Commons Chamber

                    The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.
                

House Of Commons

Thursday, 29th April, 1954

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

Prayers

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers To Questions

Agriculture

Eggs (Marketing And Prices)

asked the Minister of Agriculture if agreement has now been reached with the National Farmers' Union on the terms of an egg marketing scheme.

No, Sir. The National Farmers' Unions have replied to certain of the Government's comments on their proposals for an egg marketing scheme and discussions on outstanding points are continuing.

Can the Minister give the House an assurance that the broad points of principle have been agreed and that only minor points which can be quickly cleared up now remain outstanding?

No, Sir. I cannot give that assurance. Discussions will continue until, I hope, we get final agreement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will give details of the factors newly taken into account this year in determining the monthly support prices for eggs sent to packing stations.

This year the annual average price guaranteed to producers for eggs will vary, through an agreed formula, with the annual average price of feedingstuffs. In addition, the seasonal minimum prices will be determined from time to time, not necessarily monthly, in relation to current market prices and the level of supplies reaching the packing stations instead of being determined, as previously, at the start of the year. The seasonal minimum prices will be calculated in such a way that the annual average guaranteed price will be 4s. a dozen, subject to the operation of the feedingstuffs formula.

Will the result of this arrangement be that the support price, while giving the farmers what they are entitled to get from the packing stations, will not be such a heavy charge on the Exchequer as was the case last year?

That would depend upon what the retail price was. The formula which has been devised is very complicated, but it has been devised in complete agreement with the producers.

Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the changes will not be made so suddenly as completely to confuse egg producers?

Yes, Sir.

Sugar Beet Factory, Southern England

asked the Minister of Agriculture if the Departmental inquiry into the proposal for establishing a beet sugar factory in the South of England has been completed; and with what result.

The inquiry is not yet complete.

The time this is taking is disappointingly long. Can the Minister assure us that the facts emerging from the inquiry about a sugar beet factory in the South of England will be given to the House before Ministers come to a decision?

The group has not yet finished its deliberations on the subject. I hope that the study will be completed some time during the next month or so. I will then see what steps we can take to bring the results of the deliberations before the House.

Will the Minister give an undertaking that the needs and interests of the countries within the Colonial Commonwealth, which are often dependent upon a single-crop economy—such as the West Indies, which is dependent on sugar—will be kept in mind?

Those are the kind of points which, no doubt, are being considered.

In coming to these decisions, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is important, particularly in respect of the existing facilities, to consider the needs of Devon and Cornwall? If a centre such as Taunton could be considered it would be of great use.

Attested Stock (Movement Licensing)

asked the Minister of Agriculture the reasons for maintaining a system of movement licensing for farm stock; and when he intends to terminate this control.

I understand that my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to control of movement of attested stock to shows and sales. I consider that such control is necessary and I am explaining the reasons fully by letter.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that now that the majority of our herds are becoming attested, the burden of getting a movement licence should fall more upon the owners of the non-attested than of the attested herds?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the nearer we are getting to complete attestation the greater the measure of control which must be exercised?

I think that on this occasion I can agree with both my hon. and gallant Friend and with the right hon. Gentleman. The position is that no permit is required today under the scheme for the movement of an animal from an attested herd to one which is not subject to the rules of the scheme, or to the non-attested section of a show or sale, but in that case the animal cannot afterwards return to the attested herd.

Farm Survey Visits

5 and 6.

asked the Minister of Agriculture (1) whether all county agricultural executive committees now inform farmers, prior to visits of inspection, that their farms are to be inspected;

(2) whether all farmers are advised of the results of county agricultural executive committees inspections of their farms and of the category in which they have been placed.

I assume that the hon. Member is referring to farm surveys, which are not formal inspections but visits designed to offer the help of the county agricultural executive committee in the improvement of production. It is the general practice of committees to visit farms by arrangement with the occupiers. I have asked committees to convey to the farmer whose farm has been surveyed their views about his farm and, where they continue to grade, to notify the farmer of the grading.

The Minister, of course, will be aware that I brought a case to his attention where this was not done. Will he give an assurance that in every case in every county a farmer will not have to suffer an inspection of his farm without his knowledge either before or after?

The specific case to which the hon. Gentleman refers was before I issued the revised general instructions in February, 1953. However, I should like the House to realise that although no specific instructions have been issued to county agricultural executive committees about notification of farm survey visits county agricultural officers have been told to instruct their officers to give prior notice if they can reasonably do so.

Support Prices (Quantification)

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Government will now give an assurance that in connection with the support prices for agriculture they will not be subjected to any measure of quantification throughout 1954.

The guarantees for 1954 have already been determined. The guarantee for milk is related to standard quantities in the different marketing areas. No quantitive limitation has been included in the guarantees for other commodities.

Could we have an assurance that there will be no further alterations in 1954? Does not my right hon. Friend realise that the greatest difficulty is uncertainty and delay? Does he not realise that there is no real stability as long as alterations are made? [An HON. MEMBER: "Reading."] I am not reading. I have never read anything in my life. I am speaking from my heart, and not from the books.

Perhaps my hon. Friend would read the White Paper, the 1954 Annual Review, particularly paragraph 13.

Farmer, Saint Helens (Dispossession)

asked the Minister of Agriculture why Mr. Sidney Morris, of Mickleham Green Farm, Sutton, Saint Helens, was dispossessed; and the present condition of the ground now under the agricultural executive committee.

Mr. Morris occupied only part of Mickleham Green Farm, and his interest in the land was terminated because his standard of farming was too low and did not show satisfactory improvement after two years of supervision. The decision to terminate his interest in the land was upheld by the Agricultural Land Tribunal. The Lancashire Agricultural Executive Committee have let the land to a neighbouring farmer who has ploughed it and is now cultivating it in preparation for a potato crop.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether or not it is true that the present condition of the farm is much worse than when Mr. Morris vacated it?

I think that is. quite incorrect. The seven acres of land in question were in bad condition last October when that land was taken over. The present occupier did not attempt at that time to clear and cultivate it, as he probably thought it would do more harm than good. It has now been ploughed, and he is likely to sow potatoes in a few days, after dressing the ground with fertiliser.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has the united support of all Members on these benches in dispossessing those farmers not doing their duty by their farms?

Progeny Testing Scheme

asked the Minister of Agriculture what arrangements have been made to extend the progeny testing scheme in order to produce better bacon at lower cost.

I am not yet able to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price) on 25th February and to paragraph 26 of the 1954 Annual Review White Paper.

Will the right hon. Gentleman press for the earliest and widest possible extension of progeny testing in view of the colossal waste involved in producing 13 different breeds of pigs? Denmark has only one. No one knows what the average conversion factor in this country is. We are completely in the dark, and considerably handicapped compared with Danish producers.

This problem, with others, is under urgent consideration, and I assure the House that we are getting on with it as quickly as possible.

Home Department

Police Forces (Cost)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the cost of the maintenance of the police forces of England and Wales at their present strength; and how much it would cost to bring these forces up to the strength which he estimates they should at present attain.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs

(Sir David Maxwell Fyfe)

The cost of the police in England and Wales is now about £68 million a year, of which half is paid by the Exchequer. If all existing vacancies in police establishments were filled, the extra cost would be about million a year.

Does the Home Secretary agree that owing to the forces being under strength they are greatly overworked and that the extra money would be money well spent in countering the prevalence of crime?

I entirely agree, and would add only that the most pressing problem, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, is in the big cities.

Poisons (Antidotes)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, where the law provides that any poisonous fluid or substance must be marked or labelled "Poison," he will make it compulsory that the antidote to the poison shall also be clearly stated.

No, Sir. The Poisons Board has advised against the introduction of such legislation.

Would my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, as very few people know what to do when faced with a poisoning emergency, a precaution of this kind might be the means of saving life, even if the antidote were only a temporary expedient?

I think there are great dangers in this matter because undue emphasis on antidotes might result in the loss of valuable time in obtaining medical help. Barbiturate poisoning, for example, which has been the commonest form in recent years, requires immediate hospital treatment, and any delay may be fatal. I hope no one will rely on antidotes to the exclusion of getting immediate medical advice.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider the possibility of a statute providing that all Socialist constituents should be labelled, "To take Conservatism"?

Swans (Protection)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to include swans on the list of protected birds in order to preserve them, their cygnets and eggs, from unnecessary pain and destruction.

Wild swans are at present fully protected in 25 counties in England and Wales, and their eggs in 29 counties, by local orders made under the Wild Birds Protection Acts. I have no power to make additional orders except on application by the local authority. The Protection of Birds Bill now before Parliament will give full protection to wild swans throughout the country.

Could the Home Secretary give power to local authorities not only to protect the birds from destruction, but to provide them with food and shelter at the ponds and lakes where they congregate?

I should like to have a look at that aspect of the problem.

Prison Deaths (Burial)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the present practice of burying convicted murderers within the precincts of the prison where the sentence was carried out with a view to an amendment of the law and the adoption of the practice proposed for the convicted war criminals in Spandau Gaol of returning the bodies to their next-of-kin.

No. Sir.

Can the Home Secretary explain why, in the case of the NÜrnberg criminals, which, I believe, he knows quite a lot about, and who were convicted of mass murders, their next-of-kin are to be allowed to have their bodies back, while the parents of young men like Dereck Bentley are not allowed to have their sons' bodies back, though the prisoners were. convicted of a single murder? Surely if it is good enough, in the case of the Spandau prisoners, for the next-of-kin to have their bodies back, it should be good enough for people in this country.

I think the hon. Gentleman has confused two matters. The question of the Spandau prisoners, of course, is a matter for the Foreign Secretary, but the proposal that, I think, the hon. Gentleman has in mind deals with the bodies of those who die a natural death and not of those who are executed. It is already the practice in the Department of which I am in charge that the relatives of a prisoner who dies in prison here, other than by judicial execution, have the opportunity to take the body away and to make their own disposal arrangements.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that it is quite impossible to reconcile his attitude in this matter with that of the Foreign Secretary, not only in the case of the Spandau prisoners but in the case of prisoners who were executed for mass murders and whose bodies were handed over to the civil authority for reburial outside the prison? Secondly, will he bear in mind that on this whole matter of executions in this country a Royal Commission that sat for five years came unanimously to the conclusion that our present law was wrong and could not be supported? Could he tell us when he will be able to inform the House of the result of his consideration of that Report?

The first supplementary question is one for the Foreign Secretary, and the second raises a point to which I have replied previously.

Yes, but as the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a member of the Government, and a colleague of the Foreign Secretary, surely he recognises the principle of collective responsibility. As he had something to do, quite properly, with the execution of the NÜrnberg prisoners, why is he not prepared to adopt in this country the same policy that is now being adopted in Germany?

I fully accept the principle of collective responsibility but I do not remember that when the right hon. Member was Minister of Defence he was particularly active in answering Questions which concerned the Minister of Health. That is the point I made. As for the further point, I said that was a matter on which I had already answered questions, and if the right hon. Gentleman will do me the honour of looking at the answers he will find that that is so.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that when I was Minister of Defence I was never asked a Question which related to the activities and responsibilities of the Minister of Health?

Remand Homes And Approved Schools (Punishment)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent the infliction of corporal punishment in remand homes and approved schools has declined or increased during the past year; in how many cases during that period inmates have absconded and how many have subsequently been apprehended; and what further consideration has been given to the question of discipline, treatment and punishment in those institutions.

The number of occasions on which corporal punishment was administered in remand homes and approved schools in 1953 was about 4 per cent, more than in 1952. The number of abscondings in 1953 was 2,236; I have no reason to believe that more than a very few absconders were not recovered.

The question of discipline, treatment and punishment in remain homes and approved schools is kept under constant review.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not appreciate that this is a matter which should be more than reviewed constantly? Is it not one which needs special inquiry in view of the more enlightened opinions about the treatment and discipline in these institutions?

The hon. Member will recall that the Franklin Committee reported in December, 1951, on punishments in approved schools and remand homes. It considered that the existing powers to give corporal punishment were necessary and that the safeguards against the excessive use of this form of punishment were generally satisfactory. Since then, as I have said, the conditions on which it reported have been kept under constant review. If the hon. Member has any specific point to make I shall be very glad to consider it.

Am I not right in stating that in some of the best-managed remand homes corporal punishment is very rarely administered?

That must be a matter for the authorities of the remand home. I cannot answer for specific remand homes. I think that is the proper combination: we have a Report, we keep it under review, and the operation is in the hands of the authorities of the home.

Immigration

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have immigrated into this country each year since the war.

I regret that no information is available about the number of persons other than aliens who have come to live in the United Kingdom since the war.

Under our system of immigration control, aliens are not ordinarily admitted as immigrants in the first instance, save in exceptional circumstances. The majority of the aliens who have been accepted as permanent residents in recent years were admitted on a temporary basis—e.g., on Ministry of Labour permits—and accepted as residents some years after their arrival.

Figures of aliens accepted as permanent residents are not available for each year since the war, but in the immediate postwar years nearly 250,000 foreigners were as an exceptional measure admitted or allowed to remain in this country as a special contribution to the relief of distress abroad and to the resettlement of displaced persons. Precise figures are not available but it is estimated that the number at present being admitted to permanent residence is of the order of 8,000 to 9,000 a year.

Has my right hon. and learned Friend noted that when citizens of the United Kingdom desire to go to a Colonial Territory they have to give very considerable undertakings, both financial and otherwise? Will he represent to the Colonial Secretary that it is desirable that our people should be able to go to the Colonial Territories with facility equal to that with which people from the Colonial Territories can come to the United Kingdom?

I will certainly convey the contents of my hon. Friend's question to my right hon. Friend.

Father Ingram (Warrant)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date the warrant was issued for the arrest of Father Ingram, formerly of the London Choir School, Bexley; and on what grounds the warrant was applied for.

I understand that a warrant of arrest was issued on 22nd March on the grounds of alleged unnatural offences against a pupil of the London Choir School.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that this is the evil man to whom I referred in the House some months ago? Is it to be wondered at that homosexuality is on the increase when such men can operate in private schools at will? Will he say whether the warrant has yet been served?

The police endeavoured to enforce the warrant, but they discovered that Ingram had disappeared from the school and they later found that he had flown to Northern Ireland on 24th March. Police inquiries are being made in Northern Ireland and in the Irish Republic.

Juvenile Courts, South London

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision is being made for additional juvenile courts in South London to deal with the growing number of cases.

Last August, in order to relieve the congestion at Lambeth Juvenile Court, it was arranged that the court should sit twice instead of once a week. Alternative premises are being sought for the second court, and also for the South-Eastern Juvenile Court which sits at Tower Bridge.

While realising that these additional provisions are a regrettable necessity, may I ask the Home Secretary whether he will examine the disturbing implications of what is apparently the growing number of juvenile cases in South London in the light of the 14 per cent, reduction in the number of juvenile convictions throughout the country as a whole, which he announced the other day?

Certainly. I am very glad that the hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned the 14 per cent., for it is always a good thing to remember the good side of questions. I will certainly bear in mind the other point which he made.

Food Price Increases

asked the Minister of Labour which items of food have recently increased in price so as to cause the retail price index figure to rise to 141.

The rise in the index was due mainly to increases in the prices of butter, cheese, eggs, tea, potatoes, tomatoes and cooking apples. There were also some increases in the prices of green vegetables but decreases in the prices of fish and of rabbits. Among non-food items the principal change was a slight rise in the average prices of coal and coke.

On a point of order. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, why this Question has been admitted, having regard to the fact that all the information in the answer is contained in the Ministry of Labour Gazette, a copy of which is now in the Library?

Further to that, Mr. Speaker, do you think that you can manage without the assistance of the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams)?

I am always grateful for assistance from any part of the House.

Is the Minister aware that the answer which he has just given, and which is contained in the Ministry of Labour Gazette, reached me this morning in the Gazette, whereas the Question was put down before the Gazette was published? So much for the point of order. Is the Minister not aware that since he took office this index figure has risen from 129 to 141 and that, despite all the propaganda to the contrary, the cost of living has continuously increased? Can he say when food prices will fall?

I am glad that I have not to deal with the first point, for the second point is comprehensive enough. Although no doubt the figures which the hon. Member has given are right, it is some satisfaction to appreciate that the index figure has not varied, except between 140 and 141, for a year.

Heavy Goods Vehicles (Speed Limit)

asked the Minister of Labour what steps he has taken during the past six months to obtain agreement between representatives of employers and employees as to the conditions to be applied for the raising of the legal speed limit for heavy goods vehicles; and whether, in view of the productivity angle involved, he will intensify his efforts to obtain a solution of this problem.

I have kept this matter under review in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation. As I have previously assured the House, we will be prepared, if necessary, to assist in the reaching of agreements by the parties concerned as soon as the time and circumstances are propitious.

Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that that is a very disappointing answer, especially in view of the transference of haulage to private enterprise and the possibility of the reintroduction of those practices which led many drivers in the direction of not observing the legal minimum? Does he realise the importance of getting a move on in this matter?

I fully appreciate the importance of choosing the right moment to get a move on. One of the things which we have to remember is that there is no question of my imposing a decision. I am asked to persuade, and I think I must be allowed, to some extent to choose the moment when that persuasion is likely to succeed.

Ministry Of Health

Hospital Beds (Private Patients)

asked the Minister of Health what steps are taken to ensure that private beds are not reserved for the use of fee-paying patients when there are urgent or chronic cases on the general waiting list.

The National Health Service Act, 1946, specifically provides for patients in urgent medical need of treatment to be admitted to a pay bed without charge if no alternative accommodation is available. My right hon. Friend has brought this to the notice of hospital authorities, and has also asked them to ensure that pay beds not in full use for private patients are used for other patients whether urgent cases or not.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary say what view her right hon. Friend takes, not merely in connection with my own constituency but generally, of the heavy fees that are paid by private patients for minor operations, like the removal of tonsils, for which they are able to get immediate attention within a week of the arrangement being made with the specialist or consultant concerned, whereas children who, in the opinion of their parents, are suffering from defective tonsils have to wait as long as six months before they can get the operation done.

I hope the hon. Member will not exaggerate these claims, because in the case of hospitals in which he himself is interested my right hon. Friend did assure him that whereas 25 tonsillectomies were done a week under the National Health Service there were only four a year done on private fee-paying patients. I can assure the hon. Member that if there is any evidence which he or other hon. Members wish to bring to my right hon. Friend's attention, we shall be very glad to go into it in order to ensure that there is no abuse. I do not think it is fair to suggest that there is this widespread abuse when the case which we investigated for the hon. Gentleman is not justified.

World Health Organisation (Budget)

asked the Minister of Health whether he will instruct the representative of Her Majesty's Government on the relevant committee of the World Health Organisation, at the next appropriate meeting of the committee, to press on behalf of Her Majesty's Government for a substantial increase in the regular budget of the Organisation and to pledge this country to pay its fair share in the increase.

The proposed regular budget of the Organisation for 1955 shows a substantial increase over that approved for 1954, but my right hon. Friend is not satisfied that this increase is justified. The matter will be further considered at the next World Health Assembly. The United Kingdom contributes to the budget on a scale approved by the Assembly.

That does not seem to answer the question of whether, at this further meeting, the United Kingdom representative will press for an increase in the total budget of the Organisation so that it can overcome its many problems.

Not unless we are satisfied that the increase is justified.

In view of the very disappointing reply of the Parliamentary Secretary, will she give an assurance that there will be a long-term guarantee of funds to the Organisation to that it can recruit the technical and qualified staff so urgently needed for long-term contract work.

That is a much wider question which I cannot possibly answer today.

Will the hon. Lady ask her night hon. Friend to examine the very important projects which would greatly promote British interests and which are now being held up because the Organisation's budget has been so long stabilised?

I will certainly ask my right hon. Friend.

Can the hon. Lady say whether any countries do not pay their contributions to the World Health Organisation, and, if so, what is the total amount involved?

If my hon. Friend would put a Question on the Order Paper I should be happy to give him an answer.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply. I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Foreign Residents (Tuberculosis)

asked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement on the problem of persons from abroad taking up residence in this country while suffering from active tuberculosis.

My right hon. Friend hopes to be able to make a statement within a few days.

Emphysema (Research)

asked the Minister of Health if he will set up a special centre for research into the cause and cure of emphysema; and if he will give an estimate of the number of sufferers affected.

Research into the lung conditions with which emphysema is usually associated is in progress in a number of centres. There is not information available to form an estimate of the number of sufferers.

As neither the cause nor the proper cure of this complaint has yet been discovered, will the Minister do all she can to step up research with a view to relieving sufferers?

This is not generally recognised as a separate disease entity, but rather as a concomitant of other disease conditions. Research generally into diseases of the lung is already carried on in such centres as Hammersmith, Brompton and Sheffield, which cover research into this particular disease.

Cancer

asked the Minister of Health if he will, as a means of combating cancer, take steps to give powers to local authorities to register all persons suffering from this disease; and if he will promote schemes to educate patients through general practitioners and other means on the best form of treatment.

Hospitals boards are already encouraged to arrange for the registration of all cases treated in hospital, to provide information about incidence and results of treatment. My right hon. Friend has already invited local authorities to promote educational schemes, in co-operation with hospital authorities and general practitioners.

As many people who suffer from this disease are afraid to go to their doctors in the initial stages, would the Minister carry on a campaign, through medical officers of health, to encourage these people to come along at a stage when doctors can render them some assistance, rather than leave it too long, when it is beyond the power of a doctor to assist?

I share the hon. Member's concern about this grave disease, but I cannot accept that people are more likely to go to the medical officer of health to report their condition than they are to their own general practitioner. In this matter we are working on the advice of the Standing Advisory Committee on Cancer and Radiotherapy, and we are carrying out a scheme recommended by them. This is not an infectious disease and does not come in the same category as notifiable diseases to the local authority.

I am not suggesting that the patient should go to the medical officer of health, but that the medical officer of health should carry out a campaign on this subject.

An educational campaign has been approved by my right hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of Health what experiments have taken place in the use of the rays given off by the cobalt bomb as a means of treating deep-seated cancer; and if he will make a statement on this subject.

The experimental stage in the use of radio-active cobalt for the treatment of cancer has now passed. It is being used as a substitute for radium in the treatment of certain forms of cancer, particularly the deep-seated forms, in four radiotherapy centres in this country. Radio-active cobalt is more intensely radio-active than radium and makes treatment shorter and more efficient.

Seeing that this instrument, which could be used for the destruction of human life, can now be used for the healing of this terrible disease, will the Minister see that no expense is spared in carrying on these experiments? Will she issue a report on the progress that is being made in the experiments which have been undertaken?

This has got beyond the experimental stage. The hon. Member will know that the initial unit was at University College Hospital and that there are now units in operation at Sheffield and Leeds. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will not mind my pointing out that the word he used in his Question, namely, "bomb," is a misnomer, for no explosion takes place, and the use of this term has terrifying associations for the patients. I hope the hon. Gentleman will drop the use of it.

