I have to acquaint the House that the House has this day attended His Majesty in the House of Peers, and His Majesty was pleased to make a Most Gracious Speech from the Throne to both Houses of Parliament, of which I have, for greater accuracy, obtained a copy, which is as follows:

I beg to move,

"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty as follows:

Most Gracious Sovereign,

We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."

I realise that in selecting me to move this loyal Address a great honour has been accorded to me and to my constituency. The City of Leicester, in whose representation I share, is an historical city with a Parliamentary background. Today, of course, it is industrial, and, like many industrial cities, has rapidly spread, but, despite that, it still has a certain grandeur and is renowned for its cleanliness of appearance. members of the House of Commons will be interested in the unique experience which we have had in Leicester in Parliamentary elections. Two gentlemen who had been rejected at the polls, defeated candidates, later became Prime Ministers of this country. Both had very distinguished careers, and defeated candidates in Leicester always console themselves with that fact. In 1950 we are to have four Parliamentary representatives instead of three; we greatly appreciate that because it brings us into line with cities of the same size and of like importance in the country.

My constituents are, in the main, hosiery workers, boot and shoe workers, engineers and printers; and, of course, many of them are engaged in subsidiary trades to those industries. In Leicester we have made a great contribution to the export trade; our products and trade names are known throughout the markets of the world. Economists who have, particularly during the years between the wars, made a study of the relative affluence of different cities in this country and of the Continent, have told us from time to time that Leicester stood throughout Europe as the second most prosperous city. I think that was probably largely true because of the many industries that we have, and the fact that we were never greatly affected by the depression between the wars. But despite that, in 1938 we did have almost 14,000 unemployed workers signing the registers of Leicester; and on the other side of the picture, our business houses suffered bankruptcies at an average rate of 40 per year, although many of those may have been voluntary liquidations. The present position compares very favourably with that, for the unemployment figure is negligible, and in 1947 there were only four orders in bankruptcy. In fact, the Board of Trade is at the moment considering whether to take the Official Receiver away from us altogether.

Womenfolk have always played a great part in Leicester's industries. In fact, they are the backbone of our industries. It is difficult for people in perhaps South Wales, which is my own home, to appreciate what it means to have all of the womenfolk going to work as well as the men. We could do a great deal more in this direction in Leicester if there were more nursery schools and more nurseries for the children, which would liberate the women and enable them to enter industry.

In 1945 the Leicester City Council, our local authority, got away to a very good start with our housing problem—a problem that was there before the war, although not to anything like the same extent—and we have now reached the 2,000 mark of new homes built for rental, as well as many hundreds built under licence for sale. We have shone, too. in the educational field. The Leicester Educational Authority is renowned throughout the country for its work, and before very long we hope to be able to call ourselves, as our sister city of Nottingham does, a university city.

In the Gracious Speech reference was made to the troubled state of the world and the desires of the peoples of the world to live in peace. This most profoundly affected all of us who listened to that Gracious Speech. Three years after the end of the war— the second great war in a generation— we find that once again the peoples of the world are disturbed and upset in their minds, and in fear at the thought of further warfare. At the end of the second world war we had every reason to hope that, within at least a reasonable space of time, the nations of the world, despite the difficulties that were bound to confront them, would get down to the job of signing peace treaties, bringing some sort of order to the defeated countries, and placing the whole of the world on a sound political and economic basis. But how wrong we were in our assumption, and how intensely disappointed have we all been. If it were possible to look into the hearts and minds of the peoples of the world, whoever they may be and wherever they may be, I am sure we should find a hatred and an abhorrence of warfare. I am convinced that no nation wants war; and I am almost as certain that no nation can afford the losses in human life and the wastage in material that a war entails.

The U.S.S.R., our gallant and courageous ally in times of war, has proved herself to be absolutely un-co-operative in the peace. We on this side of the House— or at least most of us— expected much from the deliberations of Russia and the part that she could play in our councils after the war. We may have expected too much, but in fact we have received nothing. She has played the old imperialist game— a game that we know so well; but this time the players are in different coloured shirts. Russia's political and social structure is very different from our own democratic way of life, but we have no desire, and no intention I hope, to interfere with her way of life. On the contrary, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, perhaps more than any other man in this country, in the 'thirties worked hard and did much to prevent interference

in what was then young Russia's new social order. We do, however, ask and implore of Russia that she shall leave other nations alone— large nations and small nations— and that she shall cease to interfere with their internal structure, just as she would want us not to interfere with hers. We ask that these small nations shall be allowed to work out their own salvation in their own way inside the United Nations.

Who would have thought at the time of the Potsdam Agreement that within a few short years one of the signatories would be engaged in an aggressive blockade of the other signatories' territories? This senseless, purposeless blockade of three million people in Berlin is a wicked thing. Russia even now, despite her action yesterday, could make a great gesture, and could do a great deal towards cementing world peace by lifting this blockade, for then with the pressures off, with temperatures going down, we could get down to settling this other problem which is concerning her and which concerns all of us. In fact, we could get down very much easier to ironing out our difficulties and solving all our problems once this pressure is off. Let us have just one word of good will from the Soviet statesmen; let us have just one "Yes" in an absolute forest of "Noes."

I cannot pass this reference to Berlin without paying my tribute to the work of the R.A.F. who, assisted by Commonwealth crews, have done so much in the airlift to Berlin. I am of the opinion that the nations of the world have received a great shock in seeing what was possible in that direction. It is regrettable that it was necessary to do that, but I am very proud to pay my tribute to the R.A.F. who have done so much to feed these beleaguered people. We are in Berlin by right. We must stay in Berlin until by international agreement, by the agreement of nations in common conclave, a peace treaty can be signed and it is time for some other structure to take the place of the present.

I am firmly of the opinion— and I speak only for myself— that a second Munich in this generation would be a mistake and a tragedy. But on the other hand, provocative speeches about reprisals and that sort of thing cannot fail to do more than a great deal of harm. They are dangerous, and they are mischievous. The problem of Berlin is now before the United Nations. In fact, the United Nations, with many of the problems that are confronting them, are more or less on trial. They must find a solution to these problems, and when they do, confidence will be restored to the world and there will be an easing of the troubled feelings which the people are at present experiencing. Palestine and Berlin must not be to the United Nations what Abyssinia and Manchuria were to the League of Nations.

We are meeting at a time when France is going through a very troubled period. Once again, within the space of a few months, her industries are crippled by industrial unrest. I am of the opinion that much of her trouble is economic rather than political. Governments have come and gone in rapid succession; there has been little continuity, and they have completely failed to inspire a common effort in France which alone could save her at the present moment. Here again there has been interference from outside, interference perhaps designed to break the European Recovery Programme, which has had the effect of reducing France to her present position. Her workers' standard of living is low, her food rationing and price controls just do not seem to work and there is much for the few and little for the many.

That sort of situation breeds Communism and Fascism anywhere, and, of course, the followers of these two creeds— and my view is that both of them exist in France— will exploit it to the full. The workers of France, like the workers of any other country, should realise once and for all that if either of these non-democratic parties is hoisted into the saddle of Government, then never again can they protest against wages, hours and conditions. A stable Government in France, with social justice, would enable her to settle down, and then she could do much, as we have done, in tackling her economic problems and getting on with the job of overcoming her difficulties.

Finally, I should like to make reference to the meetings of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers. Here we see how relatively easy it is, with a few meetings within a few days, to reach agreement when there are common ties binding the nations sitting at the conference table. I should like to recall the contribution that the Commonwealth Nations have always made in our economic troubles. We have never found them wanting. They have always been by our side, and when that same spirit pervades all the nations of the world, we can then say of the world organisation that it is truly a United Nations.

I beg to second the Motion which my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicester (Mr. Bowden) has moved in such eloquent and sincere terms.

It is an honour to have this privilege. It is an honour not only to me, but to the constituency I represent. It is an honour also to Wales, not only because of the association of Monmouthshire with Wales, but because my hon. Friend is one of her distinguished sons. Monmouthshire is often claimed as an English county, but I do not propose to discuss the merits of that claim, except to say that Monmouthshire and Wales have suffered so much in the past and produced so much wealth in the past that we regard ourselves as at one with Wales.

Pontypool Division is a constituency with a long industrial record. It has been dependent upon coal, iron and steel; in point of fact its trade in iron dates back to 1588. Blaenavon, an important part of the constituency, was renowned as an iron-smelting town soon after the industrial revolution. Like many other industrial valleys in South Wales, Pontypool has been dependent on coal, iron and steel, and there has been little development of secondary industries. The valleys of Wales and Monmouthshire have contributed much to the economic prosperity of the United Kingdom, and there has been extracted from these valleys untold wealth. I do not ask hon. Members to accept my words alone. I would refer them to the report of the Government Committee of 1931 which stated that there had been extracted from the valleys of Monmouthshire and South Wales in the preceding century and a half probably more wealth than from any other comparable area in the world. My constituency, like the rest of Wales, during the period of depression, when there was widespread unemployment and distress, when homes were broken up and young men had to migrate across the border into England, was left neglected in her distress. We suffered extremely in those days, but I am glad to say that Pontypool was famous not only for its coal, iron and steel, but also for the fight it put up to try to protect the rights of the workers, and the unemployed, in those days. It was from the Division of Pontypool that the hunger marchers came to London to demand bread and social justice.

Today, we have a changed scene. We now find that the workers in these areas have achieved both these ends. They have a share in the bread, and a measure of social justice as well. There is a great improvement in the outlook of the whole of the people of South Wales and Monmouthshire. They are filled with a new hope and a new confidence. The result is that in my own constituency of Pontypool the workers are putting forward great efforts. The miners are reaching their targets, and the production of the steel workers and the tinplate workers is limited only by shortage of materials. Industrialists tell me that the factory workers have proved adaptable and skilled. This new life, which has been brought into these vales by this Government, has given new heart and hope to their people. But there is still much to be done.

My hon. Friend has surveyed the field of foreign affairs, and it would not be appropriate for me to say anything further upon that subject. But perhaps I may be permitted to reiterate how tragic it is that at the present time when so much good will exists in the world, when so many nations are prepared to work together and to make sacrifices for the good of all, there are still some who, by misunderstanding, suspicion or mistrust, would stultify these generous impulses and by their actions perhaps place our civilisation in jeopardy. If only we could establish throughout the world an understanding between the nations which would lead to a lasting peace mankind would derive great and lasting benefits. Through misunderstanding, suspicion and mistrust there can be only misery and disaster.

There is no need for anybody to mistrust the people of this country. All we long for is peace and, with peace, freedom and security, the right to live our own lives in our own democratic way, and the chance to repair our war battered economy. It is a great misfortune for this peace-loving country that the substantial progress we are making today towards our economic recovery has to be retarded, and men and materials have to be turned from the tasks of peace to the necessities of defence. The provisions in the Gracious Speech for the stimulation of recruitment of the Armed Forces and organisation of Civil Defence will, I believe, be accepted by the House as a regrettable but necessary precautionary measure made necessary by the present disrupted state of the world.

On the domestic side, the proposals outlined in the Gracious Speech will, I am sure, be welcomed by the House. Some of them are necessary steps in the great social advance seen in this country since the present Government came into power. They fit into the pattern of the society which we wish to see established. Not the least in importance are those to ensure improvements in the administration of justice, and the granting of legal aid to those of small or moderate means. This is a reform which is long overdue. I think it right that I should say in this connection that both branches of the legal profession have, over many years, rendered great public service in giving legal assistance, entirely free, in hundreds of thousands of cases to those in need. But while it is true that the legal profession have co-operated in trying to give assistance to those in need, it is also true to say-and this is not a criticism of our courts— that there have been cases where justice has not been done, where legal rights have not been established because the litigant, through lack of means, has not had legal advice or the benefit of legal representation. The proposal in the Gracious Speech will remove this great defect, and I am sure that the legal profession will continue to co-operate to ensure the success of a scheme which seeks to give those who have to have recourse to our courts the opportunity of having their case properly prepared and presented.

There are some other provisions in the Gracious Speech which, I am sure, the House will welcome. There is the question of the review of rents of shared rooms. This is causing great distress today to a large number of people. Those who, by reason of the housing shortage, are compelled to share rooms have no protection either from eviction or against the rent which can be imposed upon them.

On such an occasion as this it is necessary to avoid controversy, which, I hope, I have done and will continue to do. There is, however, one provision in the Gracious Speech which all of us on this side of the House will particularly welcome— the proposal to nationalise the iron and steel industry. This proposal has been so widely expected and accepted throughout the country that it almost ceases to be controversial. It is quite clear that at the General Election this issue was plainly put before the people. We were to organise the resources of the nation; we were to nationalise all essential industries, including iron and steel. The people understood that, and it was the people's will. That will has not changed, as the by-election results have shown.

It is no part of my duty to attempt to belittle the recent achievements of the iron and steel industry. All engaged in it are entitled to the highest praise— workers, technicians and managements. They have done an excellent job. They have brought the production rate above the target figure. It is a great accomplishment, all the greater when we remember the condition into which the industry had been allowed to fall. The iron and steel industry is vital to our needs, our security and our prosperity. Without ample steel, as without ample coal, we cannot hope to get through the difficulties which are now besetting us. It is essential to our export trade and our internal industrial development, and especially is it essential if the necessities of military defence are to arise. It is a very necessary national service, but it is not a national service which is owned by the nation. The nation should own our national services. The iron and steel industry is in private hands and run for private profit.

Some may ask what objection there can be to this industry being run for profit, in private hands. Let me give an example from my own constituency. In Blaenavon, on the site of an old ironworks, a steel works was erected where there were seven 60-ton Siemen-Martin furnaces, three blast furnaces and a rolling mill, producing 1,200 tons per week of bars and billets. There was also a tyre mill making tyres for rolling stock and, altogether, some 2,000 men were employed. During the depression of the 1930s the whole undertaking was dismantled, with the exception of the tyre mill which continued to operate with ingots purchased from outside. The desolation that was caused in that town by the dismantlement of that industry cannot be described. I have no words graphic enough to describe the unemployment and suffering that were imposed on the people there, but I can say that workers and tradespeople alike suffered the most acute distress.

