council should not be entrusted. It is to do nothing objective. It has no powers. It cannot deal with any complaints. It cannot have executive action and it cannot have any say in the promulgation of regulations having statutory force. But it can have a lot of other functions, all of them advisory:
"…to provide advice and guidance… to offer advice…to offer advice and …to use its influence."
I sympathise with the noble Lady's difficulties. While she asked for teeth for this Consumer Council, she did not suggest how one could give it teeth. I will only say that it will not have any teeth because the President of the Board of Trade has publicly stated that this Consumer Council will not require any legislation to bring it into force. So that is that. If you want to give a body like this teeth; if there is a real necessity to add to the number of advisory bodies; if there is any real necessity to give any other body legislative power except the

671
local authorities—and I quite agree they have fallen down flat on their faces in carrying out a lot of these things; and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, will bear me out—there is only one thing you can have, and that is a body something like the Restrictive Trade Practices Court, and something like an Ombudsman. But I do not think we shall ever get that through a bureaucracy who are not going to have their powers in matters such as these curtailed. This is one of the things we shall be continually fighting.
So I say quite frankly to all the advocates who want to put teeth into this Consumer Council that they are up against an almost impossible job. I agree that there are many things that want doing, such as those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. The public are deluded. I should like to see printed on every cigarette packet which contains a coupon, "Do not forget that in order to give you a gift we have reduced the size of the cigarettes", Which would be true. There is also the scandalous thing that these coupons and all these free gift schemes are licences to print money. Whether or not we want to have legislation for them, I think is a matter for consideration.
I think the Molony Committee have served only one useful purpose. They have made an attempt to pinpoint some of the objections. But do not forget that it is getting old now, and with the advent of the self-service store and the supermarket the consumer choice is getting wider. Although I would not attempt to enter into the mystical field of sizes of ladies' dresses and wearing apparel, from my own personal experience I have never yet known a woman who could not get the better of any dressmaker or gown shop if she set her mind so to do. So I think we could do a lot better than wasting the public money and wasting our time in setting up another advisory body, by strengthening the bodies we have and strengthening the legislation which we have; because we have the Merchandise Marks Act and the Weights and Measures Act and if that legislation were properly carried out and properly enforced—which it is not by a long way—I think that would be the most sensible way to
672
go about it, without having this little bit of sugar and trying to pacify the consumer by having this grandiose Consumer Council.
6.5 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I would add my thanks to those of other noble Lords to my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry for giving us the opportunity to debate this subject, and my congratulations on the matter and manner of her speech—her maiden speech from the Box. I was with my noble friend a month ago, and heard her then say that she hoped that eventually she would read this Report right through. I think she has to-day not only given us proof that she has read and assimilated it but given us a very comprehensive picture and some useful comments, for which we are grateful. I would also add my word of congratulation to my noble friend Lord Sainsbury on a first-class maiden speech, delivered, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said, with knowledge, which we would expect from him, and also with clarity and humour, which we enjoyed. We have indeed witnessed this evening a new formidable combination in the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Marks of Broughton and Lord Sainsbury. I always understood that the quickest way to a man's heart was through his stomach. I think we can therefore say to my noble friend Lord Sainsbury that he is closest to men's hearts and Lord Marks of Broughton is closest to their skins.
We had a good deal of criticism of the Molony Committee's Report, much of it just now from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, with a great deal of which I agree. But I think we must agree that this three years' task and this monumental Report of the Molony Committee represent a great service to the consumer, and whatever constructive criticisms we make should not obscure that fact. In fact, the Committee themselves underline the difficulties of getting to grips with the problem in one pregnant sentence, in paragraph 21, where they say:
"Consumer protection is an amorphous conception that cannot be defined."
That is tantamount to an admission that, except in general terms or in certain limited fields, consumers cannot be protected by Statute. Whatever we do,

673
and whatever the Government do, I think that the greatest protection for the consumers will always be the honesty, integrity and good sense of manufacturers and traders, and the common sense and good taste of consumers themselves. But understandably Molony was right to advocate the setting up of a Consumers' Council as a continuing body for the purpose of education, propaganda and indirect control of both manufacturers and the Government.
I would submit, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, when he comes to reply, that there is one important field in which the Government can do much more than they are doing, and that is in the field of safety standards which should be enforced with all articles where
"the consumer incurs undue risk of personal injury."
The Home Secretary already possesses the necessary powers under the Consumers Protection Act which we passed last year, and it is most disturbing that he has been so slow to use these powers. For example, there are mentioned in the Report matters such as, in paragraph 227, wrongly coloured electric cables. Is there any reason at all why the Molony Committee recommendations that their sale should be prohibited should not be immediately implemented? We all know that they are mainly, if not entirely, imported, and are usually inferior articles. Why should they be foisted on an unwitting and defenceless public?—because people are defenceless in matters of that kind. Then there are the oil heaters mentioned in paragraph 230. It is two and a half years since the Government promised to make regulations, and they have not done so. Why is there this regrettable lack of urgency? Must we wait this winter for a few more horrifying fires before action is taken?
Then I would mention inflammable clothing. I know, regrettably, that the Molony Committee in their Interim Report did not recommend the compulsory use of flame-resistant material for children's nightdresses. I think that was a great mistake, because improvements in the proban process have overcome the earlier objections. Surely we could take this matter up and safeguard children from a horribly painful death. Only last week in a local West Country paper—you see these cases only in local
674
newspapers; they axe not thought to be important enough for the national Press—there was this story about a little girl of eight:
"Child's nightdress caught fire. 'Shocking tragedy', says coroner at inquest."
She lived for three days and the report went on:
"She said she placed some 'conkers' on top of the stove and two of them had fallen through the grill. Apparently she was trying to get them out when her nightdress caught fire… it was not made of flame-proof material."
I think this is something which should not be left to the discretion of either traders or consumers. We know that this material can be produced; it has been improved; it costs a little more. In clothing of this kind, children's night clothes, we should insist that the material used should be flame resisting.
Then there is electrical equipment generally. Some progress is now being made in safety standards for electrical equipment by the British Electrical Approvals Board. Articles are now being tested against British Standards, and the "BEAB" mark, as we have to call it for short, can be fixed to successfully tested lines. The Electrical Development Association is co-operating and arrangements have been made for check testing, and manufacturers have to give notice of any change. I should like to draw attention to the fact that the Molony Committee pointed out that in the first year nearly 50 per cent. of applications for the mark were rejected. That is very encouraging evidence of the standard of testing, but it is most alarming to reflect that there is nothing to stop these sub-standard and possibly unsafe goods from continuing to be sold. I learned on inquiry that the latest figures show that out of 754 applications for the mark 455 have been approved; that is, over 60 per cent. We are moving in the right direction.
As already reported, B.E.A.B. has the full approval of the Molony Committee, mainly for the reason that application has been made for certification of the mark. Naturally that is important, but it must not be forgotten that it is a manufacturers' organisation, paid fox by manufacturers, and it will have value to them only if, presumably by extensive advertising, the public becomes "BEAB" mark conscious and buys

675
articles bearing the mark in preference to others. I would say that that is an added reason for the Government, after a reasonable time, a year or two I suppose, to step in and prohibit the sale of unsafe equipment. They may decide that unsafe equipment is that which does not satisfy thus particular mark or standard of testing.
But it is not enough to ensure that appliances are safe; we should also see that electrical wiring and installations are safe. There is the National Inspection Council which has been going for six years. It approves lists of contractors and private firms and the Area Electricity Boards, and inspects their work in order to ensure a high standard. I think the Government ought to ensure in their dealings with local authorities and other bodies who are going to put up new buildings, factories and housing estates, that these standards should be observed. It ought to be in the contract. It is not going to make it very difficult. We should not need any legislation for it but it would add greatly to safety.
Whilst agreeing with the Committee's approval for B.E.A.B., I am rather at a loss to understand their hypercritical attitude to all other existing testing organisations. There is no proposal at all for setting up a Government testing or sponsoring organisation, and we cannot therefore, in my submission, dispense, at this stage in any case, with the independent organisations. Nor should we make it virtually impossible for new ones to be set up.
In this connection I would accept the Committee's recommendation in paragraph 315 for a reliable scheme for granting seals of approval. The absolute essential, to my mind, is that, whoever pays for it, the testing must be completely independent and free from direct or indirect pressures. I even find that the B.S.I. certified trade marks come in for substantial criticism in the Report. Certainly the Institution draws its funds, in part, from industry but there is not a jot of evidence that its recommendations are not free, unbiased and of great value. In the last ten years I myself have had two experiences in my own industry and I can certify that the long-drawn-out negotiations do not arise out
676
of the desire to accommodate anyone but to ensure technical accuracy and the highest possible standards.
The offshoot of B.S.I., the Shopper's Guide, is described by Molony as a "struggling orphan", suffering from its dependence on manufacturers' contributions. Last week I received a letter from the Cornmarket Press, Limited, advising me that because of this criticism in the Molony Report it has been decided to set up a consumer advisory trust to publish Shopper's Guide. This, I am informed, will be a non-profit-making body. Editorial control will be independently vested in a council composed mainly of Consumers' Advisory Council members. Management and distribution will be sub-contracted to Corn-market Press for a cost-plus fee; in other words they will make a profit out of it. I do not say that is essentially a bad thing; I am merely recording the fact. This new organisation, in their latter, are satisfied that they had met the Molony objection. I wish them well; but for my part there was nothing wrong with the old arrangement with the B.S.I. Someone has to find the money. What really matters is the integrity of the Council, and I submit that that was never in doubt.
The one valid Molony criticism of both Shopper's Guide and its more successful competitor Which? is that their assessments are admittedly and unavoidably incomplete and they may therefore be damaging to manufacturers whose products are left out and excluded from consideration. At the same time, the suggestion made by Molony that the directors of Consumers' Association Limited, who publish Which?, might conceal profits through the payment of extravagant salaries to staff is, I think, a bit far-fetched. From its very early days I have been an admiring subscriber to Which?, but only this month, as a manufacturer, have I had first-hand experience of their methods—I happen to be in Which? for November. I can say that so far as their working is concerned it is of great value to the consumers, and, with one reservation, which I will mention later, it is absolutely fair to manufacturers.
The first intimation you get that you are under scrutiny is a letter informing