Children In Hospitals (Parents' Visits)

asked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied with the response to his suggestions about greater facilities for parents to visit their children in hospital; and which hospitals refuse to allow visits, other than exceptions made on strictly medical grounds.

No detailed information is available, but my right hon. Friend has reason to believe that the response to his recommendations has generally been favourable.

If I send to the hon. Lady information of a hospital where the matron refuses to allow parents to see their children until they have been in-patients for one month, will she look into the matter?

I shall certainly be prepared to look into it, but the hon. Member will be aware that the final decision rests with the hospital and with the discretion of the matron of the hospital and not with my right hon. Friend.

Oranges (Thiourea)

asked the Minister of Health what reports he has received from medical officers of health, hospitals and otherwise in respect of intestinal or other ill effects, particularly with children, suspected to be due to the contamination of oranges by thiourea.

My right hon. Friend has received no reports of ill effects from this cause.

Is the hon. Lady aware that in several districts in North-East London analysts have reported that oranges sold in streets and shops have been contaminated with thiourea? In these circumstances, seeing the limited powers of analysis, would it not be as well to make inquiries?

I can assure the hon. Member that not least as a result of his Question inquiries have been made in the areas in which he is particularly concerned, and that we have had no reports from medical officers of health on the matter or from any general practitioner. If we had any evidence we should certainly follow it up.

Maternity Home Fire, Reading

asked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement on the recent accident at the Delwood Maternity Home, Reading.

My right hon. Friend is awaiting the report of a special committee of inquiry appointed by the regional hospital board, and he is not, therefore, in a position to make any detailed statement at the moment. Mean-while, he is sure that the House will wish to express its profound sympathy with the parents who were bereaved by this tragic event.

While thanking my hon. Friend for those expressions of sympathy, in which, I am sure, the whole House will join, may I ask whether, in view of the widespread national concern about this appalling tragedy, we can be assured that everything is being done to expedite the completion of this inquiry?

I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend has no desire whatever to see any delay in the inquiry, but I am sure the House will recognise that it cannot be conducted until we have the fire officer's report, which must go first to the inquest, and before evidence can be obtained from the vital witness, Sister Holland, who has been too ill to be interviewed or even to attend the inquest. Until these possibilities are available, we cannot continue with the inquiry.

What outside authority had the responsibility for the inspection of the kitchen and heating equipment, which, it is understood, was the basis of the trouble? In any event, was it with the hon. Lady's concurrence that the fire officer opinionated that no blame was to be attached to the people who ran this establishment?

In view of the fact that both an inquest and an inquiry are to be held, I do not think that those questions should be answered at this time, even if I had the information available.

Education

Schools (National Service Information)

asked the Minister of Education what instructions she has given, or what arrangements have been agreed by her, in regard to the giving of information about National Service in the Armed Forces to boys in schools under her control.

None. I regard this matter as one for the discretion of the local education and other school authorities.

State Scholarships

asked the Minister of Education what percentage of State awards, supplemental university awards and local education authority awards, respectively, are honorary.

Some 2·6 per cent, of the State scholarships (other than supplemental State scholarships) and 8·7 per cent, of supplemental State scholarships current in the academic year 1953–54 were honorary. A further 4·1 per cent, of the State scholarships (other than supplemental) were at the nominal rate of £30, which is paid regardless of parental circumstances. I have no detailed information about the proportion of local education authority awards which were honorary, but I have no reason to think that it is substantial.

asked the Minister of Education the number of students entering the universities and university colleges for the first time, in October, 1953, who came with a State scholarship, a supplemental university scholarship or a local education authority award, respectively.

There were 1,979 holders of State scholarships (other than supplemental State scholarships), 1,000 holders of supplemental State scholarships, and 9,928 holders of awards from local education authorities.

What is the right hon. Lady doing to encourage local authorities who give comparatively few university awards to increase their number?

We have been in communication with local authorities, not only about the size of the award but about the method of selection.

Unesco

asked the Minister of Education what are the Government's proposals towards the association of the United Kingdom with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation's Educational Travel Coupon Scheme.

Her Majesty's Government are not proposing to adopt this scheme. Arrangements already exist under which British students can apply for foreign currency to attend courses or to travel for educational purposes abroad and I have no evidence that foreign students are prevented from coming to this country because of currency difficulties due to United Kingdom regulations.

Is the Minister aware that a substantial dollar fund has been placed at the disposal of these arrangements for international exchange? Would it not help this country financially if we took part in this system instead of having to make use of our own scarce currency resources?

We think at present that our plan is better. We do not think it would be advisable to set up a separate scheme.

asked the Minister of Education what instructions she proposes to give to the United Kingdom delegation to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation conference regarding the observance by that organisation of the rights of international civil servants under Article 100 of the United Nations Charter.

It is not the practice to disclose beforehand the instructions given to delegations to international conferences.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that the case of Mr. Leff and other employees of U.N.E.S.C.O. have aroused considerable concern and have been the subject of leading articles in "The Times Educational Supplement"? Will the Minister ensure that when she instructs the delegation it is asked to make certain that international civil servants are not obstructed in their employment by outside governments and that the rules of the United Nations are observed in this respect?

I understand that the executive board of U.N.E.S.C.O. at its next meeting in July is likely to consider what recommendations for amending the present staff regulations should be put to the general conference in November. It would be wrong for me to try to anticipate any recommendations which the executive board may desire to put forward for the general conference.

Grammar School Pupils (Leaving Age)

asked the Minister of Education what steps she is taking to reduce the numbers of pupils who are leaving the grammar schools when they attain the statutory age of 15 years.

I understand that the Central Advisory Council for Education (England) has almost completed the inquiry to which I referred in my answer to the hon. Member for Itchen (Mr. Morley) on 29th January, 1953. When I receive the Council's Report, I shall consider how a further reduction can best be encouraged.

Teachers (Wastage)

asked the Minister of Education the total annual wastage from the teaching profession; and what steps she is taking to check this loss.

Net wastage in 1953 was 8,100, a figure that was much more than made good by the 13,500 new entrants to the profession. As a result of later retirements and a greater number of married women remaining in and returning to the profession, the wastage figure is below earlier estimates.

Does the Minister not agree that perhaps one of the best possibilities is that of getting women teachers who have been married to come back into the profession? Will she consider making a special appeal to them, even perhaps making an appeal to them herself over the B.B.C.?

Appeals have been made, not necessarily over the B.B.C.. but at various meetings. The result has been extraordinarily good and we are grateful to those married women who have come back.

Bechuanaland, Basutoland And Swaziland

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what consultations he has had recently with the Government of the Union of South Africa concerning the future of Bechuanaland, Basutoland and Swaziland.

Before the introduction of the recent Resolution in the Union Parliament, the United Kingdom Government was informed by the Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa that he proposed to raise the matter thus.

Can the Minister give an assurance that in any consultations that take place Her Majesty's Government will assure Dr. Malan that the statement made by the Prime Minister before the Recess had general support from all sides of the House of Commons?

We had better let it rest on the statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Trade And Commerce

East-West Trade Controls (Relaxation)

asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress he has now made towards a major relaxation of controls on East-West trade.

Discussions are at present proceeding in Paris with other Western Governments with a view to introducing the major relaxations on East-West trade which Her Majesty's Government have in view, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Although we welcome the discussions that are taking place, since it is now two months since the Prime Minister expressed himself in favour of a substantial relaxation of these controls, can the Minister say how soon he will be able to make a statement?

I would remind the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade did envisage that these discussions might take two or three months.

Is the Minister aware that before the Recess I suggested to him that the machine tool industry in particular was losing orders? Is it not possible for the President of the Board of Trade to secure the release of controls in that industry?

I do not under-estimate the importance of the point that the right hon. Member has raised, but if he looks as the programme he will agree that so far there has been no avoidable delay. In fact, we have been congratulated on the speed with which we have moved in this matter.

What progress has been made in the Anglo-Hungarian trade negotiations now taking place in London?

That is a separate question. I referred to it in my answer to a Question yesterday.

Merchandise Marks Act (Prosecutions And Infringements)

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many prosecutions for alleged offences under the Merchandise Marks Acts have been initiated by his Department in each quinquennium since the original Act was passed; and how many complaints of alleged infringement of the Acts he is now considering.

Since the answer to the first part of the Question contains a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The answer to the second part of the Question is 11.

A lemon?

Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the answer to the first part of the Question shows an increasing sense of responsibility on the part of the Board of Trade in implementing the Merchandise Marks Acts or the contrary? I take it that his answer to the second part was 11. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman say what action is being taken on these complaints?

If the hon. Member will devote his mind to it, he will see that the success of a statute is not measured by the number of prosecutions under it. As to the 11 cases mentioned in answer to the second part of his Question, they are, of course, being investigated.

Following is the table:

Number of prosecutions under the Merchandise Marks Acts initiated by the Board of Trade in each quinquennium since 1888.

Period				Number of prosecutions
1888–1892	…	…	…	6
1893–1897	…	…	…	12
1898–1902	…	…	…	4
1903–1907	…	…	…	5
1908–1912	…	…	…	17
1913–1917	…	…	…	37
1918–1922	…	…	…	6
1923–1927	…	…	…	5
1928–1932	…	…	…	10
1933–1937	…	…	…	17
1938–1942	…	…	…	14
1943–1947	…	…	…	1
1948–1952	…	…	…	2

Note: The figures given for periods before 1938 are only approximate.

Defence Expenditure

asked the Prime Minister if he will now issue instructions to all Ministers concerned on ways and means of securing definite relief from the present burden of defence expenditure.

The future of the defence programme and possibilities of relief from the heavy burden involved are matters which, under my direction, engage continuously the attention of Her Majesty's Government, but I do not wish to make any statement about the procedure followed by Her Majesty's Government for that purpose.

Since the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated that the Government must obtain some definite relief from the defence burden in the coming year—those were the Chancellor's words—can the Prime Minister tell us in what ways Her Majesty's Government propose to obtain that definite relief?

By continual study and careful thought.

Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that the subject is under constant review? If so, can he tell us, seriously, whether any progress has been made and, if not, when he expects progress will be made?

We inherited an enormous programme, loosely scattered out, and if we had not controlled it very severely it would have carried us into figures far beyond those at which the right hon. Gentleman now professes to be shocked. We are doing our very best to curb the growth of military expenditure, and we hope that results which are very necessary for our future finances will be achieved.

When can we expect the right hon. Gentleman to answer a question directly and not indulge in irrelevancies? Will he be good enough to tell the House, now that the Chancellor has intimated his intention—of course, with the Government—to reduce defence expenditure, and because the subject, as the right hon. Gentleman himself has said, is continously under review, when he expects some progress to be announced to the House?

The results of these exertions will, of course, be apparent when the Estimates for next year are laid before the House.

Indo-China

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the recent official French request for aid in Indo-China.

I do not wish to add to the statement which I made last Tuesday.

Can the Prime Minister at least say whether the request was confined simply to material aid, or whether there was also a request for British troops as well?

I do not wish to add to the statement which I made last Tuesday.

asked the Prime Minister if he will approach the Governments of India, Pakistan and Burma with a view to consultations, at ministerial level, on recent developments in South-East Asia with particular reference to the situation in Indo-China and Her Majesty's Government's proposal to examine the possibility of a defence pact.

Her Majesty's Government have been in close touch with these Governments and have undertaken to give full consideration to their views. A special Ministerial meeting would not be helpful at the present moment.

Is the Prime Minister aware that, despite the fact that there may be telegraphic communication, there is a distinct feeling in India, Pakistan and Burma that decisions may be taken at Geneva over the heads of these South-East Asian countries without proper Ministerial consultation? Is he aware that he himself has a singularly bad record in relation to those countries and should do his best by sending a Minister out there to show that he now regards those countries as full and equal members of the Commonwealth whose advice is at least worthy of the same consideration as that of the other Dominions?

I really think that the giving of special missions to Ministers in a Government should be left to the Government itself. I think that that would certainly be the rule which would be enforced should any change of authority take place here.

Communist Activities

asked the Prime Minister if he will set up a Royal Commission to inquire into Communist activities and propaganda in Great Britain.

No, Sir. There can be few countries in the world where Communism has more difficulty in making headway than in this island, with our free institutions and long experience. The security aspect can well be dealt with under our established laws, the vigilant administration of which is under constant Parliamentary attention.

Is the Prime Minister aware that Mr. Casey is reported to have said that the spy rings which have caused so much trouble in Australia are active in all countries, including Britain? Will he make an appeal to the British public relentlessly to combat Communist activities everywhere? Will he also tell the British public that there is no difference in principle between Communism and Socialism?

I really do not think that that would be a helpful suggestion for me to act upon.

Admiral Radford (Talks)

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his discussions with Admiral Radford, Chairman of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff.

No, Sir. My talk with Admiral Radford was informal and confidential. It would be a pity to make such contacts impossible.

Commonwealth Prime Ministers (Consultations)

asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the desirability that the British Commonwealth of Nations should pursue a common policy in the present critical juncture of international relations, he will summon a conference in London of Commonwealth Prime Ministers to see how far the several lines now being respectively pursued may be co-ordinated and harmonised.

No, Sir. I should have thought that there was quite enough going on at the present time. The closest exchange of views with other Commonwealth Governments is continuous.

Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that in Geneva there are discussions going on to which the Foreign Secretary of this country is a party but at which there is not represented any Asian country within the British Commonwealth of nations, and, at the same time, there is proceeding an at least equally important conference at Colombo between the Prime Ministers of countries concerned with the same matters, at which there are represented Asian countries within the British Commonwelath of nations? Surely, after both conferences are over, an attempt ought to be made to have a common meeting in London to make sure that all members of the British Commonwealth of Nations are really going the same way about the same matters.

The hon. Gentleman speaks of "after the present conferences are over." No doubt the results of these conferences will be reviewed and collated in the usual course.

But suppose they are different.

Defensive Exercises, Bahamas (Foreign Servers)

49 and 50.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) in view of the fact that Her Majesty's Government have invited the United States Government to send representatives to the bacteriological trials off the Bahamas, if he will extend similar invitations to the other countries who are signatories of the North Atlantic Treaty;

(2) if he will instruct our representative at the United Nations Organisation to invite the World Health Organisation to send official representatives to be present at the bacteriological trials in the waters off the Bahamas.

No, Sir.

Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the United States is invited to send people to these trials but France and our other Allies are not? As they are purely defensive exercises, could not the hon. Gentleman agree that the World Health Organisation, which is interested in preventing the spread of disease, should be officially represented?

No, Sir, for the simple reason that we have received no request from any other countries or organisations to be so represented.

Business Of The House

May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he will state the business for next week?

Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 3RD MAY—Second Reading: Finance Bill.

TUESDAY, 4TH MAY, AND WEDNESDAY. 5TH MAY—It is proposed to begin the Committee stage of the Television Bill.

THURSDAY, 6TH MAY—Supply [14th Allotted Day]: Committee. Debate on the Metropolitan Police until 7 o'clock.

Afterwards, debate on the Protection of Consumer Standards.

FRIDAY. 7TH MAY—Private Members' Bills.

There are three points I wish to raise. First, on the second half of the business next Thursday, we propose to put down a Motion for discussion. Secondly, may I ask, with regard to the question of setting up a Committee on Private Bills, whether the Government have given any consideration to that matter? Thirdly, are the Government now prepared to grant a day for the consideration of the Report of the Select Committee on Members' Expenses?

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the notice on the first point. On the second point, the Government have now considered the matter and have come to the conclusion that it is desirable that a Joint Select Committee of both Houses should inquire into Private Bill procedure. On the third point, I can only remind the right hon. Gentleman of what the Prime Minister said on Wednesday, 14th April.

But surely it is the duty, is it not, of the Government to provide time for the consideration of a report of an important Committee set up by all hon. Members of this House?

No, I do not think that follows.

Why does it not follow? It is not the duty of the Opposition, it is the duty of the Government. I have always understood that the Leader of the House had to consider not merely Government business but the general issues which come before the House from all Members of the House. This is preeminently a matter for the whole House because it was a Committee set up by all hon. Members of this House.

Yes, of course, it was set up by the decision of the House, but it was on the Motion of one of the hon. Friends of the right hon. Gentleman.

May I raise two points with the right hon. Gentleman? Surely it is the normal case, as my right hon. Friend has said, that when a Select Committee of this House reports, it is competent for the House to deal with the report, and if there is a request from a substantial body of hon. Members that it should be discussed, it is normally—I should have thought universally—the case that the Government provide the time. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Certainly, and is it not the case that the Prime Minister himself said that this was not a matter for the Government, it was eminently a House of Commons matter? Therefore, surely it is a case where the Government should provide the time whereby the House can discuss it and not demand that the Opposition shall sacrifice Supply time, which is for the purpose of checking the executive Government as against the House of Commons?

That may be, but of course the right hon. Gentleman, as we all know from his book, will realise that it often happens at this time of the year that there is very little Government time available but a great deal of Opposition time. On many issues within both his and my recollection, if the Opposition are very anxious for a debate, they have taken steps to facilitate it.

Surely the point that the right hon. Gentleman has raised—the fact that this question was raised from this side of the House—is irrelevant. There are many reports—for instance, those of the Committee of Privileges—for which, irrespective of which side raises the matter, it is the duty of the Leader of the House to provide time for consideration.

May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will arrange for an early discussion of perhaps a rather less controversial matter, the Taylor Commission's Report on Crofting?

That seems to me to be a suitable matter for a Supply day.

Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question on the matter raised by my two right hon. Friends? This Committee has reported unanimously and therefore that in itself ought to make the matter a House of Commons one rather than to put the emphasis, as the right hon. Gentleman is doing in a partisan way, on the Opposition.

Answer.

Ought not the right hon. Gentleman to answer, Mr. Speaker? I am open to correction, but my recollection is clear. Can the right hon. Gentleman find any precedent in the existence of the Labour Government from 1945 to 1951 when there was a demand for discussion of a Select Committee's Report where the Government did not provide time? This is an unparliamentary and a rather monstrous idea. When a report is presented to the House of Commons—not to the Government or to the Opposition—it is right and elementary that the Government should provide time, and it is no excuse for the Leader of the House to say that the Government have congested the programme and that therefore they cannot provide time. What has the right hon. Gentleman to say?

I can only repeat what I said before: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend has said.

May I ask my right hon. Friend what are the circumstances which led Her Majesty's Government to propose to set up a Joint Select Committee on Private Bill legislation? What new factors have arisen to cause that decision?

That, no doubt, can be discussed when the Motion comes before the House, but representations were made, and it is a considerable time since these matters were investigated.

Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether it is the Government's intention ever to provide time for the discussion and consideration of the Report of the Select Committee on Members' Expenses? Further, can he quote any precedent where a Government have definitely refused to provide time for consideration by the House of the report of a Select Committee?

As far as I can understand it, that was almost word for word the same question as the one put by the right hon. Gentleman.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the consideration which he has just offered to the hon. Baronet the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) does not apply precisely to the question that I put to him on the other matter?

Really they have nothing to do with each other, because what I said in reply to the right hon. Gentleman involved a Government Motion setting up that Committee.

The right hon. Gentleman, in reply to the hon. Member for Croydon, East, who asked what was the reason for taking that action, said that action had not been taken for some time and that it was an important matter. That applies equally to the Report of the Select Committee on Members' Expenses.

The right hon. Gentleman has perhaps forgotten how this matter arose. It arose during the debate on the Ashridge Bill initiated by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who has studied this matter carefully.

What difference does that make in a House of Commons matter? Is the right hon. Gentleman differentiating between reports to the House that arise on the Motion of some particular Member, whether Front Bench or back bench?

I was only explaining the circumstances of this particular matter.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman must realise that his explanations get more and more irrelevant?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Leader of the House has obviously failed to catch the sense of my question, I will put it in a little plainer language. Can we have a definite reply to this question?

I am waiting for the point of order.

My point of order is that my question has not been answered and I am putting it again, Sir.

I am afraid that complaints about the inadequacy of answers are very common in this House, but they are not points of order.

I suggest that a point of order is a correct point of order if a question has not been replied to in any shape or form, and that therefore it is in order to repeat the question.

It may be very regrettable, but it is not a point of order. Mr. Lewis.

May I put a further question—?

Order. I called Mr. Lewis.

May I ask the Leader of the House to bring his memory back to the question of a general character asked by my right hon. Friend the deputy Leader of the Opposition and may I now ask a particular question on the same subject: whether the right hon. Gentleman remembers that the last time this subject was dealt with was in 1946, and that then when a Select Committee reported the Labour Government did in fact provide time for a debate? Will he not at least do the same as the Labour Government did in 1946 and be decent to the House?

I think that the question of my hon. Friend deserves an answer, but evidently the Leader of the House has decided to dig his heels in and to deny the ordinary Parliamentary facilities. Therefore, may I ask the Prime Minister—who is at any rate usually a House of Commons man—whether it is within his recollection that when a Select Committee reports it does not report to the Government or to the Opposition, but to the House of Commons? Therefore, does not the Prime Minister think that facilities ought to be granted to the House of Commons by the powers that be in order that we may debate this, rather than that it should be a partisan move by the Opposition in Supply time when partisan issues are discussed? May I appeal to the Prime Minister to undertake at any rate to reconsider the position indicated by the Leader of the House?

I thought that it was a very reasonable proposal which we made, namely, that a discussion should take place through the usual channels and assistance should be given to the Government by the Opposition, who have so much time at their disposal, to find an opportunity for discussing a matter with which they are very sympathetic, and for which they have pressed so strongly. And I must say that if they go on pressing like this, it may well be thought that they are unduly biased in the matter.

I am sorry for the Prime Minister's last remark. The Prime Minister has now put forward a new point, that is, that there should be discussions with the Opposition through the usual channels to see what adjustment can be made for finding time. That is another proposal. The right hon. Gentleman must realise that it is the duty of the Opposition to maintain the rights of the Opposition and that Supply days are essentially Opposition time for the purpose of criticising the Government It is not right for the Opposition to give that time away. Therefore, I suggest that there should be discussions through the usual channels, and I hope that also there will be consideration in the Government of this very important matter of the status of reports made to this House and not to the Government.

Supply days are very often used to a large extent for other matters, and it is surely quite reasonable that there should be talks through the usual channels on all matters. We do not wish in any way to prevent the discussion of this matter, but, on the other hand, it must take its place in the ordinary course of business. There is no rule against using Supply days if other matters are thought to have greater weight, and there are innumerable precedents existing.

I wonder whether the right ton. Gentleman would give me one precedent where a Supply day has been used for the debate on the report of a Select Committee to this House?

I naturally came to the House with my mind full of an enormous list and categories of such cases, but I am afraid that it would take up too much time if I were to attempt to produce it.

rose—

Order. I understand from the recent exchanges that there are to be further talks through the usual channels. Perhaps we had better leave it there for the moment.