The point I want to emphasise is this: the closing of those works was not made on the decision of anybody who was responsible for the welfare of the society which it had broken. It was not a decision which was taken by the nation in the interests of the people, and by which alternative means of employment could be provided. It was not a decision which was taken by the great nation to which we belong for the purpose of bringing about increased efficiency in the industry or protecting the people whom they had displaced. It was a decision which had been made by a few people for the purposes of protecting profit, and they had seen fit to bring desolation and disaster upon this community. The town has never recovered, and is today suffering the evil consequences of the past. It looks to this Government for aid. I believe that all Members on this side of the House will most heartily welcome this provision.

In conclusion, I would say that the great productive efforts made by the people of this country, their readiness to face difficulties, to undergo hardships and to make sacrifices for the common good are a great demonstration of our strength and character. We have a long and difficult road to travel before we reach the economic independence we all desire. We may be called upon to make further efforts and further sacrifices, but we shall all the more readily meet these calls because we know we shall be establishing within this land a state of society based upon the principles of social justice and social security. I believe that the provisions of the Gracious Speech are a further step towards the fulfilment of that aim, an aim to which the Labour Government are dedicated. It is an honour and a privilege for me to second the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech.

It is my privilege to offer the traditional congratulations which on these occasions are meted out to the Mover and the Seconder of the Address. This has been attempted in so many styles with such a wide variety of success or otherwise and so recently performed in the calendar, that on this occasion I shall not attempt novelty just as I cannot hope to equal the brilliant wit of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) on the last occasion. I shall, therefore, content myself with saying to the Mover that it seemed to us, as no doubt it did to the whole House, that he made a sincere and well-balanced speech to which we all listened with very genuine pleasure. We all enjoyed his reminiscences of the political past at Leicester. I thought to myself that there might for him be some consolation in that thought, and perhaps he will be able to await the outcome of the General Election in his own constituency with more stoicism than is possible for most of us. I should like to endorse the remarks which he made about the air-lift to Berlin. It is a remarkable fact that our more limited resources and smaller aircraft have been able to maintain 40 per cent. of the total lift.

The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. West), who seconded the Address, made quite clear to us that this Session is inevitably going to be more controversial than any we have yet had. He found it impossible, despite a wealth of eloquence, to achieve the fulfilment of his proposition that the nationalisation of the iron and steel industry was not a controversial issue. I will have an observation or two to make about that in a moment or two. At the outset I would say to the Prime Minister that it seems to us deplorable that while emphasis was being laid by the Mover and Seconder on the gravity of the international situation, at the same time we are going to have to spend a great part of this Session on which we have embarked, on these most controversial issues. I propose to say more about that later.

Before entering on such subjects I should like to extend to the Prime Minister from us all, our most cordial congratulations on his restoration to health and to tell him we are glad to see him here. We hope that he will enjoy taking part in the share of the controversies to come. I feel that the Mover was expressing the experience of us all when he said that whatever our domestic controversies might be-and it is obvious they will be very bitter this Session— most of us in this House certainly— [Interruption.] We have already had an example in the speech of the Seconder of the Address. I did not wish to say that unless I was provoked, but I understood that it was the general feeling of anyone who listened to that speech that we were moving on to much more controversial ground. However that may be— and events will prove whether I am right or wrong— the country outside is dominated by anxiety about the international situation. Some of us, no doubt, used the few weeks' respite given us by the Lord President of the Council between his innumerable Sessions to pay short visits to our constituencies, and there we found— I certainly have found— that of all the questions put to me by the electors this concern in the international situation dominates everything else. It is the all— pervading preoccupation.

Nor is there anything to comfort us in this connection in the words of the Gracious Speech, which referred to the Soviet veto of the resolution put forward at the Security Council. Here was a resolution put forward by the six neutral Powers as the outcome of prolonged and earnest efforts to try to resolve the deadlock in the relations between the Great Powers. The Western Powers voted for the resolution, although it could have hardly entirely met their wishes, but it was vetoed by the action of Soviet Russia. I agree with the Mover of the Address that without doubt that action will most unhappily serve still further to darken the international scene.

The Government no doubt will now consider in conjunction with other Governments what the next step should be at U.N.O. The resolution, as I have said, which was submitted by the six Powers was worded in prudent and even conciliatory language. The Soviet Government should not ignore on that account the deep condemnation by world opinion in all countries that are not behind the iron curtain, of the illegal action which has created this issue. It may be that some Powers will think it right that the problem of Berlin should now be discussed and pronounced upon by the Assembly of the United Nations. That would certainly be my view, for we are now confronted with a situation which the Assembly cannot ignore if its work is to have any reality at all and upon which it should pronounce its judgment.

In the meanwhile, parallel with the veto of the resolution of the neutral Powers we are confronted with the strikes in France, to which the Mover of the Address referred. I agree with him that admittedly grave economic problems are created in France by the cost of living, but I also agree with him, if I understood him aright, that however dispassionately one tries to examine this issue, no one can really doubt that the main purpose of these strikes is to dislocate French economy and to impoverish France to just about the extent that the Marshall Plan, if allowed to operate smoothly, would, in fact, have benefited her. That seems to be what has happened.

There may be an ulterior objective also. If, owing to internal disputes and upheavals in any country which is receiving Marshall Aid, that aid pours through that country as it were through a sieve, maybe it is the Communist hope that the United States will, as a consequence, become weary of giving the economic aid which is indispensable to European recovery. In all these circumstances it seems to us that much patience and firmness will have to be shown by the Western Powers. The next few months may well prove the testing time. If Western Union succeeds, and if the Western economic life steadily recovers, in conjunction with the welcome improvement in Western Germany— to which the Gracious Speech so rightly refers-we may be in sight of the true reply to Communist aggression, which is a successful result of the efforts of our own free economy.

If one tries to examine the language of Soviet propaganda, as I have been doing of late, and the aims of Soviet policy as now made plain under the cover of a kind of spurious pacifism, it seems clear enough that the objective now being followed by the Kremlin is what used to be called the Trotskyite principle of world Communism. That is the challenge which on every occasion is now thrown down. In such conditions it is, therefore, not very surprising that attacks are continuous on all Governments that do not fall within the iron curtain, whether those Governments are of the Left or of the Right. Perhaps the Left get a little more than the Right. There is no tolerance or understanding for any Socialist Governments anywhere nor, for that matter, for a Communist Government either, unless it accepts the orders of Moscow. It is the growing realisation of this challenge which was expressed in the speeches we have heard today, and which must give concern to those who had hoped that conflicting ideologies could live together provided they were prepared to observe certain rules in international decency and of general forbearance.

I observe in the Gracious Speech a reference to national defence, and it is in a statement which reads:

"My Ministers are taking steps to ensure that My Armed Forces shall be efficient and well equipped, and that the best use shall be made of men called up under the National Service Act."

It was very cheering to hear that, but it would be a great deal more cheering if any evidence could be brought before us to show that it is, in fact, a true statement of the position. So far there is none of which we are aware. All that we have seen is the order, the counter-order and the disorder, of the Government's policy in respect to the length of military service. That is the information vouchsafed to us. I do not know anybody in the Services who really believes that one year's service can be made to work usefully at all. So far we have no indication whether the Government propose to reduce that period and if so by how much, or what their plans are.

Meanwhile, recruiting for the Regular Forces— and I repeat what I said in the brief Session a while back— can only be successful if and when satisfactory steps are taken to make service in those Armed Forces yield careers comparable with those in civilian life. Otherwise, however many appeals are made, the result will be no different from the difficulties we see now.

The Gracious Speech made reference to Civil Defence. Everyone must regret that it is now necessary to concentrate once again upon this subject, but since that is accepted as being so by the Government as well as by everybody else, I must express the hope that the Government will be more definite in respect of their measures on Civil Defence than they have been so far— so far as we know— in the organisation of the Fighting Services. I would ask the Prime Minister when the Government's proposals in respect of Civil Defence may be expected to be brought before the House.

There is one other matter to which I must refer. We much hope that the Prime Minister will be able to give us some further information today as to the outcome of the meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers in London. We probably all understand that the language of communiqués issued after such meetings is apt to be guarded and general, but I hope that the Prime Minister will be able to give us today both his own impressions, and, I trust, some further enlightenment. To my mind the most important part of the published statement relates to the Commonwealth approval of Western Union. This will be heartening to everybody who has long felt that this step was indispensable to world peace. There are some subjects which are not mentioned in the communiqué at all. There is very little about trade in the Commonwealth. There is a scant statement on that matter. There has been no mention of migration within the Commonwealth, although that certainly is one of the most important issues which concern us all, and it must surely have been discussed. I would ask the Prime Minister whether any modifications have been made in respect of the machinery for consultation, and if so, whether we can be told what these are.

The chief feature of the Gracious Speech, so far as domestic affairs are concerned, is, as has been said, the proposal to nationalise those companies extensively engaged in the production of iron ore, pig iron and steel. We on this side of the House are, of course, unalterably opposed to this proposal. We regard the Government's action as ill-judged and ill-timed. We shall do all that we legitimately can in this House to resist the passage of the Bill. Should this Measure become law in the life of the present Parliament it will, of course, be an issue at the next General Election. I take this occasion to make it absolutely clear that should we be victorious at the polls, we should consider ourselves entirely free to repeal any such legislation.

It seems to us that none of the arguments that were used at length during the Debates on the nationalisation of the coal— mining industry are applicable here. This is an industry which is now admittedly— the hon. Gentleman opposite has just said it— producing at all-time record levels, an achievement which redounds to the credit of everyone in the industry, as the hon., Gentleman said. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister would endorse that statement. Here is an industry which is today producing steel at prices lower than anywhere in Europe or in the United States of America and which has had a long record of good industrial relations [Laughter.] An hon. Gentleman opposite laughs, but in this connection I do not ask him to accept my words. I will read what Mr. Lincoln Evans, the General Secretary of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation has said about relations in the industry. He said:

"Relations in the industry between both sides have been such that they have over the decades created an atmosphere and mental climate Quite different from that which existed in the mining industry with its poisoned legacy of bitter industrial disputes."

That is what he has said, and I should have thought it was about right, although I have none of his qualifications to speak.

In the face of all this, what is the justification for so drastic a change at so inopportune a time? If the Prime Minister's claim is I notice the claim is made in the pamphlet recently issued by his party— that some supervision of the policy of the industry is necessary, I would reply that the Government have possessed this power over the last two years through the medium of the Iron and Steel Board. It is the Government's own action and nobody else's in insisting upon proceeding with the nationalisation of the industry that has made it impossible, not only for the employers but for the independent Members of the board, to carry on for a third year. It is the Government who destroyed the work of the Board, and when reviewing these events it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the introduction of this Measure at this time has been dictated, in the words of "The Times" leading article this morning

"by considerations of party strategy and party cohesion."

As a result, it will be condemned by the mind of the nation, and it will most certainly damage the reputation of its reckless authors.

I should like to join the right hon. member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) in his congratulations to my hon. Friends the Mover and Seconder of the Address. Both of them were able to draw on their personal experiences. The hon. Member for South Leicester (Mr. Bowden), who made a very thoughtful speech, paid a tribute to the great work of the Royal Air Force. He was himself in the R.A.F. and so, as a matter of fact, was the Seconder. The Seconder also drew on his personal experiences of his constituency and on his personal experiences as a lawyer. I thought both speeches were well up to our standards.

I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kindly reference to my recent illness. I was sorry I had to be away from the House for that short Session. I shall hope to make up, by more diligent attendance, for that omission.

Before I deal with the substance of the Gracious Speech and the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington, the House will as usual desire to have some intimation as to the course of Business which we propose. We propose that the Debate on the Address should be continued this week, and be brought to a conclusion in the early part of next week. The allocation of subjects, whether in general discussion or on Amendments, is of course a matter for Mr. Speaker.

The House is aware that owing to certain allegations which have been made against Ministers and officials, the Government propose to set up a tribunal under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence Act, 1921. I am putting down a Motion today, and the House will be asked to discuss it tomorrow at the beginning of Business. The House will agree, I think, that there should be no delay in this matter, but I think hon. Members will agree also that the matter might be left there today because there will be an opportunity for full discussion on the Motion.

During the past three years, owing to great pressure of business, the Government have felt compelled to ask for the whole time of the House for Government Business. We have a heavy legislative programme this year, but I think it would be wrong, and contrary to the traditions of this House, that year after year all Private Members' time should be taken. 1 think it will be agreed, on the other hand, that we have during these three years done our best to provide opportunities for Debates on matters of general interest, while the Adjournment after the Business of the House has been used to a far greater extent than I can ever remember of earlier Parliaments, and we have tried to secure that time to hon. Members. On those occasions, special points can be raised.

Therefore, in considering to what extent it is possible to restore Private Members' time, we have come to the conclusion that opportunities for the introduction of Private Members' Bills should have precedence over Private Members' Motions. We propose, therefore, that up to 10 Fridays should be set apart for Private Members' Bills. The House will recall that the Select Committee on procedure recommended that the first 20 Fridays after the Address should be given to Private Members' Bills and Private Members' Motions alternately. I do not think that the pressure of Business will allow us to restore the whole of Private Members' time. We are not able to set apart time for Private Members' Motions but we have accepted the recommendation of the Select Committee for 10 Fridays for Bills, and I think it is important that the time allotted for Private Members' Bills should be used to the best advantage.

Now under the normal practice of the House in times past the Ballot for priority in the introduction of Bills would have to take place on Thursday this week, and the introduction of Bills would start forthwith. However, I think that would be very short notice after the announcement of the restoration of these facilities for Members to decide on what Bills they desire and, for those who are lucky in the early Ballot, to prepare them; because not all hon. Members are like the junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) who has his quiverful of admirable Bills which he longs to put before the House.

Therefore we would propose to ask the House to agree tomorrow to a Motion to give precedence to Government Business, and to provide for the presentation of Government Bills only, until Christmas, Later we shall bring forward a Motion to give effect to the proposals which I have outlined, and the Ballot will then take place in the New Year. We should propose that seven Fridays be set apart for Second Readings and, if necessary, three Fridays for the remaining stages of any Bills which have passed through Standing Committee. Those who have been a good time in the House will know that is probably a fairly good allocation, taking the chances of Private Members' Bills reaching the later stages. I hope that these proposals will find favour with the House.

