House Of Commons
Monday, 26th March, 1956
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
Prayers
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Private Business
Bristol Corporation Bill
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [Lords]
SAINT STEPHEN WALBROOK (SAINT ANTHOLIN'S CHURCHYARD) BILL [Lords]
TEES CONSERVANCY BILL [Lords]
Read a Second time and committed.
GREENOCK BURGH EXTENSION &C. ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read the Third time and passed.
Oral Answers To Questions
Marriages, Scotland (Young Persons)
1.
asked the Attorney-General if he will introduce legislation providing that a marriage ceremony performed in Scotland between two persons below the age of consent shall be invalid in English law if English justices have previously refused consent to the marriage in England.
I sympathise with the hon. Lady in her desire to prevent young persons from going to Scotland to contract a marriage to which justices in England have refused their consent, but she will, I hope, appreciate that there are very real difficulties about making invalid in England a marriage which is valid according to the law of Scotland. I can, however, assure her that the problem is under consideration.
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that some of these marriages have been prevented by the declaration of a ward in Chancery, and would it not be possible to extend that to all such marriages and thus prevent the removal of the participants outwith the jurisdiction of the English court?
As I think the hon. Lady now knows, the procedure for making a child a ward of court in England is a simple one and not very expensive, but I could not agree with her that every English child should be made a ward of court to avoid the risk of a runaway marriage in Scotland.
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that over the last two or three years there has been a very substantial increase in the number of these unfortunate and often unhappy marriages? Even if he cannot see his way to introduce legislation, will he consult his colleagues to see if it is not possible to take some administrative action which makes it harder for such marriages to take place, because so many broken marriages result, involving great unhappiness for the children?
One of the difficulties which would arise would be that that would involve amendment of the law of marriage in Scotland, on which, of course, I am not qualified to speak. My hon. Friend is, perhaps, aware that the Church and Nation Committee of the Church of Scotland expressed the view, which was accepted by the last General Assembly, that any proposal to alter the marriage law would raise many fundamental questions and would require prolonged and thorough investigation.
Marriage And Divorce (Report Of Royal Commission)
2.
asked the Attorney-General whether he will introduce legislation to give effect to any of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce.
The Government, before entertaining any proposals to introduce legislation, intend to give to the Report more consideration than has been possible in the six days which have elapsed since it was published.
Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that the Government will at least seek to legislate on the unanimous recommendations of the Report, even if the rest of it is regarded as just another example of unholy deadlock?
High Court Rules (Investments)
3.
asked the Attorney-General the original price and the present value of investments held and made by the High Court in the interest of minors and others to whom it has awarded compensation.
The figures asked for by my hon. Friend could be obtained only by scrutinising more than 9,000 accounts in the Pay Office of the Supreme Court. I do not think the work and expense involved would be justified.
Pensions And National Insurance
Unemployment Benefits (Doctors)
4.
asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many doctors are in receipt of unemployment insurance benefit.
I understand from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service that on 19th March, 1956, there were 35 doctors registered at appointments offices in receipt of unemployment benefit.
May I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm as far as possible and as far as he knows that these doctors are genuinely seeking work in the National Health Service and are unable to obtain it?
I should like notice of that question, and I should probably like notice of it to be given to one of my right hon. Friends.
Employers (Wage Payments)
5.
asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will give a direction to the Assistance Board to cease sending out forms asking the employers of men who have been on National Assistance for a loan to tide them over their first week after commencing work.
The National Assistance Board informs me that the arrangement which the hon. Member has in mind operates only in cases where the men concerned have wages already due to them. No question of a loan therefore arises. I should add that I have no power to issue a direction on this subject.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is a most unsatisfactory Answer? Will he look into this matter, which is a continuation of the old board of guardians and public assistance system? If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to go the whole hog, will he reconsider the matter, because when these people have to ask for a loan after weeks on the National Assistance they are considerably worse off during the first two weeks at least than they were when drawing National Assistance? In view of the fact that they have been off work for several weeks, when they need extra sustenance they ought to have it without having to spread one week's wages over two weeks.
No doubt the hon. Member is aware that the present arrangements were discussed very carefully at the National Joint Advisory Committee of the Ministry of Labour in 1952 and were found satisfactory. As I said in my main Answer, we are here concerned with cases where wages are due. I understand from the Assistance Board that these notices are sent only in cases where the men concerned have wages due to them. The notice is sent to their employers in order that men who have wages properly due to them should not have to resort to National Assistance.
Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is quite right that a man should have a subvention on his first week's wages, which is his own money, rather than seek assistance?
As my hon. Friend will appreciate, that is the effect of the arrangement.
In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.
Widows (Benefits)
7.
asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how far the pension and allowances provided under the provisions of the National Insurance and Family Allowance Acts for a widow with four children aged 4, 6, 9 and 12 years, fall below what such a widow would receive under the scale rates of the National Assistance Board.
Such a widow would receive a total of £4 6s. by way of widowed mother's allowance and family allowances, whereas if she was without other means she could receive £5 2s. under the scale rates laid down in the National Assistance Regulations plus rent allowance if applicable.
I am sure the Minister will agree that the difference here is very substantial. Will he urge on his colleagues the necessity of introducing legislation suggested by the National Insurance Advisory Committee to help these widows?
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we have recognised the difficulty, as brought out in the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee, particularly in regard to widows with larger families. I cannot today say anything about the date of legislation being introduced.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when I asked the Lord Privy Seal, on 8th March, whether this legislation could be introduced, that right hon. Gentleman said:
"We shall certainly take the earliest opportunity."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1956; Vol. 549, c. 2329.]
I think that those are good words to which there is no need for me to add anything.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give his interpretation of what "earliest opportunity" means?
It is not for me to act as interpreter of the wise words of my right hon. Friend.
Dependent Children
8.
asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance from what date, when the proposed scheme is introduced, the recommendations of the Advisory Council with regard to dependent children will become operative.
If, as I assume, the hon. Member is referring to the proposals of the National Insurance Advisory Committee affecting widows with children, I cannot, at present, state the date on which these provisions will become operative.
Can the right hon. Gentleman at least give an assurance that the date in regard to dependent children will not be later than 27th February, 1956, the date when he made his announcement?
I am not sure whether the hon. Member has in mind the qualifications or the date from which payment operates. It is very unusual to make the date of payment in any part of the National Insurance Scheme retrospective.
Will the right hon. Gentleman say something about the important question of qualification?
The position I understand is that at the time—whenever it may be—when the new scheme comes into operation, the qualification will turn on the number of children then eligible and the improved rate of benefit will operate from some such date.
Students (Contributions)
9.
asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will now make a statement on the insurance position of research students undertaking full-time study for higher degrees; and if he will exercise his powers to refer the question of the interpretation of full-time education to the High Court for decision, to clarify the distinction between undergraduates and post-graduate students for purposes of insurance classification.
My inquiries in this matter are not yet complete, and I have therefore nothing at present to add to what was said by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on 6th March.
Is the Minister aware that this change—because it is a change—in the attitude of his Ministry under these circumstances is causing very great concern at a time when the Government allegedly are hoping to expand their technical education programme? If he cannot make up his mind as to what "education" means, will he consult the universities, who, I believe, have already made representations? If he cannot take their word, will he at least exercise his powers and refer the matter to the courts, because it is becoming one of anxiety?
There has been no change in the attitude of my Department since the decision of my predecessor in April, 1954, which was on a case which was treated as a precedent. It is a difficult matter, and I am consulting, among others, the universities who, I hope, may throw quite a lot of light on the difficult problem of what is "full-time education."
While there is concern among all who are affected, will the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is quite unjustifiable to demand contributions from Commonwealth students doing postgraduate research in this country who cannot benefit from the Insurance Fund?
I certainly could not accept that principle which, if justifiable, would apply to all foreign workers in this country and would be quite contrary to the principles of the Scheme.