I have been endeavouring for some time to ask the Leader of the House a question on a totally different matter. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question on a matter about which I have not wearied him for a long time now. He will remember that he repeatedly promised to consider at some convenient time the question of finding time when the House might consider the Report of the Royal Commission on the death penalty. It was a distinguished Commission which took a lot of evidence and sat for five years and which unanimously reported that the present state of the law on this really grave matter is wholly unsatisfactory. Can the right hon. Gentleman now hold out any new hope that the Government will find a little time to consider that matter?

I am afraid that at the moment I cannot.

With regard to the business on Thursday next, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is proposed to suspend the rule with regard to the debate on the protection of consumer standards?

It has not been put to me, and I do not think so; but if it is desired, of course it can be discussed in the usual way.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, may I ask your guidance? I heard with great pleasure that, rather reluctantly and at the last moment, the Government suggest that they are prepared to discuss the question of a debate on the Report of the Select Committee on Members' Expenses through the usual channels. We appreciate that and thank the Government for it. We admire the way in which you, Sir, as Speaker of this House, protect the interests of every hon. Member, every back-bencher, irrespective of party. In view of the fact that this Select Committee's Report is a matter affecting the whole House; that the Select Committee was set up by the whole House and that its findings have a bearing on all backbenchers—perhaps some more than others—may I ask to what extent it is possible for you to do something to protect the interests of back-benchers and the House in this matter in the same admirable way as you have done in the past?

That is not a matter for me. Were there any violation of the rights of hon. Members in any part of the House, I should do my best to check and prevent it; but I think the matter has now reached the stage of talks through the usual channels, and we had better leave it there.

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders Of The Day

Atomic Energy Authority Bill

As amended, considered.

New Clause—(Authority For Producing Thermo-Nuclear Bomb)

Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to authorise the Authority to produce a thermonuclear (or hydrogen) bomb unless a Resolution to that effect shall have been passed by each House of Parliament.—[Mr. Beswick.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.50 p.m.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

On 5th April the House devoted a whole day to a discussion of the hydrogen bomb. At the end of the debate the House decided unanimously that the disclosures about this new weapon were so grave and that the importance of its potentialities was so great in human affairs, that the Government should propose immediately that the heads of the big Powers should get together to discuss their differences in the light of the knowledge of these awful powers of destruction which human beings now have at their disposal.

This afternoon the House has before it not a general Motion but a piece of precise legislation dealing with relevant administrative matters. The Bill provides for an organisation which, among other things, can develop weapons, including, if so directed, this ultimate weapon of destruction, the hydrogen bomb. The immediate question is whether, in view of all that we now know about this device, in view of all that has been said about it, in view of the feeling expressed in the country and the decision which this House has taken, Britain should build a hydrogen bomb without the British Parliament having a chance to say yea or nay. That is the issue.

There is nothing in the new Clause which seeks to deprive either the East or the West of these weapons. This is not a question of unilateral disarmament. This is not a proposal that we are putting forward to solve the international problems with which we are presented, although it would—as I shall try to argue—strengthen our hand in putting forward certain suggestions. The question is, shall there be an executive order given in secret or shall there be a full and proper debate with a democratic decision openly arrived at?

Let me give some reasons why I think that it would be utterly wrong and a profound mistake from any point of view, moral or material, for Britain to embark on this project unless it is agreed by Parliament. First, let me deal with an argument which the Minister may, but I hope will not, bring that the Government are only proposing to do what the Labour Government did before them. This is too serious a matter for any party debating point, but as the argument may be put forward, I should like to deal with it.

It is true, as the present Prime Minister has often reminded us, that the Labour Government did order the manufacture of the atom bomb and Parliament was kept completely in the dark. I supported that Government. For a time I had the privilege to be a junior member of that Government. I have the greatest respect for those who led it, but I think that we are now entitled to ask whether that secrecy has in fact profited us at all.

We all appreciate the integrity of those who took the responsibility but, looking back, what has it gained us? The Prime Minister said on 23rd October, 1952:

"As to the cost, I have said before, as an old Parliamentarian, that I was rather astonished that well over £100 million should be disbursed without Parliament being made aware of it. I was a bit astonished."

Well he might have been. If £100 million can slip through, we may well wonder what kind of guardians we are of the public purse. As a House of Commons I am not sure that we ought not to feel slightly abashed before this knowledge. After all, we claim that we are the final authority on the affairs of the nation, and yet in this matter it was not until some years afterwards that we even knew what was going on. The Prime Minister went on to say:

"As for the future, we must be guided by the precedents established.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd October, 1952; Vol. 505, c. 1271.]

We may use that precedent so established for good purposes or ill, but I want to argue that, even on the basis of Labour Government policy, the present Government are not entitled to maintain the same secrecy with regard to this new device.

The hydrogen bomb is not just another weapon. It is so different in degree as to be entirely different in kind. Its destructive power marks an even greater advance over the atom bomb than that weapon did over the heaviest missiles that we dropped on Germany. The early atom bomb was l,000 times more powerful than the biggest bomb we dropped in Europe. The hydrogen bomb, even at this early stage of its development, is 750,000 times more powerful.

The atom bomb was a weapon of mass destruction. The hydrogen bomb is an instrument of world extinction. I have heard it said that phrases of that kind denote emotional irrationalism, but that is not emotionalism. One of the most respected, responsible and careful scientists, Sir George Thomson, who is especially qualified in this field, used these words in an appraisal of the hydrogen bomb. He said:

"Calculations are difficult and inexact, but when every allowance is made no physicist can doubt that the hydrogen bomb constitutes a threat to life on this globe … on any view mankind has for the first time reached the position in which the action of a small number of people might quickly render the earth uninhabitable for a time. This, of course, is quite apart from the actual damage done by the explosion to the nearest hundred square miles or so, and the killing by flash burn of people exposed in the open over an even larger area."

Let us also recall the words of our own Resolution, which we passed unanimously, which said that this weapon:

"… constitutes a grave threat to civilisation."

Where, then, is the precedent that has been established? There are no precedents for the present position. The question we have to ask is whether there is to be any succession to the present position.

In the past on other matters affecting defence in connection with what we now courteously term "conventional weapons," the Government of the day have acted on the basis of the advice given by their professional military experts. I am second to no one in this House in my admiration and respect for the professional experts who have served the country, especially in the last war and since; but I claim that the issues involved are wider than the military matters on which the professional should be called upon to advise.

We believe that there are political and social issues. There are also moral issues. But let us consider the question from the narrowest viewpoint—from the standpoint of military security. Should we really be disadvantaged, assuming that Parliament in its wisdom agreed after discussion to authorise manufacture, if any potential enemy knew of the decision that has been made? Can we really persuade ourselves that Soviet Russia and China might embark upon one course of action in the full knowledge that the United States of America have these weapons, but would turn round and do something different if they had the in formation that the British House of Commons had decided to manufacture the hydrogen weapon in this country?

The new Clause does not ask for a blueprint of the machine to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It asks that the decision should be taken by the people's representatives.

On the other hand, let us assume that we did make these weapons in secret. Does anyone think that we would use them in any surprise attack on others? Would their secrecy be of any value to us in any attack we might plan? Alternatively, does anyone else think that we would have the ability to use them after a surprise attack had been made on us? On any conservative estimate five of these weapons detonated over the United Kingdom would have the result that such human beings as were not mercifully destroyed would either die from the disease spread by unburied bodies or go mad in contemplation of the failure of human kind. There can be no question, therefore, of having the ability to launch counter-attacks as a reprisal for those made against us.

4.0 p.m.

But supposing this work were carried on under cover of secrecy, security rules, interrogations, screenings and all the rest of it, do we really suppose that even if innocent Members of Parliament, representatives of the people, were unaware of what was going on the enemy would be equally ignorant? Security so far has done more harm than good. At the Quebec Conference, about which so much was said recently, the late President Roosevelt suggested to the present Prime Minister that as Russia was, after all, our ally she might be told that this new atomic weapon was in the course of development. The Prime Minister, as I understand it, very energetically opposed such a disclosure. He was all for security. This was going to be the top secret of all top secret information.

Ultimately the two leaders met round the table with their Russian ally, "the gallant warrior, Stalin," as the Prime Minister used to refer to him. Not a word was said about the atomic bomb, but Stalin knew all the time as they sat there facing each other because Klaus Fuchs had already told him. I wonder what we gained from that incident of secrecy. I wonder how far that helped to establish mutual confidence, which we so sorely lacked at the end of the last war.

The point I want to make is that security in these matters has proved ineffective and it is fast becoming a habit-forming drug. It has destroyed more than it protects. It increases tension abroad and, worse still, it undermines social relationships at home. One of the factors which Parliament would need to take into account, if it had the opportunity of deciding policy in this field, would be the extent to which fear, suspicion and apprehension, which necessarily surround the manufacture of these weapons, and 'the consequent loss to the moral tone and purpose of society, would offset any allegedly military advantage which the destructive power might confer. Let us make no mistake about this. McCarthyism and all it stands for flourishes in the unhealthy, overheated atmosphere which possession of these weapons helps to engender.

It is claimed that these weapons will ensure caution of action between the Powers. In practice, they stimulate intolerance and a bullying mentality. These weapons make inevitable a Pearl Harbour strategy. The very term "security risk" is a product of the atomic age.

Let us consider for a moment the position before and during the Second World War. In those days the sabre rattling was done by the Fascists and Nazis. It was Hitler who boasted about secret terror weapons. Although we were slow in building up physical defences, there was a gradual build-up all the time of our moral strength. That was eventually to prove of immense physical value. It was the feeling of freedom which attracted the flow of scientists to the West and especially the New World. It was those refugees to freedom who really made possible the scientific advance that took place.

It is interesting to consider some of the names of those scientists, if I may, Mr. Speaker. As I see your eye upon me, I should add that I am going to relate this to the fact that in my view these scientists would be to some extent appeased if they knew that this decision would be made only after deliberation in Parliament rather than as the result of executive action. That is the argument that I am making, and I am saying that the physical power which was built up in the United States during the war was to a large extent due to the fact that in the early days there were these men who fled from countries where it was difficult for them to express freely what they thought, especially in the matter of political affairs.

Who were these people? I see that besides the British, French, Australian and Canadian teams there were men like Fermi—Italian; Teller, Neuman, Szilard—Hungarian; Hahn, Strassmann, Bethe—German; and others like Peirls, Meitner, Fritsch, Fischer, now working here; and there are many others, who were making it possible to speed that physical development which we saw during the war. There was, of course, the great Einstein himself who honoured the U.S.A. by seeking to become a citizen in what he thought was an enlightened, liberal atmosphere.

The question I now ask is whether, despite the immense material power which these new weapons bestow upon that nation as well as of the military strength, men of genius still look to that country as they used to do as the bright land of freedom. I heard it rather bitterly remarked when Charles Chaplin came back to Europe, that he was "the first refugee arriving back." It is my view—and this is the point—that these weapons engender this spirit of in tolerance. We may conceivably gain something by their manufacture in what we might call "fire power," but we should lose something infinitely more valuable—socially, politically, spiritually, call it what you will. That is one reason why I think the decision to manufacture this bomb should properly be made by Parliament and not by some secret executive direction.

But if any Member prefers to think in terms of material strength, let me say that in the long run—and not so long—we should gain if we settled these questions in the clear light of Parliamentary debate. It is no coincidence that the American governmental machine has now been turned upon Dr. Oppenheimer, the one American-born scientist who did more than any other to establish this lead in nuclear science. It is relevant to consider what the charge is. The "New York Herald-Tribune" in reporting that the President had directed that

"Dr. Robert J. Oppenheimer be stripped of access to atomic and hydrogen bomb secrets on the basis"—

I think the hon. Member is going wide of the new Clause, which, after all, is confined to the simple proposition that this Authority shall not manufacture the hydrogen bomb without the approval of this House by resolution. I cannot see how these extraneous matters assist his argument in any way.

If I could continue the quotation, Mr. Speaker, you will see that there is a reference to the manufacture of these weapons, and I submit it is of great relevance as I am assured that some scientists would be reassured if they knew that this decision instead of being made under executive secret direction, were made by the democratic decision of the House of Commons. I would, with respect, ask you to give me permission to quote the second part of this short report from the "New York Herald-Tribune," which went on to say:

"The basic charge against Dr. Oppenheimer is that he strongly opposed the development of a hydrogen bomb in l949 and continued his opposition even after it was decided to go ahead with the project."

It would, of course, be wrong to comment on that case, but I think it right to say that it would be very strange indeed if any scientist of any sensitivity at all did not express some doubts about the instruction that had been given to him. If scientists are to be given these directions in secret by the Executive to proceed with work of this kind we shall either brutalise those we employ or end up by employing second or third-rate scientists. In either case the outlook for science and scientists is not a happy one.

I wonder whether I may take another illustration from the United States. I am sorry to draw my illustrations from that country, but it is not for the purpose of attacking the U.S.A. I know that the position is probably even worse on the other side of the Iron Curtain. But I am able to get references from the United States. We are able to draw upon them for an illustration of the sort of atmosphere which, I think, would develop in this country if secretly we were to under take the kind of work which this Bill makes possible.

A book was recently published under the title of "The Secret War for the A Bomb," which purports to prove that the first bombs in the U.S.S.R. were entirely made of components smuggled out of the U.S.A. by treacherous scientists. Apparently the author rests his case largely on the acts of espionage by Alan Nunn May, Klaus Fuchs, David Green-glass, Harry Gold and Julius Rosenberg, and also on the fact that the atomic scientists who helped to manufacture the original weapon were opposed to its use on Japan.

The point I am making here is that if we have a situation in which suspicion and doubt are cast upon all those upon whom we are dependent for the manufacture of weapons which we think are going to give us security, surely, there is some thing wrong. Am I not right in claiming that undue secrecy in this field will ultimately poison the roots of the nation's scientific inspiration?

I make one final point. It is said, hopefully—pathetically hopefully, I think, sometimes—that the existence of these weapons means the end of major war. If that is to be true, there must be negotiations, discussions—the kind of discussions for which this House called on 5th April. One nation will have to take the lead in all such discussions. It will have to create the necessary atmosphere.

Britain could take that lead. How much stronger would be our moral position if it could be said that Britain had refused blindly and secretly to go ahead and build these instruments of extinction; if we could show the world that we were not satisfied with the old phrases about governmental responsibility when the whole existence of the human race is at stake; if we did not accept the arguments about national security when we know that there is no security in the face of these weapons; if it could be said that we could not accept the plea that is put forward that the bigger the decision the smaller should be the number of people called upon to make it.

May I make my own position quite clear? I accept the truth of the plain, straightforward, unequivocal statement made by the Bishop of Chichester that the hydrogen bomb is a sin. I am therefore against having anything at all to do with its manufacture. There may be others among my hon. Friends who take a different view—

Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene? This is most important. Does he differentiate between the hydrogen bomb and the atomic bomb in regard to this?

It could be argued by people of higher moral stature than I claim to be that it is wrong to kill on any grounds by any weapon. That can be argued, but I do not claim to be as morally good as that. When faced with this weapon—and I went to some length earlier in my remarks to show how different this weapon is from all others—I think that we have to face an entirely different problem, and, in answering that question, I give an answer different from that which I might have given in the case of the earlier weapons.

I believe that this new bomb, on the evidence of scientists rationally and quietly given, can put an end to human life on this planet, and, therefore, I am against its manufacture. But, as I was saying, I recognise that there may be colleagues of mine who take a different view. There may be other colleagues of mine who have not yet decided which view they will take, and, therefore I say that, as a genuine, adult and mature democracy, we should at least grant to ourselves the right to discuss this matter and to pass opinion upon it. That is what this new Clause seeks, and I hope it will be accepted.

4.l5 p.m.

I beg to second the Motion.

I think I can do so very shortly, in view of the very able and detailed speech to which we have just listened from my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick). It is relevant to point out the very curious way in which this question of the hydrogen bomb has arisen in connection with this Bill. The Bill was introduced in February, and it had its Second Reading debate on 1st March. I think I am right in saying that, through out the Second Reading debate, there was no reference whatever to the hydrogen bomb, and that it was only at a later stage—late during the Committee stage of the Bill—that any reference at all was made to the hydrogen bomb.

When this Bill was first introduced, the Minister said that we were dealing with a matter of very great importance, and he argued the case for the Bill as a matter of administrative convenience. He recognised that atomic energy was a vitally important national matter, and that it was capable of being used both for war-like purposes and for peaceful purposes.

It was only some weeks after this Bill was introduced into this House that it dawned on the nation for the first time what are the immensely evil potentialities of the hydrogen bomb. A month or two ago, the nation was hardly aware of the dangers of the hydrogen bomb. It was the news of the thermo-nuclear explosion in the Pacific at the beginning of March that brought about in this country for the first time a realisation of the dreadful possibilities that are inherent in the manufacture and explosion of hydrogen bombs.

Therefore, I hope the Government will realise that it is a perfectly normal and sensible proposal that we are making from these benches that no hydrogen bomb should be produced or manufactured in this country, that there should be no experiments with hydrogen bombs or other thermo-nuclear explosions, un-less and until the whole question of their desirability or otherwise, their usefulness or otherwise, has been argued out and debated in this House.

It would be a tragic misfortune, apart from being thoroughly undemocratic, if, almost casually and by a side wind, as it were, the Government of the day, with-out reference to Parliamentary opinion, without reference to public opinion, were given the authority, under the terms of this Bill, to embark upon the manufacture of engines of destruction which, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, may well be fatal, not only for civilisation in this country, but for civilisation in the whole world and possibly for the human race itself. That is the issue with which we are dealing today.

May I draw attention to this fact, which is relevant to the whole purpose of the Bill? The object of the Bill is to transfer from the Government to an independent authority the whole apparatus of the power to deal with nuclear energy. Whereas atomic energy can be used either for warlike purposes or for pacific, utilitarian and industrial purposes, and whereas it will always be a major concern and responsibility of any Government of the day to decide how much expenditure and how much effort should be put into using atomic energy for peaceful, as distinct from warlike, purposes, one of the significant facts about the hydrogen bomb, as distinct from the atom bomb, is that it can never in any possible circumstances serve any useful purpose at all, but is purely and entirely destructive.

Atomic energy can be a great boon and a great blessing to mankind if properly used. Atomic weapons, unfortunately, are now spread amongst the various countries of the world, and, in the words of the Prime Minister himself, are almost becoming conventional weapons, as compared with the hydrogen bomb. The hydrogen bomb is a purely military conception; the manufacture of such bombs, the expenditure on their production and on any experiments with them can only be for warlike and destructive purposes.

This is a very important subject. Surely, the hon. Gentleman is becoming rather fantastic in the claim he is now making? Thermo-nuclear reactions in future may well be found to have other uses than destructive ones.

The right hon. Gentle man may have an opportunity of intervening in the debate, but if he sets out to say that he will be flying in the face of all the scientific opinion on the subject.

I am refusing to prophesy, but I am sure that no scientist of any authority ventures to prophesy for all time in this matter.

May I ask the Minister if he accepts the view put forward by his right hon. Friend, because on the Committee stage he disassociated himself from that view?

Perhaps I could answer this point. Of course the hydrogen bomb is really only an arrangement in another form of more or less the same materials. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am afraid it is so; I wish it was not. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am sorry, but the House must believe me or not. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) must remember that the experience gained by the explosion of the hydrogen bomb may one day have industrial application. That is quite possible, but I cannot prophesy about it.

We are not now in Committee.

To carry this particular issue very much further would lead us into a wide scientific discussion. All the Minister has just said is that one may not be able to exclude the possibility that one day the explosion of hydrogen bombs may have some useful application. Hitherto it has been stated, or assumed, in all the literature on the subject which I have seen that the distinctive significance of the hydrogen bomb is that it is purely destructive. Obviously, atomic energy can have two forms. Once an atomic reactor is produced and is operating it is a matter for decision whether it should be used for industrial purposes or turned into the production of atomic bombs. What the Minister probably means is that there has to be an atomic bomb before there can be a hydrogen bomb, and that a hydrogen bomb could never be exploded without an atomic bomb having been produced to set off the energy released under the hydrogen cover or the cobalt cover, or whatever later refinement comes to be invented. But by no possible stretch of the imagination could hydrogen or cobalt bombs be produced for any useful purpose.

rose—

I do not want to take up the time of the House too long. I should like to come back to what I was saying. The relevance of the hydrogen bomb, in relation to the atom bomb, could not have been better stated than it was by the Prime Minister in the debate in this House on 5th April, and there was nothing in his very unfortunate speech on that day which impressed me more than his words on this subject. He said:

"… we must realise that the gulf between the conventionial high explosive bomb in use at the end of the war with Germany on the one hand, and the atomic bomb used against Japan on the other, is smaller than the gulf developing between that bomb and the hydrogen bomb."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, l954; Vol. 526, c. 47.]

That gives the measure of the distinction in degree, effect and destructive power of the new hydrogen bomb, of which this nation has suddenly become conscious, compared with the atomic bomb. That is why those who put forward this new Clause are saying, to reduce it to its simplest terms, surely the decision to produce such bombs ought to be taken after careful, serious and sustained debate in this House and ought not to be left, I will not say to the capricious decision, but to the secret, unknown decision of those who will be in authority if this Clause is not accepted. I have the greatest respect for Sir Edwin Plowden and his associates, but some of us have less respect for the Lord President of the Council and his associates, and we are here dealing with a matter of literally vital concern to the nation.

I do not want to elaborate the military argument adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge. We cannot do anything about the production—as far as I can see—of the hydrogen bomb either by America or Russia. They are going to make them. We are in the middle. I do not know whether, as a military matter, if war were to break out between America and Russia, which God forbid, and they were both to use the hydrogen bombs, it is suggested that we should be safer in this island if we had a stock of hydrogen bombs. That proposition has only to be stated to answer itself.

Is it thought that by manufacturing hydrogen bombs we are going to have something in our arsenal which will be a deterrent or will protect us in a war between America and Russia? They may have stocks of hydrogen bombs which might be a deterrent one against the other, but it is obvious that if those two great nations start fighting and using hydrogen bombs, it is impossible to find words adequate to describe the situation in which we shall find ourselves. I am not now arguing whether hydrogen bombs should be produced or not. I have my own views about it, but that is not the issue today.

The only question in a new Clause is whether this important decision should be taken in this casual way. There are all kinds of arguments on both sides, but I shall not enter into them because they are not relevant today. I am convinced that if there were such a war and hydrogen bombs were used it would probably mean the end of civilisation. I am not now arguing whether the end of civilisation would be a good thing or a bad thing. It is almost universally assumed that it would be a bad thing.