677
you that they have bought a number of your products at retail shops, and they send you a schedule setting out the dimensions, materials and other particulars on it—their own description, of course—and they ask you if all this is right. You are then entitled to say whether it is correct or not, and I believe they allow you to add any remarks. The next thing you know is what you read about it in the book.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, does that mean that the manufacturer is given the opportunity of agreeing with the assessment of the article in Which?
LORD STONHAM: No, not at all. You do not know what they are going to say about it. The kind of thing you are asked to agree with is whether the article is 30 inches long or 36 inches. They have bought your product, measured it, and decided what materials are in it, and they tell you only that. They even tell you the retail price, if you do not yourselves fix it. My firm never fixes the retail price, and I was astounded to find there was a variation of some 15 per cent. in the retail prices they had obtained from different shops. But that is by the way. They buy the articles from the shops so that the consumers know that standard goods are being tested. That is how it should be, and nothing so far could be fairer.
Certainly I was well satisfied with the outcome of Which?, if only for the fact that the publication of good photographs to 300,000 subscribers has made a substantial difference to the sales. I was also astonished but highly gratified; astonished to think they would try a test like this, but gratified to learn they had held a flame to my job for one minute and it had not caught fire; most others did. That was splendid. After correctly saying that the job was well ventilated and airy, they described it as a fault that it was not watertight. The article is made from woven fabric in which thousands of holes are visible to the naked eye. One of its virtues is that it is airy, and that is why we use that particular material, so that babies can breath. You might as well expect a sieve to hold water. Such silly mistakes—and this was the one reservation—could be avoided if they simply told the manufacturer beforehand just these
678
points; and that nonsense could be avoided prior to publication.
This proviso is particularly important if these tests are used on television. Silly mistakes do not matter very much in Which? but they could matter if broadcast to millions of people who could not feel and handle the product. I wish that the Consumers' Association would sell their publication on the bookstalls. Naturally, we wanted a large number more to send round, and on inquiry we were told we could have as many copies as we liked at £1 a time; that is the cost of a year's subscription. That is painfully autocratic, in my view.
As the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, mentioned, the Molony Committee was a bit rough with Good Housekeeping, in which I declare an interest because I am a director of a company which acts as advisers to the Institute. The Report describes it as best known to the general public, with whom it enjoys a fair standing, but declares that it has little confidence in the Institute or the quality of its standards. Paradoxically, the Committee say that the merchandise which bears the seal generally satisfies the customer, but regard this as due more to the calibre of the manufacturers who seek the seal for its advertising value. It is difficult to imagine manufacturers seeking the seal for any other reason; nor would they seek it if it had no value or the customers had no faith in it.
The fact is that this non-profit-making Institute has been in useful existence for 38 years. It is the only organisation which refunds the purchase price of an article if a customer claims that its performance does not justify the seal. There are very few claims made out of millions of seal-bearing articles sold, and this, allied to the fact that out of every five articles offered for testing only three are awarded the seal, has made it a household word which should not, in my view, be lightly cast aside.
I am quite sure that there is room for improvement in all the organisations' methods. I think that the Committee's definition of a seal of approval and their proposals for registration should be acceptable to all bona-fide organisations. Indeed, I do not doubt that they will all apply for certification. This being so, I would submit that the obvious course

679
would be for the proposed Consumer Council to negotiate the necessary changes with these bodies and maintain a close liaison with these established organisations to ensure the widest possible publication of the Consumer Council's periodic reports and instructions.
I entirely agree with what my noble friend Baroness Burton of Coventry and others have said; this Consumer Council must not be a mere façade. We have had the expression that it must be given "teeth", and I think we all agree that we have not seen yet where the teeth are going to grow from. The Molony Report is adamant that it should not handle consumers' complaints. Indeed, the modest scale of finance proposed in the Report would not permit that, in any case. But someone must handle complaints or the whole report will be a sheer waste of time. Therefore the Council must act through agencies, and obviously it must make a beginning with those agencies which are already established.
Certainly the Citizens' Advice Bureaux have an important part to play, as my noble friend Baroness Burton of Coventry made clear; we do not want to underrate their importance in any way. But as of now they have not the equipment, they are not open sufficient days or sufficient hours; their staff to a large extent is voluntary; they have not got the technical knowledge. When I was a Member of another place, in common with the 615 other Members we were all citizens' advice bureaux every Friday night on all kinds of subjects. My noble friend may have been competent to answer some of the questions that must have been addressed to her, and I should have thought our general knowledge as Members of another place was equal to that of members of the staff of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux. Certainly they used to send a lot of people to us to answer questions they could not answer.
It is no good the Government thinking, "We are going to set up the Consumer Council, give them £125,000 a year, and the job is going to be done". It will not be done—it cannot be done—unless they have the agencies to do the job, to tackle complaints, to disseminate information
680
and to see that the whole thing works. I think that the Molony Committee's Report is just the beginning of this very big and important job. We need the help of all existing organisations and some new ones, and we need a big, sustained and persistent effort if consumer protection is to become a reality.
6.30 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, first I would apologise to your Lordships' House because, due to a longstanding engagement in Surrey, I have to leave the Chamber as soon as I have completed my speech. I should particularly like to apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, and to my noble friend Lord Derwent on that account. I now have much pleasure to be the first person on these Benches to congratulate the noble Baroness on her first contribution from the Opposition Front Bench. It was a most interesting speech, full of sensible and practical knowledge, and we all hope that she will make many more similar speeches from that position.
It also gives me much pleasure to be the first from these Benches to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, on his admirable maiden speech. It was the speech of somebody who has had a lifetime of experience in the food trade. It was modest, but it was full of sound practical sense. I may say, as one who has purchased many goods from his chain of stores, that the most vital aspect of this particular chain of stores is that it has two hallmarks—civility and efficiency. I think that a Consumer Council or any other Council would find few complaints about that organisation. It is a great pleasure to have had the opportunity to listen to Lord Sainsbury's contribution, and I am sure that I voice the opinion of the whole House when I say that we hope to have many more such contributions in the future.
The Molony Committee, whose Report we are considering, have been sitting for three years, and no fewer than 472 written statements have been taken from various organisations. I believe that the Report has many admirable facets to it, but I must confess that to me it is in many respects a confusing Report. It tends to be repetitive. However, this is a subject which it is difficult to discuss with any semblance of logic, because, on

681
the one hand, the consumer must be protected from illegal practices and from overcharging and so on, while on the other, the consumer would soon complain if he were told too much as to what he must and must not purchase. Any Report of this nature needs to fall into a happy medium to avoid these difficulties.
I wish to deal primarily and briefly with three aspects of this Report: safety, advertising and the setting up of the Consumer Council. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has already made some admirable comments on the subject of safety. This is a subject of which he has a great deal of experience, and he has made many valuable contributions in regard to the subject in your Lordships' House. I am a member of the all-Party Home Safety Committee, and I think that the Molony Report is to be commended for its writings on this matter of safety, although I cannot help feeling that the Committee have been a little complacent in one or two of their comments. For example, in paragraph 234 they mention that the number of injuries and deaths due to burns in children and old people has declined. I have not the figures with me, and I should not like to dispute what they say without having them, but the figures are still far too high, and I think that that paragraph might conveniently have been omitted.
I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said about the sale of flameproof clothing. One of the difficulties of making such sales compulsory is, of course, that the general public do not like being told what they must or must not buy. But having myself closely examined treated materials, I do not see any reason why their sale should not be promoted more vigorously. The general public can now get flameproof materials at reasonable cost and attractively styled. One difficulty is that the ladies, and particularly the younger ladies, like to be in the fashion; they like to wear attractive clothing. But now attractive clothing, properly treated and flameproof, can be obtained. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Broughton, to whose speech we listened with such interest, is to be congratulated because his large organisation has done so much for the advertising of flameproof and safety clothing. In fact, I think I am
682
right in saying that Marks & Spencer were the pioneers of treated clothing which would at least afford some protection against these terrible injuries.
I should like just to say a few words about toys. Being the father of three young children, I can perhaps declare something of an interest here. Quite often I purchase toys for my young children and for relations and friends. I have been much impressed by the high standard of British-made toys. Some years ago there were a number of complaints about the poor quality of goods manufactured by the British toy industry. I think that a number of improvements have been made here—I refer particularly to the cuddly type of toys, the teddy bears and so on. But there could still be safety improvement—for example, the eyes of some of these toys can be too easily removed and find their way into children's mouths. I am glad to see that the Molony Report has touched on this question, and I hope that the Government will look into it. Then there is the danger of lead poisoning from some of the painted dolls. That is still quite prevalent. It is particularly applicable to dolls, to certain types of wooden cars and other vehicles. But, by and large, the British toy industry has now a most creditable record so far as safety is concerned. There are, however, still a number of imported toys with jagged edges which can cause nasty cuts and which merit looking into in connection with the recommendations of this Report.
I should like to say a few words now about advertising. This business of free gifts, particularly with cereals and toothpaste, has gone much too far. This is particularly true when one has two or three young children in a family, and one is persuaded to buy two or three packets of cornflakes or something, because there are free gifts and there is a quarrel as to which child should have which gift. We all like free gifts, provided that they are free. But as has been said by other noble Lords, these are not free; frequently, the goods are sold at short weight. That may not necessarily be the fault of the manufacturer, because in the processing short weight may result; but we can discuss that further in dealing with the forthcoming Weights and Measures Bill. Then the quality of the toys is usually very poor; they are often made of some