Married Persons (Sickness Benefit)
10.
asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he is aware that a woman, separated from her husband, receiving a nominal separation allowance and paying Income Tax and insurance contributions as a single person, receives sickness benefit at the lower rate awarded to a married woman; and what action he is taking to remedy this unjust position.
My attention has been drawn to one or two cases in which difficulty has arisen. Any change would require legislation. I will bear this matter in mind with other matters which will be considered when an opportunity for general legislation arises.
Does the right hon. Gentleman admit that there is some injustice in this case? As there is doubt and as there has been dispute about lower payments for married women who, when separated, get very little help from their husbands, does not the case seem more remote and more unjust?
The difficult case which the hon. Member has in mind is not a question of married women generally, but of a woman separated from her husband, perhaps under a deed, who has difficulty, when her circumstances change, in that she is unable to get an increase in the court order made in her favour. That is the kind of situation which arises. It certainly causes hardship in one or two cases, and that is why I gave the Answer that I did.
Electricity
Rural Areas
11.
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many major rural electricity schemes will be commenced in Wales and in the County of Glamorgan, respectively, during the next twelve months.
15.
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how much of the proposed investment programme for electricity of £204 million for 1956–57 has been cut in respect of rural electrification; and how many major schemes for rural electrification in South Wales have been approved by him.
The provision for rural electrification within the approved total investment programme of the Central Electricity Authority respresents a reduction of some £800,000 from that included within the programme of £213 million originally proposed by the Authority. It represents, however, an increase in that included in the reduced programme of £204 million mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. The allocation of the total provided for rural electrification among the different area boards and the approval of individual schemes are matters for the Authority and the boards concerned, and not for me.
Has my right hon. Friend noted that on 13th March the Secretary of State for Scotland was able to give detailed figures of three Scottish counties? Does he not think it quite unreasonable that Scottish Members should have the facility of such detailed information whilst Welsh Members—and, indeed, English Members—are not able to have a picture of Wales as a whole in this case?
I have no competence over the Scottish electricity boards.
Electricity Supply Industry (Report)
16.
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is now able to make a statement on the Government's policy in relation to the Herbert Committee Report on the Electricity Supply Industry.
No, Sir. I have not yet received the views of the industry on all aspects of this Report.
May I again put to the right hon. Gentleman a point that I have put to him previously? Is he aware of the disturbing effect on the morale of employees of the industry of uncertainty as to the Government's intentions in this matter?
Yes, Sir. I willingly repeat what I said before, that I am most anxious to terminate as soon as possible any uncertainty in this matter. On the other hand, I felt it only proper to give due consideration to all the views of the industry. I have asked the industry to expedite the submission of these views, but the complete views are not yet to hand.
Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to that passage in the Report which says that parts of the electricity industry are languid in their approach to the use of resources—capital, material and labour; and in view of the need in present circumstances for the utmost economy, does this not call for immediate steps by the Minister?
Capital programmes are subjected to annual review, and the matter to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention is very pertinent in that regard.
Load-Shedding
22.
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will give an assurance that the recent cuts made by the Government in the new generating programme of the Central Electricity Authority will not lead to load-shedding in due course.
The Central Electricity Authority's estimates show that load-shedding at times of peak demand in particularly severe winter weather must be reckoned with for some years yet; and the recent cuts do not seriously affect the position.
If a cut of £9 million is made in the generating programme, how can the Minister say that it will not affect the position? Will not this penny wise pound foolish policy hamper the expansion of our industrial base?
The effect of any cuts must be seen in relation to the total gap, in relation to which the effect is, I repeat, small. For the rest, I would once again adjure the hon. Member to have regard not only to investment, but to investment in relation to savings. That is the crucial problem.
Does the Minister not think that it is his job to fight for the industry and to get rid of some of the unnecessary expenditure that is going on, and not to cut down industrial necessities?
I consider that the electricity industry, in common with other industries, would have been most adversely affected had the gap between savings and investment led at an early date to an even more severe balance of payments crisis.
Fuel And Power
Liquid Gas
12.
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what progress has been made by his Department in research into the methods of shipping liquid gas from overseas oilfields into the United Kingdom.
Research in this field is being pressed forward by oil companies and others in America. The Gas Council is keeping in close touch with these developments and is also working on the matter itself. There are, however, formidable technical problems associated with the shipment of liquid gas, and I should not like to forecast whether and, if so, how soon they will be satisfactorily solved.
Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that his Department will persevere in this line of research, in view of the great potential prizes which are available for large quantities of natural gas throughout the world which are simply going to waste?
Most certainly. I am most anxious that this matter should continue to be pursued, although for the time being I would rather refrain from prophecy.
Fuel Gap
17.
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what estimate he has made of the effect the recently announced reductions in the capital investment programme of the fuel and power industries will have on the gap between the output of indigenous energy and the expected national demand for energy over the next five years.
I estimate that there will be practically no effect on the fuel gap.
Would the Minister not agree that the country needs more, and not less, investment in the heavy basic fuel and power industries, and particularly the coal industry, if the industrial future of the country is to be safeguarded? Is not even a small cut in this sphere an extremely serious and dangerous matter?
Most certainly, I agree that investment in the basic industries is important, and it was for that reason that investment in coal production was untouched. On the other hand, it is quite wrong to look at investment in the abstract. It has to be considered in relation to savings, and it was because of the inadequacy of savings that these regrettable cuts in investment had to be made.
Coal
Subsidence
13.
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if, in his forthcoming statement in regard to the recommendations of the Turner Committee Report on Coalmining Subsidence, he will include reference to the recommendations in regard to agricultural land.
Yes, Sir.
Prices And Costs
14.
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the average retail price of domestic coal per ton, showing such items as pit-head price, the cost of transport, the cost of delivery and the distributor's profit margin.
As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the Answer:
Records of average prices to consumers are not kept, but for the areas covered in my predecessor's reply to the hon. Member on 28th July, 1955, the information is as follows:
| BASIC MAXIMUM PRICES OF GROUP 4 HOUSE COAL PER TON | ||||
| — | London | Part of Durham including Chester-le-Street U.D. and R.D. and Washington U.D. | ||
| s. | d. | s. | d. | |
| Pithead price | 82 | 9 | 83 | 11 |
| Transport | 36 | 4 | 1 | 6 |
| Retail delivery costs | 27 | 0 | 20 | 3 |
| Retail profit margin | 2 | 9 | 2 | 9 |
| 148 | 10 | 108 | 5 | |
| NOTE.—No account is taken of variations under the summer/winter prices scheme. | ||||
Smokeless Fuels (Supplies)
18.
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will take steps to ensure a fairer and more abundant distribution of grade II smokeless fuels for general household use.
The essential problem is to increase the production of these fuels. A doubling of the output of Phurnacite by next January is planned and, as a longer-term development, two large pits are being sunk in the anthracite area.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even allowing for the present level of production, there is much unfairness in distribution creating a sense of grievance among the suppliers of these fuels, particularly in the south of England, among whom the Cooperative movement represents some of the worst-hit sufferers? Is it not possible, even with the present limit of production, to take some action?
The National Coal Board does its best to ensure a fair distribution of the available supplies among merchants throughout the country. The Board will, I am sure, be grateful for any suggestions as to the way in which its scheme can be improved.
Concessionary Allowances
19.
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the number of coal miners in 1938, and the number employed at the latest convenient date; and the amount of concessionary coal in 1938 and 1955.
The number of miners was 776,500 and 704,900, respectively, and the quantity of free or concessionary coal 4·6 million tons and 5·1.
In view of that reply, has not the time arrived for a searching inquiry to be made as to why fewer miners should get more coal? Is my right hon. Friend aware that this practice was introduced 100 years ago, when the miners received only a pittance for the long hours they worked, whereas today they receive decent wages? Is concessionary coal included in their Income Tax returns? Finally, is my right hon. Friend aware that as a result of my Question last week I have had scores of letters from all over the United Kingdom saying it is time that this scandal was stopped?