But in this context one has to remember that there have for centuries been certain schools of thought which have not accepted the view that the end of the world is a necessary evil. Christian theology for 20 centuries has always anticipated that the end of the world would come, and has certainly not regarded it as something to be afraid of. The ways of the Deity are inscrutable. What Providence holds out for the human race we do not know. All we know is that as a result of scientific discoveries in recent days there has now been put into the hands of man the means of bringing about, if not the total destruction, at least certain wide spread destruction of civilisation and the human race.

We all pray that no irresponsible decision will be taken in any quarter of the globe which will produce that catastrophe. So far as we have responsibility here for preserving the peace of the world, we must continue to do everything we can by our example and influence to ensure that our own record is clean. A petition against the hydrogen bomb is being signed now by millions of people in this island. I think it is most urgent on this occasion that we should press on the Government the importance of not allowing ourselves to slide into conditions in which we shall wake up in a year's time to find that the Government have been producing hydrogen bombs. It will be no use producing them unless they can experiment with them. Where will they make those experiments; in the Atlantic or the Pacific? Will they do it in secret? On what scale are they to do it? These are terrible decisions for the Government of the day to take, and it baffles me to think they want to take them without the full confidence of the House.

4.30 p.m.

I have never been an advocate of the mandate theory in its extreme form. I think there are limitations on the arguments drawn from the mandate, but I am sure the Government have no mandate from the electorate of this country to produce hydrogen bombs, which may well precipitate the end of civilisation. After all, there must be some limitation on the powers given by Parliamentary democracy to the Government of the day. All we are asking for is an opportunity to ensure that these decisions, if they are to be taken, shall be taken in the full light of day by a responsible Government, by a Parliament with responsibility to its electors. We should not allow ourselves by this Bill, which deals primarily with administration, to put into the hands of the Government of the day, unknown to Parliament and the country, the power to embark with other nations on the manufacture and production of this deadly engine of destruction.

I do not think that die House will complain at all that two hon. Members have seized a corner of this Bill in order to stage a debate on the hydrogen bomb. I think that most people are confused about this subject, and I doubt whether any hon. Member can see his way clearly in the matter. Nevertheless, though this is a second debate on the subject in recent days, it does not come amiss, because in discussing this matter we can perhaps help to clear each other's minds and in so doing help to clarify the situation in the country.

We must, however, recognise that this debate is taking place on the Bill and we must consider the effect of adding this proposed new Clause to the Bill. It seems to me that however we look at it, there are very considerable objections to this new Clause. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) said that it was a normal and sensible new Clause. It does not seem to me to be either. It is not sensible because it excludes various weapons which could be even more devastating than the hydrogen bomb. It excludes, for example, quite a small atom bomb fired from a cannon, but one which has a cobalt casing.

We have been told in recent days that the danger of the cobalt bomb can be far greater than that of the hydrogen bomb. Moreover, this new Clause does not deal with atom bombs as such in the sense that it would require the Government to apply to this House before further atom bombs are made. Therefore, it is not an all-inclusive Clause, and fails upon those grounds.

Neither is the Clause a normal Clause, as the hon. Member for Islington, East described it. It fails on constitutional grounds. The rights of this House extend to finance and not to specific items of defence expenditure. It would be establishing an entirely new precedent if we were to try to abolish the right of the Executive to produce the latest weapons of war. Having voted the funds which it is considered this country will stand for the purpose of defence, it is constitutionally correct for the Executive to decide what weapon should be developed.

Is it not the case that Parliament has the power to limit the duration of the period of conscription, and are our troops not an instrument of war? If we have that power in a specific case, why should we not have it in this specific case?

We certainly vote the effectives annually, but it would be a constitutional innovation if this House were to decide what weapons the Armed Forces of the Crown should have.

What about the debate on the Belgian rifle? We may have different views on these subjects, but there is no constitutional reason why we should not debate that in this House.

It is by no means unconstitutional to have a debate on any topic in the world. We are having one now on the hydrogen bomb, but it would be unconstitutional if, in the course of the debate on the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, an Amendment were moved to forbid or require the use of the Belgian rifle or any other weapon.

I want now to come to a slightly wider point. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) said that Britain must take the lead at international conferences, and the suggestion was that we would take a more effective lead in trying to get the hydrogen bomb suppressed if we did not have that bomb. I cannot believe that. I cannot believe that any nation in the world, crawling on its knees, with its hands held out in supplication to an international conference, will be respected or have its policies acted upon.

On those grounds alone, I think that if we are to achieve an all-round settlement of these vast topics and get the atom bomb or the hydrogen bomb or the cobalt bomb excluded from the armed preparations of nations, we can do it more effectively if we have possession of the very weapons which we desire should be subjected to multilateral disarmament.

For my part, I do not believe that the world should be disarmed of these weapons. The truth is that the House has not made up its mind whether the hydrogen bomb or the cobalt bomb is a protection or a menace. I think that in general hon. Members opposite still consider it to be a menace. That, at any rates, was the purport of the debate which they staged the other day.

It was the Resolution of the House.

Indeed, it was the Resolution of the House, which was not fully endorsed on this side by argument, albeit, that it was, in fact, carried by the House. It enshrined the idea that the hydrogen bomb was a menace. Since then, however, a number of people have begun to think otherwise. Air Marshal Sir John Slessor, lately Chief of the Air Staff, has so expressed himself on more than one occasion. The Prime Minister last night at the Royal Academy dinner seemed to me to express himself in those terms. In my own humble view, those people and many others, who have so expressed them selves, are more correct in their thinking than was the general first reaction of our people when the news was broken.

If this bomb is a protection, if under the awful canopy of the hydrogen bomb nations are going to maintain peace, does not that demand that, so far as our slender resources permit, we also should be responsible for bearing that canopy aloft? Does that not mean that the more responsible and powerful nations of the world have this terrible weapon, the greater the general protection is to mankind?

I should have thought that it would be most foolish indeed on the grounds of high public policy, of maintaining peace, of giving a strong thrust to our foreign policy, if Her Majesty's Government were to refuse to manufacture this weapon. I say that subject always to the view. which I have maintained for years past, that any military activity must be conducted in conformity with a general rising standard of living. Otherwise we admit through the back door the enemy that we are trying to fight overseas. Within those resources, if it can be done, on the highest political grounds, and also on moral and religious grounds, I maintain that this country has as much right to manufacture the hydrogen bomb as has any other nation in the world.

I think we have all a common purpose when we discuss this question—we do not want people to drop hydrogen bombs; least of all do we want them to drop hydrogen bombs here. As to whether this proposal is designed to further that purpose, however, we may have very different opinions. It is a proposal put forward by two of my hon. Friends. It cuts across party. Indeed, it seems, as the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) has demonstrated, to cut not only across party but across what the popular Press refers to as the Bevan group, to which the noble Lord is believed to adhere. We have these differences and divisions upon this question of great public importance.

This is a bad proposal, for a variety of reasons; first, because it is an emotional proposal, and an emotional reaction is seldom the best way of meeting a danger. That it is an emotional proposal was demonstrated in the eloquent speeches of both the proposer and seconder of the new Clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) referred to the expectations of the Christian theology of the end of the world. I take second place to nobody in my admiration and respect for the power of this House, but I do not really think that a new Clause to postpone or abolish the end of the world is likely to prove effective.

My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) said, in a desire which I think we all feel to see the use of this weapon prohibited or prevented for all of us, that we should be in a stronger position if we did not possess it. Surely that is a remarkable proposal. I should have thought that at any disarmament conference the people who have not got tanks would be in favour of abolishing tanks and the people who have not got aeroplanes would be in favour of abolishing aeroplanes, but that their views would not be very effective against those who have tanks and aeroplanes.

If one seeks to abolish something, surely one will carry more weight if one is in a position to give up whatever it is one wants to abolish than if one is not. That is a very important aspect in regard to this proposal if we are to have an effective voice in the control of this weapon. We shall not have that voice unless we have the weapon. I shall revert to that point in a few moments.

There is the point which the noble Lord put that if the Government are responsible for defence, the decision as to what weapons are necessary for defence must be a decision of the Government. It really is a constitutional monstrosity to say that the Government shall be hamstrung by the necessity to obtain Resolutions from two Houses as to the weapons they require to defend the country. It is certainly something entirely new within any concept of democracy that I know.

It is a new weapon.

4.45 p.m.

Another point to be made here, which I think was the point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge gave almost the greatest importance, was the security consideration. He said that security is probably mischievous and certainly ineffective with regard to atomic weapons. That may or may not be so. It is not awfully important if security fails and the other side knows what one is getting; it is probably much more dangerous if the other side knows what one has not got; and that is precisely the form of security to which this proposal would be absolutely fatal, because for the Government to come to the House for a Resolution would be an announcement to the world and to the enemy, "We have not got this weapon, we shall not have it for years and you need not be frightened of us." That seems to me to be a very dangerous thing to do.

After all, what is our defence and our security? Does anybody seriously imagine that we can protect ourselves against the modern aeroplane by antiaircraft fire? Does anybody suggest that at the pace and height at which they fly modern aircraft will be intercepted by fighter aircraft, except on the rarest occasions? The Americans have said that with the far greater warning which they have from their radar screen in the Arctic they might, if the enemy came in daylight, in fair weather, be able with their scheme of defence, to stop l5 per cent, of the enemy aircraft. We should not have a hope of stopping anything like that percentage.

So far as homing missiles are concerned, surely the scientific task of diverting them is infinitely easier than the task of bringing them on to their target, so that as a means of defence the homing missile is a slender hope indeed. There is not the slightest possibility of preventing an enemy who intends to deliver atomic bombs or hydrogen bombs on this island from doing so, and such bombs will be totally and completely destructive to civilisation in this island.

What, then, is our defence? That those who can deliver the weapon without fear of retaliation will do so was demonstrated by the Americans in Japan.

I am trying to understand my hon. and learned Friend's remarks. Is he saying that we on this island having been totally destroyed, we are then going to retaliate?

Certainly, that is the point I am coming to—the effect of the absolutely certain knowledge that, whatever else the enemy can destroy, they cannot destroy our power to retaliate. It can be summarised by saying that our power of defence is the bee's power of defence: it is our sting, a sting which, if we are forced to deliver it, will kill us, as its sting kills the bee. Nevertheless the possession of that sting provides, I believe, a highly effective means of security.

I now turn to the other point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge when he said that by attacking this island retaliation could be prevented. The hydrogen bomb and the atomic bomb are something against which general protection cannot be provided, but they are something against which one can provide entirely effective particular protection.

It is the duty of those who are responsible for the defence of this island to let it be known that our bombers, our guided missiles—or whatever it be which would deliver our sting were we forced to do it—are in a position where an attempt to anticipate and prevent retaliation cannot damage them and that, whatever other damage may be done to this island, our power to retaliate will be protected.

That is, I think, the essential and the only effective defence available today—the certainty in anyone's mind, "If you use this weapon, then without doubt or peradventure, you will suffer from this weapon." The certainty that murder also means suicide provides humanity with the very best hope of maintaining peace which the world has yet seen.

Professor Blackett pointed out a few weeks ago in a most able article in the "New Statesman" that it does not really matter who has the most atomic weapons or hydrogen weapons. It is worth nobody's while to accept the injury even from a lesser supply of atomic weapons. No one has yet started a war unless they thought they could get away with it with minor injuries. No one today can start a major war without the certainty that they will themselves suffer appalling and terrible injuries.

Unilateral disarmament, which is the essence of this proposal, will not help us. "Constitutional monstrosity" is really not right—what is really intended here is that we should not have this weapon. To deny oneself the most effective weapons is to accept unilateral disarmament. It will require skill, patience and resolution to organise the world so that this insane mistake is not made by anyone.

If we, as the most experienced of the nations, are to have an effective voice, it will be because we possess the weapons which the others have, that in terms of power and armament we are in a position to attack, and can speak as people who have something to give up in any limitation of armaments or any reduction or abolition of them. I believe that this proposed new Clause is misguided, and that it would injure our safety and not promote it. I hope my hon. Friends will not press it to a Division. If they do, I shall certainly consider it my duty to vote against it.

I agree with practically everything the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has said. I should like to take one of his arguments a step further and link it with the argument of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) when he spoke of the atom bomb being a sin. Although I am not going to argue the matter with learned bishops, I do not think the hon. Member has the matter right. Surely the sin is the will to wage war, and it is that which we have to attack.

The hon. and learned Member for Northampton said that for the first time in history we have produced something which will kill the will to wage war. For the first time in 6,000 years it is possible to say that anyone who starts a war will definitely not get any benefit from it. One can look back to all the wars in history—and to the latest war. Hitler started that because he thought he would get an advantage. Every argument this afternoon has shown that it is almost suicidal destruction for any Power, whichever it may be, to start a major war at the present time.

Therefore, it seems to me that for the first time we are able to attack the sin of the will to wage war. It is now for the churches and for those who deal in theology to go on to preach the virtues of universal peace. The one does not prevent the other. Against the sin to wage war we have a deterrent through fear and that, though not the best, is something. No one has suggested that a deterrent through fear is, in itself, a bad thing.

I suggest that the arguments which we have had from the hon. Member for Uxbridge and from his friend the hon.

Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) are misconceived. They appear to assume that some major Power may use these bombs in the future. If their argument is to carry weight, they have to convince not only the House but the country that there is a practical likelihood of either the United States, this country or the Soviet Union using one of these enormous weapons. They are, indeed, enormous weapons. They can only be produced on the most vast scale of power, energy and money. They cannot be produced without it being known. In those facts lies the greatest safeguard. I believe that the people in this world will now realise that the Governments will not use it.

rose—

I believe the hon. Member was trying to draw a distinction between the hydrogen and the atomic bombs—

The point I wished to make was that I remember the hon. Gentleman himself wanting to use the atomic bomb.

I was wanting the United Nations to prevent war and the spread of war in Korea by the threat of the use of that weapon. The hon. Member can look up my words. I said that there should be a threat from the United Nations—which had just been considering the matter—to use that weapon. It is the very conception of the threat which I am trying to impress upon the House this afternoon. It is because of that threat that I believe we shall not again be involved in such an outbreak.

I want to come to the distinction between the hydrogen and the atomic bombs which the hon. Member for Islington, East tried to draw. I do not think such a distinction can be made. As I understand it, the atom bomb is the explosion of uranium; the hydrogen bomb is merely the atomic explosion of uranium and hydrogen, with which one may explode other materials such as cobalt and the rest. The principle cannot in any way be divided. It is wrong for anyone to think one type of atomic development can be banned and not another. If the hon. Member for Uxbridge would be consistent he must deal not only with the atom bomb but with all forms of nuclear reaction. I do not believe that at this stage that is a practical suggestion.

We come to the final point raised by the hon. Member—discussion in this House. I believe that the production of this weapon by Her Majesty's Government is a necessity. That was also the view of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton. Hon. Members will remember that the Labour Government produced the atomic weapon without any announcement to this House. Personally. I believe that in that they were wrong. I think that when they had gone as far as they had they should have made such an announcement. I do not believe we should say," We are about to make such a weapon," but that when we have gone a long way towards making it an announcement should be made. I put this point to the Foreign Secretary in a recent debate, and I put it to the Minister of Works today, that as soon as the Government are in a position to make a statement upon this matter they should do so

5.0 p.m.

The hon. Gentleman is wrong on a matter of fact, and I am sure he would like to be corrected. The Labour Government did announce, through the Minister of Defence at the time, that they were proceeding to make an atomic bomb.

I am obliged for that correction. The fact had not been brought to my notice. It was not generally known. That may not have been the fault of the late Government, but that fact was not generally known. I believe it should have been generally known.

I do not think the new Clause would produce the effect that the hon. Member suggested. Announcements can be made in this House and discussions held here on this subject and notice taken of them without the new Clause. I suggest that the hon. Member withdraws it. Nevertheless, he has raised a vital subject, one which must be discussed in the House, one from which we must not run away, one by which we must not be frightened, and I believe we can move into an era when we are likely to maintain a more stable peace than any yet achieved in the history of this world.

It seems to me that the hon. Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) is making the mistake which has been made by. for example, the Prime Minister, in believing that the existence of the hydrogen bomb is a deterrent to war. What is going on at Dien Bien Phu is a proof that it is not. If it is a deterrent to anything, it is a deterrent to the use of such bombs.

We really must make a distinction in this matter between what is internal insurrection and aggression across a national frontier.

If the atomic bomb was not an adequate deterrent to aggression in Korea, it is very unlikely that the hydrogen bomb as such is likely to be in itself an adequate deterrent to similar local aggression in some other part of the world, and we all know by bitter experience how possible it is for a local aggression to develop into a world war. That is one of the problems we face now in Indo-China.

The problem worrying me about the Clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) is what it means. We all of us agree that the hydrogen bomb is a terrible weapon, and we all devoutly hope it will never be used by any Government on earth. The question we have to discuss is whether the new Clause will help to prevent a hydrogen bomb from being used. The new Clause refers, quite properly, simply to the production by Britain of a hydrogen bomb. Clearly, the Clause cannot affect the production by other countries of hydrogen bombs. We know that at least two great Powers, the Soviet Union and the United States of America, are already producing hydrogen bombs, in, perhaps, large numbers, and we heard this week from Mr. Malenkov and Mr. Kruschev, I think it was, that the Soviet Union at least will have no scruple in using this weapon should another war occur. My hon. Friend had something to say about the effect of the Clause on the Soviet attitude.

The Russians did not say they would have no scruple in using the bomb but that if it were used against them they might use it in retaliation.

Mr. Malenkov said that, but the other speaker—I forget who it was, whether it was Mr. Kruschev or one of the other people—did not make that distinction clear. [HoN. MEMBERS: "He did."] My hon. Friend had something to say about the Russian attitude towards this Clause. He said Russia would not be influenced one way or the other by the fact that Britain had or had not possession of a hydrogen bomb of her own, and I think that probably he is right in saying that, within certain limits that I shall come to later. He also said, and may be right in saying, that Russia will know whether or not we have the hydrogen bomb whether we announced it in Parliament or not. Certainly he was right in this respect so far as the atomic bomb was concerned. So I think the one thing we can be clear about is that this Clause as drafted is not likely to affect in any way, on its proposer's argument, the attitude of the Russians on this question.

My hon. Friend also referred to America several times. He had a great deal to say which was extremely interesting and with which most of us, I think, will agree about the effects of the American production of hydrogen bombs on civil liberties in the United States; he cited the case of Professor Oppenheimer. But all he said in that respect was completely irrelevant to this Clause, because the Americans publicly decided they were going to produce the hydrogen bomb. The decision was taken in public and debated in the Congress of the United States in l950.

It is fairly certain that the Russians decided to produce the hydrogen bomb not only in secret—that is certain—but also before the Americans decided to pro duce the hydrogen bomb. At any rate, we do know that the Russians exploded their first hydrogen bomb before the Americans produced their first hydrogen bomb, because the explosion that took place at Eniwetok—I think it was—in l950 was not of a bomb but of a device which was quite incapable of use in warfare. So it seems to me that the likely behaviour of the two countries that now possess the hydrogen bomb, as far as the Clause is concerned, is largely irrelevant on my hon. Friend's own arguments.

My hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), who seconded, made it quite clear that they were opposed not so much to the production of a hydrogen bomb without Parliament's consent but to the production of a hydrogen bomb by Britain at all, and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge produced some arguments to support this thesis that the possibility of the use of the hydrogen bomb in war would be favourably affected by Britain's refusal to produce the hydrogen bomb.

The first argument which was used was that if Britain abstains from producing the hydrogen bomb we shall influence the United States and the Soviet Union to accept a form of atomic disarmament. I think my hon. Friend himself in his argument pointed out that our possession of the bomb would not one way or the other affect the Soviet Union. As far as America is concerned, she made it clear eight years ago that she was prepared to accept international atomic disarmament. It has always been the Russians who have made the problem in this respect.

So far as our behaviour is likely one way or another to affect the position, I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who said that a country with the hydrogen bomb or any other weapon is likely to be influenced only by the policy of another country which possesses that weapon. Indeed, it seems to me quite clear from the statements of the Soviet leaders this week that the reason why the Soviet Union did not agree to internationally controlled atomic disarmament at the time when she did not possess any atomic weapons was that she prefers the deterrent of mutual terror to international control and inspection which is the only alternative.

In other words, Russia believes that her own possession of this terrible weapon is a more effective or, let us say, a less risky deterrent to the use of these weapons against her by other countries than any form of international disarmament, which implies effective inspection and control. That is the reason why Russia went ahead with the production of these weapons herself at the time when the only country then possessing those weapons was quite prepared to surrender them to an international atomic authority.

If my hon. Friend were a Russian, according to his argument, would he be in favour of the adoption of the hydrogen bomb by Russia?

If I were a Russian I should not be a supporter of the present regime, and I believe my own position would be against developing the hydrogen bomb and in favour of co-operation with other countries. I believe that that is the view that is shared by the overwhelming majority of the Russians, as would be proved if they got a chance to express their opinions in free elections.

We must face the fact—and I say this with no pleasure at all—that whether it is desirable or not, the only effective guarantee against the use of these terrible weapons in the future will be, as the Prime Minister, my hon. Friends and many other speakers have said to day and in the past, the possession by both possible contenders of the weapons.

In other words, the certainty of retaliation may be an effective guarantee against the use of these weapons in the first instance. It certainly is not l00 per cent, effective as a guarantee, and a peace which depends on a balance of mutual terror is certain to be a very dangerous peace; but there is no historical evidence to suggest that the Soviet Union is at present prepared to accept the only alternative, which is atomic disarmament by an effective system of international control, inspection and management.

If this is so in practice, how does it affect our own possession of these weapons? I suggest that if the only deterrent against the use of these weapons is the possession of them by the country which might be attacked by the aggressor, then in that case it is essential that we ourselves should possess them. If we do not do so, we must surrender to a Soviet threat to use the weapons against us, unless we are allied with another country which has the weapons.

If we do not have this weapon ourselves, we are l00 per cent, committed to an alliance with another country which has it. The one thing which I cannot understand is how some of my hon. Friends who are in favour of breaking the alliance with the United States—in certain circumstances—should support a Clause which in effect means denying us the possibility of breaking that alliance. If we want to preserve any possibility whatever for ourselves, in a crisis, of breaking with the United States —and although, as is known, I am a supporter of the Anglo-American alliance, I believe that we must preserve this right if we are to operate effectively as a partner within it—then clearly we must have the hydrogen bomb ourselves. For this reason, it seems to me that, although in the Clause as drafted there is nothing with which I could disagree—although it may contradict the behaviour of the Labour Government some years ago in the case of the atom bomb—it is quite clear from the arguments used by the supporters of the Clause that it is intended to imply disagreement with the British production of hydrogen bombs.

No.