Before dealing with the legislative programme, I should like to say a word on the series of meetings of representatives of the Commonwealth and Empire which have been taking place in London since we last met. First in order of time was the Conference of representatives of the African legislatures, over which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies presided. This was a unique occasion because no such regional meeting had been held previously, nor had the unofficial representatives of so many Colonial territories been gathered together in London before. Out of 66 delegates only 12 were officials. The Conference had a most useful series of discussions on the general economic position, the means of development in the Colonies, medical and educational policy, community initiative and local government. That provided not only a valuable exchange of views, but it enabled delegates to see their local problems in the broader aspect, both for Africa as a whole and the wider Commonwealth and world picture. The Conference was addressed by authoritative spokesmen on the economic position as it affected the Colonies, and on Defence and on general problems of policy. These talks, I think, helped for the better understanding of the Government's approach to Colonial problems, and the Colonial Office have also learned much of value from those meetings. Above all with friendly relations between the various delegates and people meeting each other, it has been a most useful conference.

Secondly, there have been the very important meetings in Westminster Hall, where the representatives of no fewer than 36 Parliaments of the Commonwealth and Empire have been in session. There, again, I think, is a fine demonstration of the methods whereby in a democratic organisation unity of spirit is created by personal contact and by free discussion.

Finally, we concluded on Friday last a fortnight's Commonwealth Conference. This was the first conference at which the Prime Ministers of the new Member States—India, Pakistan and Ceylon— were present. I am sure the House will join with me in wishing speedy recovery to Mr. Mackenzie King. He is the senior Prime Minister of the Commonwealth. His length of service as Prime Minister has beaten Walpole's record and it was very unfortunate that, at the close of this great career, his condition prevented him from being present at our councils.

Everyone will realise, as I have explained to the House many times, the difficulties of getting all the Prime Ministers in the Commonwealth together at one time. Well, this time we had a pretty considerable proportion, although Mr. Chifley and Dr. Malan were unable to be present. They were most ably represented by Dr. Evatt and Mr. Louwe, and Mr. St. Laurent came over from Canada to take the place of Mr. King. We were also glad to have Sir Godfrey Huggins of Southern Rhodesia with us. Hon. Members have read the communique. I do not know whether there is really a great deal I should care to add to it on the present occasion.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me certain points. Let me assure him that the question of trade within the Commonwealth was very fully discussed. I do not think there was any serious controversy, that I remember, on it. There was a great feeling that we must do all we can to increase trade within the Commonwealth. The matter of migration also was considered and discussed individually with the various Dominion Governments especially interested in it, because that is a subject that does not equally interest all the Member States. Defence also was discussed as also was the matter of Commonwealth consultation. Certain proposals were considered and have been sent back to the Governments in order that we might obtain their approval. I shall hope in due course to make known to the House what they were, but at the present moment they are confidential to the Governments. But they were extremely useful discussions on that point, with the keenest desire everywhere that there should be the utmost possible consultation.

I think the communiqué does express the harmony and the spirit of co-operation which animated the whole of the Conference and I cannot leave the subject of the Commonwealth without referring to the impending visit of their Majesties the King and Queen to Australia and New Zealand. I am sure we shall all wish that that visit may be as great a success as the visit to South Africa.

Was any decision taken at the Conference which would involve legislation affecting the King's title?

No, Sir. No decision was taken on that matter.

In previous Debates on the King's Speech it has been customary to speak at some length on foreign affairs. We had a lengthy Debate in the short Session and the Foreign Secretary made a very notable speech recently at U.N.O. I, therefore, do not propose to speak at any length. The right hon. Gentleman raised a number of points on which I found myself in entire agreement with him. We must all regret that the excellent efforts which were made to try to deal at the Security Council with the Berlin trouble were baulked by the use of the veto. I am sorry that I cannot answer the right hon. Gentleman's question whether this will now come to the Assembly, because it was only yesterday that we found that reference to the Security Council was to prove infructuous, and I have not yet heard of what steps are being taken in that matter.

I should like to say how much I agreed with his statement that we need to build up our forces— moral, economic and military— in Western Union, because we do want to have a positive answer to Communist propaganda. It is not enough to condemn and repel. I believe that our Western civilisation offers something infinitely greater than can be offered by the Soviet Union. One of the reasons for the unrest that we see created all around is that there is this interest in promoting chaos and I think that there is no real wish to see a rising prosperity outside the bounds of the Soviet Union. That runs contrary to the fanatical views which are held by the rulers in that country. Therefore, the restoration of a standard of life for all is of the utmost importance as a positive contribution in setting up some ideal for everybody, to prevent them being drawn aside into these aberrations. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is devoting an immense amount of attention to that in his talks with the other Western Powers, as is the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his dealing with O.E.E.C.

I was not proposing to say anything at length on the economic problem. There, again, we had a very recent review and I should not like to try to offer a clearer exposition than was then put by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. These matters will no doubt arise in the course of our Debates.

We had a full Debate on defence and the House is aware of the progress made with the establishment of permanent defence organisations for the Western Union countries and the appointment of the Commander-in-Chief's Committee. The measures which have been taken to strengthen our Regular and Reserve Forces and re— equip them have already been announced and I shall not recapitulate. There are, however, very great difficulties in planning defence. One had to make certain assumptions at the time of the introduction of the National Service Bill as to the course of foreign affairs, as to the way that course would affect our various commitments. We have had to look at these things again and if any change is needed it will be brought in good time before the House. We are carefully reviewing the whole of the question of National Service as to how best to make use of the manpower of the nation to build up our services.

I would only say that this is a matter which has to be considered very carefully, and that, although we have to get adequate defence forces, we must not allow our defence forces to cripple our industrial recovery. There has to be a balance and I think that is very well realised by all our advisers and that everybody acquainted with these things knows the difficulties in an uncertain world of getting long-term plans worked out. Our long-term plan is put into force, to be worked out, and then we have to watch and to alter plans if the conditions change. I say, quite frankly, we have to look again and again at these plans.

I wish to say a word, as the right hon. Gentleman asked me about it, on Civil Defence. It has always been the view of His Majesty's Government that it is essential that our defence system should include adequate preparations for Civil Defence, and nothing in our recent studies has caused us to alter this view. That does not mean that we intend, in the event of war, to adopt a passive attitude, or to expend, in peacetime, a vast effort in building shelters and other protective works. Quite the contrary; the main purpose of our plan will be to ensure the creation of a reserve in peace of trained personnel to deal with the consequences of any hostile attack, and the establishment of the framework of an organisation which can be brought into operation at short notice.

In anticipation of the Civil Defence Bill, which is to be introduced this Session— I cannot give the date at present— discussions have been proceeding between the Departments concerned and the representatives of the local authorities associations as to the general nature of a future Civil Defence organisation. It is hoped that these discussions will be completed soon and the Bill produced at an early date, when we shall be able to give further information to the House. Measures necessary for the creation of a new Civil Defence organisation will require the co-operation of the local authorities and the general public, and the Government will indicate in due course when, and in what way, this cooperation is wanted.

The right hon. Gentleman, as I expected, on the legislative programme—

Before the right hon. Gentleman comes to the domestic aspect of his speech, might I ask whether he can make any statement on the subject of Ireland and Southern Ireland's decision to sever the connection with the Crown, and what course the Government intend to pursue? So far we have been forced to rely entirely on newspaper reports of these extremely important transactions.

When an announcement was made in Southern Ireland that it was proposed to repeal the External Relations Act, we at once had a look at it to see what the consequences were. I, therefore, took advantage of the presence of the other Commonwealth Prime Ministers to suggest that, as this matter affected us all, it would be well to have some talk with the Eire Ministers, in order to explore the consequences that would flow from this act. We had preliminary discussions. We explored the matter and there it rests at present. We have had no further indication on that matter. It is obviously a matter which has to be considered very carefully, but our initial action was to explore the position and see just what this thing meant, and that is where it remains at the present time.

The right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, as I rather anticipated, concentrated his attack on the Iron and Steel Bill. I do not think he mentioned the Parliament Bill. After all, so much had been said in the short Session on that that, possibly, he had run short of matter. It must also have struck him that this Bill has not caused any great furore or excitement against it in the country—

Nor enthusiastic support.

I know, but if the right hon. Gentleman remembers the kind of excitement there was in 1911 and the kind of abuse which was showered on the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) at that time, he would realise that the amazing thing is that there is no great excitement on this matter and no great feeling that this is a major upset of the Constitution. In fact, most people have come to the conclusion that this is a very ordinary and sensible proposal for getting a bit of fair play between the different parties in this country. It is quite clear there is not very much excitement on this. It did not even change the result of the Stirling and Falkirk by-election, which must have been very disappointing to those who were enjoying the breezes at Llandudno. We therefore propose to proceed with the Parliament Bill.

The Iron and Steel Bill is brought forward in pursuance of a Resolution of this House passed on 28th May, 1946. It is intended that the Bill shall be read the First time tomorrow. It will be published on Friday. There will be full opportunity for discussing its merits on the Second Reading. Here I need only say that the production of iron and steel in the right quantities and qualities is basic to the planning of the economy of this country. The right hon. Member for Warwick and Leaming, ton rather seemed to suggest that the objection to this Bill was that it was produced at the wrong time. I wonder whether he would have taken a different line at what he considered to be the right time. Would it have been right to introduce it in 1945, or 1946, 1938, or 1939? I had the impression that someone said, "This is the wrong time to do it."

The wrong thing to do, and the wrong time to do it.

If it is the wrong thing to do in the view of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, then the timing does not seem to matter because, equally, they would have fought against it. That rather disposes of the suggestion that the real vice of this Bill is because it is breaking up some wonderful harmony which otherwise we should get in the attitude of the Opposition parties. As a matter of fact, the idea of timing is one of the best known ingredients in that well known speech "Noodle's Oration" in which it is pointed out that the timing is all wrong and everything all wrong. The simple fact is that the right hon. Gentleman opposes this Bill. We can understand that, but why bother about timing and all this stuff about breaking harmony and so forth?

We have never said anything about breaking harmony.

The right hon. Gentleman has been away, he cannot have heard—

So has the Prime Minister.

I have, but I had the papers all the time and I have seen the statement made that the great vice of the Bill was that it prevented the wholehearted support of the Government in these difficult times, which the Opposition were longing to give. I can quite understand it, and no doubt we shall have some very good discussions.

I do not think I need advert at great length on the rest of the programme. A very large number of these Bills are introduced to give effect to recommendations of expert Committees. The Legal Aid Bills— Scottish and English— derive very largely from the recommendations of the Rushcliffe Committee. The Magistrates Courts Bill is largely based on the Report of the Roche Committee and the National Parks Bill on the Hobhouse Committee. I hope we shall get general support for this Bill. For many years there has been an agitation that all our people should have better access to the beauties and amenities of the country. Everyone will agree that we should do our utmost to secure the beauties of this country and to give people opportunities of enjoying them and to protect the flora and fauna of this country.

Finally, we have set before the House a fairly extended programme, but as we are all saying everywhere that this country has to pull itself through its difficulties by hard work, the House will not, I am sure, want to be left out and will be prepared to do its fair share.

Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Whiteley.] Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do no adjourn."—[Mr. Whiteley.]

It is not very often that a matter raised by one of one's constituents is a matter of national importance. Such a development, however, has occurred in the case of one of my constituents who wrote to me about two months ago concerning the extreme difficulty he was experiencing in increasing his business in the matter of oil sales. The practice which I wish to condemn in this House tonight is one in the motor trade whereby recom- mendations regarding the use of branded lubricating oils in passenger cars, in commercial vehicles and in agricultural tractors are actually purchased by interested parties, thus denying a customer freedom of choice and confining those who purchase these motorcars, commercial vehicles and tractors to the use of a particular branded oil.

This same policy has recently been extended even to the users of diesel engines and to other static prime movers. My constituent who first took up this matter with me told me that when he called on firms manufacturing these motorcars, commercial vehicles and agricultural tractors he found it was impossible to do business with them. He asserted, I think quite rightly, that in the long run this practice of a back-stairs arrangement in regard to the recommendation of branded oils is calculated to eliminate from the lubricant market all but the biggest and the most influential sellers of oil. I may add that the biggest and most influential sellers of oil in this country are foreign controlled. The fact, too, that they are the most heavily capitalised is another thing that puts at a serious disadvantage British manufacturers who want to play a straight bat.

I would like to describe first of all the restrictive methods at which I have hinted and at the same time outline the consequences for British industry. Secondly, I want to indicate an alternative and freely competitive scheme which, with the blessing of the Government, might be mutually agreed on by all oil and motor manufacturers operating in this country at the present time. Lastly, I hope to evoke from the Minister who is to reply his disapproval of the practices which I shall expose and a promise of such action to help as may be open to him.

Naturally, I am not proposing to put my foot into it by advocating any fresh legislation. To do so would simply mean that you, Mr. Speaker, would immediately rule me out of Order. But there are aspects of this matter which arise and which I think fall well within the purview of the Monopoly (Inquiry and Control) Act which was recently passed by this House. In making my case I shall, as far as possible, omit the mention of, at any rate, the names of individuals and of firms. I feel that it might be some- what embarrassing if 1 started to refer to them. The fact is, however, that for some considerable time now a group of lubricating oil companies which I might appropriately call the "Big Five" have been paying motorcar, commercial vehicle and agricultural tractor makers large sums of money In order to have their oils exclusively recommended to the public, or to the users of these vehicles by the manufacturers concerned.

Under this arrangement the products of other concerns, no matter how good their quality may be, no matter how excellent may be the service offered, are excluded entirely from approval and recommendation. Such a scheme obviously makes it quite impossible for other refiners of lubricants outside the actual ring to enter the market at all, a market which is largely a new market, at any rate in the matter of agricultural tractors. For the reason that the capital of at least two of the companies in the "Big Five" is 100 per cent. foreign held and they are largely Americanised as a result, the general effect is to foster the sale of foreign lubricants both at home and abroad, and to restrict the sale of British manufactured oils— and this at a time when we are wanting to step up exports and make ourselves as self— sufficient and self-supporting as possible.

Exports of lubricating oils from Britain in pre-war years were very considerable indeed and in 1947 they were close on 30 million gallons, worth some £31¾ million. I have been assured by the Ministry of Fuel and Power that they are most anxious, and rightly so, to encourage oil exports from this country at the present time. But if these back-stairs arrangements which I have mentioned—I might even call them under-the-counter methods —are widely indulged in, as I have reason to believe they are, by powerful vested interests and if they are allowed to operate against oil manufacturing concerns which are entirely British, I for one feel that it is time to make a firm protest. The poor unfortunate customers, of course, know little or nothing of what is going on.