Free or concessionary coal forms part of the wages agreement in the coal industry. As I said on an earlier occasion, I think it would be most unwise for a Minister to intervene in wages matters.
Distribution Costs (Report)
20.
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power when he expects the Committee appointed to inquire into the costs of coal distribution to report on its work.
I am confident that the Committee will report as early as they can, consistently with a thorough investigation.
National Coal Board (Deficit)
23.
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power, in consideration of the application made to him by the National Coal Board to increase the Board's borrowing powers, whether he will state the aggregate loss forward of the Board to 31st December, 1955, or any later convenient date; and how he proposes to deal with such accumulated loss.
The National Coal Board's accounts for 1955 have not yet been completed, but the Board estimate that the accumulated deficit at the end of 1955 was about £37 million. I cannot give an exact figure in advance of the annual Report which the Board expect to publish in May.
The recovery of this deficit will depend on the trend of prices and productivity during the period for which new borrowing powers are being sought.Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the last very large increase in the price of coal a few months ago will not contribute in any way to the reduction of this large deficit of £37 million? As my right hon. Friend proposes shortly to come to this House and ask for increased borrowing power for the Board, will he say how this deficit of £37 million is to be accounted and whether it is to be dealt with in the same way as the Transport Commission's deficit of £100 million—merely a loss forward all the time?
I ask my hon. Friend to await the statement which I shall make to the House when talking about the request for the new borrowing powers. Deficits can be met in one of two ways: by increases in productivity or by an increase in price. My hon. Friend ought to be fully aware that, so far as increases in productivity are not forthcoming, the ineluctable course is to raise prices.
Imports And Exports
24.
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how much coal has been imported during the first 12 weeks of 1956, and at what cost, compared with the corresponding period of 1955; whether exports of coal are now being reduced to save imports, notably from the United States of America; what estimates he has made, first, of total coal exports for 1956, compared with the 11,500,000 tons exported in 1955, and, second, of total coal imports for 1956, compared with the 12 million tons, approximately, imported during 1955; and what overall economy in foreign exchange will thereby result from these import/export coal transactions.
In the first two months of 1956, 1·36 million tons with a landed value of £10·6 million were imported compared with 1·39 million tons costing £8·2 million a year before. In 1956 both imports, including those of American coal, and exports will be about 5 million tons less than in 1955 with a saving of about £10 million in foreign exchange.
Do all those figures mean that our balance of payments is now improved as a result of a reduction of imports of coal as well as a reduction in the exports of coal, or is the proper interpretation that the overall position remains as dismal and depressing as in the year 1955?
The answer is neither. The answer means that on purely coal account, if such a term is permissible, there is still a deficit, but the deficit is £10 million less than in the last year.
Are any investigations going on into the possibility of importing African coal instead of American coal to save dollars?
Any importation of African coal—by which, I take it, my hon. Friend means Rhodesian coal—is of necessity a long-term and not a short-term proposition. The need is a short-term one.
Railway Freight Charges (Prices)
26.
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power by how much per ton Grade 2 house coal is to be raised in price, respectively, in Kidderminster, Plymouth and London, as a result of increased railway freight charges announced last Monday.
The effect of an increase of 5 per cent. in railway freight charges on the delivered cost of coal would be 5d. per ton in Kidderminster, 5d. per ton in Plymouth, and 1s. 10d. per ton in London.
As my right hon. Friend will be aware that there have been many allegations recently that the domestic consumer of coal is subsidising the industrial consumer, would he give the assurance that in these price increases there is no subsidy of any description by the domestic consumer to the industrial consumer and that both are paying the proper economic price for their supplies?
My hon. Friend is, on this occasion, quite right. There is no subsidy on the part of the domestic consumer in favour of the industrial consumer, and any increases in retail prices as a result of the increased rail freight charges will apply indiscriminately and uniformly to both.
How can the right hon. Gentleman maintain that industrial coal is being sold at an economic price when he has already admitted that there is a very big deficit from the sale of coal?
There was in the day of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), too.
That is not the question. The question is whether there is any difference in principle between the industrial and the domestic consumer. As I have said on many occasions, there is none such.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when he and his hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) are in conjunction we tend to believe that both are wrong, and that to satisfy us that there is no deficit to the industrial consumer he will have to do far more than merely make us a statement like that? When can we be told the facts?
If the hon. Gentleman will seek them in the proper way, he will find that I am only too anxious for full enlightenment to be spread about a matter which at the moment is subject to regrettable misunderstanding.
Ministry Of Supply
Aircraft Projects (Production Officers)
29.
asked the Minister of Supply to what extent it is his policy to have a resident projects engineer with each aircraft manufacturing firm engaged on a primary contract; and if this policy has been applied since January, 1956, in the case of the Victor bomber contract.
The production officers responsible for progressing aircraft projects are stationed at headquarters and are not resident at the firms concerned.
Is it not usual to have a resident officer at the factories concerned? If the Parliamentary Secretary now makes a statement to the contrary, will he have another look to see what the facts are?
There are certain resident officers—for example, resident technical officers and officers representing the A.I.D.—but project officers, the type of officers mentioned in the Question, are based on headquarters.
While I accept the fact that it is a little difficult to press this matter today as some of the people interested are with the Victor, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he will answer this question? Comparing like with like, has there been an officer with the Victor bomber contract since January of this year?
There has never been a whole-time production project officer at those works; he has been in only a part-time position; and a production project officer is still serving on a part-time basis.
Army Clothing (Surplus Stocks)
30.
asked the Minister of Supply why new Army clothing material is being supplied to factories as dusters when it could be used for a more useful purpose.
The Ministry of Supply does not cut up surplus Army clothing material before disposal, and it does not supply dusters to private factories. I am unable to trace the origin of the sample which the hon. Member has kindly sent me.
Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that that reply is not good enough?
Just dust in the eyes.
This Question has been on the Order Paper for a month now. I have sent the hon. Gentleman the material. Is it not the case that it is good, new material? Is it not a scandal that, when prices for such material are so high, the Ministry should be sending such material through a dealer as dusters to factories?
Although the Question may have been on the Paper for some time, the sample was received only on Friday last, and in that short time it has not been possible to trace the origin of the sample.
Government Surplus Stocks (Sales)
31.
asked the Minister of Supply, in view of the fact that 12 large-scale sales of Government surplus stocks are to be held in various parts of the country, including Ruddington, during the next three months, if he will arrange for catalogues to be placed in the House of Commons Library; and if he will state what are the chief items for disposal at the Ruddington sale from 27th to 29th March.
Particulars of forthcoming auctions, including the chief items for disposal, are published in the Board of Trade Journal, which is available to hon. Members in the Library. The sale at Ruddington will be of vehicles, mobile lifting equipment, trailers, etc.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is deep concern at the fact that every week now there are colossal sales of Government stocks? I appreciate the difficulties of dealing with the matter by question and answer, and I have been waiting for five weeks to discuss it on the Adjournment but have not had the opportunity yet. But I shall continue again after Easter.
32.
asked the Minister of Supply the purpose of sending notifications to the Colonial Office giving details of Government surplus stocks prior to their being offered at public auction sales.
The Colonial Office was put on the distribution list when that Department had an interest in surplus stores. Its interest has however since ceased, and it has now been taken off the list.
When did the Colonial Office come off the list? Is it not a fact that ten days ago I asked the Ministry for a list of the Government Departments to which these catalogues were sent and that then the Colonial Office was still on the list? Are not these changes which have taken place in this pattern because of Questions in the House very remarkable?
In this case, the name of the Colonial Office was taken off the list as soon as it asked for it to be removed.
Agriculture, Fisheries And Food
Slaughterhouses
33.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what date he received the recommendations of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Slaughterhouses; and whether he has yet reached a decision about them.
On 21st July of last year my right hon. Friend has not yet reached decisions about them, but as he told the House on 9th February, he hopes to make a statement shortly after Easter.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that month after month this question has been asked and that we have always been given the same answer? Is it not possible to hurry up a decision?