The justification for my saying that is that the proposer of the Motion, in his speech moving it, made it quite clear that he was opposed to Britain producing these weapons. He gave his reasons for that. The proposer of a Motion has no right to put personal views forward in proposing the Motion. If my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge had chosen to speak later in the debate, I could have understood it, but I must discuss a Clause in the light of the arguments which are put forward for it, and in those circumstances it seems to me that it would be very difficult for any hon. Member who values the independence of this country in world affairs to vote for the Clause.

5.l5 p.m.

I should like to pick up the last point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Mr. D. Healey). In moving this Motion, with which my name is associated, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) said that this Clause did not affect our right to make a hydrogen bomb if we wished to make one. He went on to say that personally he was opposed to the making of the hydrogen bomb; but we must concern ourselves with the words of the Clause, and we are not saying in the Clause that we in this country should not make a hydrogen bomb.

We are here considering a matter of supreme importance, not only to the British people but to the whole of mankind. It is not necessary to go into any scientific discussion of what constitutes a hydrogen bomb, although I imagine that what makes up a hydrogen bomb is not a matter of great secrecy. The know-how of how to put the ingredients together may be a matter of great secrecy at the moment, but, whatever may be the constitution and how the ingredients are put together, there is no doubt that the hydrogen bomb and its successor, the hydrogen bomb with a cobalt casing, present a horrible threat to the very existence of life on this planet. It would be strange if this threat to human life and to the social communities and the civilisations which the people of this world have built up could develop in such a way that the political democracies themselves had no control over it.

In my opinion, the people of the world will be making a grave mistake—those who can express their opinions and make their own decisions—if they become the helpless victims of a destruction which they cannot control. It is altogether right and proper that here, in a free democratic Parliament, we should seek to bring control of the weapons which the scientists have created, and which can perhaps destroy all human life, into the hands of the people. We ought to do this because in the Bill we are giving final form to that part of the machinery of Government which will control the weapons of mass destruction which may be made in this country. We have to decide not only the form of the machine on which these tasks will devolve but also the limits of Parliamentary control over that machine.

In the circumstances in which atomic research started, there may have been a need for secrecy. It is no use going back over that. In war, things have to be done in secret in this field, and the secrecy continues, but in this Bill we are seeking to continue measures for securing secrecy even though the need for it is obviously less today than it was at the beginning and even though the need for secrecy becomes less and less important as other nations know how to make atomic weapons. Other nations know how to make hydrogen bombs, and no one can say of those nations which are engaged in atomic research, but whose knowledge has not yet reached the stage which the Americans and the Russians and ourselves have reached, how long it will be before they, too, following their own lines of research, will obtain information which is now confined to one or two or three countries. We must ask ourselves how long it will be before this final knowledge of the weapons of mass destruction becomes common knowledge.

It would be unprofitable to try to assess what might have happened to the relations between the nations in the post war era if there had been no secrecy about atomic development and if the Parliaments of the world had openly discussed and decided what their Governments should do. It is well to remember, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) said, that the great principles which ought to guide human behaviour in this matter are simple principles. Those who are motivated by Christian ethics know that that is true.

Equally, our course in this matter ought to be decided by very simple principles. We should ask ourselves these questions. First of all, is there still a need for secrecy in this matter? Are we not making the issue far too complex by trying to set up the apparatus of secrecy which we needed in the past—setting it up again for the new developments which are foreshadowed in the Bill? Are we not creating increasing difficulties for ourselves and making worse the relations between nations, which is a matter of great importance, even perhaps bringing us to the brink of war, by putting on one side principles which ought to guide us in deciding what our relations should be with other democratic nations and the other nations of the world which may be outside the democracies?

I would rather pursue this course: that we ought to bring all atomic development, including the hydrogen bomb, under the control of the United Nations, and we can do this by announcing to the United Nations and all the other nations of the world that we have given up secrecy—that we are going to let every body know how to make these things. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Germans?"] Everybody should know that the only way that we can control this threat to mankind is to see the United Nations dealing with it.

I think that the British people themselves have to decide whether this should be done. I may be wrong. But I think that is how the relations between the nations in this matter ought to be conducted, and I think that the peace of the world would be far better served if we said now that the knowledge which the scientists have created should belong to all mankind, there should be no more secrecy, and the time has come for the ordinary people of the world to decide their own destiny.

I think that we should begin in this British Parliament and announce to the world that this Parliament will from now on decide what the atomic development of this country shall be. I think that a statement of that kind would be of great benefit to the whole world and would serve the peace of the world. It is something that ought to be done here and now in connection with this Bill.

The hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) was talking about the secrets involved and what would happen if we accepted this new Clause. Of course, that would not help anybody else to make a bomb; it would merely give away the information as to whether or not this country was going to make a bomb. I think that is a rather different question. All the hon. Gentlemen who have intervened in this interesting discussion have shown how deeply moved we are about this power to multiply death and disease which has suddenly been revealed.

I think that we all understand what is at the back of this new Clause, namely, we all want to find a way to prevent any atomic bomb from being dropped. That, I think, was brought out by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) among others. Our object is to prevent an atomic war. Would this new Clause assist us to attain that object? I think that is really what the House wants to consider. I do not think that it would.

In the first place, it must have the effect of encouraging a potential enemy to think that this country might shrink from doing what it was necessary to do—to have a bomb to overcome an aggressor. It would be bound to be taken that way by those who possess the bomb already. It is, of course, the most destructive weapon of all of which we now know, but at the same time I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South, (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) pointed out this was only one of a number of very destructive weapons. It is the latest model in the atomic family which is growing in the East and the West, and if we are to see this matter in perspective we have to consider this bomb as part of the arsenal in the defences of our country.

We should remember that while this House every year votes the money and, therefore, has control over the total size of the defence programme, it really must be left to the Government of the day to say how that money is spent as between one weapon and another. Supposing that we accepted the new Clause: it would be bound to give some comfort to a potential enemy because if the Government had to come to the House to seek approval for starting to make this bomb, everybody would know that we had not then got it and there would be a certain period of time before we had it, and, of course, they would take that fact into their military conclusions. One of the oldest principles of war is to keep the enemy guessing.

About what?

About the strength of our defences and the manner in which, if an enemy chose to attack us, we would be able to attack. I am sure that with safety to get rid of this bomb and all atomic weapons we have to get rid of war in all its aspects. It is not possible to isolate one weapon. The object of the mover of this Clause was clearly to stop this country from manufacturing this bomb. That was made perfectly clear by hon. Members opposite, and a number of other hon. Members on the other side made it equally clear that they thought we ought to have this weapon.

Therefore, this is a matter on which the House is divided, and we are now having a discussion on the very fact of whether atomic weapons are useful in our national policy or not. If we can get rid of war in all its aspects that would be best, but at least before depriving ourselves of any particular weapon, we ought to have world agreement that everyone else should do the same.

The hon. Member for Leeds, South-East (Mr. D. Healey), with great experience of these matters, thought that there was no chance of getting the Russians to agree to a satisfactory scheme of disarmament with inspection. I admit that the prospects do not look good, but surely we have to pursue them with all the power we can, and, indeed, discussions are opening at Lancaster House on l3th May.

I cannot see how it would help our country if we took a decision not to have this weapon or, indeed, said, at the present moment, whether we have it or do not have it. I am certain that if we follow the policy of the Government, which, I think, is endorsed by the Front Bench opposite—that is to negotiate peace through strength—

Everyone is doing that.

There may be other people who will get the lead. We must be strong if our influence is to be effective.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say that the lead President Nehru has given the world is in any way less strong because he has not any atomic or hydrogen weapon?

There is the famous remark of Mr. Stalin about the Pope. He asked how many divisions the Pope had.

President Nehru is not Mr. Stalin.

No doubt the calculations of Russia are influenced by what weapons of war exist, and so it has always been in history.

The Prime Minister has answered a number of Questions in the House on the hydrogen bomb in this country, and he said that it would be wrong to limit the Government's great responsibility in the matter of the choice of weapons. He said that this responsibility was a heavy burden, and, indeed, it is—it is heavier than it has ever been because of the destructive power of this weapon—and he said that we would like to be rid of the burden if we could. We should all like to shed such a terrible responsibility, but it is not in the interests of this country that we should discuss our defensive programme weapon by weapon.

I hope, therefore, that after hearing how divided the House is and after so many good speeches, we may take it that the ventilation of this subject has done good but that the movers of the new Clause will not press it to a Division.

5.30 p.m.

I know that a number of my hon. Friends wish to speak and I shall not, therefore, detain the House for more than a few minutes. The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) said at the opening of his speech that the discussion was useful because it helped to clarify our minds. I hope that I shall be able to show that my mind has not undergone that transformation. I am as confused now as I was at the beginning of the debate. We now just do not know where we are.

We have been told ever since l945 by the Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, that the peace of the world was preserved by the American possession of the atom bomb, and that had it not been for the fact that the United States possessed a weapon of such deterrent power the Soviet Union would have launched its armies across the plains of Europe. That view has been confirmed also by a number of hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House.

This afternoon, however, both sides, apparently, have agreed upon entirely the opposite principle: that the only way in which a third world war might be avoided is by everybody knowing all about the worst weapons. Therefore, if that logic, which was the logic advanced also by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Mr. D. Healey), be correct, we are driven to the conclusion that it is an excellent thing for the prevention of war that the Soviet Union discovered the atom bomb and that it is a much better thing that they have now got the hydrogen bomb.

Let me make it quite clear to my right hon. Friend, as I did to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), that I specifically said that the chances of war were not reduced by the Russian possession of the hydrogen bomb, but that the chances of a hydrogen bomb being used in war were reduced.

We will discuss that separately.

It is a different point.

But it does not invalidate mine.

We have discussed the distinction between conventional and unconventional weapons again. I remind my hon. Friend that the Leader of the Opposition gave the answer to that in the House the other day. My hon. Friend knows the answer, and it is not necessary to repeat it. And so this artificial distinction, this specialist distinction, between wars conducted with conventional weapons and those conducted with unconventional weapons, really confuses the whole issue.

The Bill is now made complete nonsense by the speeches from the other side and from this side, because the Bill is destined to prevent the secrets from being known. But if it is true that the universal possession of these weapons is such a deterrent, all the secrets ought to be spread all over the world. That is the logic of the hon. Member opposite who said that it was not the weapons that were bad, but it was man's intentions; so that, therefore, we are not only free, but wise, in piling up a vast mass of combustible material and pouring petrol on it, and if the Churches come along and say, "You ought not to do this thing," we should answer, "But it is your job to stop us from setting it alight. We are perfectly free to pile it up." On this logic, we now reach the position that we proceed to discover all the secrets of the hydrogen bomb ourselves and as soon as we have got them we must give them away, otherwise the other man will not have the deterrent which we have. That is the logic of the whole argument.

Will the Minister now tell me what the Bill is about? Apparently, if that logic be correct, we were in the gravest danger of a war with only the United States having the secret. But the risk of war has receded. That was the logic of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who said that we must have the secret of the hydrogen bomb in order to be able to give it up. Obviously, if what he has said is correct, we must have the secret of the hydrogen bomb not only to give the bomb up, but to tell the other chap about it, because if we do not tell him about it the deterrent is too limited. That is exactly my hon. and learned Friend's argument.

What is the Bill about? It is destined to confine secrets as much as possible. But safety is supposed to be obtained by spreading the information. So all our secrecy organisation is the most perilous kind of expense, because it brings war nearer. That is the logic. The Clause says nothing about making the hydrogen bomb, but the Minister did not answer one single part of the relevant debate. The Clause is about asking the permission of Parliament before proceeding to make the hydrogen bomb.

What is wrong with that? It is no use for the Minister to say that we cannot draw this distinction between weapons. The House drew the distinction the other day. It is because we realised there was a great deal of difference between this dreadful weapon and the others that we had made, that we had a discussion in the House and we said that not only the consequences of using this weapon, but the consequences of finding how to use it, were so dreadful that we ought immediately to summon the statesmen of the world to see whether a stop cannot be put to this madness. That is what we decided.

Is it, therefore, now reasonable, whilst the Authority proceeds to find out whether it can make the bomb, that before it is made the House should have an opportunity of reviewing the situation and seeing what steps have been taken by the statesmen of the world to give effect to the Resolution of the House? It is no use saying that this is only a difference of degree. That is always a stupid philosophical argument. There is only a difference between a tea-pot and the sea: a person can drown in one but not in the other. I do not want to repeat the whole Hegelian formula about qualitative differences bringing about quantitative changes, but the House said so the other day in the most simple language. It said that the hydrogen bomb was so very much worse than the others that the time had come now for us to pay some attention to it.

I ask the House to consider another aspect. Suppose that all the nations that were able to do this proceeded to do it. Remember that as science applies itself to the manufacture of the bomb, as distinct from the discovery of the principle, the "know-how" will be much more simplified and it will be much easier to make bigger and bigger bombs with less and less effort. When that becomes known, the smaller nations will make them as well.

We were told the other day that, without asking our permission, the U.S.A. had decided to have a series of experimental explosions in the Pacific. Suppose that all the nations of the world which were able to do so proceeded to make experimental explosions in any part of the world where they gave notice to somebody else to clear out because they were doing so. There is nothing at all to stop the Soviet Union from announcing that she will detonate a number of hydrogen bombs in the Pacific, and then the United States clears out. Then, we give notice and the others clear out; and the French give notice.

We are in a remarkable situation. Unless we are careful, we shall be destroyed by the experiments, one succeeding each other. There is no reason why it should not be so. It would have seemed to me, therefore, sensible in the circumstances that the House should have the opportunity of discussing all the aspects of this matter before it places this stupid, silly, out-of-date Bill on the Statute Book.

I hope my hon. Friends will carry this new Clause to a Division. It is not, of course, a fact that the new Clause is technically so constructed that it can stop the Government doing any other than asking us for permission to make the bomb. The idea that the House of Commons must never be allowed to express a view about the quantity or nature of weapons is an extraordinary one. What about, "We want eight and we won't wait"? The House has been discussing weapons, the nature of weapons and the number of them for centuries. There is nothing unconstitutional in that, and it certainly will not be put aside because of a procedural refinement. It seems to me that the case for the new Clause has been made out.

Let me end by referring to something that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge said just now. This idea that the weight of a nation and the influence of a nation is dependent upon its striking power is becoming more and more old-fashioned. This is not the case with India. My hon. Friend said that the fact that we had not got the hydrogen bomb makes us more dependent upon the United States and less able to take effective action. India is independent of both.

The very fact that the great nations of the world are frustrating themselves by their colossal, metaphysical power makes it necessary for some other nation to mobilise the moral forces of the world in order to bring them to bear upon this crisis in mankind's affairs. That is the reason I have been so anxious for this nation to recover its independence of action and to give the lead which the world now wants. People outside will not be able to understand the House of Commons if in one week it summons the statesmen of the world to a conference to consider the crisis brought about by these dreadful weapons, and then in the next week gives permission to the Government to make the same weapons.

I listened with sympathy and interest to the powerful case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) in moving the new Clause. Nonetheless, I should like briefly to advance a few reasons for asking my hon. Friends not to support it. The fact is that we are not concerned this after-noon so much with how many people have the power to make the bomb, but how many people have the power to use it. That is the prime consideration which must be in all our minds when we consider the terrible and iniquitous power which resides in the bomb itself.

I believe that this Clause, if it were to be accepted, would rather hinder international agreement to abolish the manufacture and the use of atomic weapons and of weapons of mass destruction, and precisely for that reason I urge my hon. Friends not to support it. Nevertheless, I feel that the grave arguments which have been put forward by my hon. Friends should be given close attention and scrutiny.

I noticed that when the hydrogen explosion took place in the United States, a high official spokesman, who declined to be quoted by name, said, "We are well pleased with the bang." It is understandable that a person who could use such mildness in speaking of what is inherently the most disastrous event that has ever taken place in the history of mankind should not wish to be referred to by name.

My hon. Friend, in submitting certain moral considerations to the House, made a statement from which the hon. Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) seemed to run away. He seemed to imply that there were no new moral considerations when we turn our attention to the hydrogen bomb. But I would ask the House to consider what would happen if, as now seems likely, scientists were to have the means at their disposal of creating a monster with three heads and six hands. Would that not be considered morally iniquitous? Would that not introduce an entirely new element into scientific development from which we would recoil in horror?

5.45 p.m.

The fact is that the hydrogen bomb introduces new biological developments into our scientific knowledge which may be disastrous to the whole of mankind. We know already that the hydrogen bomb, from its radioactive properties, can produce sterility. It may be capable of sterilising a whole generation. Those are moral considerations which certainly should be in our minds when considering this weapon.

But this new Clause would have the final effect of limiting our strength when we go to an international conference to consider the banning of the hydrogen bomb. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because we would go to an international conference stripped of the power which would be inherent in the possibility that we might be the possessor of the bomb. For that reason, I ask my hon. Friends not to support this new Clause.

I have been listening to what has been said this afternoon. It is not often that I speak on matters of this description, but I want to apply my mind to the effect of this debate on the ordinary man and woman in the street. I should like the speech just delivered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) to be given to a world Government gathering. If that type of speech could be made where there is a meeting of world representatives seeking peace, there is not the slightest doubt that it would do an enormous amount of good.

I want to give credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), who moved this new Clause, and my other hon. Friends who have supported him. I do not think they seek to put this new Clause into the Bill because of any effect upon the world production of hydrogen bombs. I think their intention is to focus the opinion of the House upon the problem of the terrible weapons of war that are now being made and to secure more information for the people than has hitherto been given. I do not see how this new Clause, if it were incorporated in the Bill, would have any effect upon the word production of hydrogen bombs.

We are members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. We are in the United Nations, and I understand from recent conversations that this country may be committed to some form of Asian pact. [Hon. Members: "We hope not."] Some of my hon. Friends say they hope not, and I hope not if it means that we are committed to any further action against anybody. But that is an aside which takes me from my main theme.

The suggestion in this new Clause is that we should seek not to manufacture the hydrogen bomb in this country.

indicated dissent.

The suggestion is that we should seek not to manufacture the hydrogen bomb in this country without the permission of the House. But any Clause which is embodied in any Bill has to receive the consent of the House before the Bill goes on to the Statute Book.

My hon. Friend is mistaken. If the Clause is not added to the Bill, the Government could request the Authority which the Bill sets up to proceed to manufacture a hydrogen bomb without telling anybody about it, without telling Parliament beforehand, and probably without telling Parliament about it at all. On the other hand, if the Clause is added to the Bill, the Government could still give authority for the manufacture of a hydrogen bomb but, before it could do so, it would have to get the specific authority of the House.

I am glad that one of our most able and brilliant legal minds has explained in legal terms exactly what I understood in my simple mind. I want to come back to the point that, assuming for the moment the Government sought the permission of the House, and also assuming that the Clause had been accepted, the Government did not receive such permission from the House. [An Hon. Member: "The Government would fall."] Yes, but if the Government agreed to accept the Clause, what effect would that have upon the world production of hydrogen bombs?

I come back to that point. We are committed to our share of defence within the framework of N.A.T.O. and E.D.C.—we, the country, not this party, but this Government and this country. I submit to the House that, in the event of man-power and raw materials and cash not being used in this country for the manufacture of hydrogen bombs, to that extent this country would be relieved but would be called upon to go ahead, to the extent that we are committed, with producing conventional weapons of war. And to that extent one can assume that the other nations would be relieved to the same extent of that amount of the production of conventional weapons of war, and this would enable them to go ahead with an increased amount of hydrogen bomb production if they so wished.

That would be the physical effect of this new Clause if it were added to the Bill. I am against London policemen being armed even with truncheons because I want to see a world where even police are without weapons of defence, but we have not got there yet. I want to see a world in which there is no fear of war in any shape or form; but while there is the present international situation it is necessary for force to be met with force. If this Clause were accepted, it would have no effect upon those people—on the one hand, the so-called great capitalist nation which is afraid of oppression and, on the other hand, that great Communist nation which also is full of fear of aggressive intentions by the capitalist nations. This Clause would have not the slightest effect upon them.

The discussion of this proposed new Clause will do a tremendous amount of good in continuing to focus the attention of this country and of the world upon this vile, vicious weapon. It will make clear that the people of this nation and hon.

Members on both sides of this House want world peace and want to see hydrogen bombs, atomic weapons and conventional weapons completely outlawed. But because I believe that its insertion cannot bring that about, I shall not be in a position to support it.

I want to say a few words about this new Clause which has been so ably moved and supported by a number of my colleagues, and which has been opposed with equal eloquence and passion by a number of others.

One thing will probably be agreed—that the issue it raises causes considerable difficulty in the minds of a number of hon. Members, anyhow on this side of the House, because it has been interpreted in a different way by various spokesmen who have entered this debate. It has given us a most valuable opportunity, the first this House has had, of discussing the manufacture in this country of the hydrogen bomb, its relation to warfare generally, and the wisdom of this country proceeding with its manufacture. No doubt there will be many other occasions in the not-far-distant future when this important subject can be further discussed.

The question arises whether it is possible, or even desirable, at the fag end of a comparatively minor Bill—the purpose of which is to transfer the manufacture and development of all atomic matters from the Ministry of Supply to a new Authority—to use the occasion as an appropriate one for Parliament to settle some of the important questions raised by hon. Members who have spoken in this debate.

There seem to be two strands in the arguments put forward by those in favour of the new Clause. The first is that this country should not, under any circumstances, proceed with the manufacture of the hydrogen bomb, and that this new Clause would be a device which would in effect prevent this country from so proceeding. That was an argument inherent in many speeches.

May I point out that this argument has not yet been adduced? We have not had an opportunity of doing so.

I think that argument was inherent in a number of speeches. I am sure, moreover, that my hon. Friend, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will put the argument forcibly that there should be no manufacture of hydrogen bombs. The new Clause has been strongly supported by that argument and, while it may have considerable merit, those opposed to the new Clause have also a very strong case. It has been the universal decision of all parties in this House, including my own party, that there should not be unilateral disarmament of this or any other weapon, and, until we decide that there should be a contrary policy pursued, that argument is not one which I or my party as a whole could support. Indeed, the policy of my party has been firmly and clearly developed by our Leader in this House and it has received the support of the House as a whole.

The House was against the H bomb.

That policy was for immediate discussions by the leaders of all the important nations involved for the purpose of seeing what steps could be taken in the general disarmament of all weapons.

My right hon. Friend has referred to an inherent argument, but surely what was inherent in the argument of the Leader of the Opposition was that the H bomb was likely to destroy civilisation. We cannot say that one day and then support the bomb three weeks later.

I am saying that I would not be prepared at this stage to declare, and I think that most of my colleagues feel that we, at this moment, cannot declare, that this country alone will not produce the hydrogen bomb.

My right hon. Friend has said that some of those who have supported this new Clause want it as a device for securing that the H Bomb should not be manufactured in this country, but he must realise that it could only be an effective device for that purpose if the Government could not get a majority in this House, whereas it is the general characteristic of Governments that they get majorities. If anyone were relying on this as a device to secure unilateral disarmament, it would be a pretty poor device.