683
kind of plastic material which is probably pretty dangerous, anyway, because it inevitably goes into the child's mouth. I think that either the price should be cut, or the full value of the cereal or other commodity should be given.
Of course we are told for advertising purposes that the firm must advertise. Well, that is fair enough—but not at the expense of the consumer. Then, provided with our tooth-paste we get a biro pen or a toothbrush, usually of inferior quality. Why not provide a properly filled tube of tooth-paste at a reasonable price—if you like, at the full economic price? I feel that these things should be looked into. I know that Government legislation on these matters presents a number of problems, but, after all, the idea of consumer protection has, I think, at least got through to the Government's mind, and these are obvious matters to be investigated.
Finally, in regard to the question of the Consumer Council, on paper this sounds an excellent idea. The consumer must be protected. Frequently he has not sufficient redress against the manufacturers of inferior quality goods or against shops who may tend to employ illegal practices. But I feel that the composition of this Council must be given great care. I should like to quote from an article which appeared in the Sunday Telegraph on November 4, an article written by Jean Robertson. She said:
"The Government is not forced to go along with Molony; I shall, however, be amazed if it doesn't. What a weight of responsibility this has put on the Whitehall selectors. The job of picking the people to make up the first national Consumer Council dwarfs even the tense and awful task of selecting the eleven men most likely to bring the Ashes home from Australia."
My Lords, I think the chances of our cricketers bringing home the Ashes from Australia are a good deal brighter than those of a Consumer Council, unless it is very carefully chosen.
I feel that if the names have not already been selected, consideration at any rate should be given to having at least one housewife on it. After all, it is she who has to do the shopping. I am not saying this is always so, because I, like many other noble Lords, I am sure, frequently do the family shopping,
684
particularly on a Saturday morning. Therefore, I feel qualified to make some of these comments. At any rate, it is to be hoped that the composition of this Council will not have too much of a rigid, Civil Service mind. It must be composed of those who have experience of industry, of the retail and wholesale trades, and also of shoppers themselves so that the members really know something about what is going on. We are not, of course, told very much about their terms of reference. It is obviously going to be difficult to insist that they can be in a position to promote prosecutions because, obviously, certain areas of the country must require different forms of legislation. But if the Government are going to become favourably disposed towards the idea of a Consumer Council—and I think there is a lot to be said for it—the composition of this Council is of paramount importance.
My Lords, in this coming Session the Weights and Measures Bill will presumably come back to this House, so I do not feel that there is any need to say anything about that. But I think that this Report, with all its defects, will be of great benefit to the consumer, because it is at least an attempt to thresh out some of these problems of resale price maintenance and other technical problems which those of us who are laymen find difficult to understand. I hope, therefore, that the Government will take serious cognizance of what has been said to-day.
6.46 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I am sure the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry for providing an opportunity for discussion of this most important subject. I think, too, that I must join in the congratulations that have been extended to her for the remarkable way in which she presented her case. I must also join in expressing my sincere congratulations to my noble friend Lord Sainsbury. My own maiden speech is not so far distant that it obscures my recollection of the occasion, and my heart went out to him when he rose to his feet. But I realised, after he had been speaking but two minutes, that he did not need my sympathy. He made a first-class speech, and, as other speakers have indicated, all the better because it was based upon

685
practical knowledge. I am sure that all Members of this House will look forward with great interest to more speeches from my noble friend Lord Sainsbury.
More than one noble Lord during the course of this debate has given a clear indication of the importance of consumer protection, and, while it is true one can easily exaggerate, nevertheless there are very many traps and pitfalls to catch the unwary shopper to-day; and if Molony has done one thing, he and his Committee have focused attention upon these traps and pitfalls. In this regard I suppose they have served their purpose. They have also given us some indication of the tremendous range of the problem of consumer protection—a startling range indeed.
Many of the aspects of consumers' problems have been dealt with during the course of the debate this afternoon-such as questions of quality and purity of foodstuffs. I might mention, in passing, that there are no fewer than 700 additives to food. I agree that the overwhelming majority of them are probably necessary, and certainly not harmful, but we have no assurance to-day that all are without some deleterious effect upon the human.
We have had reference to a further aspect of this problem, that of the question of just and honest measure. I might quote the comment which the Molony Report make, concerning the matter of weights and measures. In paragraph 8 they say:
"we never doubted that before our Report was completed there would be a new Weights and Measures Act on the statute-book. We have been disappointed about this. If our recommendations are acepted in whole or part, we trust that in the interest of the consumer their implementation will not suffer the monumental delay which has characterised the treatment of the Hodgson Committee Report."
The question of misleading presentation has also been touched upon. My noble friend Lord Sainsbury gave many indications of that. I would point out that many good firms of high repute are being forced into such practices. We have advertising, high-pressure advertising. Although I recognise that the profession itself is attempting to impose certain standards, nevertheless there is an increasing tendency for information to be subordinated to persuasion. Then
686
there are gimmicks—gimmicks which descend to trickery and, in some cases, almost to knavery. Then there are monopoly practices, and the situation where 25 per cent. of the consumer goods which are sold in the market to-day shall have a maintained price. That is the range of the problem, my Lords.
We could lead ourselves to believe that traders are less honest than they used to be. Such is not the case. Nor do I believe that the public are more stupid than they used to be. But the fact remains that we experience to-day far more complicated shopping. We have almost an absence of adequate standards. We have a general shopping public who have little knowledge of the law that could protect them. We are living in a producer's world, where not only have we the pressure of the manufacturer and distributor, but even the vested interests among our own ranks of Labour can press a particular vested interest, without any recognition whatsoever of the consumer as such. I would point out that competition, although it has been mentioned in the course of this debate, is no protection at all; indeed,I would go so far as to say that in many cases competition forces bad practices. The consumer is almost defenceless in this type of atmosphere, and I believe that no single body of law offers complete protection, even with far better enforcement than we have had in recent years. But the consumer needs the law. He needs the protection of the law; secondly, he needs accurate information which will enable him or assist him to judge such products; and, thirdly, he needs the protection of an organisation to give him collective strength, and an organisation that can exercise a continuous watch, because the whole scene of distribution, shopping and marketing is in a constant state of flux.
Now I turn to the question of the Molony Committee and the way they have dealt with these problems. I believe that the task that was presented to them gave an opportunity for the consideration of a vast subject, which could have made possible bold and imaginative proposals. In that regard I think the Molony Report falls far short of our expectations. In the first place, I am at a complete loss to understand why services were ruled out, were ignored,

687
despite the fact that services constitute a significant part, and an increasing part, of consumer expenditure.
Secondly, my Lords, I think that to exclude food and drugs, in spite of the explanation offered, is nothing more or less than a scandal, particularly in the light of recent experiences. We know the harrowing experience with thalidomide, and the Committee knew during the time it was sitting—true it was in Holland—that in 1960 60,000 people suffered serious skin disease through the use of margarine additives. We also know that only recently an investigation was made of certain proprietary drugs, and that, from a medicinal standpoint, 250 of them were found to be utterly worthless. Other noble Lords have made reference to this aspect, and in this particular field, to my mind, lies an overwhelming justification for consumer protection. I fail to understand why it was not considered. I appreciate, and would emphasise, that I do not think any body of law, without becoming too restrictive, can create a situation that will protect the general public absolutely, so far as the drug field is concerned, but at least Molony could have suggested some improvements.
Next, to by-pass price maintenance and ignore the whole fabric of price and monopoly is, to my mind, strange. I would join in the criticism of the Molony Committee, for I believe they were far too easily directed—and I use that word deliberately—by the Minister to exclude activity in that particular field. Molony says that the manufacturers and distributors have a powerful voice and the consumers are voiceless. I agree. The Committee go on to concede that the need for consumers to organise themselves is expressed in the genesis of the Co-operative Movement. It is a great pity that that theme was not developed, and an indication given of the considerable contribution which is made to consumer protection by the voluntary association of no fewer than 13 million people, who are members of consumer organisations in this country. I would agree with the Molony Committee when they go on to make reference to the fact that, in the vast field of consumer need which it would be impracticable to cover by legal safeguards, consumer education should fill
688
the gap. I would make the suggestion that consumer education, apart from using all the instruments of popular and public education, deserves a place in the curricula of schools. I would suggest that household budgeting, selective buying and the like, are just as important as the teaching of carpentry in schools; and, certainly, they are as important to the potential wife or, for that matter, to the husband, too.
I turn now to the question of the Consumer Council. I know I shall be told that other noble Lords have made reference to the fact that this is a first step. It is a very timid step. The Molony Report has dismissed, almost with contempt, suggestions that were made for the establishment of a Ministry, or even a separate Government Department under a Minister of State, who would have the responsibility for coordinating all aspects of consumer protection. They dismiss that idea as grandiose. They go on to acknowledge the need for Government departmental co-ordination, but, strangely enough, they leave it to the Consumer Council to discover whether and in what respects that could be done. I would suggest that no Government should delegate to some other body their responsibilities for the administration of Departments of State.
The full responsibilities that are likely to be placed upon the Consumer Council can be borne only by a powerful organisation; and unless it is powerful it is doomed to failure. To give some idea of the financial backing of the Council's power, the total funds available in the first year will be £125,000. The Molony Report makes reference to the fact that the Consumers' Association are only touching the fringe of the job they have to do, yet their income is £300,000. This Council, if set up, will need to challenge Government Departments, and the appointments, we note, are to be made by the President of the Board of Trade while the Treasury will pay the bill. I only hope that the Council will find themselves completely immune to any lobbying that may be done by comercial or industrial interests which they may have need to criticise.
I have also very grave doubts, my Lords, about the suggestion that the Citizens' Advice Bureaux should undertake