The hon. Gentleman will understand that this is a varied problem and that many interests have to be consulted. I am to meet the last of them this week, and we shall be able to make a statement after Easter.
Bread And Milk (Subsidies)
35.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give an estimate of the direct and administrative saving, respectively, to public funds of the total abolition of the bread and milk subsidies; and what would be the average individual extra weekly cost per head of the population of such a step.
The annual cost of the current bread subsidy is estimated at about £24 million, which is equivalent to an average weekly expenditure of about 2¼d. per head of the population. The administrative costs of this subsidy are in the region of £130,000 per year.
When the recently announced increase in the price of milk becomes effective, the cost of the general milk subsidy in a full year is expected to be of the order of £22 million, which is equivalent to about 2d. per week per head of the population. This subsidy is operated through the Milk Marketing Boards, and its abolition would not yield a significant saving to the Exchequer in administrative costs.Since there are now millions of people who could well afford to do without these subsidies, would my hon. Friend not agree that there is a strong case for abolishing them altogether and for devoting part, if not all, the money thus saved to relieving the poorer sections of the community on the lines of the present Lord Privy Seal's 1952 Budget?
I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will take note of the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend.
Would the hon. Gentleman tell us the cost to Conservative funds of the posters that told the public that if the Conservatives were returned the cost of living would be reduced? What is the extra weekly cost per head of the population since the Tory Government came to power?
I have no doubt that the general public have already appreciated that they are getting very good value for their money for good Government.
Cattle Disease (Husk)
36.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in the research into husk in cattle; and what is the estimated annual loss to farmers as the result of this disease.
The research and trials now being carried out has considerably increased our knowledge of the lung-worm that causes husk, but little of practical value for the prevention or treatment of the disease has so far resulted. No reliable information is available regarding the annual loss to farmers.
In view of the heavy losses in stock which are sustained on account of this disease, not only through loss of flesh and the time taken to recover, but the fact that fatalities run as high as 50 per cent. in some herds, can the Minister not speed up the research into the disease? I know that it is not notifiable under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950, but it is a "silent" disease which needs immediate attention.
My hon. Friend can rest assured that my right hon. Friend is well aware of the importance of this matter and will do all he possibly can to speed up the research into the disease.
Orange Juice (Sale)
37.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what dates the offer of £41,000 for orange juice held by his Department and found to contain preservative was made and accepted.
The sum of £41,000 was realised from about 40 separate sales to 16 buyers at various times up to December, 1954.
Is the Minister satisfied that this sum of £41,000 was the best possible price that could be obtained for this orange juice, which cost £250,000, if it was any good at all? Is he not aware that one man bought supplies through different sponsors and that he made a colossal fortune out of this orange juice? Will he say whether it was his Department that sold it or the Ministry of Supply on behalf of his Department?
Strenuous efforts were made to advertise and to see that the best possible price was obtained. The facts are as I have stated, and £41,000 was the best possible figure at which it could be sold.
Who sold it?
I should like notice of that question.
In view of the allegation that very substantial profits have been made on the resale of this orange juice, will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to look into the matter to make sure that there has been no reprehensible dealing in it and report to the Prime Minister?
The hon. Member will know that this matter has been discussed in the House over a long time now. He can rest assured that there was no reprehensible background to these sales.
But this is a new question.
Ministry Of Health
Lung Cancer (Smoking)
38.
asked the Minister of Health what action he has now decided to take, following the reports of his advisory committees, to inform the public about the dangers of lung cancer from smoking.
39.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has now considered how to inform the public of the connection between smoking and lung cancer.
42.
asked the Minister of Health what further action he proposes to take to enlighten the public as to the association of cancer of the lung and excessive smoking.
I am not yet able to add to what I said on 19th March in answer to the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman), but I have this very important subject under urgent review.
Will the Minister try to tell us how quickly he can make up his mind on this very important issue and try to give us a date? Will he also take note of the feeling which exists that there should be a national campaign and that the matter should not be left to small bodies and local authorities but should be officially sponsored by his Ministry? Will he make a note of the fact that he should try to emphasise in propaganda that one of the things which people can best do to help themselves is to give up smoking in the dangerous years between 40 and 50 when they become more susceptible to the disease?
I am studying the very points which the hon. Member has mentioned in his supplementary question.
Is the Minister aware that the Government have created the impression that they are not very enthusiastic about the whole thing? Has any pressure been exerted to delay action on the matter? The lung cancer figures are really shocking.
There is no basis for that impression at all. My right hon. Friend the present Minister of Labour and National Service made a very full statement on the position on 12th February, 1954. I am now considering what further statement should or should not be made.
Has the right hon. Gentleman as yet consulted his right hon. Friend the Minister of Education in order to ensure that the facts are taught continuously, or certainly at intervals, throughout all schools, and not only to boys but to girls as well? Will he bear in mind that this might well be the most fruitful field if the facts as we have received them are correct?
The first step is to find out exactly what the facts are at present as regards research, and how far they are additional to what was explained by my right hon. Friend on 12th February, 1954.
I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he already had the facts and that he implied last time, indeed I thought he made a statement, that he was now prepared to take action. Now the right hon. Gentleman says that he must first elicit the facts. May I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) has said? It may be too late to convert the tobacco addicts of 40, 50 and 60 years of age, but surely the most effective long-term policy, which I ask the Minister to consider—and we are discussing a serious matter—is to introduce this subject into a course of elementary hygiene in the school-leaving year for boys and girls.
I have never told the House that I was aware of all the facts. What I said last week was that I was considering what action would be appropriate to inform the country of what is known of the connection between smoking and cancer of the lung. That involves my seeing what is actually the state of our present knowledge of that relation.
The right hon. Gentleman has been pressed on this question for some weeks. Did he not say, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman), that he did not have enough facts on which to make any statement, whereas last week I understood that he was inclined to change his position?
I quoted exactly what I said last week. The right hon. Lady is under a misapprehension. If she refers to HANSARD she will find that I read out the Answer I gave last week.
Will the Minister remove this uncertainty? Is it safe for me to have a smoke this afternoon?
If the right hon. Gentleman abstains from smoking, he knows that there will be no danger at all.
National Health Service
47.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will arrange for the regular publication of statistics regarding the work of the National Health Service and its cost.
This is already being done. I am, however, considering how, when resources permit, I can increase this service.
Does the Minister not agree that inherent in the recommendations or the Guillebaud Report are suggestions that we should have much more publicity and information about the way in which the service is operating, and that the provisions so far are inadequate?
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, a statistician was appointed to my Ministry in July, 1955. In consequence, all our statistics will be reviewed over the next few years, and I hope that, as a result, new publications will be made available.
Does the Minister not agree that there is need for additional staff in addition to the one statistician who has been appointed, since it will take many years for him to tackle the whole job?
Let us see how we get on with our present staff, which consists of one statistician and supporting staff.
49.
asked the Minister of Health what, expressed as a percentage of the gross national product, was the cost of the National Health Service in England and Wales in the two financial years 1949–50 and 1954–55, respectively; and what, at constant prices and expressed as a percentage of the 12 months ended 31st March, 1950, was the capital expenditure on hospitals in England and Wales during the year ended on 31st March, 1955.
With regard to the first part of the Question, the net cost of the Service to the Exchequer for the two years represents 3·05 per cent. and 2·73 per cent. of the gross national product, respectively. The answer to the last part of the Question is approximately 100 per cent.
Is the Minister aware that the first part of his Answer indicates a serious diminution of the proportion of national resources devoted to the cure and prevention of illness? Does he not regard this as false economy, and if it continues, will it not prevent him from discharging his responsibilities under the Act?
What it shows is the measure of the increase in efficiency in the National Health Service, because more people are being treated and better treatment is being given for a smaller share of the gross national product.
Hospitals
Management Committees (Members)
40.
asked the Minister of Health what steps he takes to make members of hospital management committees known to members of the general public.