Let me give the House some concrete facts to prove my case. In one case £100,000 a year is changing hands. Where a single oil company has made an approach to a car manufacturer and where that approach has not had the desired outcome, a joint approach has been made by the "Big Five" and the exclusive recommendation obtained as a result of that approach has then been shared among all the companies participating. The brands recommended are usually specified in the makers' instruction books. Most disgraceful of all, they are often accompanied by an implied warning that the use of other brands of oil will invalidate guarantees. If that is not a restrictive practice, I do not know what is.

The hon. Member is making a very serious charge. Is he really suggesting that the oil companies are making a series of corrupt payments to secure the peddling of their oils?

I do not suggest any such thing. I have not used the word "corruption" nor am I indicating that a corrupt practice has been indulged in. What I say is that a restrictive practice has been indulged in. That is very different from a corrupt practice.

I think the hon. said that in one case a sum of £100,000 had changed hands. What exactly does he mean by that? Is he implying that £100,000 has been paid by way of bribery from the oil companies in order that motorcar manufacturers should adopt their oils? If not, what was the point of the remark?

I said that in one case of which I know £100,000 has been paid by an oil manufacturing company to a motorcar manufacturer in return for that manufacturer specifying that the oil manufactured by the oil company should be used in the motor vehicles produced by him.

When a charge of that sort is made, is it not usual, Mr. Speaker, for actual names to be mentioned? It is a charge of corrupt practice.

That is entirely a matter for the consideration of the hon. for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge). I cannot order him to give names.

Will the hon. Member give the name?

I do not think that I have said anything which is out of Order. If I had, Mr. Speaker would have stopped me. Nor have I suggested that any corruption is involved. I have said that what is happening is restrictive in its operation. Of course, the whole thing is leading to a strengthening of the grip on the retail market which is already held by the "Big Five." Incidentally, it is also creating a monopoly and putting us very largely into America's pocket in a permanent way in this direction just at a time when we are struggling, with American aid, to become economically self-sufficient. To me, that does not make sense.

There is ample proof of my general proposition in extracts from letters which I have here. I do not want to inflict many of them on the House, but I would like to quote from one or two. I have here a letter from a car manufacturer. He was written to in the first instance by a British oil lubricating firm with the object of the British firm doing business with him. The extract from his letter states:

"While agreeing your products may be equal to or better in quality than any other brand of oil at present being marketed, the writer regrets that we are unable to consider your request to do business due to prior commercial agreements and commitments with various other companies."

Another car manufacturer, in reply to the same sort of approach, wrote:

"As far as recommending your oils is concerned, we are not in a position to do this as we are under agreement with the 'Five Companies' Arrangement' to recommend their oils only. From them, as you no doubt are aware, we receive certain benefits."

A letter from an agricultural tractor manufacturer states:

"In general, we find that for all practical purposes there is no appreciable difference between oils supplied by any of the well-known firms and therefore the question of recommending oils for use on tractors becomes for us merely a question of finance."

An extract from a representative's report after discussion with the chief engineer of a large engineering concern states:

"The managing director made an agreement with the 'Big Five' for recommendations, but the chief engineer told me today that he believes that this is being regretted as it was not previously realised how binding this agreement is."

I also have with me various catalogues put out by motorcar manufacturing firms which prove my point. I wish to quote from one of them an appropriate extract. which is:

"To obtain the most satisfactory service from your car at all times it is essential to use only high quality lubricants— this point cannot be over-emphasised. It is important, also that the recommended grade of oil is used as indicated in the following chart of suitable lubricants."

In the same pamphlet under the heading, "List of recommended lubricants," one finds that every single one is an oil marketed by one of the "Big Five." In the Ferguson Tractor Instruction Book the use is suggested of two grades of oil, a first and a second grade from each of the usual five companies. The book omits all mention of other oil suppliers, including the company with the largest sale in the agricultural trade at the moment. That is significant.

I ask hon. Members to imagine the effect of all this on the buyer of new machines, and especially on the owners of those 2,250,000 cars and goods vehicles which are now on the roads, not to speak of the 200,000 tractors which are now actually licensed. The user of every car, tractor and commercial goods vehicle is careful to read, mark, learn and digest his instruction book, and he is most careful to use the oils therein specified. Little does he know when he reads that book that his freedom of choice has been restricted for him beforehand, and that private enterprise is being throttled by a state of affairs which is forbidden in America as well as elsewhere. To contend that the purchase of recommendations is merely fair advertising is to fly in the face of the facts.

There is absolutely no free competition for the small firm in a market in which the big wealthy manufacturer, unknown to him, brings pressure to bear on the consumer in his choice. The ruthless and powerful interests indulging in this practice in this country are creating a complete monopoly. The irony of it is that the inciters of the scheme, and those furthering it, have their roots in free enterprise America where it is entirely banned. Every car bearing plates recommending lubricants other than British is supporting foreign trade. Every catalogue printed, every lubricating chart made available to motorists and tractor drivers. and every filter cap carrying the name of a branded oil is merely contributing to the fastening of a monopolistic practice round our necks. Of course, the cost of competing with all this is quite outside the range of ordinary British firms.

In my opening remarks I said that I hoped to be able to put forward an alternative plan under which a manufacturer can indicate to his customers the type of lubricant to be used in the machines which he may make. In that connection I refer to America. In America the Society of Auto-motive Engineers lays down certain specifications regarding lubricants. These relate to the one really vital characteristic of the oil to be used-namely, its viscosity. By viscosity, I mean simply its thickness or resistance to flow. Once the viscosity of the oil to be used has been laid down, then, I contend, the situation should be the same here as in America, and the customer should be left free to buy the brand he likes from any reputable supplier. In fact, however, real freedom of choice is denied him, and it is denied him by some secret arrangement of which he knows absolutely nothing.

Tomorrow, the Motor Show opens at Earls Court. It seems to me very appropriate at this time to ask the Minister who will reply to this Debate, in collaboration with the motor industry itself, to devise some method of indicating the right oils for certain purposes which will remove the restrictive tendency which I have described and condemned. Why not ask the British Standards Institute to assist in this vital matter? Unless something is done and done quickly, the many British firms which are now engaged in this sphere of our trade will be gradually squeezed out, and, more important still, British efficiency, healthy competition and private enterprise in a most important phase of our home and overseas trade ultimately will be killed completely.

I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will deal with this matter in a sympathetic way, for I can assure him, as a result of many contacts, that, among the British lubricating oil firms, there is a strong feeling that they are being unfairly treated as a result of the restrictive practices which I have discussed. If we take a leaf out of America's book in the direction of banning them we shall have done a very good thing.

If we did not know of the complete integrity of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge), some of us might be tempted to imagine that he was a spokesman for one of the disgruntled oil supplying companies which have apparently been unsuccessful in securing that their oils are recommended by the motor car manufacturers. It is interesting to find that the hon. Member for Bedford is so strong in his advocacy of free enterprise, and we on this side of the House are delighted to welcome a convert from whatever quarter. In this particular field of oil recommendations, the hon. Member for Bedford stated that it did not make sense. We have, indeed, been delighted on many occasions in past Sessions of Parliament by the naive remarks of the hon. Member for Bedford, and this is but one further example of the way in which he has taken insufficient trouble to acquaint himself with the facts, and, on insufficient knowledge, has declared that the subject-matter of this Debate does not make sense.

There is a very good reason why certain oils are recommended by motorcar manufacturers, and, indeed tractor manufacturers, particularly when we consider the importance of their exports all over the world. They have to consider whether the oil which they might recommend can, indeed, be supplied in any part of the world to which they may be exporting their vehicles, and under all conditions. It is no good, stating on the oil filler of one's vehicle that a certain oil should be used, if one finds that it is not available, for example, in Denmark, to which country one is intending to export one's vehicle.

Will the hon. Gentleman meet my objection to the use of branded names in this direction? It would be much more sensible if the firm concerned specified the type of oil rather than a particular brand.

As regards the branded names, with which I will deal, this is a practice which has been widely adopted by the Co-operative Wholesale Society in order to distinguish its goods from those of other manufacturers. Let us have branded names, because they are a guarantee of uniform quality to the purchaser, who has not the time to study the technical details of lubrication science. I am sorry that the interruption of the hon. member for Bedford did not attempt to deal with what is one of the most important points in this matter—that any oils recommended by the motorcar manufacturers must be universally available all over the world. It is no good recommending a small local brand of lubricating oil for vehicles which are going all over the world.

Apart from the question of supply, when a vehicle manufacturer is developing his engine, he is particularly anxious to ensure that the engine will operate with a suitable oil. He therefore seeks, at an early stage of research and development, the active co-operation of a firm manufacturing lubricants to ensure that he does not, at any time, design an engine in such a way that it cannot be lubricated satisfactorily by existing and available lubricants. It is natural, therefore, that he should tend to go to large firms with adequate resources and other facilities which can give him specialist advice on lubrication technique, without which he cannot hope to design an engine of the maximum possible efficiency.

There are two important factors which converge to produce the recommendation which the hon. Member for Bedford views with such suspicion, and these two factors are collaboration on the design and development side of the engine itself, and, secondly, the availability of particular oils the world over and not merely in certain restricted localities.

Will the hon. Gentleman explain why, according to the many examples which have been quoted by my hon. Friend, it should be necessary for this collaboration with the motor manufacturers to take the form of a sum of money, or that the lubrication manufacturer should pay a sum of money to the motor manufacturer who recommends the use of his particular oil?

I must say that I thought the evidence produced in that direction was singularly flimsy and unsatisfactory. I am not in a position to deny absolutely the charges which have been made, but I would like to say that they are quite unfounded and that the evidence so far produced to support them is extremely unsatisfactory and certainly would not stand up to the test of a court of law.

Will the hon. Gentleman admit that it is generally known in the motor trade that these practices are widely indulged in? Will he deny that?

If that is the case, the evidence so far produced is extremely inadequate to support such a serious charge as was made earlier in the Debate. There is one final point on the question of lubricating oil supply. The suggestion has been made that these practices— yet to be proved— are indulged in by American companies but not by their British counterparts and British firms manufacturing lubricating oil. I think the House needs to examine this point carefully to make sure whether the facts are as stated. The real point is that lubricating oil is imported from America or from dollar sources, and that crude oil is imported from dollar countries and refined in this country, so that it really makes very little difference whether the firm is British or American. The sources of the raw material of lubricating oil are, in almost all cases, dollar areas. Crude oil, or dollar lubricating oil, is brought here and blended to form a British proprietary lubricating oil, and that is the practice of some smaller British lubricating manufacturers, in whose defence the hon. Member for Bedford tried to speak so convincingly. I suggest that it would have been much better if this Debate, which is a poor one for the first day of a new Session, had never been started.

I do not propose to go over the ground covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) except to emphasise the fact that the universality of oil supplies all over the world is of the greatest importance. Lubricating oil, in one form or another, comes from overseas. Therefore, the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) that this is some sort of an American plot is rather beyond the point. I was very surprised at the play he made of "under-the-counter" and other restrictive practices. I appreciate. of course, that he has taken up this question, as any one of us might do, at the request of a constituent, but I think he has gone beyond limits which are either advisable or necessary. Actually, there is nothing new in what he has been telling us. To my knowledge, these terms of trade have been going on for 20 years, and longer. It has been the regular practice for oil companies to compete for business, and for motorcar manufacturers to buy in the lowest market for financial reasons.

What are the inducements given? A manufacturer considers what are the export rebates, and so forth. He considers which is the cheapest oil and the amount he will get in rebates, in special allowances, or as advertising charges. All these things are taken into account. The oil companies are anxious to develop their trade all over the country, and, indeed, throughout the world. They are prepared, if a manufacturer is willing to place a contract with them and to make recommendations for the use of their products, to make a payment which comes off the price. There is nothing mysterious about that; it all comes down to the price which a motorcar manufacturer pays for his oil.

A point to which I am coming, and about which it is apparent from his remarks that the hon. Member for Bedford knows nothing, is the suggestion that any old oil will do. He suggested that there might be some specification of viscosity. Imagine a lady driver having to carry around with her a book of words giving the analysis of the oil she needs for her car.

I must deny that I suggested that consumers just ask for any oil, irrespective of its quality. I never suggested any such thing. Will not the hon. Member admit that I stated that there should be proper specifications prepared by an authorised organisation so that people would know what oil to buy?

I was saying that when the hon. Member interrupted me. I said that any old oil will not do; I did not say that he said so. He suggested that there should be a book or a card which a driver could carry round with him stating the specification of the oil to be used in his vehicle. But any old oil would be supplied under those conditions. I doubt whether the hon. Member for Bedford, or any other hon. Member, realises what a very difficult technical problem this is. I happen to know because, as the House is aware, I am interested in the starting and regular turning of engines.

Before the war, my organisation was, as far as I know, the only one in this country which had a refrigerator big enough to accommodate a lorry. Hon. Members may ask what is the importance of that? It is that oils have a way of changing their nature under the influence of cold, and that, therefore, they need a great deal of investigation and research. At the outbreak of war we had to bring all the oil companies into consultation so as to develop an oil which would not freeze or lose its qualities when used in vehicles exported to the Continent. We found that the majority of the oil supplies in this country would not be suitable if used in war vehicles overseas. The Parliamentary Secretary can verify what I am saying if he takes the trouble to look up the records at the Ministry of Supply for the year 1939. The oil companies had to beg the use of our refrigerator for testing their oil in order to make certain that it would be suitable, because the oil being supplied for use in this country would not have been suitable for use in the severe winter conditions of the Continent. I mention this to show that it is not a simple case of restriction for restriction's sake. A great deal of money is spent on research in order to get the right article. The motor manufacturer, having got the right article, wants to know that it will be used, and the oil companies are willing to make certain payments in order that they may recover their ordinary expenses. This is a practice which is known throughout the trade, and I am surprised that the hon. Member for Bedford should have devoted such eloquence to what is, in my view, a mare's nest.

I very much regret that the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) should have raised this matter in the manner in which he did. I am not concerned with either the motorcar industry or oil interests, but I am very concerned to see that British products which are sound and good get the best fuel supplied to them, so that their users may get the right performance from them. Nothing could be worse than that a British engine should have to run on a lubricant which is not suited to it. What the hon. Member for Bedford has said would seem to imply that he is thinking that a wider margin of error can be allowed for in specifications of lubricants than is, in fact, the case in respect to modern engines. I cannot imagine that there is any other reason for his having raised this matter, because, after all, the examples which he quoted were such as are known to most of us in this House.