I do not disagree with what my hon. Friend says. I am only saying that, like many of my hon. Friends, I disagree with one of the arguments used in support of the proposed new Clause.

There is another argument with which I have great sympathy—that it is desirable that this House should know when the Government are in process of producing, or propose to produce, the hydrogen bomb. I think there is a great deal to be said for and against that argument. I would remind the House that before the hydrogen bomb was produced in the United States there was an announcement by President Truman, and before we produced the atomic bomb in this country it was announced in this House. I think there is a great deal to be said for the case put forward by a number of my hon. Friends that this House should be informed at the earliest possible date when the Government propose to produce this weapon.

To make the matter clear, would the right hon. Gentleman say when that statement was made?

I can only remember it being made by Lord Alexander, as he now is, when he was Minister of Defence. I cannot remember the exact date, but it was during a defence debate when he stated that we were producing the atomic bomb.

Is not my right hon. Friend inadvertently missing the whole point of the proposed new Clause? He is talking now about the desirability of the Government announcing what they propose to do. The object of the new Clause, if I understand it correctly, is merely to secure the elementary democratic principle that the Government shall not in fact, whatever they propose or would like, carry out the creation or the manufacture of the hydrogen bomb unless a majority of the House of Commons is in favour of their doing so. The Clause would achieve nothing more than that. If the Government secured a majority, they would be able to produce the bomb. If they had no majority, they ought not to do so. That is what the Clause is about.

I am perfectly well aware of that, and I was making the comment that there is a great deal to be said for Parliament being informed at the appropriate time. Then, in one way or another, hon. Members could express an opinion about the decision of the Government on the manufacture of the hydrogen bomb. I have some sympathy with that aspect of the argument.

The question is whether it would be appropriate to embody this new Clause in the Bill at this moment. I find myself in this difficulty. This House has recently decided that it would be desirable that there should be an early meeting of the Powers concerned to consider general disarmament, bearing in mind particularly the hydrogen bomb. We all hope that such a conference will be held shortly and that it will be successful. After a short discussion such as this, in which neither the Prime Minister nor the Leader of the Opposition has participated, or the Minister of Defence, I am doubtful whether we should include this proposed new Clause in the Bill.

If we did so, it will appear to the world that we are taking unilateral action ourselves in limiting our right to manufacture the hydrogen bomb. That might not be the effect of this new Clause—in fact it would not be—but that is what would appear to the world to be the effect of it. For that reason, and not because I consider the basic purpose of the Clause to be wrong, I suggest that it would be wise not to vote on the matter now. We can bear in mind all the arguments that have been advanced today when we discuss the matter on another occasion. It may not be long before we have an opportunity to discuss this matter in more detail, when Parliament, if it so desires, can insist that before the Government proceed with the manufacture of this weapon they shall make some declaration to the House and provide an opportunity for the House to discuss the matter. I cannot believe that this is the right occasion to do so.

rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 192.

Division No. 78.]	AYES	[6.5 p.m.
Aitken, W. T.	Hay, John	O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Alport, C. J. M.	Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionet	Orr, Capt, L. P. S.
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)	Heath, Edward	Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.	Higgs, J. M. C.	Page, R. G.
Arbuthnot, John	Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)	Perkins, Sir Robert
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)	Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)	Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Baldwin, A. E.	Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Barlow, Sir John	Hirst, Geoffrey	Pilkington, Capt. R. A
Baxter, A. B.	Holland-Martin, C J	Powell, J. Enoch
Beach, Maj. Hicks	Hollis, M C.	Profumo, J. D.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Hope, Lo d John	Raikes, Sir Victor
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)	Hornsby-Smith, Miss; M. P	Rayner, Brig. R.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)	Horobin, I. M.	Redmayne, M.
Bishop, F. P.	Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)	Rees-Davies, W. R
Black, C. W.	Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)	Remnant, Hon. P
Bossom, Sir A. C.	Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)	Renton, D. L. M.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.	Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)	Ridsdale, J. E.
Boyle, Sir Edward	Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.	Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)	Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (Elb'rgh, W.)	Robertson, Sir David
Braithwaite, Sir Gurney	Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.	Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)	Hylton-Foster, H. B. H	Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Brooman-White, R. C.	Iremonger, T. L.	Roper, Sir Harold
Browne, Jack (Govan)	Johnson, Eric (Blackkey)	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. POT	Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)	Russell, R. S.
Bullard, D. G.	Jones, A. (Hall Green)	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D
Burden, F. F. A.	Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W	Sandys, Rt. Hon. D
Butcher, Sir Herbert	Kaberry, D.	Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Campbell, Sir David	Kerby, Capt. H. J	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W
Carr, Robert	Kerr, H. W.	Scott, R. Donald
Channon, H.	Lancaster, Col. C. G	Shepherd, William
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston	Langford-Holt, J. A.	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.	Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Clarke, Brig Terence (Portsmouth, W.)	Legh, Hon. Peter (Peter field)	Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Cole, Norman	Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T	Spearman, A. C. M
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.	Linstead, Sir H. N.	Speir, R. M.
Cooper, Sun. Ldr. Albert	Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)	Spans, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Cooper-Key, F. M.	Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J C.	Stevens, G. P.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.	Low, A. R. W.	Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S)	Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Crowder, Petrie (Ruislip—Northwood)	Lucas. P, B. (Brentford)	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Davidson, Viscountess	McAdden, S. J.	Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Deedes, w. F.	McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.	Studholme, H. G.
Digby, S. Wingfield	Macdonald, Sir Peter	Summers, G. S.
Dodds-Parker, A. D	McKibbin, A. J.	Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Doughty, C. J. A.	Maokie, J. H. (Galloway)	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm	Maclay, lit. Hon. John	Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Drayson, G. B.	MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)	Teeling, W.
Drewe, Sir C.	Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Dugdate, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)	Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)	Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.	Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horneastle)	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.	Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)	Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)	Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E	Tilney, John
Fell, A.	Markham Major Sir Frank	Touche, Sir Gordon
Finlay, Graeme	Marlowe, A. A. H.	Vane, W. M. F.
Fisher, Nigel	Marples, A. E.	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F	Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)	Vosper, D. F.
Fletcher-Cooke, C	Maude, Angus	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Fort, R.	Maudling, R.	Walker-Smith, D. C
Foster, John	Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C	Wall, P. H. B.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)	Medlicott, Brig. F.	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)	Mellor, Sir John	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)	Molson, A. H. E.	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Garner-Evans, E. H.	Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Watkinson, H. A.
Godber, J. B.	Moore, Sir Thomas	Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Gower, H. R.	Nabarro, G. D. N.	Wellwood, W.
Graham, Sir Fergus	Neave, Airey	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)	Nicholls, Harmar	Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)	Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Hare, Hon. J. H.	Nield, Basil (Chester)	Wills, Gerald
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)	Nugent, G. R. H	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)	Nutting, Anthony
Harvie-Watt, Sir George	Odey, G. W	TELLERS FOR THE AXES:
		Mr. Oakshott and Mr. Allan.

NOES
Adams, Richard	Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R	Bonn, Hon. Wedgwood
Albu, A. H.	Bacon, Mist Alice	Benson, G.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)	Baird, J.	Berwick, F.
Allen, Seholefield (Crow)	Bartley, P	Bevan, Rt. Hon A (Ebbw Vale)
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)	Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.	Bing, G. H. C.

Blackburn, F.	Holman, P.	Reeves, J.
Blenkinsop, A.	Houghton, Douglas	Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Blyten, W. R.	Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)	Reid, William (Camlachie)
Boardman, H.	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Rhodes, H.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Richards, R.
Bowden, H. W.	Hynd, H. (Aecrington)	Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Bowen, E. R.	Irving W. J. '(Wood Green)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Bowles, F. G.	Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Paneras, N.)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth	Jeger, George (Goole)	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)	Ross, William
Brown, Thomas (Ince)	Johnson, James (Rugby)	Royle, C.
Burton, Miss F. E.	Jones, David (Hartlepool)	Shackleton, E. A. A.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)	Jones, Jack (Rotherham)	Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Chapman, W. D.	Keenan, W.	Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Chetwynd, G. R	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W	Short, E. W.
Clunie, J.	King, D H. M.	Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Collick, P. H.	Lawson G. M.	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Lever, Harold (Cheetham)	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Cove, W. G.	Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)	Skeffington, A. M.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Lindgren, G. S.	Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Grossman, R. H. S.	Lipton Lt.-Col. M	Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Daines, P.	MacColl, J. E.	Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Darling, George (Hillsborough)	McGhee, H. G.	Sorensen, R. W.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)	McGove n, J.	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Davies, Harold (Leak)	MaLoavy, F.	Sparks, J. A.
Deer, G.	Ma lalieu E. L. (Brigg)	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Delargy, H. J.	Mann, Mrs. Jean	Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Dodds, N. N.	Manuel, A. C.	Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Donnelly, D. L.	Mason, Roy	Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)	Mellish, R. J.	Swingler, S. T.
Edelman, M.	Messer, Sir F-	Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighoule)	Mikardo, Ian	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)	Mitchison, G. R	Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	Moody, A. S.	Timmons, J.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)	Morgan, Dr. H. B. W	Tomney, F.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)	Morley, R.	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Fernyhough, E.	Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)	Viant, S. P.
Fienburgh, W.	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)	Warbey, W. N.
Fletcher, Erio (Islington, E.)	Moyle, A.	Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Follick, M.	Mulley, F. W.	Weitzman, D.
Forman, J. C.	Neal, Harold (Bolsover)	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.	Oliver, G. H.	Wells, William (Walsall)
Gibson, C. W.	Orbach, M.	Wheeldon, W. E.
Glanville, James	Oswald, T.	White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Gordon. Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.	Padley, W. E.	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)	Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)	Wigg, George
Gray, C, F.	Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)	Wilkins, W. A.
Griffiths, David (Bother Valley)	Palmer, A. M. F.	Willey, F. T.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	Pannell, Charles	Williams, David (Neath)
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)	Pargiter, G. A.	Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Hamilton, W. W	Parker, J.	Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Hannan, W.	Parkin, B. T	Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'H'y)
Hargreaves, A.	Pearson, A.	Williams, W. T. (Hammerswith, S.)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)	Peart, T. F.	Willis, E. G.
Hayman, F. H.	Plummer, Sir Leslie	Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)	Popplewell, E.	Wyatt, W. L
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)	Porter, G.	Yates, V. F.
Herbison, Miss M.	Proctor, W. T
Hewitson, Capt. M.	Pryde, D. J.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hobson, C. R.	Rankin, John	Mr. Wallace and Mr, John Taylor.

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause be read a Second times."

Division No. 79.]	AYES	[6.15.p.m.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Donnelly, D. L.	Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Baird, J.	Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	Orbach, M.
Benn, Hon. Wedgwood	Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)	Padley, W. E.
Beswick, F.	Fernyhough, E.	Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)	Fletcher, Erio (Islington, E.)	Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Bing, G. H. C.	Forman, J. C.	Pargiter, G. A.
Blenkinsop, A.	Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)	Parker, J.
Bowles, F. G.	Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)	Parkin, B. T.
Chetwynd, G. R	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Plummer., Sir Leslie
Clunie, J.	Hynd, H. (Accring ton)	Rankin, John
Cove, W. G.	Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)	Reeves, J.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	King, Dr. H. M.	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Crossman, R. H. S.	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.	Royle, C.
Darling, George (Hillsborougth)	MacColl, J. E.	Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)	McGhee, H. G.	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Davies, Harold (Leek)	McKay, John (Wallsend)	Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Delargy, H. J.	Manuel, A. C.	Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

The House divided Ayes, 63; Noes, 219.

Snow, J. W.	Warbey, W. N.	Willis, E. G.
Sorensen, R. W.	Weitzman, D.	Yates, V. F.
Swingler, S. T.	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)	Wills, F. T.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)	Williams W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)	Mr. Mikardo and Mr. Palmer.

NOES
Aitken, W. T.	Hay, John	Orr, Capt. L. P. S
Alporl, C. J. M.	Heath, Edward	Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N)
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)	Higgs, J. M. C.	Page, R. G.
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.	Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)	Perkins, Sir Robert
Arbulhnot, John	Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)	Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)	Hinohingbrooke, Viscount	Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Baldwin, A. E.	Hirst, Geoffrey	Pilkington, Capt. R. A
Barlow, Sir John	Holland-Martin, C. J	Powell, J. Enoch
Baxter, A. B.	Hollis, M. C.	Profumo, J. D.
Beach, Maj. Hicks	Hope, Lord John	Raikes, Sir Victor
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Hornsby-Smith, Miss M P.	Rayner, Brig. R.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)	Horobin, I. M.	Redmayne, M.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)	Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)	Rees-Davies, W. R
Bishop, F. P.	Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)	Remnant, Hon. P.
Black, C. W.	Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)	Renton, D. L. M
Bossom, Sir A. C	Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)	Ridsdale, J. E.
BOWMI, E. R.	Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.	Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.	Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)	Robertson, Sir David
Boyle, Sir Edward	Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.	Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)	Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.	Rodger s, John (Sevenoaks)
Braithwaite, Sir Gurney	Iremonger, T. L.	Roper, Sir Harold
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Brooman-White, R. C.	Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)	Russell, R. S.
Browne, Jack (Go van)	Jones, A. (Hall Green)	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G T	Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W	Sandys, Rt. Han. D.
Bullard, D. G.	Kaberry, D.	Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Burden, F. F. A	Kerby, Capt. H. J.	Schofield, Lt.-Col W.
Butcher, Sir Herbert	Kerr, H. W.	Scott, R Donald
Campbell, Sir David	Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Shepherd, William
Carr, Robert	Langford-Hol1, J. A.	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Channon, H.	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H	Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston	Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)	Smyth, Brjg. J. G. (Norwood)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.	Spearman, A. C M.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)	Linstead, Sir H. N.	Speir, R. M.
Cole, Norman	Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew. E.)	Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.	Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwn (Wirral)	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.	Stevens, G. P.
Cooper-Key, F. M.	Low, A. R. W.	Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)	Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C	Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. 0. E.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)	McAdden, S. J.	Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)	McCorouodale, Rl. Hon. M. S	Studholme, H. G.
Davidson, Viscountess	Macdonald, Sir Peter	Summers, G. S.
Deedes, W. F.	MaKbbin, A. J.	Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Digby, S. Wingfield	Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.	Maclay, Rt. Hon. John	Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Doughty, C. J. A.	MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)	Teeling, W.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm	Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Drayson, G. B.	Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)	Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Drewe, Sir C.	Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horneastle)	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Dugdak, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)	Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)	Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N
Duncan, Capt J. A. L.	Mannjngham-Buller, Sir R. E	Tilney, John
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.	Markham, Major Sir Frank	Touche, Sir Gordon
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)	Marlowe, A. A. H.	Vane, W. M. F.
Fell, A.	Marples, A. E.	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K
Finlay, Graeme	Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)	Vosper, D. F.
Fisher, Nigel	Maude Angus	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F	Maudling, R,	Walker-Smith, D. C.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.	Maydon, Lt, -Comdr, S. L. C	Wall, P. H. B.
Fort, R.	Medlicott, Brig, F.	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Foster, John	Mellor, Sir John	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)	Molson, A. H. E.	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)	Monokion, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Watkimon, H. A.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)	Moore, Sir Thomas	Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Garner-Evans, E. H.	Nabarro, G. D. N.	Wellwood, W.
Gower, H. R.	Neave, Airey	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Graham, sir Fergus	Nicholls, Harmar	Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)	Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Hall, John (Wyoombe)	Nield, Basil (Chester)	Wills, Gerald
Hare, Hon. J. H.	Nugent, G. R. H.	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)	Nutting, Anthony
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)	Odey, G. W.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Harvie-Watt, Sir George	O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)	Mr. Oakshott and Mr. Allan

Clause 1—(The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority)

I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, to leave out "six," and to insert "seven."

In Committee the Government accepted an Amendment to add to the members of the Authority whose qualifications are laid down in the Bill an extra member who is skilled in industrial organisation. We were all glad that that Amendment was inserted in the Bill. The result of it was that the number of specialist members has been brought up from four to five, and we agree that that is too near the minimum of six. I am, therefore, asking the House to substitute "seven" for "six," with the result that the Authority must now have not less than seven and not more than 10 members.

I thank the Minister for listening to the arguments that we put forward on the last occasion and for incorporating them in the Bill in accordance with the promise that he made. I am only sorry that our later arguments did not have the same influence upon him.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2—(Functions Of The Authority)

I beg to move, in page 3, line 11, after "of,"to insert:

"the Schedule (Existing Staff) and of."

It seems to me that the next Amendment, in page 3, line 11, at the end, to insert:

"respectively to persons employed in an organisation maintained by and."

and the proposed Schedule—[Existing Staff]—might be taken with this Amendment. If that is agreed, I see no objection to discussing them together.

We put these words on the Order Paper in the Committee stage. These Amendments and the proposed Schedule deal with proper protection for the staff at present engaged on atomic energy in the Civil Service Department if and when they are transferred to the service of the new Authority. We withdrew our Amendments on that occasion because we had assurances from the right hon. Gentleman that all these questions of the protection of the staff were under discussion at that time with the trade unions and he said that it might be as well if those discussions first went through. We have put our Amendments on the Order Paper again because we are anxious to be quite certain that the undertaking that we were given that the position of the staff would be properly protected to the general satisfaction of the trade unions concerned is being implemented.

Because of that, I do not propose to speak at any great length and again to develop the arguments used in Committee. It is sufficient to say that the Bill, unlike many Measures of a similar kind, contains no specific compensation Clause. When there is a transfer under Government direction of a great number of employees from one employer to another, it is usual to have a compensation Clause. We feel that our Amendments and the proposed Schedule go some way towards rectifying that very serious omission.

Our proposed Schedule transfers all the existing staff from the Civil Service, whether they are permanent or temporary civil servants, automatically to the service of the new Authority. It looks after the pay and conditions of all the employees. We say that the employees should be engaged by the new Authority on terms which are not less favourable than those which they are enjoying at present.

6.30 p.m.

We are anxious—and the wording of the Schedule allows for it—that pensions rights, superannuation rights and all matters of that kind shall be fully protected. I know, of course, as the right hon. Gentleman himself knows, that discussions have been going on through the appropriate machinery with the trade unions in the Civil Service on all these matters; and when the Minister spoke on this point in Committee, he said:

"… I have every hope that in 10 days' time,"—

that was from the 23rd March—

"—or some such period as that, we shall be able to come to an agreement which will then be put in the hands of every one on the Authority's staff so that many of their anxieties will be set at rest."—[Official Report, 23rd March, 1954; Vol. 525, c. 1130.]

It is my information that these discussions are progressing fairly favourably and that they are giving general satisfaction, but we are anxious to have some assurance from the Minister, and I hope that we shall have a statement from him on the latest position. If we feel that that assurance is satisfactory and that it will lead, in fact, to the full protection of the staff, I doubt whether it will be necessary to press the Amendment. I think that is also the view of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I want to hear the statement which the Minister may desire to make, but I want also to ask him one or two specific questions. As I said in a previous discussion, the unestablished staff are at present worried about what their exact position will be when they become part and parcel of this new Authority. I understand that, in the discussions that have taken place between the representative bodies through the Whitley machinery, there has been reasonable progress in some respects, but I have in my possession a statement of the position as outlined by the Government or by their representatives with regard to unestablished staff. It reads:

"Former temporary civil servants, on opting to join the Authority, will lose their previous rights as civil servants to enter limited competitions for Civil Service vacancies."

I should like the Minister to explain in more detail what that really means. Let us suppose that an unestablished employee refuses to opt. What will be his position? Let us suppose that he opts to go into the service of the Authority and that he is unestablished. What will be his position under the wording of the paragraph which I have just quoted?

I feel that the redundancy problem may become a very serious one for a large number of these people, who have been brought from all parts of the country, and who, in a good number of cases, are married men living in houses owned either by the Government or by the Ministry, as the case may be. Another paragraph of this document says:

"In the event of redundancy in the Authority, the Treasury would be willing to examine sympathetically the possibility of re-employing in the Civil Service redundant ex-established civil servants."

That refers only to established civil servants, and not to the unestablished persons. If the Government can do it, or try to do it, for the established civil servants, surely persons who have gone in good faith into the Civil Service should have the same protection applied to them as is given to the former established civil servants?

Therefore, I should like the Minister to tell us specifically whether anything further can be done for the unestablished persons. I know from previous experience in the railway service in years gone by that unestablished men in the railway service salaried grades had their case taken up, and that we fought for and won the position that the men who were unestablished should enjoy the same conditions of security of tenure as those who were established. Therefore, I ask the Minister, in his reply, to explain more fully the position so far as the unestablished staff are concerned.

I was grateful to the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) for withdrawing his Amendment in Committee in order to give us time to continue the talks with the staff, and I should like briefly to describe what has happened in the interval.

Through the Whitley machinery, we presented a declaration of intentions to the staff side on 25th March, and that has been amplified since in reply to a number of supplementary questions which, very naturally, the staff side raised. I am glad to say that, in regard to all the principal points, such as security of tenure, difficulties about housing, removal expenses and a number of other matters of that kind, very satisfactory progress towards agreement has been made, and that the negotiations relating to those minor matters which were left over are proceeding satisfactorily, subject to one reservation. That is on a point which concerns security and the possibility of alternative employment for men dismissed on security grounds. I think that point comes much better in the context of the Amendment dealing with security which we shall reach later on, and perhaps the House will allow me to wait until that stage to deal with it.

Subject to that one point, the negotiations are proceeding well, and I have the agreement of the staff side themselves to say that that is a fair description of the present position. The conversations will go on through the Departmental Whitley Council, and I hope the House will now be justified in regarding what has happened as eminently satisfactory and as a good augury for the future.

Another point raised by the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. F. Anderson) was about ex-temporary civil servants. If this transfer did not take place at all and they remained temporary civil servants, and if atomic energy remained within the orbit of a Government Department, if they then became redundant they would not necessarily get another job. It is part of the condition of being a temporary civil servant that they are subject to a month's notice. They would be no worse off if they accepted the offer of the Authority and joined its staff than they are now. In fact, as I explained in a former debate, in some respects the ex-temporary people will be better off than they were.

It is perfectly correct that we are willing to consider sympathetically the case of an ex-established civil servant who becomes redundant and to see whether a job can be found for him in the Civil Service. That is a very considerable concession since our last debate, but we feel that we could not extend that to the ex-temporaries. Therefore, on that point I cannot give the hon. Member for Whitehaven any satisfaction. I think the House will agree that on all the other points, and on the general layout of these discussions, progress has been thoroughly satisfactory. I hope, therefore, that the Amendments will not be pressed.

The established servant is a permanent servant. I understand there are unestablished servants who are permanent, as well as temporary servants who are not. Can the Minister enlarge on that point?

I am aware that there is some problem of that kind, but as I am not an expert in these Civil Service grades, perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to look at the matter and write to him giving the information that I can obtain?

I am obliged to the Minister for the assurances he has given, and in the circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 16, after "power," to insert "(whether within the United Kingdom or elsewhere)."