None, Sir.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some parts of the country there is a tendency towards secretiveness about the names of members of hospital management committees? Will he do what he can to discourage this? Will he consider some method of making the names of members generally available to the public, for instance, by display in post offices?
This must be left to the discretion of hospital authorities. I agree that it is desirable, where possible, for these names to be made public, in local handbooks or in annual reports, but it must be left to the regional hospital boards and hospital management committees, for whose appointment the boards are responsible.
Understaffing And Overcrowding
43.
asked the Minister of Health what steps he proposes to take to overcome the understaffing in mental hospitals and to reduce the overcrowding of patients.
As regards efforts to overcome the shortage of staff, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) on 31st October last. To reduce overcrowding, as much capital money as possible is being devoted to the needs of these hospitals.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some male nurses in Bracebridge Heath Hospital, near Lincoln, in my constituency, work 76 hours a week and that 800 man-hours a week have been worked? Will the Minister put some greater urgency into the solution of this problem than has hitherto been shown?
The hon. and learned Member very kindly wrote to me on this matter. Therefore, I was aware from his letter of the facts which he has now mentioned. The improvement of conditions for nurses in mental hospitals is being studied urgently all the time. Our present programme will relieve overcrowding very considerably.
Has the right hon. Gentleman had his attention drawn to correspondence from the Confederation of Health Service Employees, which organises male workers in mental hospitals and is putting specific proposals before him?
I shall be seeing that organisation in the near future.
Will my right hon. Friend look into the development of domiciliary services with a view to solving this problem of overcrowding by a means for which no additional legislation is really necessary?
I agree that that is part of the problem.
Nursing Staffs (Overtime)
46.
asked the Minister of Health what representations have been received from regional hospital boards regarding extra payments for overtime for staffs in mental and mental deficiency hospitals.
Two regional boards have expressed concern at the failure to reach agreement on overtime rates for nursing staff.
Does the Minister not agree that, in view of the expressed willingness of the regional hospital boards to make some extra payments for this purpose, it is vital that the procedure of the Whitley Council should be speeded up?
I understand that the claim for enhanced overtime rates has been rejected by the management side of the Whitley Council.
Newcastle General Hospital (Casualty Department)
48.
asked the Minister of Health what provision is being made in the 1956–57 estimates for the provision of an adequate casualty and accident unit at the Newcastle General Hospital.
None, Sir.
It is not high time that something was done about this serious condition, when more and more casualties are inevitably being taken into the present inadequate accommodation—a mere tin shed—and is it not a serious matter that the case should be treated in this way?
The way in which the case is being treated is that the regional hospital board is examining what improvements can be made to the casualty department. I have been to see it myself, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is desirable that improvements should be made. It must be borne in mind, however, that there are other priorities in the region and that the board must try to fit all these improvements into the capital programme.
Mental Hospitals (Older Patients)
50.
asked the Minister of Health if he will make and publish a survey of the number of patients, aged 65 years and over, now in mental hospitals who would, subject to decertification where necessary, be suitable for transfer to long-stay annexes.
I do not consider that such a survey is at present needed.
But if the Minister is not aware of the number of people who should not be in mental hospitals, how can he possibly provide adequate buildings for their proper care and maintenance?
In the Report of the Ministry of Health for 1954 it was estimated from a limited survey that about 10,000 of the aged residents in mental hospitals could be cared for either in long-stay annexes or in local authority Part III accommodation or in chronic sick wards, and I am proceeding on that information at present.
Passports (Parents' Marriage Certificates)
51.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why, under his regulations, he requires the marriage certificate of the parents of an Australian-born applicant, domiciled in the United Kingdom, for a British passport.
A British subject born in Australia would normally be an Australian and not a United Kingdom citizen, even if domiciled here, and would not be entitled to a United Kingdom passport. The parents' marriage certificate is required in order to establish that a person who was born outside the United Kingdom and Colonies is a United Kingdom citizen by legitimate descent.
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that if the parents of the applicant have not been married, a passport will be withheld?
That would depend upon whether the child had been subsequently legitimised.
Middle East
Information Officers (Beirut Conference)
52.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the conference of information officers from British embassies and legations in the Middle East, which was held in Beirut last week.
It is normal practice to hold such regional consultations from time to time.
Will my right hon. and learned Friend say whether any steps are being taken, as a result of that conference, to improve our propaganda in the Middle East, particularly in view of the anti-British campaign being waged by Radio Cairo and other wireless stations?
The answer is "Yes, Sir."
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that in spite of all the attacks made on the Ministry of Information by his colleagues, these gentlemen are performing a very useful service?
I think they are performing a useful service, but I also think that it is capable of improvement.
Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that if Her Majesty's Government had an intelligible policy in the Middle East they would not need so much propaganda?
Naturally the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to agree with the premise upon which his question is based.
Argentine And Chile (Antarctic Claims)
53 and 54.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) what action it is proposed to take in the light of the refusal of the Governments of the Argentine and Chile to accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice to adjudicate on the Antarctic claims of those Governments;
(2) if he will make a statement on the decision of the International Court of Justice to remove from its list the cases arising out of the Antarctic claims of the Argentinian and Chilean Governments and the British Government's repudiation of such claims.The consent of the Argentine and Chilean Governments is necessary before the International Court can exercise jurisdiction in this matter. They have persisted in their refusal to accept the Court's jurisdiction, and in accordance with its normal practice in such circumstances, the Court has removed the cases from its list.
Her Majesty's Government, having thus demonstrated the validity of their title and their willingness to settle the dispute by peaceful means, now resume their full freedom to take whatever further action may be required to maintain their title.Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make certain that due publicity is given to the willingness of this country to submit these Antarctic claims to the proper source for adjudication, namely, the International Court of Justice; and will he also ensure that due publicity is given to his own Answer?
I will certainly do my best to do that.
Un Disarmament Sub-Committee (Meetings)
57.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, what arrangements have been made to publish the disarmament plans put forward by the Governments represented on the United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee.
As I reminded the House on 19th March, the Disarmament Sub-Committee meets in private. Its report, together with the texts of the documents tabled, will I expect be published when the sub-committee reports to the Disarmament Commission.
Does the reply of the Minister mean that each Government is being left to issue summarised hand-outs, and that we shall not get the text of the main proposals until the end of the conference?
As I have told the right hon. and learned Gentleman before, we are only one of the members of the Sub-Committee, and therefore we have to try to act in agreement with the others. Certainly I agree with him that it is necessary that, before the Disarmament Commission deals with this matter, these proposals should be made public.
Israeli-Arab Dispute
58.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the new plan for dealing with any violation of the Israel-Arab frontiers.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is, I assume, referring to the initiative recently taken in calling for a meeting of the Security Council. I think it would be better to await the results of the meeting which is being held this afternoon.
The right hon. and leaarned Gentleman has not replied to my Question. I am referring to the new plan, which, according to the Foreign Office spokesman on Saturday, has been prepared by the British Government with a view of taking immediate action in the event of aggression in the Middle East.
So far as action by Her Majesty's Government is concerned, at the moment we are endeavouring to keep the peace. In that function I think the United Nations has an important part to play. As regards plans for various hypothetical circumstances, as I have said previously, I do not think that those can be publicly announced.
Is it not a fact that the Security Council a year or two ago condemned the action of Egypt in holding up Israeli shipping? If nothing is to be done about that, is it any use going again to the Security Council? Is is not more desirable that my right hon. and learned Friend, on behalf of this country, if possible in agreement with America, should take a strong line?
Although, as my right hon. and gallant Friend says, it is true that there have been various resolutions passed by the Security Council, condemning both sides, which have not had much effect, what we are tackling at the moment is rather a different problem, namely, whether by strengthening the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organisation, which has done good work, we can keep the peace.
Is not the Foreign Secretary aware that there are very strong reports current, notably in The Times at the week-end, that the Government have prepared a plan to act in a military fashion apart from the United Nations organisation, if circumstances warrant it? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether there is any truth whatever in these reports?