Many of us have owned motorcars for a number of years, although I must admit that most of the cars which I own or buy are so old that the instruction books concerning them have been lost long ago. I occasionally see more fortunate people, such as hon. Members opposite, buying new cars and they, of course, receive instruction books with them, giving the most suitable type of oil to use. However, I would remind hon. Members that there is no compulsion on any purchaser of a motorcar to use the oil mentioned in the instruction book, but surely, the fact that a well-known brand of oil is mentioned in an instruction book sets a standard which cannot be set in any other way in the popular mind.

We are not only dealing with the user of the car, but also with the garage, whether it be a large concern in the middle of a city or a small business in the country, where the sole knowledge in the possession of the proprietor with regard to lubricants is culled from lubricant charts supplied by the different oil manufacturers.

Does the hon. Member contend that British oils are not second to none, because in many years experience I have found them to be as good as, and in many cases better than, others. What has the hon. Member to say about that?

I am delighted to know that in spite of this intensive propaganda to which I know he is very susceptible from hon. Members opposite—

Nonsense.

and despite the propaganda of the big oil companies to which he objects so much, the hon. Member for Bedford still buys British oils. I do not think for one moment that he is an exception. I think that many other people would like to buy British oil. If it were the case, as he says, that nobody bought these British oils, how is it that these companies exist at all? Of course, they continue to exist, and everybody recognises that many of their products are admirable, which is why people continue to buy them. What I say is that the standard set for a particular engine is best set in the public mind and in the minds of the garage proprietors in the country as a whole by quoting as an example a well— known brand in wide circulation which is available everywhere.

I am not going to traverse the ground concerning details of imports of oils which go to make up lubricating oils in this country, but it is very doubtful if more than a very small proportion indeed of the so— called British oils which the hon. Member has mentioned do in fact emanate at all points from sources within the United Kingdom. I think it is misleading the House to a considerable degree when the hon. Member tries to make this a question of British oils versus American oils, and says that for that reason we should try to avoid quoting in any recommendation an oil which emanates from the United States of America or from a dollar source. That is not the point at all, and I think that in honesty, the hon. Member for Bedford will agree that that side of the argument had much better be left out.

I very much regret the hon. Member's implication of improper practice. I do not pretend to know anything about the ramifications and details concerning the payments to which he referred, but the fact that they are openly made, and the fact that this is well known to the trade, rather rules out the sort of implication which was inherent in the hon. Member's speech. He said that he knew of a case in which £100,000 had changed hands, and the implication, from the manner in which he said it, was that that £100,000 had changed hands improperly.

indicated dissent—

Oh, yes. What other implication was there?

The implication was that the consumer did not know of these behind-the-scenes details, and that what was going on was restrictive in the sense that the consumer was placed in the position of having to use an oil the recommendation for which had been paid for by means of that large sum of money.

I think the hon. Member has merely repeated the complete fallacy under which he seems to be labouring. He has just said that the consumer has to use a certain oil. The consumer does not have to do anything of the sort. There is no compulsion of any kind on him, nor is there any compulsion on any garage proprietor to supply any particular kind of oil. The recommendation sets a standard. Then the hon. Members says that it is done "under the counter," and that nobody knows anything about it. Does anybody know everything about what is paid for every part of a motorcar, let alone what is paid for the ingredients that go into the making of the oil and all its processes? To imply that the fact that nobody knows exactly what is paid, whether it is by way of trade rebate or anything else, makes it dishonest, is not worthy of the hon. Member for Bedford for whom I have the greatest respect, and I wish he would not make that sort of statement. It does not do British industry any good, and I know that he has the welfare of British industry at heart. Why does he not come to the House and ask Questions instead of making statements containing unpleasant implications of that sort?

I hope we shall get a satisfactory reply from the Parliamentary Secretary which will clear up the situation. We should bear in mind that a very high proportion indeed of the motorcars and internal combustion engines manufactured in this country go to the export trade, and that what is done by manufacturers has to be done with an eye to the success of the project in the export markets so as to make it easy for the user of the car or the engine in the foreign country to get all he wants in the simplest possible way and, at the same time, in a manner which will not be detrimental to the British product. If the hon. Member had had that in mind, I do not believe he would have raised this matter at all.

First and foremost, I want to thank those hon. Members who have taken part in this Debate for the courteous way in which they have put their points, and to express the hope that at all times any Member of this House who feels that some particular minority section of an industry is being unfairly dealt with, will maintain the right to put forward that point of view.

This happens to be my birthday, and I should like to use a happy birthday pouring a little oil on one or two troubled minds, particularly the troubled mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge). There seem to be two main issues in the points which my hon. Friend has raised. The first is whether or not this practice of which he complains is a monopolistic or restrictive practice in the strict sense of the meaning of those words, and if, in fact, it could be construed as being harmful to the public interest. That appears to me to be the major point at issue. As has been amply demonstrated by the hon. Members for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) and Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll), these arrangements arise from trade practices as we have known them and as they have grown up and have become part and parcel of the British way of trade during the past centuries.

Whether or not we agree with the way in which these things have happened in the past is another matter, but I am certainly doubtful, and so are my colleagues, particularly my right hon. Friend, whether this particular trade practice does come technically—and I use the word "technically" advisedly—within the scope of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, 1948; and if that Act applies, I am doubtful whether it could be held to prevail in the supply of oil simply on account of the arrangements which have been referred to by my hon. Friend. I agree that morally, on the surface, this may appear to be a case which requires complete investigation and thorough looking into. My Ministry are prepared at all times to have a very fair and unbiased look at any case which any hon. Member many care to raise, but we believe that the arrangement to which reference has been made, is not of the type which is intended to be covered by the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act.

The House will appreciate that my concern is with the motor industry and its success, particularly from the point of view of its export programme, and I believe that I can persuade my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford and the rest of the House that the picture is not quite so black as has been portrayed. The specifying of a named brand of oil is, to my mind, the only way in which a motorcar manufacturer can make recommendations—I use this word very definitely—to the person who purchases his cars. The House knows that although a steel worker, I have always been particularly interested in technical research in regard to steel and engineering generally. There has been a tremendous amount of research in regard to what type of oil suits what type of engine and synchronising the two so as to get the best possible performance in order that cars may be sold abroad and on the home market with satisfaction to all concerned.

I am not an expert on this particular phase of British industry, but I am always willing to learn. I have furnished myself with a small library, like my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford, and have gone very carefully into the facts affecting the question of lubrication. I have read carefully the British and American views on this subject. I have a very valuable document which is a resume of the results of research by four British and four leading American firms, and under the heading "Correct lubrication" it says:

"use only the recommended oils and greases."

The document goes on to say that the correct lubrication of any piece of machinery is of the utmost importance and, as every hon. Member knows, the question of lubrication is vital to the performance, life, maintenance and so forth of any engine. The use of inferior oils or unsuitable oils would inevitably bring discredit on the manufacturers and, indeed, it would not give the owner of any particular car the results he wanted to achieve.

I am not suggesting to the House for one moment that all oils other than those recommended to be used by motorcar buyers, are bad oils. I am satisfied that, with competition in oil—and we want to see it—there are British firms producing oils which have not yet been given the same opportunity of use and the same opportunity to be found suitable or otherwise as that given to some of the better known and more widely used brands of oil. So far as the question of restrictive practices is concerned, this would be my personal opinion about it: after other oils have had the same opportunity of proving their value by comparison with oils which have already had the test, if restrictions were placed on the use of these oils, that would be construed in my mind, at all events, as a restrictive practice.

Might I take the Minister up on that? It is precisely the point my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington- Lodge) made. What these car manufacturers are doing is that they are saying, "You should use only this particular brand of oil." They do not permit any alternative, nor do they suggest any alternative, whereas other firms do give alternatives which can be used. If what the Minister has said is correct, then the whole case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford has been substantiated.

I used the word "recommend"—they recommend certain brands. No motorcar manufacturing company can dictate to any purchaser what oil he shall use. The purchaser of any car, of any make, is entitled to buy whatever oil he likes wherever he likes. He takes the risk if he does not take advantage of the recommendations and instructions, or indeed the information, which is made available to him by the manufacturer of that particular car, who says that, after research, he makes a certain recommendation. Any person is entitled, and I repeat this with emphasis, to buy oil contrary to the recommendation of any motorcar manufacturer. Personally, I could not over-emphasise the folly of using bad oils and bad lubricants. Everybody knows the reason why it is folly. I do not want to go into the technical data because the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) mentioned some of the effects which could result from the use of oils of lesser quality or the use of so-called cheap lubricants.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford referred to the American practice. as suggested and laid down by the Society of Auto-Motive Engineers in the United States—the practice of recommending oils by S.A.E. numbers without mentioning brands. I would ask my hon. Friend to realise that these numbers are merely standards of viscosity as laid down by this American Society and very wide variations of quality are possible within those numbers. There is no guarantee even in those numbers of the period for which the oil will retain this viscosity. I think hon. Members will agree that this method leaves a lot to be desired from the point of view of the motorcar manufacturers, and I am not certain that it is satisfactory even from the point of view of the customer.

There is one further point about the arrangements which exist in this country. Looking through the hand-books which I have here, I find that six major motorcar manufacturers draw a distinction between recommending and approving. They make certain recommendations and then I find that, in the event of the particular oil which they recommend not being available, they give a complete list of alternative oils, some of which are the products of the companies which I believe are the cause of this Debate tonight. There does not appear to be what I would call venomous discrimination. They do give these alternatives in these handbooks, which will be available to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford if he has not already seen them; I imagine he has already seen them, but if not I will see he has them for his perusal and satisfaction.

The question of payment is an important point and one which should be completely cleared up. We are all—at least at present we are—entitled to have our preferences and industry is free to enter into various forms of commercial advertising arrangements. I cannot see that it is unnatural for a manufacturer to recommend by name certain oils which, as I have already said, and as I repeat, he has tested and found satisfactory for use in the particular engines which go into the cars he is selling. I see no reason why, under these arrangements, a company which has made trade arrangements under the present laws, should not be able to accept a payment which as has been suggested by the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett), is a payment towards the cost of research and is made by mutual trade agreement affecting the companies concerned.

Recommendations which are made by the motorcar manufacturers would lose their value as advertising matter if they were made on too wide a scale. If they recommended everybody's oil, the recommendation would lose its value. Instead. having gone through all the research, they make these particular recommendations. I think I am right in saying that the majority of cases which my hon. Friend quoted are from those particular oil companies who find that certain producers of cars and other vehicles have refused to recommend their particular brand of oil. I want to thank my hon. Friend for these cases he has mentioned; I have seen the letters he has received and he has been scrupulously fair about this. I believe this to be common trade practice. The car producers simply say, in other words, that they are satisfied with the oils which they have tested and which they recommend to the customers, who buy the cars, vehicles and tractors, as what they believe to be in the best interests of the user of the vehicle. Speaking as a practical fellow, I suggest that any firm which went out of its way to recommend the use of something which detracted from the performance of the vehicle they manufactured, would be bringing trouble upon themselves. That is ordinary logic and ordinary horse-sense. Generally, as the House knows, I try to base my case on the use of these very important unrationed commodities.

The next point which arises is the question of supporting American oil companies to the detriment of British oil interests, which was another very strong point my hon. Friend made in what was not exactly an attack but was a number of observations on this aspect of British industry. I have here one of the instruction books of one of the largest British vehicle producers and it recommends, naturally, only one brand of oil, blended by a British company. Then the handbook reiterates what the others have said that, when the oil is not available "we approve the use of the following makes," and they go on to name eight other brands, two American and six British, including the name of the company which, I believe, was responsible for the origination of the complaint made to my hon. Friend and the introduction of this case on to the Floor of the House.

I could go on for a long time to talk technicalities about these things but I do not intend to do so. I should like to mention one further point for the information of hon. Members, a point which I would ask them to bear in mind. It is very important, particularly where our export programme is concerned. I have been known to make statements about the use and misuse of steel, in particular, in trade articles which have gone abroad and have earned us a bad name. I am particularly anxious that everything that leaves this country is fit to bear the name of Britain on it; and it is particularly important that British motor manufacturers, in sending out their products, should be in a position to recommend the type of oil which, to their minds, after consideration of all this research, will give our British motorcars the highest possible peak performance, and satisfaction to our overseas customers. That is more vital today, because of our export programme than ever it was before.

To summarise the position. The arrangements that I have spoken about do not appear—and I want my hon. Friend to know that I am sincerely convinced—to be a matter that comes legally within the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, or that should go to the Commission. Initially, they formed a kind of advertising. Of course, if they were carried to improper lengths and were operated in a discriminatory fashion, the question would arise, whether the oil firms concerned were using fair or unfair methods of competition. I am bound to confess, that having gone carefully through the whole of the letters, and the letters I have received from the motorcar manufacturers, which were conveyed to my hon. Friend, and from which it appears that no illegal construction could be placed on the matter, I feel a little unhappy about the picture. I must, however, emphasise that no statutory action can be taken at present against those arrangements, which may appear morally to be unfair competition, but which certainly do not involve monopoly or restrictions.

This Government are in no position to legislate on the fairness or unfairness of the particular form of competition that has been mentioned. It is agreed that this is a trade practice spread over the years, and that has grown up. It may be looked upon by some hon. Members as being morally unsound, but legally it is in order, and that is the point we have to keep in our minds. It may well be that in the future, in the published reports of the Monopoly Commission, we may get some further light on this question. We certainly shall in a few years' time—indeed, possibly in some months' time—come to know very much more about such trends and such practices than we do today. At the moment, as Members of the Opposition particularly know. we are feeling our way with regard to restrictive practices and so on. We believe, at all events on this side of the House, that the passing of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act is a big step forward. I agree that even the Opposition expedited the progress of that particular Act and helped it through. We must try to walk well before we run on this question.

Finally, I would say to my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend is anxious to give satisfaction on these matters, that this is not the end of the story, and that, although this Debate was discredited by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale as being a bad Debate, it is not the end of this question. We shall continue to take a live and keen interest in the subject, and to try to give satisfaction, not only to individual Members who raise these matters on the Floor of the House, and, indeed, to Members of the Opposition, too, but to the whole country.