689
this local work. Tributes have been paid to the Citizens' Advice Bureaux, and those I would accept. But I doubt whether this organisation could, with the small grant that is being offered, perform such a service. I doubt whether it possesses the co-ordination or uniform service. I would mention, in passing, that there are 93 towns in Britain having more than 30,000 population but no citizens' advice bureau. To me, the suggestion smacks rather of "passing the buck". I would rather have seen the services of the local authority called in. I know that there are difficulties here, and I know it is said that local authorities already have many responsibilities. But at least this would achieve a unification of the many services in relation to consumer protection which have already been undertaken by local authorities, and it would also, I believe, introduce a greater sense of public accountability. I believe that that was important to the Molony Committee, because they themselves chided the Consumer Association for not having a more democratic control; but at least if the local authorities accepted this measure of local responsibility there would be more public accountability.
To turn to another aspect of this matter, I noticed that in another place, I think on Monday, the statement was made that there would now be no need for a Bill to bring the Consumer Council into being. If my memory serves me aright, that is somewhat different from the statement that was made in the gracious Speech, and I am wondering whether or not both Houses will have an opportunity of discussing these matters related to the creation of a Consumer Council. I think that both Houses would be entitled to ask what are the precise terms of reference; What is the scope of work; how is the money to be provided; What precise staff will be available, and who will compose the Council. I do not know how both Houses are going to get that sort of information unless there are facilities for discussion of this whole matter.
It has already been indicated (and on this I would put a specific question to the noble Lord who will be answering for Her Majesty's Government), I think, that there will be no legislation this Session to deal with some of the pro-
690
posals made by the Molony Committee. How does that tally with the Government's previous declaration on this particular matter? Because we have all had too much experience of Reports coming along, of suggestions being acclaimed on all sides and then being carefully buried and forgotten.
There are one or two other aspects of the Report, my Lords, on which I should like to make comment. The first is credit trading and hire-purchase. Seeing that I have been criticising the Molony Report so far, I think I ought to take this opportunity to pay them a compliment. While credit trading and hire-purchase do serve a useful need, the Molony Report draws attention to the many abuses; and one would say that the field in which the buyer should really beware is in that field of hire-purchase which is outside the scope of the Hire-Purchase Act. I saw some figures recently which startled me (and I think they will startle the House) in dealing with this question of the effect of stimulated trade. The Commissioners of Prisons, in their Report for 1959—and I quote:
"…noted a striking rise in the number of prisoners received from county courts. They were: for 1951. 499; 1957, 2,148; 1959, 4,821; 1960, 5,057".
The Commissioners of Prisons go on to state—and I quote:
"These prisoners come, we have reason to believe, largely as a result of failure to pay commercial debts, of which the bulk will have been incurred as a result of hire-purchase agreements".
That extract gives an indication of the result of high-pressure salesmanship—not in all cases, but in many cases. Reforms are needed, and with many of the reforms suggested I would agree, particularly the idea of giving the power to have second thoughts over a period of 72 hours. At the same time, I feel that this should not be restricted merely to door-to-door sellers. I agree that there should be a statement of interest rates if advertised, and that it should be stated on an annual basis. But I do not think the problem is confined solely to one of falsely-expressed rates. I think it is the failure of the consumer to be clearly cognisant of the total interest charged. I think that is just as necessary, and that steps should be taken to achieve that.

691
I turn now—and I am conscious of the passage of time—to the merchandise marks law. Molony agrees that this legislation is not adequately enforced, and that there should be a co-ordinating body to ensure uniform administration. It is difficult to believe that the proposed Council would have the authority to achieve anything in that direction. I believe that the Molony Committee is right: that the main body of legislation in this field requires simplification. But I would also agree (and I am sure my noble friend Lord Sainsbury would agree with this) with the recommendation to improve the defences of the honest trader; he should not be held responsible for false trade descriptions ascribed to goods by someone else. I think there are helpful precedents in this regard in the Weights and Measures Bill and in the Food and Drugs Act, 1948.
When we come to the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, there are some really remarkable inconsistencies. In the first place, Molony says—and I quote from the Report:
" We think that the best interests of the consumer require free competition "—
I agree—
"and that imported goods should not be placed under any disadvantage in contributing to the stimulus of the market-place"
It goes on:
"We do not regard as a real consumer concern the ability of the consumer to discriminate against imported goods on patriotic, political or personal grounds, and we feel under no obligation to facilitate this type of discrimination."
In view of those statements and of other statements in the Report, one would have expected the Committee to declare that the 1926 Act serves no useful purpose, so far as consumer protection is concerned. However, I believe that the whole circumstances in connection with their judgment on the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, are unsatisfactory, because no attempt was made, so far as I am able to see, to secure the views of people other than those with vested interests in discriminating against foreign produce. I could produce lists of goods that are now governed by marking orders—skewers, pokers; even fly-swatters—where consideration of the real interest of the consumers in the origin of those goods is completely lacking. If the purpose of the Act is
692
to enable the consumers to make a choice between home and foreign goods, it should be reviewed. I think it is quite cynical to suggest, as the Molony Report does, that the marking orders governing foodstuffs, should be enforced by local authorities, yet those on dry goods are enforced at discretion. I am at a loss to understand the reason for that. The marking orders in the Act of 1926 are not being adequately enforced and the law is falling into contempt. Enforcement might have the effect of multiplying prosecutions, with no benefit to the consumer, and I am amazed that Molony did not give attention to this particular point.
My Lords, I have dealt with a few points of interest to me. I would end by stating that at least one great virtue lies in the Report; that it helps the general public and ourselves to focus attention upon these important problems. I hope also that it will stimulate the Government to action, because consumer protection should be not merely in the interests of justice but also in the economic interest. A very great improvement could be made in the whole field of distribution with tremendous advantages to the nation itself, and if the Report inspires action in that particular regard it will have served a useful purpose.
7.12 p.m.
LORD CAWLEY: My Lords, I intend to speak only on Chapters 14 and 15 of the Report; that is to say, those chapters dealing with the Merchandise Marks Act. I hope the noble Baroness will not consider me discourteous if I do not refer to her admirable speech, to which I listened with interest, but I usually rise in this House to talk about something rather technical; and this evening is no exception. I therefore absolve the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, from replying, if he will assure me that my remarks will be given consideration when legislation is proposed in this field.
As soon as this Committee was appointed I noticed that no person had been appointed to the Committee who had some knowledge of the law of industrial property or, so far as I can see, the Jaw of trade marks and similar law. The result has been that the recommendations in this field have gone