The position of Her Majesty's Government is as I have stated. We intend to honour in the spirit and the letter the obligations of the Tripartite Declaration, and that involves the preparation of various plans for various contingencies.
Could the Foreign Secretary tell us whether he sees any hope of our getting a joint declaration from the three signatories? At the moment, there is a general impression among readers of newspapers that the United States and France are both following separate policies from ourselves in this matter. Is he aware that a joint declaration would give a good deal more confidence?
I agree that it is very desirable that we should seek to evolve a common line of action.
Would my right hon. and learned Friend consider the institution of staff talks both with the Israeli Government and one or more Arab States friendly to us? Would he, in that connection, have regard to the very useful precedent at the time of the grave troubles in India in 1947, when joint staff talks, particularly with the Pakistanis and Indians, took place?
I think that I should prefer my noble Friend to put that question on the Order Paper.
Will the Foreign Secretary clear up a point that I raised with regard to this proposed plan? Was the statement made by the Foreign Office spokesman last week and published in the American newspapers entirely unauthorised or not? Is there or is there not a plan?
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will furnish me with particulars of the precise statement to which he refers, I will try to deal with it.
Business Of The House
May I ask the Lord Privy Seal if he has any statement to make to the House on business?
Yes, Sir. It is proposed to suspend the rule for one hour tonight for the debate on Malta.
In view of this it is not now intended to take the Committee and remaining stages of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation Bill tonight, Proceedings on the Motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister relating to Malta exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) for One hour after Ten o'clock.—[The Prime Minister.]Malta (Round Table Conference)
3.33 p.m.
I beg to move,
On this important day in the history of the British Commonwealth we meet to consider the affairs of the lovely islands of Malta and Gozo. They have a very ancient civilisation from Phoenician, Roman, Saracen and Sicilian times, with a long and romantic association with the knights and a unique pre-history, with temples built about five to six thousand years ago. For the last hundred and fifty years they have been under the British Crown and are probably as well known, if not better known, to the people of the United Kingdom as any other part of the Commonwealth. When the Report of the Round Table Conference was published last December, both Houses were told that Her Majesty's Government would take no action on this Report until there had been a debate after Christmas. It has not been the wish of Her Majesty's Government to delay this debate unduly, but we felt that the Report needed the most careful and patient study by Members of the House in the light of the situation as it has been developing both here and in Malta. I say here as well as Malta because the United Kingdom Parliament is much involved in all this, and we have no intention of treating in a casual or unceremonious fashion the thoughts and feelings of hon. Members on what, after all, is very much a Parliamentary matter. For these reasons, this debate has not taken place before today. In reaching and forming conclusions on the next steps which we will take, we shall wish, naturally, to take account of the views expressed by the House today, but, as my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal said last Thursday, I will today state the Government's view on the Report of the Round Table Conference. I recognise that there is a feeling in some parts of the House that it is too soon even now to debate the Report. I do not underestimate those feelings but, on the other hand, it would be very wrong indeed for me to give the House the impression that we have unlimited time at our disposal for reaching a conclusion on the future constitutional status of Malta. This is a matter of great political purport both here and in Malta, and it cannot be left in suspense. As in most political processes, circumstances and attitudes are not static and a policy of delay or drift will have consequences which some perhaps do not expect and many cannot foresee. Before I explain the Government's attitude to these proposals, I should like briefly to remind the House of the events leading up to the appointment of the Round Table Conference, to recall the decisions of the Conference and then say something about what happened between the publication of its Report in December and the present time. I will not go back on the long history of Malta's association with the United Kingdom, which began in such dramatic fashion a hundred and fifty years ago. Nor shall I try to describe what the Royal Commission on Malta, in 1931, called "the rise and fall of constitutions during the last hundred years, alternating between a benevolent autocracy and that of representative Government, when," as they said, "from time to time, some measure of self-government was granted, and then, after a period, was superseded by a strict Crown Colony system." History, for the purpose of this debate, began very recently. Unlike the history of Malta it began as recently as 1953—Coronation year. In that year the Maltese Government, which was then under Dr. Borg Olivier, the Nationalist Party being then in power, put forward proposals for Dominion status for Malta and the transfer of responsibility for Maltese affairs from my own Department to the Commonwealth Relations Office. These proposals, after the most careful examination, were not found acceptable to Her Majesty's Government. Neither the Nationalist Party nor the Maltese Labour Party, then in opposition, regarded as adequate the British Government's counter-proposal to transfer responsibility from the Colonial Office to the Home Office. Therefore, in 1954 we proposed that all-party talks should take place. Both parties agreed to this proposal, and in June of last year, by which time the Malta Labour Party was in office, they took place under my chairmanship. I there told the delegates that Her Majesty's Government believed that, while Dominion status for Malta was ruled out, the existing Constitution needed revision. On the economic side we issued a joint declaration, to which I will refer again later, which made it clear that economic aid to Malta would be forthcoming in any case, whatever form the constitutional development might take. While these talks were going on, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the decision of the Government here to appoint the Round Table Conference. It met very quickly, and submitted its Report in December. I think that the whole House is very grateful to my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and his colleagues of all parties for the admirable way in which they carried out that task. The Report is only 26 pages long, and I think it needs no summarising, but there are some points which I ought to emphasise. The Conference made it clear that both the Malta Labour Party—the present Government of Malta—and the Nationalist Party felt that constitutional and administrative changes not involving a fundamental change in status would not go far enough and that it was essential to decide immediately the nature of the ultimate status to be attained. The Nationalist Party, on its side, maintained that the normal road towards self-government within the Commonwealth was for Malta the proper road, but it recognised that the end which had been most recently attained by Ceylon could not be an end for Malta. It strongly opposed the proposal of the Maltese Government, who put forward as a cardinal feature of their plans representation at Westminster, thereby, as they said, taking into account their legitimate political aspirations and making manifest their equality of status and responsibilities with the British people. On the economic side, the Report, while recommending certain very desirable developments, warned that expansion in the rate of economic advance was unlikely to be as rapid as some of the witnesses had forecast, and it added a very wise warning that a rapid rise in costs in Malta would lessen the prospects of this expansion. It said that it was unlikely that more than the present level of aid provided by the British Government could be spent profitably in Malta in the next few years. On the constitutional side, the Conference said that the road to full self-government was blocked. Then the Conference considered the Nationalist Party proposals. These were for a modified form of Dominion status which provided for autonomy in relation to the United Kingdom but not other countries, and for joint responsibility for defence and foreign affairs based on two agreements. It was the view of the Conference that this would not be workable. It took the view that it lacked essential definition and was bound to lead to conflict in interpretation and embarrassment in relations with Commonwealth and foreign countries. Then the Report considered and rejected various other alternatives to full representation at Westminster. It considered the Maltese Government's proposals. The Conference stated that common membership of the Parliament of Westminster would make equality of status manifest and meet the realities of the situation, and it recommended that there should be three Maltese Members sitting in this House, but it added that it was for the Maltese people themselves to determine and to demonstrate clearly and unmistakably whether the proposals of the Maltese Government corresponded with their own wishes. As the House knows, the full Report was signed by all the members of the Conference except my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) and my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn). As to the subsequent developments, on the day before the Report was published the then Lord Privy Seal, now Lord Crookshank, told the House:That this House takes note of the Report of the Malta Round Table Conference, 1955, Command Paper No. 9657.