Do I understand from what the hon. Gentleman has said that, while he approves of this practice in a strictly legal point of view, he still doubts its morality?

I made the statement that I was a little unhappy, having regard to the information we have received from the motorcar manufacturers and others, and that, morally, there may appear to be some case for consideration in order to be perfectly satisfied. I, as a junior Minister and a Member of the Government, want to be at all times absolutely satisfied. We shall try to investigate this matter and try to give satisfaction to all concerned.

I should like to make clear, in view of the question that has just been interposed here, that some of us are far from satisfied as to the morality of this situation. I am glad that this matter has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) tonight. I think it is necessary that the Ministry of Supply and the Government generally should watch very carefully some of these tendencies to which attention has been drawn. It is true that this kind of practice has been operated in business and trade for a very long time. It was really interesting and remarkable to hear some of the efforts made by hon. Members opposite to try to squash this thing and prevent it from being raised at all. It was only recently that a Member of the party opposite made the rather remarkable and illuminating statement that the gentleman who operates in the black market is doing something quite natural and logical because he is assisting in the natural process of private enterprise. Precisely according to that opinion, we have had the same kind of tone in hon. Members opposite tonight of astonishment and disgust at hearing the suggestion that money was changing hands, until it was shown by one hon. Member that that was, in fact, happening.

What is the point that has been raised? I have said it is true that these practices have been going on a long time and are well known. There is no professional sportsman who has to buy a ball or stick of any kind. Such goods are provided, and are provided by particular firms, on condition that the player allows his name to be used in the advertising of the products. We know very well that some film stars get payment or some kind of recompense for allowing their photographs to be published alongside pictures of cakes of soap, and for allowing it to be suggested that they use only that kind of soap; although nothing of the kind is the case. We are discussing the question of motorcars and oils. I do not think anybody objects to that kind of practice going on there, or that a particular kind of oil should be recommended for a particular kind of car, as being best for that car. All right. There are few people naive enough to believe that that is the only kind of oil that will do. As the Minister said, many of these firms do, in fact, have charts showing alternative oils that can be used if the particular oil recommended cannot be obtained. No one objects to the recommending of the supply of that particular kind of oil.

What my hon. Friend has called attention to, however, is a new tendency which goes very much further, and in which a motor company publishes in its book that a particular oil is the only kind of oil that should be used, and gives a whole range of a particular brand of oil for the different needs of the car. That is, at least, unfair. I do not know myself of any such case where that is specifically stated. However, it is, at least, clearly unfair, and it gives the impression—it has given some of my motoring friends the impression—that unless the owner of the car uses that stated kind of oil his guarantee is gone. That impression has reached the garages. I know of a case in which it was said at the garage that they had not there the kind of oil recommended in the book, and that it would be as well for the car owner to go somewhere else for it because he might break his guarantee if he did not use that particular oil.

That is not, as the Minister said, strictly illegal, but I suggest that the public are being deliberately misled into believing that reputable brands of oil, other than those recommended, ought not to be used, and are not good enough. To give this impression is to get pretty near the bounds of morality, and I think it is deplorable that such attempts should have been made, as have been made from the opposite side of the House, to cover this up. I am glad of what the Minister said at the end of his speech, that he considers that this kind of thing will have to be carefully watched. I hope it will be by the Commission set up under the new Act.

Before I change the subject of Debate I feel it would not be out of place, now that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply has let us into his private life, to wish him for the rest. of the day a happy birthday. I want to raise tonight a matter which is not a party affair at all, but one which is in my view, and, I think in the view of most Members of the House, one of very high principle, which greatly affects the prestige of this country and the reputation and tradition which we have for fair play. I refer to the continued detention of the German field-marshals in hospital near Hamburg awaiting trial for war crimes.

Before I open on this subject, I want to make two protests, and I wish the Chief Whip were here. As he is not, I hope that my remarks will be communicated to him. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for War will not take amiss what I have to say, and I must say that I am glad to see him here. I, first of all, asked that this Debate should be answered by the Foreign Office. In my opinion, the War Office cannot answer it. I agree that the War Office have to deal with conditions, and, to that extent, they can answer, but that is a minor matter compared with what I want to say. I protest that the Foreign Office are not represented here tonight to answer this Debate. Secondly, I say, in general, with no disrespect to the Under-Secretary, that I think that it is not right for the Government to send a deputy Minister to answer a Debate of this kind. It is the one occasion when a back-bencher can give a crack, and it is not fair on back-benchers of either side of the House that Ministers should now invariably avoid what I consider to be one of their first responsibilities, and that is to come here and answer the Debate. That used to be the custom, and I hope that note will be taken of what I have said.

The question of the German Field-Marshals was first raised in the House in the Debate on the Address on or about 15th September, in the short Session. I told the story myself of what had happened in regard to that, and the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leaminigton (Mr. Eden) also spoke, but we could not get any reply. In consequence of not getting a reply, about a week later many of us put down Questions to the Secretary of State for War, who refused to answer them because he said that the Foreign Secretary was going to reply to them the next day. I asked the Secretary of State for War on that occasion: "Did the War Office say that the field-marshals were fit to stand their trial or not?" I was told that the Foreign Secretary would answer that question, and on 23rd September I interrupted the Foreign Secretary and put it to him again. The Foreign Secretary then said that he must have notice of the question. The fact that it had been asked twice already did not seem to occur to him, and I got no reply from him. On that occasion, he told the Government story of what had happened.

I am not going to go into the details of the general merits of the case, except to say that I believe that those who feel as I do represent a large body of opinion in this country and elsewhere when I say that the whole thing is entirely repugnant to our sense of fair play. The particular question of what the field-marshals are to be tried for is another matter. The Foreign Secretary's statement was that no evidence as to their complicity in war crimes was in the possession of the British authorities at the time of the Nuremberg trial. It seems to be an astonishing thing, if that were so, that it should be necessary to put them on trial now.

The particular aspect of the matter with which I am concerned is the question of what the doctors did or did not say. The story which I told the House on 15th September, and which I will repeat quite shortly to refresh hon. Members' memories was that in the early days of this year, a panel consisting of War Office doctors visited the field-marshals and reported that they were all unfit to stand their trial. Three months later, as a result of various discussions—I suppose, within the Cabinet, but I do not know—and disagreement, it was decided that it was an absurd thing to send War Office doctors down to inspect field-marshals because the international trade union of generals would object, and, therefore, they ought to have a report by civilians. Home Office doctors were sent down and according to the report which I got, and which I gave to the House on that occasion, the Home Office doctors decided they were fit to stand their trial. The Foreign Secretary when speaking on 22nd September said:

"A series of medical boards, therefore, examined the officers, and it was finally reported by the Director-General of the Army Medical Services, in consultation with the medical officers of the Home Office in April, 1948, that three of the officers were fit to take their trial, but, at that time, the fourth was not."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd September, 1948, vol. 456, c. 899.]

I do not accuse the Foreign Secretary of attempting to mislead the House, but when I heard that, the impression to my mind was that there had been a joint board of War Office and Home Office doctors, who jointly visited the field-marshals and made a joint report,

My story is entirely different. My story is that the War Office doctors went first, and said that the field marshals were unfit to stand their trial; and that the Home Office doctors in April said that they were fit. I can understand that when the Home Office put it to the Director-General of Army Medical Services he would quite rightly say, "If Home Office doctors say they are fit, I am not going to put any obstruction in their way." The question I want to ask is whether or not, when the Army doctors boarded the field-marshals in January of this year, they reported that all of them were fit to stand their trial, or if they said that none was fit to stand trial, or how many they said were fit to stand their trial? My story is that they said that none of them was fit to stand trial. As I was not able to get a reply, I thought that it would be quite fair to visit the field-marshals. I asked for this to be arranged, and that I should be allowed to see them privately, without all the paraphernalia of Army officers and the rest of it. I regret to say I was not allowed to do that. There may have been technical international difficulties against my doing so, but it seems to me that if a Member of this House cannot go and see people of that standard, alone, it is quite ridiculous.

The field-marshals' story corresponds with mine. I am not suggesting that they know what the doctors reports were because they do not and they told me they did not, but they said there was never a joint board of doctors which visited them. In January of this year; they were War Office doctors, and the doctors who visited them in April were Home Office doctors, and the Camp Commandant, on each occasion, informed them that that was so. There were Army officers there who heard what I was saying, and the field-marshals were given no lead as to what I wanted to know. Some of them were extremely irate because they thought I was dealing with what appeared to them to be very petty things, and not discussing the question of their trial. Quite clearly, they were convinced in their view that the doctors were not identical, and that the doctors who visited them in April were not the doctors who visited them in January. It was impossible for them to say whether they were Army or civilian doctors, except for the assurance of the Camp Commandant, which, they say, was given to them.

There is another aspect of the matter which I wish to raise. It seems to me that it is disgraceful that these officers, high-ranking officers—in my view it would be the same if they were privates or lance corporals—should have been kept in detention in this country for well over three years, and actually sent back to Germany without being told that they were to be put on trial. They lived a life of comparative freedom here after September, 1947. With one exception, they were allowed to spend week-ends with friends in the country, and so on. They went back to Germany believing they were to be set free, and they found, to the contrary, that they were handed over to the Americans for a short time. The treatment which they were given was quite disgraceful, in my view, but I do not want to go into the details of that. They were finally sent from Nuremberg to Munster Lager where their detention was better, and, after protests in this House, they were finally moved to Hamburg, where, I must say, conditions were very good indeed. On some details about that I have written to the Foreign Office and to the Secretary of State for War. The astonishing thing is that they are in close detention after three months, and they still have no charge preferred against them. I do not think that has anything to do with the War Office. I think that this again is a matter for the Foreign Office.

They were told when they were taken away from Munster Lager, I think it was, that they were going to be charged with war crimes; or when they were handed over by the Americans to the British. I saw the paper and it was a rather glorified 18B form. Members of this House will re Member how inadequate was the information given on this form. They have been three months in close detention and not allowed outside the camp, yet they have not been told the charges against them. I have met their lawyer, who happened to run across me in Rome, and who told me he had not yet been told what the charges were. Yet these men understand that they are to be tried in January. And this after more than three years in captivity in this country, under the belief that they were going to be set free. That, to my mind, is very wrong.

There is another aspect of the case with which I hope the Under-Secretary will deal. A field-marshal told me that according to the German Constitution—if one exists—once a man is made a field-marshal, he is always a field-marshal and cannot shed his rank. I question very much whether even under the laws of this country or under the Geneva Convention we are entitled, when a man is a prisoner of war—and, after all, we are still at war with Germany; the Attorney-General insists that is so—to try a field-marshal or any officer except as an Army man.

One aspect of their detention which is particularly troublesome—and this I think will astonish the House—is that there is no interpreter in the place. I agree that two of the surviving generals —because Field-Marshal von Brauchitsch has died—talk or understand English. But it does seem to me that when these decrepit old men—whose ailments are really their own concern-are in hospital they should have somebody with them who can properly understand what they want to discuss, when they wish to talk about their own personal affairs. To my mind it is outrageous that when von Brauchitsch died, he had beside him nobody at all who understood German. It may be argued that that would not have made any difference; but I shall have something to say about that in a minute.

The terms of detention are such— though this may be due to some international difficulty—that while they may see their relations they are not allowed to see friends. I cannot see why that Should be persisted in, in view of the very wide range of freedom they were allowed in this country. There are other details with which I will not bother the House. In general, I would say that no one in Germany with whom I spoke—either amongst Germans, Control Commission officers or the Army, with possibly one exception—thinks this thing is a good idea at all. They all think it is wrong. The highest officials there told me that in their experience they have not come across a single person who was not absolutely revolted by the whole business.

But quite apart from that, even if the Government are not concerned with people's feelings, the whole policy is so cockeyed, when at the very moment we are trying, as I understand it, to build Germany up, we do something which is objectionable to everybody, and is politically most inexpedient. I do hope the Government will find some way of getting themselves out of the jam into which they seem to have got through a bit of inadvertence. I always try to stick to the principle that one should not condone in friends what one condemns in enemies, and I say that these high— ranking people in Germany who do not approve of this policy ought to resign and get out. By carrying out the Government's instructions they are doing exactly the sort of thing for which, at Nuremburg and elsewhere, we condemned high-ranking people in the German Army. In other words, the people who carry out these instructions are behaving in exactly the same way— it may be a matter of degree, but the principle is the same-and doing exactly the same thing as that for which a lot of these fellows now have to stand their trial. In my view it is a terrible thing that we should have sunk so low, and that the people at the top do not give a lead in the right direction.

In connection with this particular case— which had the most disastrous effect upon the lower ranking people who have to administer affairs—I will conclude by telling two stories which came to me in the course of my visit to the hospital. The first concerns Field-Marshal von Brauchitsch. I have explained to the House that when he died, except for his wife who arrived an hour before he actually passed away but when he was unconscious, there was nobody with him who could speak his own language. When I protested to the doctor he said, "But Mr. Stokes, that would have made no difference." Of course not; I did not suggest that it would make any difference. But if I were dying in the midst of a horde of Chinese I should like to find alongside me somebody who could speak my own language. That is a most inhuman way of approaching problems of this kind. But worse still, through my own fault I had to endure an audience with von Brauchitsch's wife, who, incidentally, had to come from a hospital elsewhere to reach him only an hour before he died. She told me, with an officer sitting there, that she asked a British officer-whose name I know but will not mention— whether arrangements could be made for the ashes of her husband to be conveyed by car to her home in the Harz Mountains. The reply she got was-and this, I think, just about reaches the depths—" The urn is quite light and can be carried in the hands."

I should like to support what has been said by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). I have not the knowledge with which he speaks, but from what I have heard and read of this case it is my belief that throughout the House there is a feeling that it represents neither the feelings of the people of this country nor the manner in which they are accustomed to behave in these matters. It does not seem to me that the demilitarisation of these generals — which seems to me a very doubtful proceeding— is the worst aspect of this matter; nor, regrettable though it may be, is the precedent which has been set. It seems to me that the really bad side of this question is the series of blunders which has been made, initiating a chain of events which after a while have been generally recognised to be regrettably unfair and unworthy of this country.