693
somewhat astray. I think it is very necessary that these recommendations are criticised, so that no unfortunate stops should be taken when legislation is put forward. The Merchandise Marks Act is, in my view, a most important weapon for use in consumer protection. We cannot ensure fair trading without just laws which axe adequately enforced.
There are two grounds, in particular, on which I part company with the Committee. The first is that they have not suggested there is any criticism of the fact that merchandise marks proceedings are heard by magistrates' courts or juries. I shall deal with that in detail later. The second recommendation, which I cannot understand, is that the right to prosecute for infringement of registered trade marks, which runs parallel to the right to sue for infringement of registered trade marks, should be retained. The remedies under the Merchandise Marks Act are prosecution before magistrates or before a judge and jury. These cases are decided on the evidence and are not conclusive against third parties. They are not binding on any other court, and no injunction can be granted. So the accused can commit the offence again and again, subject, of course, to an increased penalty for a second offence.
Another very serious difficulty is that the choice of venue in which prosecution can be conducted is very wide. Let us suppose that it is desired to prosecute somebody who is distributing goods all over the United Kingdom. Wherever a packet of his goods can be bought there can be a prosecution. The result is that a prosecutor can choose his venue, can choose the bench of magistrates whom he desires. He can go round until he gets the bench he thinks will be in his favour. And, as noble Lords know, magistrates, by their nature, vary enormously all over the kingdom. I know some cases (and I believe the case I shall mention is one) where the prosecution went from court to court failing to get a conviction until they arrived at a stipendiary magistrate who convicted the defendants.
That case was the "Non-brewed vinegar" case—a very curious case. The Ministry of Food had licensed numerous people to sell a product
694
under the name of "Non-brewed vinegar", though they did not, in so many words, give them permission to use that name. The brewers of genuine vinegar then brought proceedings under the Merchandise Marks Act against these people. Now, an ordinary bench of magistrates, when an order by the Ministry of Food is brandished before it showing that the Ministry of Food have licensed the making of this stuff, is unlikely to convict. Prosecutions went without success, until they met a stipendiary magistrate. He said: "I don't care a rap for the Ministry of Food. This is a false trade description". There was then an appeal, on the grounds that the decision was against the weight of evidence, to the Divisional Court, and the Divisional Court decided that, although they might not have decided that way themselves, they would not interfere with the magistrate's decision. I must say I think that is a very unsatisfactory way of obtaining a decision which is important to all of us—for about 300 people in that case were producing this commodity.
An even more curious case recently was that of "Spanish Champagne". In that case, the Costa Brava Wine Company were prosecuted at the Old Bailey for using the name "Spanish Champagne", on the ground that it was a false trading description and that champagne was wine that came only from a small area in France. The jury acquitted the company, and the effect of this was shattering on the Continent, because the French immediately thought that a court in this country had given permission to Spaniards to use the word "Champagne" in reference to their wine in this country. It is almost impossible to explain to a foreigner that if the case had been taken to a stipendiary magistrate the next day he would have had a perfect right to find the other way. It has not done our jurisprudence any credit at all. Of course, there is a happy ending to this. The champagne growers got together, went to the High Court and were granted an injunction, which is a much better remedy, because if the Costa Brava Company did it again they would face sequestration.
The Merchandise Marks Act, 1953, made it a new offence to apply false or misleading trade descriptions to goods,

695
as to fitness for purpose, strength or behaviour. And the Committee, in paragraph 638, suggest that there should he added to this the words
"or any other physical characteristic whatsoever".
I have had experience, which probably few people have had, of the working of this subsection even without that very wide qualification, because in 1954 I was junior counsel in a very curious case which took place in a town near London. A firm who were selling homeopathic prophylactics for cows against mastitis were prosecuted by the county council for putting a false trade description as to the fitness for purpose of the goods. They had, in fact, put a rather wide claim as to the properties of these goods, but the case was really based on the fact that certain people had induced the county council—and I say this advisedly—to fight this case in order to extinguish homeopathy in the veterinary world. Of course, this is a respected branch of the medical profession, which is carried on by about 400 practitioners in the medical, as distinct from the veterinary, would.
There was no evidence as to fact. All the evidence given was as to opinion, and the poor magistrates were absolutely overwhelmed by this. They found that, in effect, homeopathy is all rubbish, and they convicted the company. There was a happy sequel. On appeal to the Appeals Committee, which was made up of highly-qualified legal men, the Committee said, quite correctly, that there was a complete conflict of evidence of opinion honestly given, and therefore the prosecution had not proved its case. The sequel to that was that the county council had to pay £500 in costs.
I do not think that this case was fair either to the magistrates or to anybody else. Paragraph 679 is headed "Laxity in enforcement", and paragraph 682 states:
"We have no doubt that the proper course is to lay the enforcement duty on local authorities".
Is it fair in these complicated cases that a local authority should be faced with a bill for £500 if they fail? Is it surprising that they are somewhat loth to take the risk of failure? And this is not an isolated case. In a case before
696
the Greenwich magistrate some years ago, when it was suggested that the phrase "California Syrup of Figs" was a false trade description, the costs awarded against the prosecution were £250. So it is not an uncommon occurrence in these complicated cases.
I put forward various tentative suggestions. The first one is that a local authority should be entitled to an indemnity in costs from the Board of Trade, if the Board approve proceedings being taken by that local authority. Secondly, local authorities or the Board of Trade should be given a locus to sue in the High Court for an injunction to obtain a more authoritative decision on such matters as Spanish champagne and non-brewed vinegar, which are important to the public generally, and for that matter in complicated cases, subject to the same indemnity as to costs, the Board of Trade in every case being permitted to decide which court would be more appropriate, if and when they sanction the indemnity for costs. Thirdly, I agree with the Committee in their recommendation in paragraph 651 that it is desirable that the Board of Trade should have power to define terms in use in trade. However, I think that this would not go very far, as they indicate in paragraph 653.
Now I turn to the question of trade marks. In 1958, your Lordships repealed a Statute, 34 and 35 Henry VIII, chapter 8. It is "An Acte for the Preservation of the Ryver Severne". That may seem to have nothing to do with this subject, and indeed the provisions which your Lordships repealed had nothing to do with the River Severn. They provided a method of proceeding against persons who shovelled garbage into harbours. The reason why it was repealed was that there are many better ways of enforcing a sanction against people who do that disgusting act. In 1887, certain provisions were placed in the Merchandise Marks Act to deal with the false application of registered trade marks. This is exactly the same as infringement, with certain minor exceptions I need not mention, and most of us who practise in this branch of the law think that those provisions are about as out of date as the provisions of the Act for the preservation of the River Severn.
Therefore it is surprising that the Committee seem to think that these ought to

697
be preserved. The criminal proceedings for infringement of registered trade marks are very archaic, but in paragraph 577 it is recorded that the Committee had received what is described as "expert legal criticism" of the 1887 Act in its application to registered trade marks, and it was said (almost certainly by the late Mr. Hugh Fletcher Moulton, one of the greatest authorities on trade marks) that
"In an infringement action there are available broad defences more generous to the defendant."
I note that the word "broad" is used. I say that those defences are defences for the better achievement of justice. They are defences which were put in by Parliament in 1938 and before to see that justice was dispensed. Those defences do not exist in the Merchandise Marks Act.
I give your Lordships one example. It is a defence under the Trade Marks Act that the defendant has been using the mark prior to the plaintiff's registration of his mark. That is not available in the Merchandise Marks Act. Therefore, I was staggered by the recommendation in paragraph 614. It says:
"But it appears to us that such infringements are likely to be deliberate and capable of being particularly damaging to the consumer and we conclude (that the public should not be deprived of the protection of the criminal law in this respect. The consumer can be misled by the misuse of a well-known trade mark such as 'Terylene' as much as by misuse of a purely descriptive word such as 'silk'."
Paragraph 615 is headed "Subsidiary trade mark proposals". It begins:
"Our study of general trade mark law has not proceeded beyond the point reached in the previous paragraph."
My answer to that is that if it had they certainly would not have made the recommendation in the previous paragraph. The Committee then go on to say, and in my view quite correctly, that they regard Section 3 (1) of the Act, which provides that a particular description which is a registered trade mark may nevertheless still be false, as a valuable safeguard for the consumer.
A trade mark is an indication of trade origin. The consumer does not need to be protected if the quality of the goods sold by an infringer of the registered trade mark is the same as that sold by a registered proprietor. In paragraph 21
698
the Committee have defined consumer protection as
"those measures which contribute directly or indirectly to the consumer's assurance that he will buy goods of suitable quality appropriate to his purpose."
At the risk of being attacked by the owners of the registered trade mark "Terylene", I say: how many con sumers care who has made the Terylene which is woven into their garments so long as they get the quality which they expect? Terylene is an extremely bad example of a registered trade mark. If these provisions are continued in the new Act, other trade marks will, of course, be covered and not only those such as Terylene. Terylene is as much a trade description as silk, and the fact that it is a trade mark is quite irrelevant. If these provisions are continued, they will cover such trade marks as Daz for detergent, or Swan for ink, or Smiths——
A NOBLE LORD: For crisps.
LORD CAWLEY: No. For motor accessories, or Johnsons for wax. I think your Lordships will see how barren this recommendation really is. I cannot help pointing out that the noble Lord, Lord Auckland (he is not here at the moment), talked somewhat lightly about Biro pens, but I think he must have meant ballpoint pens.
I cannot deal with all the points in these chapters. There is no doubt that the Committee were very much overworked, and in fact they gave 55 full days to considering the various matters in this Report. But I hope that the Board of Trade will not accept their recommendations as to merchandise marks without further careful inquiry; and I would especially draw their attention to the ironic recommendation of paragraph 610, in which the Committee state:
"We think however that legislation… should be contained in a single enactment and stated in language as plain and simple as modern draftmanship can provide."
Your Lordships will remember the Copyright Act which was passed recently. I can only say that the drafting of that Act, which was the last piece of important industrial property legislation passed through this House, is such that it is giving a lot of trouble already to practitioners. I think that the Committee might have substituted for the words