Meantime, the Maltese Government said that they were proceeding with a referendum of which they had given notice to the Conference. The Conference took note of this, but made no comment. I must frankly say that, as I told the Prime Minister of Malta, I did not at all like this intention to have an early referendum. I asked the Prime Minister of Malta to come to London shortly before Christmas, and I did my best to dissuade him from proceeding with the referendum. I said I thought that the House might think it was being rushed and that a test of Maltese opinion was premature until the United Kingdom Parliament had made up its own mind on the recommendations in the Report which, as I said, was, after all, being presented to it. The Prime Minister of Malta, however, felt that there were good reasons for proceeding at once with the referendum and, that, indeed—on this point, I must confess that, though unconvinced, I saw something in what he said—there would be some advantage for Parliament if it knew before the debate something of what Malta felt. Anyhow, it seemed to me that the Round Table Conference had considered that the holding of the referendum and its timing were entirely within the responsibility of the Maltese Government. The holding of the referendum was strongly opposed by the Malta Nationalist Party, which protested not only against the manner in which it said the Bill had been rushed through its Legislature but against several other matters as well. It told its supporters to boycott it. During the campaign there was much controversy about the proposals for the linking of questions together, about the conduct of the referendum, about incidents at meetings and about various other things of that kind. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I were asked a number of Questions at this time about the referendum. We said that when the House debated the Report it would, no doubt, weigh carefully all relevant factors, including the fact that there had been a referendum, the form of the questions asked, the opportunity open to all sides to put their views fully and freely, on the platform, over the wireless and in the Press, the way in which polling was conducted, and, naturally, the result of the referendum. I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery):"The Government will consider the Report with all speed, but no action will be taken until the House has had the opportunity of debating the Report after Christmas, thus enabling the Government to take careful account of the views of the hon. Members on this important constitutional question."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1955; Vol. 547, c. 1404.]
If the House will bear with me, I shall return to this a little later. The campaign was also, unhappily, an occasion for controversy on religious issues in their possible application to constitutional proposals. On 21st January the Metropolitan Archbishop of Malta and the Bishop of Gozo issued a pastoral letter in which they said the assurances contained in paragraph 79 of the Conference Report were not in themselves sufficient. I was then asked to reassure the Catholic hierarchy and the Catholic community of Malta. As we all know, that is the religion of virtually everybody in the islands of Malta and Gozo. On 1st February I was asked by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) whether, in view of the forthcoming referendum in Malta, I could give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government accepted and supported assurances given to the Archbishop of Malta by representatives of the Round Table Conference as set out in paragraph 79 of the Report. I hope the House will forgive me if I read my reply to the right hon. Gentleman, because for the purposes of the record I think it is very important. I said:"By these and other tests, the House will no doubt be able to form an opinion whether the Maltese people have clearly and unmistakably expressed their views, and will take this into account in deciding its attitude towards the Report…as a whole."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1956; Vol. 548, c. 143.]
I added that I would remind the House of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had said on 10th November, 1955, to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling), which was:"My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 24th January that Her Majesty's Government were considering the Report of the Malta Round Table Conference and that no action would be taken until there has been an opportunity of debate. The House will not expect or wish me to prejudge the decision which will be taken here and in Malta on the question of integration. I have read the Pastoral Letter of His Grace the Metropolitan Archbishop of Malta with the attention and respect that any pronouncement from him is bound to command. It would be unworthy of the importance of the issues we have to decide if His Grace's words were misinterpreted by protagonists of either side in the controversy over integration."
I said:…that Her Majesty's Government will take no action to prejudice the position of the Roman Catholic Church in Malta."
I concluded:"I feel sure that the House when it comes to debate the Report will pay great attention to the views on this matter of the members of the Conference, which, of course, was representative of all parties in this House."
I was then asked a supplementary question by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion and I gave him the assurance that if the decision of the House went in favour of integration steps would be taken to put into concrete fashion the assurances I had given. I said that that remained—and it is true now—Her Majesty's Government's intention. As all hon. Members know, the referendum resulted in 90,000 people voting out of 153,000 on the register and, of that 90,000, 67,000 said, "Yes" and 20,000 said, "No"; that is to say, nearly 75 per cent. of those who voted said "Yes," but, on the other hand, that represents a little more than 44 per cent. of those entitled to vote. Before I finish my speech—and I do not want to keep the House long, because I know many hon. Members want to take part in the debate—I want to analyse those figures and briefly compare them with other relevant figures. Since the referendum, the Governor and the Government have made further efforts to remove the Report from religious controversy in Malta. As the House knows, I paid a short, but I hope helpful, visit to Malta on my return from Cyprus earlier this month and the Governor, as one would expect, has been quite unsparing in his efforts to achieve this goal, to remove the Report from religious controversy. So much for the background. The House is now entitled to know the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards the Report. The constitutional aspects are really the heart of the matter. Other questions, like economic aid, have a most important bearing, but the central theme of the Report is to find a constitutional solution which is, in the words of the Report:"I can, moreover, assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will not commend to Parliament any proposals which run counter to the assurances given to the Archbishop of Malta by representatives of the Round Table Conference as set out in paragraph 79 of its Report."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1956; Vol. 548, c. 926.]
All who have studied this matter agree that there can be no doubt that most Maltese do not like the present Constitution. How easy life would be—anyhow, in this matter—if they could agree on what they wanted. I say straightaway, to remove any possibility of misunderstanding, that to my own personal knowledge all parties in Malta want to see maintained inviolate the security of the British base. Any suggestion to the contrary would be most unfair to any of the distinguished political figures in Malta. However, on the Constitution there are very different views. We in this House can hardly be surprised if a democracy has no united view. There are three parties in Malta. The Malta Labour Party won the election in February last year on a programme of integration which, its opponents assert, was even more far-reaching and economically favourable to the people of Malta than the scheme which the Maltese Government put forward to the Round Table Conference. On the other hand, the Nationalist Party has as its main plank a modified form of Dominion status, which the Conference, after careful examination, held to be unworkable. The Nationalist Party has made it quite clear that it has in no way retreated or deviated from the proposals which it put forward before the Conference. Then we have the Progressive Constitutional Party, which, despite the remarkable personality of its leader, who is, like other leaders, an old friend to many of us in this House, is not represented in the Malta Parliament and whose programme, in the view of the two parties which are represented, would not give the necessary early decision—early decision—on the constitutional link which would unite the United Kingdom and Malta in the future. I hope that these facts will be borne in mind by any hon. Members in this House who may have conceived the view—and it would be a comfortable and, in some ways, an easy view—that there is a measure of agreement in Malta on constitutional reform among all the parties which could be given effect right away, leaving the question of ultimate status to be decided at some time in the future—not, mark you Sir, decided now and implemented in the future, but the decision itself postponed until the future. The statements of the Maltese parties and the Report of the Conference make it quite clear that though there are similarities in some of the reforms proposed by all the parties, there is an acute and apparently irreconcilable difference in their ultimate aims. On that, none of them has shown any disposition to compromise in the interest of reaching an agreement among themselves on the interim constitutional reforms. Therefore, any constitutional decision is bound to be controversial and each plan must be examined on its merits, including its likelihood of being acceptable here in the United Kingdom and in Malta and of providing or paving the way for a final solution. We must not be too timid because of fear of what may happen in ten, twenty, or thirty years' time. We have to consider the situation as we find it today and as we see it developing for as far ahead as possible. Walter Bagehot used to say that one of the greatest pains to human nature was the pain of a new idea. In my own present responsibilities I know how often I come on a situation when I see a chance which I thought had been open to our fathers, and I say, "If only they had done so and so, that was the time." We must be careful, in these days, that our children cannot say the same of us later. We have to try to reach a conclusion which offers a prospect of stability and success for the future. Of course, we must anticipate and guard against every possible difficulty that we can foresee. What we must do is choose a course which seems the least likely to produce problems, or one which, if problems do arise, as they are bound to do, will enable us the more easily to solve them. On this matter the very skilful handling by the Round Table Conference of the problems in view is of very great help and I would ask hon. Members who believe that there is some simpler solution still to these problems to look at paragraph 83 of the Report which says:"consonant with the interests and requirements of both the United Kingdom and Malta, and with the responsibilities of the Imperial Parliament."