That having happened, it seems to me that what this House deserved was a Member of the Front Bench with the courage to come down and say, "Over these unfortunate men a mistake has been made. I am sorry that it has been made and I am going to put it right." That is what was needed, and the courage to do that. But what has happened in this case? Time and again we have seen this weary spectacle of the Foreign Office playing off the War Office and the War Office playing off the Foreign Office: evasion, collusion, avoidance of the facts and no answers. That, to me, is the most sinister and regrettable aspect of this case, with this evasion by official sources, and these endless briefs. I can imagine them being made out, with orders to officials in Germany and here "Don't tell the hon. Member all these things. Keep him away. Hush it up. Keep the facts hidden." That is the very thing against which the democracies are fighting today. The whole handling of this affair smacks a little of the very thing we complain happens on the other side of the iron curtain. That is what has upset the people of this country and this House, and I hope the Under-Secretary, difficult though it may be for him, will come to that Box tonight with some sort of statement which will cast a little more light on this matter.

Another thing which seems to me particularly regrettable is that, having made this blunder, having, shown obvious unfairness to these men, there has been an attempt to blacken them. We all know their responsibilities. We all know they may have done very bad things in the past. But they were ordered by politicians to do them. And there is not a single person in a high responsible position in the Armed Forces of any country at the present time who would not do the same. Let that be remembered. These men may have been guilty of certain things. Perhaps they should have resigned. I am not arguing about that. But this attempt to blacken them since these mistakes have been made seems regrettable.

I read with great sorrow an article in "The Times" after von Brauchitsch had died. In that article it first said that Field-Marshal von Brauchitsch was the Commander-in-Chief of the German Army at the time of the attack in 1941, and, therefore was largely responsible for the slaughter. That is absolute rubbish. He was a field-marshal; he was ordered to do it. What else could he have done? Secondly, in that same article in "The Times," it stated that his wife was with him when he died. That was untrue. That article seemed to smack of the same sort of thing, hushing this up, blackening these men and getting rid of this awkward situation. I say that great unfairness has been shown here, and the best thing that can be done by the Under- Secretary is to assure the House that a mistake has been made and that something will now be done to put this unfairness right.

I should like to support the case which has been made. It seems to me that we have treated these distinguished German officers very shabbily and in a way entirely unworthy of our great country, the traditions of our fighting services and of our previous records in many wars. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) has emphasised the question of the fitness or otherwise of these distinguished officers for trial, and he has said everything that is necessary to strengthen the case for an inquiry into that matter. We have heard nothing about the question. We know that they were sick, that they were hustled over to Germany in custody after being prisoners of war for about three years and that they were then demilitarised, which I agree is at least of doubtful legality in dealing with officers who are prisoners of war and not civil prisoners.

It seems to me that our treatment of these field-marshals and generals is likely to cast a slur on the reputation of this country for fair dealing and for honourable dealing in connection with prisoners of war and opponents. After all, these men were, as far as we know, honourable opponents of this country. We have not heard a word to suggest that they were anything but honourable opponents of this country. I wonder where the evidence comes from, if there is any evidence, as to their guilt. We ought to look at any evidence with very great doubts which comes from other countries with a less high standard of honour or truthfulness than our own in dealing with these matters. In the Napoleonic wars, when we differed as strongly in this country from Napoleon and his regime as from Hitler and his regime, there was no suggestion that we did not treat our French opponents as honourable opponents within the rules of war.

I should like to know what evidence there is against these men. We have never had a hint of any kind as to what it is, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to give us some particulars, both as to the evidence on which these distinguished officers are being tried and the reason why that evidence was not produced long ago. Three years is an unconscionable time to keep these officers prisoners of war and then to produce this kind of evidence against them.

I know there has been a case—it has been reported in the Press today—of an S.S. officer who was tried for most brutally massacring British troops. That was three years after the war. He was convicted, and from the evidence published in the Press was rightly convicted. But is there anything of that kind in regard to these officers? This S.S. officer was on the spot and brutally took this action of massacring a large number of British prisoners in 1940. Nothing could he said in extenuation, and the only thing that could be said against that case was that the man was not tried long ago. The same sort of thing does not apply in any way to these elderly and distinguished officers who fought against us according to their lights as honourable opponents, and who we now know as an absolute fact were politically opposed to Hitler and his regime in many ways and some suffered as a result. It was their duty as officers in the German Army to carry out Hitler's orders so long as they served in it. It seems to me that we are guilty of being shabby and mean to these elderly Germans who, as I have said, were honourable opponents as far as we know. It is time that these generals were released or a statement made in the plainest terms of what is the evidence against them, from where it comes and what is proposed to be done about it at the earliest possible moment

I rise to make it clear that this is a matter which arouses concern not only on one side of the House, but on all sides of the House and throughout the country. That feeling has been expressed by my own party in a letter to "The Times" which was signed by many prominent persons in the Labour Party. I hope it will not be thought by the Government that there are not many persons in many parties who do not feel deeply anxious about the conduct of the Government in this matter. The most important point is the interminable delay which has taken place. It is one of the strongest principles of British law that justice should be speedy, and in our law courts arrangements are made so that justice shall be done as speedily as possible. I should have thought that if there were any single case in which that principle should be applied it is in this case.

Surely, in dealing with a case of this kind we should have been over-scrupulous in ensuring that we applied the best principles of British law. But we did not do so. We kept these gentlemen in captivity for a long period without letting them know what was to happen to them. I agree that it would have been much better, having made this mistake, for us to admit it openly and to agree that the field-marshals should be left free. The main argument which has been used has been that there were others under these men who had been condemned to death by other courts, but they at least were condemned by courts in a much shorter length of time after the war. Therefore, I do not think that argument applies.

I believe it would have a real effect throughout Germany and in other parts of the world if the Government were prepared to say that they have made a mistake, and that because of their conviction that justice should be speedily applied, which cannot be done after this interminable period, they are prepared to take a different course of action than they would otherwise have taken. I hope that my hon. Friend who is to reply will convey to the Government the feelings of Members on all sides and of the mass of the people of the country who believe that in these matters it is the duty and privilege of this country to set an example to the whole world.

I shall be brief, because I know very little about this case other than what I have read in the Press and heard tonight. I think we should all be grateful to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) for raising this extremely important question. The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) said there were many Members on both sides of the House who felt strongly about this matter. I agree, and that is why I am surprised to find the House so empty on this occasion, and why the Government should think it sufficient that the War Office alone should be represented on the Front Bench and no one from the Foreign Office should be here. It is extraordinary, in view of the strong feeling there is in the country about the treatment of these unfortunate generals.

I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to mislead the House. The House has had little opportunity of knowing that this subject would be raised tonight, as I only gave notice yesterday and it was not on the Whip.

I am sorry. I had the advantage of speaking to the hon. Member last night, and I assumed that others knew that this matter would be raised tonight.

I wish to ask two questions: First, why were these men handed over to the Americans? Why were they not transferred, if they were to be transferred to Germany in custody, in our custody, and not in American custody? Was it because we thought there was insufficient evidence to bring them to trial, or did not want to bring them to trial, and the Americans did? Might it not be a fact that the Americans, having got them in custody, decided that they, too, did not want to bring them to trial, and handed them back to us? Second, what time elapsed between the War Office medical board which examined these men and the Home Office medical board? I understand it was several months. Why was there any delay? Why were the medical boards not held in rapid succession? I consider that the whole of this business is highly discreditable to us as a country and to the Government as a Government. The Government have behaved with great weakness, and the quicker the matter is cleared up and fully explained the happier not only we in this House will be but people elsewhere in the country will be as well.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) and other Members who have taken part in this Debate tonight have raised almost every aspect of this matter, and I hope the House will bear with me while I give a brief summary of the history of this case and comment on some of the points which have been put to me.

In the first place, I think it should be realized—and evidently it is not by all those who have spoken tonight—that this matter did not really come within the power of His Majesty's Government to decide until very nearly the end of last year. It was suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) that there have been no indications as to where the evidence against these men came from. I would ask the House to pay rather more attention than seems to have been done to the statement made last Session by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, in which a great part of the delay was explained. It was not until August, 1947, that we were informed by the United States that their inquiries had produced evidence which would appear to support the very serious charges against these four men.

We made what seemed to us, and, I think, would seem to anyone, the reasonable suggestion that the United States authorities should include these four men, together with certain other suspected war criminals, in the trials which they were beginning in October of that year. The American authorities, however, replied that the indictment for that process was already complete, and that it would be unreasonable to delay it if these four men were to be added to those trials. That remedy, therefore, was not available. That answer was not given to us by the American authorities until the end of November, 1947. It was not until then that the matter actually came within the power of decision of His Majesty's Government.

Can my hon. Friend explain why the Americans took until August, 1947, to send us this information, why they waited until the end of November before saying whether they could do it or not?

It was because of the enormous complexity of the case: literally, thousands of documents were examined. What they provided in August was not the actual documents, but a memorandum based on those documents. Following the Nuremberg judgment there was a great mass of evidence to be gone through, and I think that that largely explains the delay in the earlier stages of this case.

The statement made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary emphasised that it was only during the period between December, 1947, and July of this year that a final decision was taken to bring these men to trial. It is only that period which is in question, if any criticism is made on the grounds of delay. That disposes of the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield as to the source of the evidence, although I must say that there are several nations—our Allies in the last war— who are concerned with the charges preferred against these men. I cannot accept the attitude which seems to be adopted by the hon. and gallant Member for Peters-field, that offences which might have been committed against our Allies are to be regarded as trivialities in comparison with the offences which might have been committed against our own men.

I did not suggest that offences against other than our own troops could be regarded as trivialities. What I did suggest was that evidence emanating from certain foreign sources would not be accepted as though it were from British sources.

The hon. and gallant Member suggested that one reason for taking the course of action he is pressing on us was that very little was alleged in the way of offences against our own men. That is true, but we have obligations to our Allies in this matter, to which I will now refer. The Government decided this case, roughly, from December, 1947; reaching a decision involved two types of inquiry, one of which was a legal inquiry. We had to consider whether evidence which had been brought to us was or was not sufficient to support a prima facie case. That was not an easy question, which could be answered in a hurry. It was a matter to which protracted consideration had to be given. If it had been a medical question alone we might have been able to reach a decision more speedily.

The facts about the medical examinations which my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich had asked with such commendable pertinacity over a considerable period are these: In January of this year the War Office doctors examined these men. Their terms of reference were, "Would trial adversely affect the health of these men?" which my hon. Friend will notice is not the same question as whether they were fit to stand trial. Possibly it is arguable that time and trouble would have been saved if that other question had been put to them in the first place, but the question was, "Would trial adversely affect the health of these men?" The answer in the cases of the four was, "Yes, it would." Then in April there was an examination by Home Office doctors.

May 1 press this point because my own information is different. I agree that there is a difference between "adversely affect" and "unfit" but did not the doctors go on to say they were unfit to stand their trial?

No. I want to make it perfectly clear that at no time have the War Office said that the men were unfit to stand trial. The reports my hon. Friend has heard are a distortion of what I told the House just now.

This has one more important aspect. The terms of reference were, "Would trial adversely affect the health of these men?" Everyone knows that a person's health is affected if he is standing on trial for his life. Therefore, it seems to me that any doctor, who has a sense of responsibility, is not going to say, "Yes, it would adversely affect their health," because that is obvious. What largely is the point is, "Would it so adversely affect their lives as to endanger those lives?" It must be on the basis of that kind of answer that it is considered whether they are fit to stand trial. Otherwise it would be a mere platitude. It would be the same as asking, "If you run in a race would you get tired?" and the answer is, "Yes."

The hon. Gentleman suggested that the conclusion reached was that these men were unfit to stand trial. I repeat that with the exception of one of them at no time was a decision reached by War Office doctors that three out of these four men were unfit to stand trial. Of course, the report from the War Office doctors did not only answer that particular question. The answer is very nearly self-evident. Their report contains a full statement of the medical condition of these men. It is noteworthy that when in April they were examined by Home Office doctors there was no difference in the judgment of the War Office, and the Home Office doctors as to the actual condition of these men. However, in April there was this further question, "Are these men fit to stand trial?" and the answer was that all of them were fit except Brauchitsch. Meanwhile, while this medical inquiry was going on, the legal aspect of the case had also been examined and it was. therefore, by July—

Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, I should like to ask why there was a delay between the times when the War Office doctors and the Home Office doctors carried out their examination. Why was there a delay between January and April?

Why was a second inspection by doctors necessary at all?

The second inspection was considered necessary, because it was felt that this was an important case and it was important that no one should have even the slightest ground for suggesting that an attempt was being made to burke the whole issue on medical grounds. It was realised then, on a further examination, that one of the vital questions, the question of fitness to stand trial, still required a definite answer. As to the question of the months between January and April, I think I am correct in saying it would have meant no serious difference to the proceedings as the legal inquiry had still to be gone through. On the medical question I would add this: it was also agreed in April that if any further considerable period elapsed between that time and their being brought to trial, a re-examination would be necessary. The position at the moment is—

rose—

No, I cannot give way again.

The position at the moment is that three of these men have been considered fit to stand trial, though the health of Rundstedt is now very much open to question. They will not, of course, be brought to trial if at the relevant time competent medical opinion is that they are unfit to stand it, but if competent medical opinion considers they are fit to stand trial, then it is the intention to persevere with the decision reached in July this year to bring them to trial. When that decision was reached they were, as hon. Members pointed out, sent to Germany and demilitarised.

On this question of demilitarisation I am surprised that so many hon. Members should have questioned that procedure, because that again was explained—and I think in the mind of any unbiased person adequately explained—by the Foreign Secretary when he made his statement on the matter. It was a necessary procedure in order to comply with the Quadripartite Agreement on the disbandment of the Wehrmacht. This procedure was carried through in a great many other cases, as hon. Members—

It is not in accordance with the Geneva Convention

I will take up that question in a moment. If hon. Members have discovered something unsatisfactory in this procedure they have left it rather late in the day to discover it

We have mentioned it hundreds of times

They were war criminals and procedure necessarily follows from the Quadripartite Agreement. As to the Geneva Convention, these men are not now prisoners of war. The offences with which they are charged are not offences which were alleged to have been corn mined at times when they were prisoners of war. The fact that they may have been prisoners of war in the intervening period does not bar the proceedings which it is now proposed to take

The Geneva Convention lays down quite clearly that a prisoner of war must remain a prisoner of war until peace is declared, unless he is sent back to his own country and properly demobilised by his own country That procedure has not been followed, and I have protested against it hundreds of times in regard to corporals. privates and goodness knows whom.