In Committee the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) raised the question whether the Authority had power to search for minerals outside the United Kingdom, and said that he thought it should have that power and that the Bill as drafted was ambiguous. I told him then that the Government also had doubts about this power being provided for work outside the United Kingdom, but we thought that all the functions outlined in Clause 2 should also be covered by the right to work outside the United Kingdom. It is quite clear that the Authority might need to exercise abroad the functions outlined in the subsections of the Clause. For example, there is the very fruitful idea of President Eisenhower, in which I am sure we would wish the Authority to join. We might need to have a scheme for the dispersal of atomic energy plant on strategic grounds. That would be covered. And I have great hopes that we shall have intra-Commonwealth development of power stations.

All that means that the Authority would require a general power to work outside the United Kingdom. Again, under subsection (2, e) the Authority needs power to make arrangements with persons abroad, as well as in this country, and to make loans to those who are supplying uranium, as in fact has been done with South Africa and Australia. Under subsection (2, f), too, the power to distribute information is a very necessary thing. I think it would be to the advantage of the world if the Authority were able to give full and useful information about the peaceful aspects of atomic energy.

Amendment agreed to.

The next Amendments on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) are not selected.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have decided that the Amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire are not to be called. We have no quarrel there, but you allowed my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) to deal with them when he was speaking. Is it not possible to consider that point with regard to the calling of them now, in view of the fact that they were dealt with in his speech?

As my name is also associated with these Amendments, is it quite clear that you have taken into account the fact that the division of opinion on this central question of the hydrogen bomb is not a party division at all? It is a division mainly on these benches. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) has pointed out that all points of view have been heard in a previous debate, but as a matter of fact the points of view as expressed by the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin), the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and myself have not been heard at all. Is there any means by which our view can be discussed at this stage of the Bill?

We are now in the Report stage. There was a discussion in Committee and a Division, and I must say that I had formed my resolution not to select these Amendments before today's debate, and nothing which has taken place today has caused me to alter my decision.

No one would dream of questioning your Ruling on such a point as the right of the Chair to select Amendments, but it is in this instance working out a little unfairly. My name is not associated with these Amendments. I have no personal interest in the matter, but it is a fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) did refer to these Amendments in the course of his argument, and none of the hon. Gentlemen whose names appear to the Amendments had any opportunity of presenting their own point of view. That was not the fault of the Chair, but due to the putting and carrying of the Closure. Otherwise they would have been heard, but the result has not been as fair to my hon. Friend as one normally experiences in the House of Commons.

I am afraid that my decision must stand. Hon. Gentlemen who feel that they would like to advert on this subject must choose a future occasion. It would not be in order at this stage of the Bill.

Clause 5—(Powers As To Purchase Of Land, Carrying Out Works, Etc)

6.45 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 14, at end, to insert:

(3) It shall be the duty of the Authority to secure that no ionising radiations from anything on any premises occupied by them, or from any waste discharged (in whatever form) on or from any premises occupied by thorn, cause any hurt to any person or any damage to any property, whether he or it is on any such premises or elsewhere.

This Amendment, I hope, carries out satisfactorily an undertaking I gave in the course of the Committee stage to table an Amendment to ensure that there should be an absolute liability for damage done by the escape of radio-activity from the premises of the Authority, subject to such defence as contributory negligence would allow. It is only because of the special nature and unique character of the work done by the Authority, and also because of the vast scale on which they handle radioactive substances, that we accepted this obligation. It is unnecessary in my view, as a matter of law, to make any reference to contributory negligence in this Amendment, because under the decisions as they now stand in the House of Lords that defence is open if there were contributory negligence, either as a complete answer to the claim or as a partial answer.

I should at this stage refer to the Amendment to the Amendment, to leave out from the proposed Amendment the word "ionising." I am afraid that I do not understand enough about this subject to appreciate the precise significance of this Amendment to the Amendment. If the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) could refer to this Amendment in the course of moving the next Amendment to the Amendment, I think that would meet the case.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the end, to add "or to any right."

I am very grateful, and so are my hon. Friends, to the Government, and in particular to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General, for having met or intended to meet so completely the point which we put at an earlier stage. I agree with him completely that this is exceedingly dangerous and special material, and it is right and proper that there should be a comprehensive statement of right in the matter. I accept from the hon. and learned Gentleman what he said just now, that he intends it to be quite comprehensive, but we should like to help him to help ourselves and to help any prospective victims by making quite certain that the intention has been fully carried out.

The first point is ionising radiations. I am very uncertain what the difference is between an ionising radiation and some other kind of radiation that is not ionising. Being a cautious person, I should like to be quite certain that damage caused by any kind of radiation out of an atomic energy factory, which I strongly suspect to be a dangerous place emitting nasty things, should be something against which we should have full protection.

I do not suppose that the hon. and learned Gentleman has any more detailed scientific information of his own than I have, but I feel certain that on seeing a certain Amendment on the Order Paper he has made inquiries. I hope he will be able to assure us that the word "ionising" is necessary, that it does not limit in any way the kind of matter or waste or radiation or emanation, whatever it may be, in respect of which liability is assumed, and that in fact it serves some useful purpose.

The next point relates to property. I may as well say at once that I met my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. F. Anderson) outside the Chamber a little time ago. He looked at me and said, "What about cows?" and I said that I thought cows were property. He expressed a little doubt on the subject, and caused me to wonder whether there had been any cattle stealing up in White-haven, That is a matter that I know nothing about. I hope that, for his information and for the information of his constituents and other people who may be affected, the hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to assure us that any agricultural property of that kind is covered by the word "property."

Then my hon. Friend looked at me and said "What about fish?" to which he subsequently added black-headed gulls, for there appears to be a special sanctuary for these birds—why they should be entitled to sanctuary I am not so clear—in his constituency. The question whether this damage to property is going to cover damage to a bird sanctuary, to black-headed gulls and to fish, is one upon which I feel sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to reassure us with his customary confidence and certainty.

But as regards the fish, I should like to ask whether he is quite certain that fish are property and whether a fishery is property. There appears to be a little doubt about it. Of course, the mere fact that we are entitled to have the same quantity of water coming down the stream is not quite enough. We have to deal not only with the rights of owners of the banks of the stream, but of those other people who have what the hon and learned Gentleman will recognise at once—a fishery in gross not appurtenant to nor appendant in any way upon riparian rights.

It is worse than that. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows quite well the habits of salmon and sea trout. Having gone down to the sea and there cleansed themselves, they hang about at the mouth of a river in Scotland as they do in England, and wait their time to go up the river. Of course, very serious damage may be caused to the owner of a fishery, the owner of fishing rights in a river, if some of these ionised radiations or other radiations have a go at the salmon and the sea trout before ever they come up. It is rather difficult to say that they are property at that stage. For all these reasons, I am moving this Amendment to add some words regarding rights.

If the hon. and learned Gentleman can assure us with all the authority of his office that all the cases that I have mentioned, and not merely the cows—they are much the easiest—but the black-headed gulls, the salmon and the sea trout wherever found, are to be protected in a case of this sort, we should not wish to press the Amendment. But it seems to me at any rate doubtful whether they are covered by the word "property." I should think that a reference to rights could do no possible harm and could only make quite certain that the protective intentions of the Government were going to be carried out.

I beg to second the Amendment.

As soon as I saw the Amendment on the Order Paper to leave out the word "ionising," I made the most diligent inquiries to find out exactly why that phrase had been used. The first thing I found was that "ionising" radiation had been used in the Radioactive Substances Act passed in 1948 by the late Government, and no doubt used with the approval of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison).

The next reason advanced to me for the use of the word "ionising" was that there are other forms of radiation—radiation, for instance, by heat, noise and light—which are quite outside the scope of the undertaking which I gave and outside the scope of what we are trying to deal with today.

I then made inquiries to find out whether "ionising" radiation was the correct phrase for describing what we are trying to deal with here. I have ascertained that it is, because a nuclear energy establishment can cause damage in a way that closely resembles X-ray damage. In X-ray damage radiation passes through living organisms or matter and causes ionisation. The ionisation may arise directly in the case of charged articles—that is to say, alpha particles, beta particles, protons and mesons, or indirectly in the case of neutral particles—that is to say, X-rays, gamma rays neutrons, and neutral mesons.

Where the radiation acts indirectly, it does so by releasing charged particles—alpha particles, protons or electrons—in matter, and the actual damage is caused by those secondary particles, the radiation of which acts in exactly the same way as X-rays; they act in that indirect way. The radiation of X-rays is called, and always has been called, ionising radiation, so, quite apart from the precedent set in the 1948 Act, the term is technically the correct one to use.

7.0 p.m.

I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be satisfied as I was, as a result of these inquiries, about protons, mesons and things of that sort, and that "ionising radiations" was the correct term to use in this provision.

There are two very tall chimneys at Sellafield. May I ask whether the kind of dust that appears to come from those chimneys is covered by what are called ionising radiations.

I would think it was, but which particular kind of particles are concerned I cannot tell the hon. Member.

I turn to the next point, the use of the word "property," and the Amendment to the proposed Amendment which seeks to add "or to any right." I would say to the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. F. Anderson) that under the law of England cows are property; that is to say, they are owned and are not normally wild or savage beasts, and are reduced into possession. Black-headed gulls are not normally owned; they do not normally constitute property, so no one would have a right of action under this Clause in respect of damage suffered by black-headed gulls not owned by anybody.

The position with regard to fish is somewhat similar, because fish in the sea are not owned by anybody. With regard to damage done to fish in the estuaries by the release of waste into a river, the power to prevent that happening will be under the control exercised over the character of the effluents which is already provided for in the Bill. Fish in a river in this country—I can speak only for the law of England—do not belong to anyone until they are caught, so there will be no right of action in that form for damage to fish in the river, but I am quite sure that in England—I emphasise the words "in England"—any riparian owner will have the same rights as he now has in respect of the pollution of the river, whether pollution by sewage effluent or an effluent from one of the works of the Authority.

If the pollution destroys fish in the river, that will enable the extent of the injury suffered to be established, and enable the person concerned to obtain, as can be done in relation to sewage pollution, an injunction and damages so far as pollution of a river is concerned. Therefore, in my view the position in England in regard to a remedy will be precisely the same as it is in relation to ordinary pollution, and the right of individuals will be the same as in relation to ordinary pollution.

The riparian owner can sue. Whether or not the right of action vests in someone who has taken over the fishing rights for a short time depends on the nature of the arrangement made between the parties; but that someone can sue there can be no doubt. Therefore, in my view, in England the position with regard to fishing is satisfactory under this Measure.

So far as Scotland is concerned, of course I cannot express any view on the law there. I can assure the hon. and learned Member, however, that we are making inquiries in order to make quite sure that it is put beyond all doubt that the position in relation to Scotland is such as we on both sides of the House wish to see; namely, to ensure that there is this absolute duty, as declared in the Amendment which I have moved, and that there are equivalent if not precisely similar rights in respect of pollution of a river by a radio-active effluent or an effluent containing ionising radiations as there is in respect of an effluent containing sewage.

May I ask the Solicitor-General one question? He is content, I think, to leave rights arising out of damage to fish on quite a different footing from other rights because they are to depend on the control of the Ministries and on whatever common law rights there may be. They are not really covered, if I understood him rightly, by this statement. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman look at the statement again, and consider whether it is not possible to extend to these rights—a comparatively small class, but they may be important—the same special protection as has been given in the case of other things, such as the cattle to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred? It is a complicated and difficult question, and I should not feel justified in pressing my Amendment to the proposed Amendment, but would the hon. and learned Gentleman consider that point?

We will certainly look at that, but as at present advised I am satisfied there is no need for what the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests, because there is the very strict right which the riparian owner has of receiving water which is not adversely affected by effluent having been put into it. That right being in existence, and applied to an effluent from an atomic energy 'plant, would, in my view, give quite as entirely adequate a protection as a specific reference to the rights of riparian owners or fishery owners in this provision. I will certainly look at the point again. I have told the hon. and learned Gentleman that we are looking at it in relation to Scotland.

In view of the undertaking which has been so kindly given by the hon. and learned Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 22, at the end, to insert:

"after consultation, in each case, with such local authorities, river boards, local fisheries committees or other public or local authorities as appear to the Minister in question to be proper to be consulted by him."

The Amendment concerns consultation with local authorities about the effects of the discharge of effluent, or rather a form of radio-active waste, from any of the atomic energy plants. During the Committee stage it was felt, and we had sympathy with the view, that where possible the local authorities should be consulted. But we came up against the difficulty that local authorities and other public bodies, such as river boards, do not at present possess the skill for making, or the equipment by which to make tests to see whether those discharges are dangerous or not. We felt, therefore, that in this transitional stage the right thing to do would be to place squarely on the two Government Departments—the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Ministry of Agriculture—the responsibility to see that the public comes to no harm.

None the less, there are cases in which it is a very good thing to consult the local authorities or other bodies, and we have done so where it has seemed obviously an advantage, such as—in connection with the effluent from Harwell—the Metropolitan Water Board and the Thames Conservancy. I have gone as far as I can to meet the very understandable desire of hon. Members that local authorities should be brought into consultation as much as possible and yet to preserve the position that the ultimate responsibility for protecting the public from radio-active waste must remain with the Government for the time being.

Hon. Gentlemen will see that the Bill provides that for a period of seven years, or less, as by Order in Council it is possible to make it less, we are proposing this unusual form of placing the whole responsibility on to the central government. I therefore hope that this Amendment, which provides that there shall be consultation

"with such local authorities, river boards, local fisheries committees or other public or local authorities as appear to the Minister in question to be proper to be consulted by him,"

will be found satisfactory.

I wish to express our thanks on this side for the accommodation which the Minister has thought fit to make in putting down these words. I feel that it will serve a very useful purpose. As one who has experience of a very big undertaking, with miles and miles of pipeline in the Sellafield area, I think it essential that the various authorities should be consulted before anything serious is done.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 3, at the end, to insert:

For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that the restrictions imposed by this subsection on the Authority are in addition to and not in derogation of their duty under the last preceding subsection, and that the presumption required to be made by paragraph (d) of this subsection operates only for the particular purposes mentioned in that paragraph.

This Amendment is merely to avoid doubt and to make it clear that the effect of subsection (3) is not to cut down the obligation which is now carried into the Bill by the Amendment which I recently moved and which the House agreed to.

Did the hon. and learned Gentleman say it is to avoid doubt?

I said, "to avoid doubt."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7—(Machinery For Settling Terms And Conditions Of Employment Of Staff Etc)

I beg to move, in page 9, line 33, after "and," to insert:

"(so far as in the opinion of the Authority considerations of national security permit)."

This Amendment and the subsequent Amendment go together. I think it was the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) who suggested that we should not limit consultation with the Staff Side merely to the promotion and encouragement of measures affecting health, safety and welfare, but that in other nationalisation Acts it has become common form to add efficiency. I was very glad to say that we would do that, but then it was pointed out that because of security reasons we could not do it in exactly the form of the other Acts.

I propose that these words should be put in at the beginning of subsection (2) so that they will cover all the matters which will come up for discussion. I am quite sure that both sides of the Authority will find discussions on efficiency useful. We are all agreed that that is a modern practice which is to be encouraged.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 9, line 34, at end, insert:

"including efficiency in the Authority's work."

First Schedule—(Provisions As To The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority)

7.15 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 13, line 6, at the end, to insert:

(4) Except with the consent of the Lord President of the Council, the Authority shall not dismiss any officer or other person employed by them on the ground that his political associations render his continued employment undesirable in the interests of national security.

I am moving this, the main Amendment on security, in response to the very interesting debate that we had on this subject at an earlier stage. Before I come to the words in the Amendment, perhaps I may deal shortly with two other security points which we were asked to consider and which we have not been able to put into this Amendment.

The first point is one which I mentioned earlier, on which we have not reached agreement in our discussions with the Staff Side. The Staff Side would like alternative employment in the Civil Service to be offered to a man who becomes redundant, or who is dismissed on security grounds. As I have said already, we accept in principle that such an offer of alternative employment is desirable if a man becomes redundant and is an ex-established civil servant We accept in that case because redundancy usually is not of a man's own making. He cannot help it. It therefore seems right that we should do our very best for him.

We cannot, however, carry over that concession to the man who is dismissed on security grounds. There are two reasons for that. First, in nearly every case the reason for the man's dismissal is of his own making. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Certainly. The man knows when he is offered a transfer to the staff of the Authority that if he is, or is likely to become, a bad security risk he is liable to dismissal. I take the view that if a man feels that he is a bad security risk he should not accept the offer. It is far better that he should not join the staff.

I am not quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman is right there. Surely a man can suffer because, in his own genuine opinion, he thought that he was no security risk at all, and had no reason to think that anyone else thought otherwise; but nevertheless, on inquiry he finds himself in the position that, without his own consent at all, the Authority has come to the conclusion that he is a security risk. It cannot fairly be said that that is a situation of his own making. It obviously is not.

I think it very rare that a man will find that he is a Communist without knowing it. I myself think that, though the point mentioned may arise, it is very unlikely to arise. The Government have looked at this carefully. We feel that we cannot undertake to try to find posts in the Civil Service for men who have joined the Authority's staff, have been found to be bad security risks and have been dismissed on that account.

The second request put to us—which is relevant to this particular problem—was that the man who is being dismissed should be paid for a rather longer time than usual after the decision is taken. That is put forward on the quite understandable ground that for some time to come—though I hope not for ever—the Authority will not have very many sections of its work where there will be no classified information, to which a man could be transferred. It was therefore argued in Committee that we should do something special for the man who is dismissed from the Authority because of his opinions.

We are prepared to double the time of notice. That means that the man will get six months' instead of three months' pay. I think it goes some way to meeting the case and shows that we wish to be no more strict than is absolutely necessary.

Does the notice start from the time when he is finally decided to be a bad security risk or from the time of his suspension? Presumably, it is the former.

I must ask for notice to answer that question. I do not know. I will make inquiries. I should think the answer would be, from the time he is suspended. I will let the right hon. Gentleman know.

For reasons beyond anybody's control there may be three or four months between the time of suspicion that a man is a bad security risk and the time when he is dismissed. It seems only proper that this extended period in which a man will get pay should start from the time when the final decision is taken that a man is a bad security risk and is sacked. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the concession he has already made on the length of time of pay.

The right hon. Gentleman seems to have made out a good case, and I will look into it and let him know.

I turn to the Amendment itself. It provides a very important safeguard. I do feel very deeply that we have to protect liberty of thought to the maximum possible degree. Still there does come a point at which there is a conflict of loyalty, and then we must act. This Amendment gives to every man who becomes suspect and whose case is decided against him by the "Three wise men" who are going to act as they have been acting for the Civil Service—

Who are they?

a final court of appeal. That is, the Lord President himself must look at the case, and only if he is satisfied will the man be dismissed. We must limit this appeal to the Minister to cases in which the dismissal is because of the man's political associations.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) has put down two Amendments to my Amendment, to leave out "his political associations render" and after "employment" to insert "is." Suppose we accepted them and gave that right of appeal in all cases in which security is involved. Some very queer results would follow. I will give the House three examples.

There may be cases of moral turpitude. What, in short, that includes is that if a man is a homosexual he is much more easily blackmailed, owing to the law being what it is at present, than almost anybody else. There are cases in which the price which the blackmailer exacts is not money but secrets. It does not seem right that a case of that sort, that concerns an individual's character or behaviour, should be put to the Lord President. The second example is that of a man who is a careless talker. He may be a careless talker by habit, or he may be only in his cups. We all know that the alcoholic babbler is a nuisance, and he must not be employed on work of a secret nature. That also is a case of the character or of the habits of an employee, and it is really not reasonable that that sort of case should go to the Lord President.

The third example, of which, I think, there are likely to be more instances than of the others, is that of a man who may be inefficient in carrying out specific security duties. We may have a night watchman who from time to time is caught snoozing on the job. [HON. MEMBERS: "He would be dismissed."] He would be dismissed on security grounds and his case would have to go to the Lord President if we accepted the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment to my Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We may have a special constable inefficient in one way or another, who took down garbled reports, and who ought to be dismissed, but if he were dismissed because of inefficiency on security duties he would have to go to the Lord President.

I follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument on at least one of the three instances, but how does moral failing of the kind he described affect national security?

I thought I described it clearly enough. If a man is subject to blackmail he is a bad security risk.

Suppose he denies it?

I cannot go into the question whether he denies it or not.

It is not a point on which one would want a long debate, and I am trying to follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument, and I began with some sympathy for him. However, let us consider one of these cases he has described, the moral turpitude one. Suppose the man says, "It is not true at all. I am not that kind of man. I am not subject to these temptations. I am not subject to this kind of blackmail." Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that in such a case the Authority may dismiss that man, with his having no right of appeal, without the facts being investigated by anybody? The Authority might be wrong.

If the Authority were wrong, the man might have some rights against the Authority.

Oh, no, he would not—not under this Amendment.

If one accuses someone of moral turpitude and is not correct that someone would have some rights, I think—if an ordinary employer got rid of a man for that reason. I cannot include men who are bad security risks because of their character in the right to have their cases taken to the Lord President.

I am quite certain that these sorts of cases, of moral turpitude, of careless talking, of inefficiency in the performance of specific security duties, are not cases about which the public is anxious. The public is anxious, I think quite rightly, about cases in which a man may be dismissed because of his political views or political associations. That is the heart of the matter, and that is what we have to deal with.

Apart from the general contention, the Minister has just made a statement which is serious. Is he saying that a homosexual is automatically now considered to be a security risk? That is what he said. I should like him to confirm it, because it is a serious thing to say that in this country we now consider all those people to be security risks, and so ought to be discharged.

I should like to take advice on that, but my impression is that the answer is "Yes." It certainly is in America. It is the result of the law as it is now.

However, the anxiety is about political treatment, and, therefore, I have brought forward this Amendment, which means that those men who are under suspicion as bad security risks because they are Communists or have associated with Communists cannot be dismissed without the Lord President's examining their cases. That is as far as the Government can go. It fulfils the assurances I gave in Committee.

7.30 p.m.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out "his political associations render."

While I feel sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends are grateful for the Minister's good intentions, I certainly do not think they go nearly far enough. The point has been made by his comments on this Amendment which I move to his Amendment. The question is whether these rights ought to be limited to political associations and, as a further question, whether we ought to introduce, for the first time as far as I know in any Act of Parliament, reference to political associations. It seems to me to have rather dangerous implications, but I shall come to that in a moment.

Let me take the right hon. Gentleman's own cases, and I will start, if I may, with the weakest of them—by far the weakest of them, which was that of the babbler, the man who talks too much. I should have thought that he was just the kind of person who stood in need of special protection of this type by reference to the Lord President instead of having to deal only with the Authority. I should have thought he stood in need of that sort of protection at least as much as anyone involved simply in a matter of political associations.