that is, representation at Westminster—"Following on our recommendation"—
This means that the Round Table Conference supported essential constitutional changes in Malta in the context of representation at Westminster. If I may use a horrible modern phrase, it was a "single package" deal. In this, the Government believe that the conclusion of the Round Table Conference was right. We cannot, in present circumstances—and I say this with full knowledge of this situation—separate interim constitutional change and ultimate status. After all, the United Kingdom has very great responsibilities. I could not possibly recommend to the House that we should increase the powers of the Maltese Government and Parliament and drastically modify the form and extent of the Maltese Imperial Government and its powers in the field of reserved matters, unless I felt sure that there could be provided the necessary corresponding safeguards for the maintenance of our imperial responsibilities in Malta and the means of ensuring stable, co-operative and happy relations with the Maltese Government in other matters. The Conference thinks that its proposals will meet all these things and it has produced strong arguments indeed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton put in a statement on the question of representation. The essence of their argument is that the consultative and administrative recommendations in the Report can be implemented independently of representation. To use, again, the modern phrase, this is the idea of a "two package" arrangement and, frankly, I believe it to be a complete fallacy. Moreover, they recognise that representation at Westminster may prove to be the ultimate answer. It is only on the question of timing "in accordance," they say, "with the realities of the present situation," that they dissent. They make one very important point, that is, that the Maltese Members of this House would have equality of function with all the other Members, but not equality of responsibility to their Maltese constituents for Maltese domestic affairs, including taxation. I agree that that is a very pertinent statement. Logically, the way to deal with that would be to restrict the rights of the Maltese Members at Westminster, but this possibility was examined and decisively rejected by the Conference. I must say that neither of the two parties in the Maltese Parliament accept this conception of the "two-package deal." Nor do the majority of the Conference. Nor can Her Majesty's Government agree with their assessment of the realities of the present situation. The next thing I should like to mention—it is an important duty on my part, as Colonial Secretary—is the possibility of colonial precedents being created. I have, and I am glad to have, wide responsibilities beyond Malta. I know that some hon. Members, who would be disposed to approach this problem of Malta sympathetically, ask themselves and me, whether Malta is, in fact, sui generis; can we make a case for Malta without it being followed by many other places which may lack what we all know to be the attributes of our Parliament, the homogeneity of our Parliament, the same background, interests, duties and responsibilities? Though anxious to face the needs and problems in a sympathetic way, these Members see possibilities of expansion beyond what they believe Parliament can properly be asked to accept. Every country, large or small, has certain political and cultural traditions which compose its history and determine the outlook of its people; and when we say, as some of us do, that Malta is unique, we must agree that to any country its history is something peculiarly its own. On the other hand, our colonial policy would have had little value had it not encouraged and taught the principles and customs of democratic self-government which we in this country have evolved. Malta has a leading place among the territories in which self-government has been developed. Some of the Colonial Territories, many of them, will, we hope, achieve full self-government within the Commonwealth on their own, or as units in larger federations. But the Report makes it quite clear that there are practical obstacles in the way of full self-government for Malta. The emphasis of Malta's history during the hundred and fifty years of her association with us has been upon her strategic importance and her economic dependence on us, arising out of the predominance of our defence expenditure and the island's lack of natural resources. These are the principal reasons why it would not be right or reasonable to expect the people of this small island, who have achieved so large a measure of self-government in their internal affairs, to assume the heavy additional responsibilities of full self-government. The Report argues that these and other circumstances make Malta's situation quite exceptional. There are, of course, and I know it well, a few other Colonial Territories in a similar position in so far as it does not appear likely that they can, under modern conditions, expect to achieve full self-government, including control of defence and external relations. But I genuinely believe that Malta is distinguished from these other territories in several ways. She joined the United Kingdom of her own free will. It is her own elected representatives who have asked for representation at Westminster. She is geographically close to the United Kingdom in distance and in time. She has a record of peculiar distinction and association with us in two world wars, and her economy and the lives of the greater number of her people are largely sustained by expenditure of Departments of the United Kingdom Government, especially the Admiralty. The activities of the defence Departments are to a great degree inextricably bound up with those of the civil Government, as anyone who has studied this matter closely is bound to agree. Now, there are other territories to which one or more of these circumstances would apply, but to none do all of them apply in such a marked measure, and Her Majesty's Government feel able to endorse the argument in paragraph 77 of the Report that justification of Malta's claim to representation at Westminster can be based on the quite exceptional circumstances and position of the island. We can also endorse the Report when it goes on to say that because of these quite exceptional circumstances it is not considered that claims for similar treatment from other quarters would arise which could not be dealt with on their own merits. It may be that in time some other territories will ask to be given representation at Westminster. It would be wrong that I should not mention that, but so far as I can see such requests are most unlikely to be numerous. Some of the smaller territories, when they recognise the practical difficulties with which full self-government would confront them, and realise that, in consequence, they must leave to the United Kingdom certain overriding responsibilities, may, and I believe will, equally recognise the unsuitability of representation at Westminster. The situation varies enormously. In some of them the system of taxation and its general level differs widely from ours. For others a close approach to equivalence in social welfare measures seems scarcely to be a practical proposition. I recognise, as I know do many hon. Members, and particularly my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Lord Hinchingbrooke), that we have to devise for these territories some arrangement which will meet their own particular status. This is a task which must be faced, though I cannot pretend as yet to be in a position to propound any general solution. I believe, however, that Malta is in a different category even from these other territories. For her, quite apart from the advance in self-government already achieved, the physical impact of Commonwealth defence needs is immense and touches every aspect of the life of the island in a way which I think cannot be paralleled elsewhere. So it is our duty to find a solution consonant with the interests and requirements of both of us. None of the alternative solutions in the Report appear to Her Majesty's Government to do this and I must, therefore, state quite categorically that Her Majesty's Government are in favour of the proposals in the Report. This means all the proposals, including the recommendation for Maltese representation at Westminister. There is no question of the Government accepting the Report conditionally. We accept it unconditionally. That is our position. But, as the House knows, the Report itself contains conditions which I must now examine as briefly as possible. The most important condition is in paragraph 80, that it is"and assuming its acceptance, we proceed to make recommendations on other constitutional and related questions.…"
The Conference did not suggest how this recommendation should be met, or when or what was "clear and unmistakable." I do not quarrel with that; I think that was quite right. The Conference accepted that it was for the Maltese Government to settle how the test should be made, although the judgment of what was clear and unmistakable is plainly for Her Majesty's Government. As regards the referendum in general, it was probably in the mind of the Conference, as it would be, I think, in the minds of us all, that a referendum is not a known constitutional device in this country. Many of us do not think that a referendum is a very reliable method of determining views on a highly complicated question. I have told the House my views on the timing of the referendum. There are other criticisms made by some people. There has been criticism of what is called the "trusted friend" procedure. This is an innovation to us. It is not, we must say, unique. It is open to both sides, but it is equally open to abuse. It is not necessarily improper where there is much illiteracy, though I think that other and better means might well have been found to meet that particular difficulty. As to the referendum's proposals, to all intents the form of these proposals is identical with the scheme proposed by the Government of Malta to the Conference, and, with one important exception, the proposals are identical with the recommendations of the Conference. The exception is the economic question which voters were asked to answer. It must be remembered, in fairness to the Maltese Government, that the questions did not purport to represent the views of the Conference, but the scheme on which the Maltese Government proposed to enter into negotiations with Her Majesty's Government in the light of the Report. I would ask those who believe that exaggerated hopes were held out, at any rate so far as the economic questions were concerned, to consider this wording. We all know that in elections individual candidates can interpret their parties' policy in surprising ways. Indeed, when the present Governor of Malta was once a Conservative candidate, hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House—or some of their supporters—went round Bassetlaw, as I remember very well, saying, "Vote for Bob and lose your job." The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) was his opponent; I am sure that Sir Robert Laycock never said that."for the Maltese people themselves to determine and demonstrate clearly and unmistakably whether the proposals of the Maltese Government do indeed correspond with their own wishes."
I was the other candidate then; I know something about the Election campaign. I do not think that that candidate was even a Conservative candidate; he called himself a Churchill candidate.
A very honourable title, and if the right hon. Gentleman had been prepared to call himself the same we would all have been very pleased.
The one important exception to which I was about t