699
"modern drafting" such words as "that used in the Sale of Goods Act, 1893". That Act was not drafted by a Parliamentary draftsman, but by a retired Judge from India, and it is still an example of what good, plain drafting can be.
In conclusion, I do not want it to be thought that I am damning the findings of the Committee on merchandise marks in toto; far from it. There is much in chapters 14 and 15 with which I agree, but there is no time to deal with it. I feel that, considering the enormity of the task the Committee have been faced with, they have done very well.
7.35 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the Molony Committee complained that there was some apathy among the consumers towards their deliberations, and as I look across the House I cannot help feeling that the same sort of apathy exists in the Party opposite. Certainly the number of them here now is very different from the massed array that we had when we dealt with the last Weights and Measures Bill, when the Government, with the Whips, made it perfectly safe for the Government to proceed, irrespective of the case that was put up by the Opposition. But in spite of the thin House and the rather late hour, I think I can say that we have had a very good and constructive debate.
Certainly the foundation of the debate was laid by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry—and who in your Lordships' House could better have made the case for the consumer? If there are any qualities that the Government require on the Consumer Council, I hope they will look in the direction of my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry; but I hope also that she will not accept any nomination, because in the course of the next year we shall need as many guns to fire from this side of the House as we can get. However, the qualities of tenacity and attack that are required are certainly there in my noble friend. Speaking of guns on this side, I am sure we all very much welcomed the maiden speech of our noble friend Lord Sains-bury. He spoke with knowledge and clarity, and I am sure it was a speech that many of us will look back upon with pleasure.
700
Is consumer protection necessary? There are many who say that competition, greater education and knowledge make it possible for the consumer to receive a square deal. One hears from time to time serious allegations of faults in materials, in articles and in services. But I think it should be said that we in this country in some of our retail shops, and particularly the stores which are represented by three noble Lords this evening—namely, Lord Marks of Broughton, Lord Sainsbury, and Lord Peddie from the co-operative—set an example not only to this country but to the Europeans into whose Market we may be going. I do not think there is any doubt that the retail offering in this country, particularly for the working class and the middle class, is infinitely superior to anything that can be found on the Continent, with the exception perhaps of Switzerland.
But having said that, I believe there are many loopholes for shoddy merchandise, shoddy service and sharp practice. As I listened to Lord Marks of Broughton speaking about quality control and giving a competitive price to the customer, I could not help feeling that there is another side to the story. The noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Sainsbury are able to produce quality and price because of their large organisations and large turnovers. There are many other organisations, particularly the smaller retailers, supported by the wholesalers, who, in order to compete with the price of these big stores are forced to reduce the quality of their own merchandise. I personally have seen cases where the supplier finds out that he can reduce so many threads in the weft or warp in order to save the extra ½d.a yard or the extra 6d. or 9d. on the shirt. Therefore, the public may be well served by these larger stores and chain stores, but they can be open to the purchase of shoddy materials by force of nature from other stores. I should not want it to be believed that it is only in the bigger chain stores that you can get first-class merchandise, because that is not true. I wanted to show that, in this element of competition to produce an article, there is a limit to which you can go, and to make any other gain you may have to reduce your quality, and in the end, of course, the consumer will lose out.

701
At this stage of the evening I do not wish to say a great deal about the Molony Report. A good deal has been said this afternoon, and we shall wait with a good deal of anxiety for what the Minister will tell us. But I think I should say to the Minister that we require some action on this Report. In fact, I think the country expects some action. The noble Lord will remember—because he took part as a Back-Bencher in the debates on the Weights and Measures Bill—that whenever we raised any question of consumer protection we were told to wait for the Molony Report. Now I understand that in another place another Weights and Measures Bill has been produced, similar to the one we had here and certainly with very little advance. Therefore, we have been led to believe that the Government intend to take some action on the Molony Report. But the Minister on Monday evening said that legislation was not required for the appointment of a Consumer Council. It would rather appear that the basis of the recommendations in this Report is going to be shelved. I hope the noble Lord, when he replies, will say that this is not the case.
There are a certain number of reforms that could be done very quickly, and I think with the support of all Parties—reforms that would not require a great deal of legislation. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, who mentioned the question of hire purchase and the fact that, under the present legislation, anything in excess of £300 is not now covered by legislation and the protection is not available. It means that in a year perhaps 2 million or 3 million cars are being sold on hire purchase without any protection under the present legislation. There is a good deal of other goods that are sold that are well above the present limit. That would not require a great deal of legislation.
Again in the case of hire purchase, in the last Session a friend of ours in another place endeavoured to obtain what was called the "cooling off" period—the 72 hours' break between the signing of a hire-purchase agreement in a home and before it becomes operative and binding on the family. I believe on that occasion the Government resisted the Bill. Their built-in majority successfully destroyed the Bill. But I think it is now
702
generally accepted and supported by the Molony Report that there would be great advantages, not only to the purchaser but, I think, also to the hire-purchase companies, if this "cooling off" period was to be brought in. If an Act of Parliament is necessary, I do not believe it would require much more than one or two clauses to effect that change. I am sure I am speaking for my friends on this side of the House when I say that if the Government were to bring that Bill forward we would give it all our support and would speed it on its way.
It is up to the Government to produce this Bill. So far as I gather, if it came from a member of the Opposition, even with this Report, we should not he likely to get the support of the Government or, at least, if we did not have the support of the Government, it would be unlikely that the Bill would get through Parliament because of time. Therefore, if the Government wish to create the appearance that they are now, within a few months of a General Election, wishing to become the protectors of the consumer, now is their opportunity to act, and we shall be very willing to assist them. The noble Lord may smile that I am suspicious. The noble Viscount, Lord Mills, on many occasions last Session said that I was a very suspicious man. I have spent all my time in this House in the Opposition. I have looked across at the Government day after day. You cannot really blame me for being suspicious.
May I remind them that in 1948 a Labour Government appointed the Hodgson Committee to look into the question of weights and measures? They produced a Report in 1951, and there was then a Conservative Government. We had to wait until 1960 before we had legislation. I suppose it was owing to the absence of the Housewives' League, which disappeared very conveniently in 1951. But the Government waited a very long time, and even the legislation they proposed did not go quite as far as the Hodgson Committee recommended.
We have this Report, and there is much that could be done. Perhaps the consumer is in some way a free agent, but one must take into account the manner in which the household is bombarded by advertisements—it used to be in the newspapers and on the hoardings, but now it

703
gets into your fireside. In fact, my youngster now uses "Pepsodent" because he is rather fond of the song. He wants to know "where the yellow has gone" since he has used "Pepsodent". An advertisement will be exaggerated, and most people will accept it, and are rather amused by it. But there is a good deal of advertisement which is deceptive, and very little appears to be done. My noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry drew our attention to the new Advertisement Council and this new code which they hope the advertising industry will accept. It is not greatly different from the code that the I.T.A. tried to establish and, as we well know from the various television debates we have had in this House, the I.T.A., with their big authority, have been unable to curb many abuses that have taken place on their screens.
I am quite prepared to give this new authority, this new Council, a chance. What if it fails, as the other organisations have failed? Are the Government going to take action on it? I think the public should feel that, if abuses continue, the Government will step in and give some protection. There are many other points, but what we really want to know to-night from the noble Lord is this. In the Commons there is the Weights and Measures Bill. There is the Government's intention to appoint a Consumer Council, that will have very little power; it will act mainly by persuasion, with no "teeth". We shall have the Weights and Measures Bill and the Consumer Council, but there are a number of very special proposals, and it is too late to mention them all, in this Report.
If the main proposals of the Molony Report could be implemented this Session and go on to the Statute Book with the Weights and Measures Bill, and if we had a Consumer Council that was a great deal stronger than my noble friend anticipates it will be, I am quite sure the position of the consumer would be very much strengthened. But unless we get the legislation proposed in the Molony Report together with the Weights and Measures Bill and a strong Consumer Council you will not give the full protection that the consumer needs and is entitled to. Therefore, I beg the Government—and I know Parliamentary
704
time is short—to see whether it will not be possible in this Session: to bring legislation forward to support the main proposals of the Molony Commission.
7.51 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I give my personal thanks, as well as the Government's thanks, to the noble Baroness for introducing this Motion?—my personal thanks because I enjoy the way she states her case with such vigour. She may remember that I, too, before I became a gamekeeper, the other day, was a poacher. Her Majesty's Government are also very grateful to her because we are particularly anxious that this consumer protection should be discussed, before the next steps are taken. We believe it is most important. What the Other place is going to do I do not know, but we owe a great debt of gratitude to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lords who have spoken for the help they will have given us in coming to decisions. The noble Baroness must be rather pleased with herself, because she is a pioneer in this matter, as we all know, and she has obtained a debate with very strong speakers. She has got on her slide a remarkably able maiden speech from a remarkably able man on this subject, and I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, on his speech. She has also got, from this side of the House, my noble friend Lord Marks of Broughton, who is also an expert; so that we can say we have had proper advice from all sides of the House.
Before I come to the main part of my argument I should like to quote certain paragraphs from the Molony Report because the background of this question is perhaps two-sided and not so one-sided as the noble Baroness perhaps indicated. The paragraphs from the Report that I should like to quote are, first, paragraph 895, in which the Committee say—and this is borne out by what the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, said:
"We assert our firm belief in the probity and honourable standards of the great mass of British manufacturers and traders and their desire to maintain this country's historic traditions of quality and accurate description."
Secondly in paragraph 39, they say:
"The most potent influence operating in favour of the consumer is the desire of the retailer to retain his custom and to preserve