These men have been sent to their own country and in view of the fact that the Wehrmacht has ceased to exist, they are now being tried in accordance with the procedure of war criminals used in so many other questions

A quibble.

I should like to draw the attention of the House to the main reasons for reaching the decision to bring these men to trial. Before embarking on that decision, I should like to say that I am very well aware of the disquiet which is felt by many people in the country and which has been voiced by many hon. Members tonight. This was not an easy matter to decide. One could have said, are these men not in poor health and would it not be better simply to set the whole question aside and not bring them to trial? Against that we have to weigh these very considerable matters. First, the extreme gravity of the offences alleged against them for which there was a prima faciecase. The offences are against not only our own countrymen but those of our Allies.

The second point has already been mentioned this evening, but I do not think sufficient weight has been given to it, namely, that already subordinates of these men have been brought to trial, convicted and punished for offences similar to those alleged against these four men. We had, therefore, to weigh up the questions of justice and morality. It might be said that it was harsh and vindictive to bring these men to trial after so long a period. I have already dealt with that question and how that period of delay arose, and I have shown that by far the greater part of it did not lie within the power of the Government at all. On the other hand, was it not repugnant to justice that subordinate officers should have been punished for offences of this type and that these men, simply on the ground of superior military rank, should be regarded as exempt from such proceedings?

I never suggested it.

I am bound to say that that is what some of the arguments have very nearly amounted to. It has been suggested that if an officer was actually on the spot when some outrage against humanity and the laws of war occurred there is a clear case against him. If that is so, are we to say that because an officer of a higher rank who gave explicit orders that that kind of thing should be done, who knew that it was being done and who was content that it should continue to be done, was not there on the spot to see it done, the mere fact of his physical absence is to exempt him from any guilt in the matter? I think the House will agree that since we are discussing crimes which are merely alleged against these men and which it will be for a court to determine, I cannot pursue that aspect of the matter further.

A third reason, to which not sufficient attention has been given in this Debate, is that which was given by the Foreign Secretary. It is that His Majesty's Government are under a very clear obligation to hand these men over to certain other Governments, Allies of ours in the recent war, unless we bring these men to trial before a British tribunal. It would be extremely difficult in law or otherwise to refrain from trying these men or from handing them over to other Governments who have preferred serious charges against them.

I would ask hon. Members, despite their very natural human feelings in this matter, to give consideration to the three grounds which I have just advanced: the great and undoubted gravity of the offences alleged against these men; the treatment already meted out to certain of their subordinates; the obligation under which we are to hand the men over to certain other Governments if we do not bring them to trial ourselves.

rose—

I cannot give way for the moment. I believe that when hon. Members have given proper and due consideration to those points they will come to the conclusion that, distasteful as it was, the decision to bring these men to trial was right.

When I rose just now I wished to say that I am sure that we all want to thank my hon. Friend for the full, able and moderate way in which he is presenting his case. I would like to deal with a point which is exercising us very much. He referred to the complexity of the case and to the fact that it involves legal issues which it has taken five months to determine, that thousands of documents have been gone through and that masses of witnesses have had to be seen. What possible facilities can there be for the defence to attempt to refute the allegations if their investigations have to be spread over a long period in order to prepare a defence on behalf of these aged men who have spent three years in captivity? How many years will the defence be given in order to make the necessary investigations?

With regard to the opportunities given to the defence I think the House has already been informed that these men will be defended by German counsel of their choice, or failing any decision on that point, by counsel whom we shall endeavour to provide for them and who will be appropriate to the task. I am bound to say that both for prosecution and defence it will be a lengthy and laborious job. I am not a lawyer and have no expert knowledge, but I think it is correct to say that the main difficulty will be one for the prosecution, in extracting from the great mass of material that which is properly relevant and can be established as a proper case. The difficulties of the prosecution will, in my judgment, be very much greater than those of the defence. Of course, in this case as in other criminal trials, the burden of proof will lie on the prosecution. Since this matter is, in a sense, sub judiceI do not think the House will wish me to pursue it further.

One point which the hon. Gentleman has not yet dealt with was put by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). Is it the case that no charge has yet been preferred against these officers and that they have not yet been informed of what it is they are to be charged with?

It is the case, as was stated by the Foreign Secretary, that these men have been furnished with a short statement of the general charges to be preferred against them. The matter has not, according to the latest information I have, gone further than that. There are still a great many points to which I have not yet referred and to which I hope to refer if I am able to continue

I was saying that although some hon. Members may not agree with this decision I would ask them at least to believe, that if there are reasons of feeling and emotion that lead people to suppose that this was a wrong decision, there are also very grave reasons both of justice and policy in favour of the Government's decision. It would not be correct to suggest that this decision has been taken lightly or because of muddle, or that we are now attempting to brazen out a decision that ought never to have been taken. The decision was reached very carefully after a diligent weighing of very grave arguments on both sides. I must again express the opinion that I think it was a right decision.

I would add this. It was a Government decision—here I take up the first point which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes)—and that explains partly why I am answering here tonight. It is not a decision which can be laid particularly at the door of the Foreign Office, the War Office or of any one Government department. It is a Government decision, but of course it is a decision which has to be implemented by the War Office, since upon us has been laid the responsibility of preparing and conducting the trial of war criminals. It seems to me appropriate that the War Department should be replying to the question which my hon. Friend has raised.

I do not think I need take too seriously the—if I may say so-common form indignation that was expressed in some quarters at the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich will know that the practice of using the Adjournment is very much more frequent in this Parliament than it has been in its predecessors. The burdens which fall upon Ministers are very great, and hon. Members cannot therefore expect that on every occasion when matters are raised in the House the senior Minister of the Department will be present to deal with it.

I am not complaining that he is not here. I said that it was a bad opening for the new Session that the Minister did not come himself. The real fact is that the Ministers never come themselves.

I am not at all sure whether I follow my hon. Friend. He began his interruption by saying he was not complaining, but at the end of it he seemed as though he was complaining. I do not think there is adequate ground for his complaint.

I have now dealt with the time-table of this matter and with the reasons for the decision. I think we are now left with the question of the conditions under which these men are kept, to which some reference, not very prolonged, was made by some hon. Members. We had to consider, when we were faced with the responsibility of looking after these men as prisoners who were to be tried as war criminals, the danger of one or more of them committing suicide, more particularly as medical reports in some instances suggested possible suicidal tendencies. We should have been held culpable if we had allowed that to occur. On the other hand, the precautions against it, the supervision, the provision of lights, are themselves liable to criticism. We have endeavoured to hold the balance reasonably between excessive supervision, on the one hand, and carelessness on the other. We have decided recently that, on the whole, it is desirable to relax the supervision that we practised originally.

Why? It seems to me that the decision as to what supervision there should be, was made and, when there was an outcry in the Press at the way in which these men have been treated, the system was changed. Is that fortuitous or is there any connection between the two?

Certainly there is a connection between the two, but when the hon. and gallant Member says that the system has been changed, that is an overstatement. What has happened has been a modification of certain of the conditions. I make no bones about saying that that modification was made partly in view of the criticisms that had been made. It is perfectly legitimate to observe the current of public opinion, whether it is expressed in this House or in the Press, and to consider what action we can take to meet that criticism, but the changes did not have to be very great.

Enormous changes.

No, I cannot agree with the hon. Member.

Scandalous.

Take, for example, the lights in the rooms of these men. The public were informed by one letter in the Press that all these men had a light in their rooms day and night. I do not know what impression most people formed on reading that account, but I found that the actual position was that the light was a 15 watt, blue-shaded lamp, with the exception of two officers who had themselves requested a lamp of higher power. I would suggest that the first phrase used in the Press—" They had a light in their rooms day and night "—was bound to be misleading and would not give the reader the true picture of the facts. The position now is that the only lights provided are such as the men may themselves request. They were moved to the hospital at Hamburg where they are now. Their families are located in the same building. so that there is no difficulty about their visiting them. I may say that the men themselves have written a letter to the Area Commander in Hamburg expressing their appreciation of the way in which they are looked after.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich referred to certain suggestions he had made in a recent letter addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I gather that he did not want me now to go into great detail and answer that. However I will say that we shall certainly look into some of the suggestions he makes, particularly the one about the interpreter. I would draw the attention of the House to this, that these men are already being looked after under conditions very much more favourable than any of their predecessors as suspected war criminals, and there must be some limit beyond which we cannot go in the making of further concessions.

I am sorry to have taken up so much of the time of the House. If I have not persuaded all hon. Members that the decision of the Government has been right in this matter, I hope I have answered many of the questions of fact which have been worrying a number of hon. Members, and that I have suggested that there is substantial reason for the decision which the Government have taken.

May I ask my hon. Friend this question before he sits down? The Secretary of State said that the high executive forwarded a memorandum summarising the evidence on which the Government based their decision. Is my hon. Friend aware that these men have now been three months in close detention, having had nothing but a general 18 B charge sheet shown to them? Why have they not had a copy of the memorandum? If the charges are so clear, why cannot they be told of the charges against them?

I did comment on that when I was speaking earlier. I will take up that point as to whether a full and proper statement cannot be given to these men.

Before the hon. Gentleman resumes his seat, may I put one point with which he has not dealt. Why were these men handed over to the Americans when they were moved back to Germany, and then handed over by the Americans to the British authorities in Hamburg?

I am sorry, but I must tell the hon. Member frankly that I am not in a position at the moment to answer that question.

I think my hon. Friend, and I daresay many other hon. Members in other parts of the House, have been profoundly disappointed by what the hon. Gentleman has said. He seems in some way to resent criticism—

No.

—and, if I may say so, to be a little complacent on this matter. He said that it was quite right for the Government to pay attention to legitimate criticism. That is perfectly true, but it is also extremely important for the Government to act rightly and not to wait until, by criticism, they are forced to do right—or, anyway, not to do as badly as they were doing before. And to say that these men may be treated better than their predecessors is not a good answer. The deduction from that is that their predecessors were also treated wrongly.

I cannot agree that such a deduction is legitimate. In my judgment, when dealing with war criminals we have generally provided conditions of detention that are appropriate, and we are entitled, in view of the criticisms that have been made, to draw attention to the fact that in the case of these men we have already made a considerable number of extra concessions.

All I was pointing out was that if the concessions were appropriate to these officers, they were appropriate to people before. The hon. Gentleman said that he only made concessions as a result of criticisms, and I was saying that it would have been better to do the right thing straight away.

There were three main grounds on which the hon. Gentleman defended the Government action and inaction over these last three and a half years. The first was the gravity of the offences. After three and a half years, in spite of these grave offences—and the graver they are, the quicker one would have thought they would come to light—we still do not know what they are. Secondly—and this is a most important point—he said it would be unfair not to try these men because their subordinates had already been tried for carrying out their orders. I have no doubt that is true, but, if it is true, surely it means that every action of these officers must have already been examined most carefully before their subordinates were brought to trial? Therefore, all the facts on which this indictment must be based have been used already in other trials, so why is it that these men could not have been tried before?

The third argument which the hon. Gentleman used is one which is always used by Members of the Government, the argument about international agreements. All the wicked, devilish things we have done over de-nazification, arrestable categories, and so on have been done as a result of international agreements. If we enter into an agreement which goes against the rules of law and the rules of humanity and the laws of war, that agreement has not any equity value. We should not uphold it; we should not allow these things to happen. We are supposed to have fought for the reign of law. Yet what happens to these men? The reign of law, as far as the treatment of prisoners of war is concerned, means the observance of the Geneva Convention. Yet we deliberately blink at that Convention with the excuse that we are really the government of Germany and therefore the matter does not arise.

The hon. Gentleman said no protest had been made against this before, but again and again protests have been made, particularly with regard to the treatment of prisoners of war.

Hear, hear.

The question of the Geneva Convention having been got round by discreditable means has been raised again and again in this House, and no proper answer has been given to it. The only thing that cheers me up about all this is that at last everybody— including the Army and everyone in the Commission of whatever rank, and civilians in this country— feels outraged in this matter. I, the hon. Member for Ipswich, and many others have tried to stir up the conscience of this country about many of the things we have been doing, and we have been unsuccessful, but at last even the people who have stood out so far are beginning to be angry. That at any rate is something.

The reason why, in my opinion, people have put up with outrages of law and equity and mercy all this time is because the wickedness of the Nazis, the wickedness of the S.S., and so on, is a thing which has affected everybody We have all drunk up certain pollutions from them. I think it is impossible, when any crimes are committed, for other people to be completely unaffected. I was reading only the other day from Jung, the psychologist, who said a very profound thing. He said that even a saint would have to pray in order not to be affected by the wickedness of the S.S., and I think that is true. Not many of us are saints, a great many people do not pray, and the result is that they have been affected by all these wickednesses; they have thrown away their standards— the sort of standard upheld by my father who was a professional soldier, and we have behaved like this.

The depressing thing about what the hon. Gentleman has said is that he does not confess to that and say we have made a mess of it. He just goes on hiding behind the Quadripartite Agreement, saying it was a muddle but not a very big muddle, that only one of the generals had died, and so on. On and on it goes and meanwhile the guilt piles up. These things will have to be paid for. Evil always has to be paid for and it will be paid for, not only morally, but, I am very certain, practically in the results in Germany.

Including the atom bomb?

I am extremely sorry that I have not been here during the whole of this Debate. I did not know it was on or I should have been here. I am very grateful for this opportunity of expressing the sentiments which I feel very strongly indeed on this subject. We have done a lot of very indecent things since the war. The ground of those indecent things has generally been the Quadripartite Agreement. Surely, something has happened since then, something in our relationships with the Russians, which should at least relieve us of the duty of having to be indecent on their behalf any longer?

The trial of these Germans—I am not going into the rights and wrongs of it—offends every sense of good taste in this country. It is something which has, at last, really roused the people in this country to a sense of indecency. Surely, it is not, even now, too late to stop? After all, the good will of the people in Germany is now of some importance to us. To put it on the lowest possible grounds, what effect does this performance have upon the sentiments of Germans? It is a crowning piece of arrogant power of a conqueror. Do we want to go and do that sort of thing now? Not only is it morally indecent, it is political folly; and for Heaven's sake, since we have set out on a wrong road, let us have the good sense to turn round and come back again.