705
the general good name of the establishment: and, it might be added, the retailer's sense of decency and morality which readily comes into play without any threat of resort to law."
I am sure that is right, and so we must not exaggerate that question. I am equally certain that the British housewife is not a fool, and most housewives do not want protecting very much. But the fact remains that there are certain trade practices, not necessarily amoral ones, but often due to laziness in marking and so on, which makes it absolutely necessary that in certain respects the consumer must be protected. Let us get this fact quite clear: the duty of Her Majesty's Government is not necessarily to accept the whole of the Molony Report as it stands, but to see that 'the consumer is protected while, at the same time, the trader is not 'unnecessarily interfered with.
May I put the main part of my argument in somewhat of a narrative form, because it will answer most of "he questions that have been raised? I thought I knew some of the questions that the noble Baroness was going to raise, so I devised the main body of my speech to answer her; and, in fact, it answers other noble Lords, too. When I come to the end of what I may call the narrative part of my speech I shall try to deal with any points I may have left out.
I should like first of all to say that it must not get about that nothing has been or is being done for the consumer at the present time, because I think it is also necessary to consider the background. I should like to point out a few of the more notable landmarks in the development of consumer protection. I must say (hat the development of this protection is due mainly to quite a handful of pioneers, of whom the noble Baroness is a leading figure. One of these landmarks was the setting up in 1955 by the British Standards Institution of the Advisory Council on Consumer Goods, or the Consumer Advisory Council, as it is normally called. This Council is composed of representatives of women's national organisations, and of individuals of standing with experience in retailing, wholesaling, market research and information services. This Council, I should like to make quite clear, has done a great deal to press for standards of labelling, legislation and other measures in the consumer's interest.
706
They have undertaken the comparative testing of consumer goods and services, of which the results have been published in their magazine Shopper's Guide, which is distributed to their associate members. The Council has also operated a complaints service for their members. Many of the Council's functions will soon be taken over by the new Consumer Council, but it deserves honourable mention as the first body of its kind with wide-ranging interest over the whole consumer field.
The British Standards Institution has also been advised since 1951 by the Women's Advisory Committee, which consists of representatives of the leading women's organisations in the country. Their aim has been to ascertain the views of the members of its constituent organisations and to submit proposals to the B.S.I. for the preparation of new standards and to review all draft British Standards of interest to women. Its members have brought experience and devotion to these tasks, and I understand that the B.S.I. will continue to have the benefit of their advice after the Consumer Council is set up. They have informed the President of their intention to give the Consumer Council their full co-operation, and the B.S.I., of course, has itself played a key rôle in recent years in devising standards for consumer goods, particularly in matters concerning safety and so on.
An event of great interest was the formation in 1957 of the Consumer Association, Limited. The Association was founded by a small band of enthusiasts. The enterprise touched off a ready response, and their publication Which?, first published in 1957, which is largely devoted to reports on the comparative testing of products, now enjoys a monthly circulation of over 300,000. More recently we have seen the spontaneous formation of local consumer associations all over the country. Oxford was the first off the mark on this occasion, with, rather surprisingly, Cambridge second. There are groups also in Carlisle, Dagenham, Hampstead, High Wycombe, Nottingham, Slough, Swindon, Watford, Weybridge, and Teeside, Tyneside and Wearside; and most of these are known to be active. Half of them produce their own publications. They undertake a variety of

707
activities of local interest and concern and it seems to me that local people, when they know of their activities, should spread the knowledge. Both the Consumer Advisory Council and the Consumer Association have given these groups advice and encouragement.
Then there are the British Electrical Approvals Board for Domestic Appliances, which tests domestic electrical appliances for safety; the Advertising Standards Authority, which has been set up by the advertising industry with the object of enforcing the British Code of Advertising Practice—and I shall say a word more about that when I deal with the noble Baroness's own questions; the Retail Trading Standards Association, which has maintained a crusading spirit in promoting a satisfactory quality of consumer goods; there is also the fidelity scheme which was launched last year by the Motor Agents' Association. I need not go into the details of that scheme at the moment. In commending these various enterprises I wish in no way to play down the responsibilities of the Government, but I do not share the noble Baroness's often expressed view that the Government have been tardy or unsympathetic in recognising the swelling body of interest that has grown. The Government fully supported the setting up of the Advisory Council of the British Standards Institution, and since 1957 they have made a special contribution to the financing of the British Standards Institution in respect of their word on consumer protection.
Much has been done also to protect the consumer in matters of safety. My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport is devising compulsory standards for car seat belts which is all part of the same consumer protection, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Office has decided that regulations governing the colour coding of flexible cords attached to electrical appliances should, if possible, be made. There are certain delays about agreement with foreign countries. It is as well to get agreement if we can. The Government have been active also, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Broughton, said, in the field of food and
708
drugs legislation, which regulates the sale of food to safeguard the health of the consumer, to ensure that he knows what he is buying and to protect him from being supplied with food which is not of the nature, substance or quality he has asked for. The Government in this important work are advised by the Food Standards Committee.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Peddie was the first person to mention what are rude words in this House—weights and measures. We had a lot of that subject, and it will be coming back to us in due course in this Session, we hope. The Molony Report describes weights and measures legislation as part of the basic vocabulary of consumer protection. The Government have got through the Second Reading in the other place. It is all part of consumer protection.
As regards this actual Committee, when it was appointed I believe the noble Baroness thought rather poorly of the appointment. In a debate in another place she criticised its membership on the ground that most of those concerned were not experts in the subjects they were charged to examine. I myself would not be entirely in favour of a committee composed of experts. I have the impression that she is a little happier now but not entirely satisfied, because much of it is very controversial. I should like to pay tribute on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to the hard work, public spirit and skill of those who compiled the Report. For years to come it will stand as an authoritative document and work of reference. I hope I may be allowed to speak for your Lordships in expressing gratitude to Mr. Molony and his colleagues, one of whom was a member of your Lordships' House, Lord Geddes.
That is the general background. I should like to turn now to the Report itself. Perhaps I may be permitted to run through some of its main recommendations. Its central recommendation was that a Consumer Council should be set up
"to ascertain and review the problems experienced by the consumer, and to devise and advance the means of resolving them."
Linked with this was the organisation of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux with financial assistance from the Government,

709
strengthened so as to improve the service which they give to the individual consumer who is in trouble. May I pause there and talk about these two bodies first? The Government are at the moment studying all these recommendations, but it is too early for them to be able to announce any decisions other than the actual setting up of the Council. The establishment of the Council does not require legislation. The terms of reference are not yet settled. We hope that the functions, responsibilities and composition of the Council will be announced fairly soon. But it is quite wrong to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, says, that this has no teeth. The terms of reference and the Council's powers are not yet decided, nor is its composition, but every word your Lordships have said to-day will be taken into account when arriving at both the functions and the composition.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, who asked what was the method of dealing with powers, and so on, as regards public debate, and the answer is that it does not need legislation, but, through the usual channels, of course, debates can be arranged. The noble Lord cannot expect me to say whether debates will be arranged, because I do not arrange the Business of this House.
As regards the Citizens' Advice Bureaux, the Committee's recommendations on the rôle of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux in consumer protection work are now being discussed by the President of the Board of Trade with their National Committee. We are waiting for these discussions to come to an end.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this point? I do not know whether he shares my view, but I feel that this question of the local advisory service and the enabling of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux to carry it out, if so decided, is of greater urgency than the Consumer Council. Does not the noble Lord realise that to set up the Consumer Council without this organisation to help them beforehand is really to court trouble?
LORD DERWENT: Of course when it is decided what is to be done they must in fact be set up at the same time, because the parent body, as it were, will be the Consumer Council. So much for
710
the Council and for the Citizens' Advice Bureaux.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, I wonder whether he could answer the problem I posed. I indicated that there are 93 towns that are not covered by the work of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux. What is the intention of the Government in regard to those?
LORD DERWENT: That will be one of the jobs of the Consumer Council; that is clearly one of the jobs they will have to tackle.
May I say a word about legislation. The Committee made numerous recommendations about legislation. On hire purchase they proposed that the protection of the 1938 Act should apply to all consumer transactions, that there should be a "cooling off period" after a hire purchase agreement had been signed at home as a result of door-to-door salesmanship, and that the hirers right of redress should be strengthened. They recommended that the Merchandise Marks Acts should be amended and consolidated in a newly entitled enactment, in particular that the definition of "trade description" should be enlarged, that the definition of applying a trade description should be extended so as to catch false or misleading descriptions contained in advertisements, and that the duty of enforcing this law should be laid on the larger local authorities. That is their recommendation and it is quite a mouthful to consider. The amended Act would also include provisions empowering the President of the Board of Trade to define trade terms and to compel the labelling in any prescribed fashion of consumer goods. They also recommended more legislation in amendments to the Sale of Goods Act by which certain implied conditions of sale would be made irrevocable. Finally, they recommended that powers should be taken to regulate seals of approval.
In addition to these legislative proposals the Report addressed numerous suggestions and admonitions to trade bodies, industry and indeed to Government Departments. I would just add this as regards taking up time; the last chapter of the Report lists 214 "Principal Conclusions and Recommendations"

711
covering sixteen and a half pages of print. I know everyone wants to get everything done at once, but can I say something further about this legislation? The Molony Committee considered the Committee's recommendation relating to hire purchase deserved first priority after the Consumer Council is set up, and after that should follow an amendment of the Merchandise Marks Acts, and next amendment of the Sale of Goods Act. That was the order they recommended.
The Government accept in general this assessment of the relative order of priorities, and are accordingly giving particularly close attention to the Committee's recommendation on hire-purchase law as it affects the consumer. That, from the legislative angle, is the first thing that Her Majesty's Government are considering. There will not be an opportunity this Session for a Government Bill on hire purchase, but this is traditionally a field in which Private Bills often take over. In view of the programme this Session there is no possibility of a Government Bill to introduce this matter. A good many inquiries have still to be made.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, from those remarks am I to understand that if a Private Bill were introduced, perhaps in this House, and received the approval of the House, the Government would find time in another place for it to be out on to the Statute Book?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, the noble Lord really cannot expect me to say anything about the business in another place. But he might try it. Obviously, we can promise nothing, and there might not be time. Naturally, it depends on how involved and how controversial it is. As regards the merchandise marks legislation, there are the far-reaching recommendations of the Committee which, if they were accepted, would in effect involve a completely new piece of legislation. There is no question of amendment here; it would be entirely new legislation. It needs detailed study, and Her Majesty's Government are of the opinion that it should not be embarked upon in too much of a hurry. The same applies to any amendment in regard to the Sale of Goods Act. The Molony Committee did not consider that
712
there was any great hurry in regard to those two matters.
The Government have made what I hope will be regarded as a good start by promptly announcing their acceptance of the recommendation that a Consumer Council should be established and, as I have already said, that does not require legislation. There has been a good deal of debate of all kinds about the powers and functions of this Council and its composition. The Government have taken note, and will take note after this debate, of the many divergent views that have been expressed. Whatever decision may be taken on these matters—and I hope we shall be able to make an announcement very soon—the Government are fully convinced that this Consumer Council will mark a major advance in what the noble Baroness in her pamphlet has called "the Battle of the Consumer". With the Molony Committee, we plan to give it the supreme position in consumer affairs, and hope that it will win leadership, authority and respect. It is going to have full Government support in whatever action it wants to take. I have no doubt that the Council will have much to occupy it. The Molony Committee have already pointed out some of the fields to which the Council might pay attention. I have not the slightest doubt that it will find many other directions for its activity.
I do not think I need say anything else about the actual Report. I should like now, rather belatedly, to start dealing with the questions that were raised. I should like to deal first with those of the noble Baroness. She had certain things to say about advertising. The first thing she asked, I think, was whether the Advertising Standards Authority could initiate an amendment of the British code of advertising. Of course the Board of Trade are not responsible for the Authority, which was set up this year by the advertising industry itself. But it is my understanding that while the Authority could not itself bring about an amendment of the code, there is no reason why it should not propose to the Code of Advertising Practices Committee any amendment which in its view is desirable.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: Of course not; anybody could do that.
LORD DERWENT: I think that is in fact what they would do. But the Board of Trade are not in control of them. This Authority was set up by the industry itself. There was one other matter I should like to mention about advertising. What steps Her Majesty's Government can take are fairly complicated, because this is a most important subject. In addition to the Molony Report the Government have the Reports of the Pilkington Committee on Broadcasting and the Royal Commission on the Press. All three of these Reports involve advertising, and I think it is only reasonable to ask that the Government's decision should allow for the dovetailing of all three Reports, and that the Government should be given some time to consider the matter.
There was mention of the sizes of women's clothes. Of course this does not apply only to the industry in this country. I know about this question—I have come across it in other ways; it also applies to foreign clothes which are sold in our shops. The noble Baroness will correct me if I am wrong, but I think the industry itself is in fact trying to do something about this. It is a slow business, but I think they have got quite a long way towards agreement—or so I have been informed by members of the industry; I hope it is true.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks of Broughton, made the point that the consumer must look after himself. That is a point I made at the beginning. Of course in certain cases the consumer cannot look after himself or herself. The noble Lord spoke about research, which the noble Baroness also mentioned. I think he took the view (and I must say that I am inclined to agree with him) that research is best done by the big firms, and that the knowledge acquired should, if possible, be spread. This is one of the things about which we are most hopeful from the National Productivity Year, which, incidentally, has started in various parts of the country. We hope that this sort of information will be passed on to the smaller firms. I know of cases where it has already been done. I think the only other question the noble Lord raised was about food, and that I have already dealt with in my speech. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, asked so many questions that
714
I do not quite know how to deal with them.
The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, in his maiden speech to which we have referred, spoke particularly about free gifts. I do not suppose that one can do away with them altogether. Sometimes they probably do not affect what is being sold because the value of the free gift is so small. But this is a matter to which the Consumer Council will have to give attention. It is for them to give attention in the first instance to these matters. If legislation is required in any way it will be the Consumer Council which will ask for it.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, told me that he would not be here for my reply, and I told him that I was going to be rather rough in regard to what I said about him. I thought his was the most destructive speech I had heard for a long time. He took the view that the Consumer Council was bound to be a failure, without knowing what its powers were going to be or of whom it was going to be composed.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in fairness, I think he was basing the idea of its power on what the Molony Committee had recommended.
LORD DERWENT: I have already said that this matter of the power of the Consumer Council is one for Her Majesty's Government. We know what the Molony Committee reported and recommended; but we also know what your Lordships have said to-day, and it is a matter for Her Majesty's Government. To assume that this Council is going to be a failure is, I think, purely destructive.
Turning to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, perhaps I may expand a little on safety, which I think was the main line that he took. First of all, there is the question of kerosene heaters and so on. The regulations made under the 1961 Act and based on the current British Standard 3300 of oil heaters were laid before Parliament on May 4 of this year and came into force on June 1—that is, between the submission of the Molony Report and its publication. There has been some criticism about the delay in promulgating these regulations. I think the noble Lord had that in mind. Bearing in mind that the Oil Burners

715
Standards Act came into force in 1960, the Molony Committee commented on this in strong terms in paragraph 230. The delay, quite frankly, was due to the complexity of the subject and the need to consult the many interested organisations.
The basis of the Consumer Protection Act is that regulations made under it are to create legal obligations, civil and criminal, enforceable in the courts. One of the consequences of this is that the code of requirements laid down in regulations must be precise. There were many technical points in the British Standard which had to be elucidated before they could be put into a sufficiently precise form for a court to administer. The task of drawing up the statutory instrument was a complicated and difficult one. I do not think it was just an excuse. It had to be very precise, and there were a great many consultations.
Then I think the noble Lord raised the question of the colour code of flexible cables. I have dealt with that. That has been held up for a short time in order to try to obtain foreign agreement on the matter.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, could I ask this question? That is the burden of my objection. Most of these wrongly coloured cables are of foreign importation. It should be our job to say "We will not have them at all; we do not want to confuse the consumer." We do not need foreign Governments to agree about that.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I think the noble Lord will find that there will probably be agreement, in spite of what he has said; otherwise, I agree, we shall have to move on our own.
I think it was also the noble Lord who mentioned the flammable code. In 1959 the Board made proposals under the Fabric (Misdescription) Act, 1913, prescribing the tests required before textile materials can be described as "non-inflammable" or of low flammability. The publicity given to the danger of burns from flammable clothing has resulted in a welcome reduction in the number of fatalities. I refer here to actual publicity in the newspapers, and so on. There is available on the market
716
a wide range of materials and made-up clothing satisfying the requirements of the Standards laid down in these regulations. It is to be hoped that consumers will take advantage of the safety offered by the use of these materials for both the very young and aged who are most liable to this particular hazard.
I think the other safety question was raised by my noble friend Lord Auckland (who is not now here) on toys. Since the Molony Report was published the British Standards Institution has issued a code of safety requirements for children's toys and playthings, which deals with this matter. In any case, the use of celluloid for toys has virtually ceased. In their Final Report the Committee recommended that these requirements of the code should now be supported by regulations made under the Consumer Protection Act. This recommendation is at present being considered by the Home Secretary.
My Lords, the next noble Lord who had matters to raise was the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, who suggested that schools' curricula should include "How to buy things". I suggest that that should be taught in the home—but I know what he meant.
LORD PEDDIE: Then may I suggest the noble Lord deals with what I meant?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I think the noble Lord was not talking so much about the children, as about trying to teach manufacturers and other people about these things. I believe that is what he had in mind. I have answered, I think, his question about how to deal with the powers of the Consumer Council. Then he raised the question of services and food and drugs; he asked why they were excluded by the Molony Report. They were, in fact, excluded by the Committee, but they are not excluded from the consideration of the Consumer Council; and undoubtedly these are matters which will be dealt with by the Council. The Consumer Council will also deal with matters of education to protect the consumer.
My Lords, I find it easiest to answer my noble friend Lord Cawley, because he has said that he does not require a reply. But I can assure him that I have already made arrangements: he was kind enough to give me advance information and everything he has said has

717
been carefully taken down, and will be used against us later. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I think, raised principally the question of legislation. He asked why we did not get on with it. As I say, the necessary studies for hire-purchase legislation have already started, but we shall not have time for a Government Bill this session.
My Lords, I do not know if I have answered all your questions. I shall have another look tomorrow. As I say, Her Majesty's Government are grateful for this debate, because they were anxious to have your Lordships' views; and those views will be seriously considered.
8.24 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, obviously I should never seek to trespass further than I have to upon the kindness and patience of the House. We have had an excellent
718
debate, and I would thank the Minister of State for his reply. I am sure he will realise that I disagree with a good deal of what he had to say. However, this is not the time to air that disagreement, and I would thank him very much for what he has said. Before I sit down, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. I appreciate that in saying that, I have no greater seniority here than the noble Lord—though I did manage to get in first. At any rate, I should sincerely like to add my own congratulations on his speech. My Lords, as I say, we have had an excellent debate. I now beg leave of the House to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past eight o'clock.