When we come to distinguish between the one kind of case and the other, I believe we may find it extraordinarily difficult to draw a line. We might have a man who babbles too much and, on the other hand, a man who keeps his mouth shut but whose political associations are disliked; but in between we might easily have a man who babbles a bit but who babbles to the kind of folk to whom it is thought dangerous that he should babble. We cannot draw a line of that sort at all properly.

As for the blackmailee, if I may coin a word, it seems to me a remarkable notion that a man becomes a security risk in this kind of work because he is subject to blackmail, whether the risk of blackmail is the particular one which the right hon. Gentleman gave or whether, as one would logically have to do, one said that it applied to anybody who can be blackmailed. I should have thought that the man who could be blackmailed was certainly entitled to the protection—because it is a protection—of the need for the Lord President's consent.

The last case, which the right hon. Gentleman thought was his strongest case, seemed to me to be simply a muddle of language. The night watchman who guards a place, whether it is a private warehouse of some sort or one of these establishments, is commonly said to be there in the interests of security, but it seems to me to be a confusion to say that because what he happens to guard is national property, he is therefore there in the interests of national security. No doubt in one sense of the word he is, but it is not the usual sense of the word, and if there is any question of making it clear, then it ought to be possible quite easily to draw the distinction between the man who looks after national property and the man who is something quite different—something which we all recognise; that is, a national security risk. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that from the point of view of protecting people who ought to be protected and of not being unfair to one class of person and tolerably fair to another, he should look again at this question of retaining the words "political associations."

It seems to me that there is another very serious objection to retaining those words. After all, not so long ago my own party was a highly suspect organisation in many circles. If we go back far enough, the same thing applies to the Tory Party. It has applied at one time or another to every political party or political organisation in this country, and I do not like the idea of putting into an Act of Parliament that people are a risk to national security because of their political associations. I do not like the introduction of those words, and I do not think it right to place upon people who are concerned in administering the Bill, whether they are concerned as the Authority or as something of that sort or Whether they are concerned in the interpretation of the Ball in the courts, the question of deciding what is and what is not a political association.

This is a particularly bad context in which to do it. We shall have people who may have all shades of associations and opinions, and who is to draw the line between what is political and what is not? This is, as it were, the notional side of the point which the Minister seeks to make as between the babbler and—I was about to say the deliberate traitor but I will say the double loyalist. I think it is a distinction as unreal when we try to put it in terms of language as we should find unreal if we sought to draw it between one type of human being and another. Surely the simplest thing in an Act of Parliament, as anywhere else, is to say what we want to do in the shortest, fewest and simplest words we can find. What we want to do is to eliminate national security risks. All this introduction of political associations and over-long words seems simply to confuse the issue and to make it harder to treat with fairness those whom we want to treat with fairness.

I therefore hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter and will either accept the Amendment to his Amendment—as I hope he will—or will give an assurance that he will look at the matter again, that he will eliminate these words "political associations" and that he will very carefully consider whether he ought not to go through the other types of case, including those which seem to him to be obvious exceptions.

I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has made a very strong case for the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, but I hope he will allow me to say that in my opinion the Minister has made an even stronger case. When this Amendment was drafted I was not aware that it is possible for people to be dismissed on security grounds because it is thought that they might conceivably have some moral practices with which society for the time being does not agree. It seems to me that we are getting into an extraordinary situation, and I believe that such people should have the extra protection which will be afforded if the Amendment to the proposed Amendment is accepted.

May I ask the Minister a question about his remarks on alternative employment? He has not accepted one of the most significant points which was made. How genuine is his offer to make available alternative employment if the Civil Service is to be excluded from the ground in which alternatives can be sought? Does he think it is feasible? Are there likely to be many cases within the employment of the Atomic Energy Authority where the person who is considered a security risk in one job is found new employment with that Authority?

Great point was made in the earlier debate that it was proposed to apply to the Authority all the provisions and safeguards which apply in the Civil Service, but in the Civil Service, as far as my knowledge goes, it was found possible in many cases, when persons in one type of job were considered to be security risks, to place them in other posts where they were not considered so dangerous to national security. That was a safeguard and protection which met with general satisfaction. Will the Minister be good enough to indicate whether he does not think that by offering this safeguard without including the old Departmental posts in the Civil Service as a whole, he is offering the shadow without the substance?

May I ask the Minister this further question. If a scientist is dismissed or an employee is dismissed from the Atomic Energy Authority on grounds of being a national security risk, does that mean that he or she will be debarred from employment? Does that mean that the employee will be prevented from making application for employment in the Civil Service because he or she will automatically be considered to be a security risk? If that is so, it is narrowing the field of possible employment considerably for some of these people, and I hope that the Minister will reconsider his attitude to this matter.

I hope that the Minister may find himself, as the result of the considerations now advanced, able to reconsider this matter. I confess that when I looked at the Amendments on the Order Paper, I was inclined at first to think that my hon. Friends were wrong and 'that the Minister was right. I thought that he would say to us: "If you found a man who was actually selling or giving away the secrets of the establishment, either to a foreign power or to anyone else, it would be absurd to suggest that you could not sack him without going to the Lord President of the Council." If that had been his case, I would have thought that there might have been something in it for my hon. Friends to consider. But the Minister has not made that case at all. He has made a totally different case which, I suggest to him in all seriousness, means that the protection he is really offering might in some circumstances be a completely illusory protection.

We might find, in a given case, the Authority being doubtful of a man's security status for political reasons, but we nevertheless might feel very doubtful about its ability to establish the validity of those grounds before a tribunal. What the right hon. Gentleman is doing is giving that Authority several very wide ways of escape. It has only to give a notice terminating the employment on security grounds and not give any reasons in order to deprive the man or woman concerned of any right of appeal of any kind. It is only, as I understand it, if the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is carried, if we say to a man, "You can no longer be employed here because you are a bad security risk by reason of your political associations" that the man will have any right of appeal, and the Authority can take away from the person concerned all right of appeal by merely omitting the words, "Because of political associations" from the form of notice which it serves upon him. If that is right—and I feel sure that it is—the protection offered would be a completely illusory one and the right hon. Gentleman's intentions, which I am sure are of the best, would not in the least be carrying out the undertaking which he gave on the Committee stage.

The second point which I should like to make is that, even if one were to accept the distinction which the Minister wishes to draw between security risks because of political associations and security risks because a man might, for some reason or another, make himself liable to be blackmailed by someone, his argument would be a bad one. That is precisely the kind of thing which depends on whispering, on rumours and on a complete absence of evidence; but which, nevertheless can create, by small talk and hints in obscure corners, an atmosphere under which a very great injustice may be committed.

7.45 p.m.

It is very easy to work up an atmosphere of this kind if there are people who wish to do so. It is quite clear that that kind of charge might be made in circumstances in which it was not true at all. If the right hon. Gentleman is right, the man would have no remedy of any kind. The right hon. Gentleman did say, when I intervened on this point, that if the Authority accused a man of practices of any kind and that accusation was untrue, the man would have some other kind of remedy. With all respect, I do not think that he would. The Authority, in making the accusation, would be privileged, and unless it could be shown that the Authority was acting maliciously or for some other improper reason, the man would certainly have no remedy at all of any value to him in the courts under the law relating to defamation. Neither in the notice given to him terminating his contract nor under this Clause would he have any right of appeal because of wrongful dismissal.

If there were any such reasons, the Authority does not need to use these words in its dismissal at all—and it would not—and the man again would have no remedy and no right of appeal. It is a great temptation to the Authority, if we do this, never to say if it were dismissing a man on security grounds that it was because of political associations. The Authority would merely think: "If we say 'political associations' he has the right of appeal; if we do not say 'political associations' he has no right of appeal. It is, therefore, better for us not to say 'political associations' whatever our reasons are." If, in fact, the grounds of dismissal were because of political associations the man would be deprived of his right of appeal, and the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is an empty form of words offering no protection to anyone.

My third point is that the Minister used the vague phrase "political associations" for this purpose. There was a case the other day in an institution where a young woman was employed as a cashier in a canteen. It turned out that her husband, who had nothing whatever to do with the establishment, was a member of the Communist Party or a member of the Young Communists League, and she was sacked. Is that "political associations" within the meaning of this Amendment? I assure the right hon. Gentleman that if that is regarded as the kind of reason for which a man or woman may be sacked, it will not carry the consent of the House and it will not carry the consent of the country. To do the right hon. Gentleman justice, I think that he would be very unhappy about it himself.

indicated dissent.

The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I imagine that he feels that he has to stick to his point. I have listened to him with very great interest, as I usually do, today, and to the speeches which he made on this matter in Committee. I doubt very much whether he would think that kind of thing right.

My final point is that he seems to have accepted for the purpose of this Amendment the very outlook on this matter which was pressed upon him from this side of the House on the Committee stage and which he then rejected. What was the argument then? The argument was, "You should not accept my right hon. Friend's Amendment and his Schedule because you do not want to write this kind of thing into our legislation for the first time in our history." I thought that was a good argument, and, indeed, I made it before he did. I was delighted to find that he accepted it, and I think that my right hon. Friend at the end of the debate had strong sympathy with it, too.

indicated assent.

Having converted my right hon. Friend, the Minister has lost the faith himself. Now, to move an Amendment which includes the words,

"on the ground that his political associations,"

is to make nonsense of the argument which he used so successfully to persuade my right hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment in Committee.

As my right hon. Friend said in moving his Amendment, surely the simple and the right thing to do is to say that if a man is being dismissed, not for a provable charge of misconduct or a definite act which can be established beyond argument, but on security grounds which do not amount to any kind of offence or misconduct in themselves, in every such case the man shall be entitled to his appeal to a tribunal, like everybody else. Let the Authority make its case and let the man make his defence, and everybody, or most people, at any rate, will be happy enough at the end of it. If it is done in the way that the Minister proposes, nobody has any protection of any kind.

Earlier this evening I put down an Amendment about the discussions that were taking place with the trade unions in the Civil Service for proper protection of employees in the matter of transfers. The right hon. Gentleman gave an assurance, which I accepted—it underlined what I knew already from other information—that in the main, except for a reservation relating to security, the discussions with the unions were going well and would be brought to a satisfactory conclusion. The Minister has now confessed that there is what appears to me a major point of difference between what the unions are asking for in this matter of security and his own point of view.

As I understand it, the unions are asking that where a man is removed from the service of the new Authority because he is a bad security risk, there should be the provision of transfer back to the Civil Service in appropriate cases. I also understand from my information that the unions want the provision of adequate compensation where the provision of transfer proves impracticable.

If I followed the right hon. Gentleman correctly, however, he said—he was firm about this—that the Government were not prepared to concede this right of transfer back to the Civil Service when a man was removed from the employment of the Authority on security grounds. If that be the case, it is idle for the Government to claim that they are now operating what was the practice of the Labour Government in this matter.

It could have been said about our practice that when my right hon. Friend was responsible for these affairs, the glory of our system was that in this way we avoided anything which seemed like McCarthyism. If a man had to be removed on security grounds from work involving national safety, he was found alternative employment. In other words, he was not penalised individually in any way on account of his political opinions but at the same time the security of the State was protected. For the future, apparently, that will not be the case, and no real attempt will be made to find alternative work for a man who on security grounds is removed from his work in the service of the new Authority.

The only reason that the Minister has given for this was that it was mainly a man's own fault if he held certain political opinions. That is an extraordinary point of view. I should have thought it was assumed that in a democratic society people were entitled to hold any opinions they liked; that is the assumption normally observed in a democratic society. If that assumption is no longer to be made, the unions have grave cause for complaint about the right hon. Gentleman's attitude.

Turning to the other points that have been made in relation to the Amendment and my hon. Friends' Amendments to it, it is extraordinary if it is to be said that a homosexual is a danger to security because it is assumed that he is automatically the victim of blackmail. If any concrete information is available about the individual, surely the law would be involved and it would be a matter for the courts and not for any kind of action by the employing Authority?

I agree with my hon. Friends who object most strongly to the words "political associations" in the Amendment. I like the principle of the appeal to the Lord President of the Council, but it is very undersirable that, for the first time in British constitutional history, it should be proposed to put words of this kind into an Act of Parliament. As my hon. Friends have said, these words have widespread implications. There have been times for instance when I have been of opinion that the continued employment of Conservative Ministers of the Crown was undesirable in the interests of real national security.

It is something to talk about, at any rate.

It is impossible to obtain a proper definition of what is meant by "political associations." The grounds for leaving out these words are, therefore, extremely strong. As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) said, if any stronger support in that point of view was needed, one had only to listen at an earlier stage to the complicated remarks of the Minister himself.

I should like to try to make the matter a little clearer. I admit that I did not do so on the first occasion. What we are trying to do—it is for the first time—is to put into the legislation what actually happens in regard to this security procedure in the Civil Service as it goes on at present on that aspect of it which concerns the appeal to the Minister.

What is it that the "Three wise men" sit upon in the Civil Service? It is only people who are suspected of being security risks on account of their political associations. I agree that the words are objectionable, and I do not like them, but suppose that we were to leave out the words and do what the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment would do and say that all cases of dismissal on grounds of national security must go to the Lord President. We should be embracing a whole series of cases which do not go to the "Three wise men" in the Civil Service and which would not go to them under the Authority. [Interruption.] It depends what the words "dismissal on grounds of national security" cover.

It may be that we could find better words to describe the kind of cases that should go to the tribunal. If the House wishes, I am ready to take away the Amendment and look at the thing again and see whether in another place we can find words that do what we all want to do and write into the Bill what is the practice in the Civil Service. I do not think that any hon. Member is asking us to institute a different machinery. The Government's view is that if we give the staff of the Authority the same rights of final decision by the Minister as they enjoy in, say, the Ministry of Supply, we are doing what we should do, and we Should not do any more. If that meets with the wishes of the House we will look at these words again and try to discover what is the most appropriate means of locating cases that go to the "Three wise men."

8.0 p.m.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider covering the case of the gabbler because it seems to me that in some cases he is indistinguishable from the political risk and, secondly, surely he ought to cover the black-mailee whether he is a homosexual, a bigamist or a confirmed burglar. Surely it does not make any difference.

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for emphasising these three cases, but they will have to be looked at to carry out the undertaking I have just given. There are possibilities whereby a man is dismissed under the ordinary terms of his contract because, as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has said, he has misconducted himself. We should like to exclude those, but the question is how to define the cases which are over and above the accepted charges of misconduct. We will try to do it.

One other point was raised by the non. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) about alternative employment. It is true that for the time being there are not a great many places inside the Authority in which a man, suspect for his political associations, or however we might define it, might go. We have looked at this very carefully, and it is felt that the furthest we can go is to say that to the best of our ability the Civil Service should provide a job for a man when he becomes redundant.

I think there is a distinction between those who have been in the Civil Service some time and those who go now to the Authority. The distinction arises because, when a man joins the Authority, one of the terms on which he joins is that he says he is not a Communist and he knows perfectly well that it is one of the conditions of his contract that if he is found afterwards to be a bad security risk he will be dismissed. That creates a difference between that man and the man who joined the Civil Service and only after some time is transferred to work on classified secrets.

But what about the man who has been in the Civil Service and has transferred over to the Authority in the general transfer and is eventually found to be a security risk? The same man has been there all the time, but this is a new instruction about him. Will no opportunity be given to him to go back to the Service?

As we have decided at present, no. We find we cannot extend this concession to men who are dismissed for their political associations. I am sorry about that, but that is the limit to which we can go.

I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has agreed to look at one of the matters about which we are complaining, and I would beg him to look at the other. Naturally he has not had any experience of this. I had for some time, and if he had I believe he would see that the conclusion which he has announced as being that of the Government is in fact, exceedingly unfair.

May I put this point to the right hon. Gentleman? I am dealing now with the case of the man who is employed by the Authority and found to be a security risk and though it may not be his own fault that he is a security risk, he will not, the right hon. Gentleman says, be offered a job in the Civil Service. The man may be a bad security risk primarily through factors for which he is in no way responsible.

One of the things which we have to bear in mind and to which we have to give careful consideration when we are dealing with such a man is whether he is not a good security risk because of the position of his relatives, particularly those who happen to be living on the other side of the Iron Curtain. We know from experience that it frequently happens that people who have relatives on the other side of the Iron Curtain have serious pressure put upon them and are threatened with all sorts of things if they do not take a certain line. One has to take note of such matters.

We have to bear in mind if such a man possesses security secrets which could be given away, it may be necessary to transfer him because he might be induced to do something he ought not to do if he knew that otherwise his parents or children, who were living in Rumania or in Russia, would suffer seriously. That sort of man has to be told to leave his job because of the pressure which might be put on him.

There are many cases—I can think of several—where the authorities would be justified in saying that this man was a bad security risk though he was not responsible for it. It may be, too, that some action which he took five or 10 years ago and which he had forgotten about could be used to force him to get this information. It may be that in the interval he had changed his views, and now considers himself a sound security risk. The authorities may take a different view and they would be justified in saying, "You have got to leave this particular job where, you are doing secret work. We are sorry, but that is the position."

I say that man ought to be offered a job in the Civil Service if it is at all possible. Why should he not? Why should he be punished? It is not his fault. It is an entirely different matter if the right hon. Gentleman is dealing with someone who has not disclosed the full facts or has misled the Authority by giving false information when he first joined. But I say that the Government ought to reconsider their decision about completely barring a man from work in the Civil Service who is found to be a bad security risk through no fault of his own.

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is going to reconsider the wording of his own Amendment. That wording may lead to all sorts of difficulties, and I think my hon. Friends, on the undertaking which the Minister has given to reconsider this matter, will be prepared to let the Amendment pass without further discussion, because we do not want to keep the House longer than is necessary.

However, I must express my surprise and opposition to the policy announced this evening by the right hon. Gentleman that all homosexuals are considered a bad security risk and will not be employed at Harwell or other such places. I think that is as serious as it is wrong. I know it is general in the United States, but that does not make it any better. It is a matter which I do not want to discuss further this evening. If the right hon. Gentleman undertakes to reconsider the wording of the present Amendment and, I hope, the other point that was raised then we can let the matter go.

Does the right hon. Gentleman ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the proposed Amendment?

I understood the Minister to say that he would take the Amendment back to reconsider it. Is not that what he said?

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I say that I think it would be more satisfactory if we insert the Amendment and I undertake to have the Bill amended in another place, because the Bill is ready to go forward at once to another place if the House gives it a Third Reading. However, I greatly appreciate the arguments made and I will convey to my right hon. Friend that we in this House have clearly showed that we think the words "political associations" are not satisfactory.

I should like to get in on this subject, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because it is important from the medical point of view. Many of the individuals concerned come under medical diagnosis. If, however, you wish the debate to end now, I will obey your Ruling.

I do not think that medical diagnosis has anything to do with this Amendment.

But that does not mean that it has not an important aspect on many of the cases. A man's whole life and reputation, and also the reputation of the employing Government authority, may be involved.

That may well be true, but it is not related to this Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.

Amendment agreed to.

8.12 p.m.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

I should like to thank hon. Gentlemen who have taken part in this debate for their kindness to me in handling the Bill. I am sure that it is better for our discussions, because we have put in some good Amendments. I am particularly glad that today we have inserted the Amendment about consultation on efficiency of work. It is difficult to draft a Bill which covers such a curious halfway house between a Government Department and an ordinary industry. The atomic energy project is becoming more and more a major industry, yet it does not earn an appreciable income, and therefore, as we have seen in Clause 4, it has to be treated very much like a Government Department. On the other hand, the project will not expand as it would if it were serving the public, like the British Electricity Authority. It will remain more or less an incubator which will hatch the ideas of the research people and those will be followed up by industry.

Therefore, the relations between the project which we are setting up and industry are of the utmost importance. I should like to tell the House that the conversations with private industry and with the B.E.A. are going well, and if the House gives the Bill the Third Reading it may be that in another place my noble Friend will be able to give more details of what is a fascinating outlook, namely, that we should be able to establish in this country a new major industry as a result of the discoveries on the industrial side of atomic energy.

I may have made a mistake in conveying to the House—though I do not think I did—that all homosexuals are necessarily suspect risks. If I conveyed that, I am sorry. I hope the House will now give us the Third Reading of a Bill which has great prospects.

8.16 p.m.

In view of the length of the important discussions we have had on this Bill on Report, I need not detain the House any longer than the right hon. Gentleman has done in moving its Third Reading.

The Bill emerges from consideration in Committee and on Report essentially the same as it entered those stages. It contains a proposal with which we disagree strongly and which has in no way been modified. On the other hand, it is only fair to say that the right hon. Gentleman has been unfailingly courteous and willing to consider our Amendments carefully and, indeed, we also were willing to accept arguments which he put forward where we thought he had a reasonable case, even if we did not agree fully with him. I want to thank the Minister, therefore, on behalf of my hon. Friends for his co-operation during the Committee and Report stages and for his willingness to accept Amendments which have undoubtedly improved the Bill considerably.

As I have said, the main objective of this Bill remains unchanged. We think that objective is foolish and unwise. The Government think differently and, as they have a majority in the House, it is right that their views should prevail. We hope we are wrong in our view that the separation of the atomic energy enterprise from the Ministry of Supply, with its immense knowledge, skill and experience in developing new things, its contacts and knowledge of industrial matters in the engineering field, its great expertise in all matters of scientific research, will be harmful.

Unfortunately, this is one of the matters where nobody will ever be able to prove who is right. I have not the slightest doubt that this great project will continue to make rapid progress, so nobody will be able to say whether it would have made more progress more rapidly if the change had not taken place. Therefore, although we believe it is a mistake, at this stage at any rate, to separate the atomic energy activities of the Government from a Government Department and to set up this new Authority, we wish that those who will now guide and control it will be successful, and we shall give them all the help we can to ensure that their activities serve the nation increasingly and as speedily as possible. We shall do this because we realise that on their shoulders lies an enormous responsibility, and that on the success of their activities will depend more perhaps than on the politicians and statesmen who guide this country on economic matters the prosperity of the people of this country in 50 years' time.

Therefore, while we shall oppose this Bill because we think it is unwise and foolish, because we think it is based largely on political prejudice against the Civil Service and all their works, and in favour of industrialists who are considered by the party opposite to be the only people who can do things properly on a large scale, we nevertheless hope that the new Authority to be set up will be successful in every way, particularly in the development of new power for civilian purposes, and that it will be able to contribute substantially to the economic prosperity of this country and of its people in generations to come.

8.20 p.m.

The Minister referred to this Bill as an incubator, but it depends on what is

Division No. 80.]	AYES	[8.22 p.m.
Aitken, W. T.	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm	Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Alport, C. J. M.	Drayson, G. B.	Hylton-Foster, H. B. H
Anstruther-Gray Major W. J.	Drewe, Sir C.	Iremonger, T. L.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)	Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Baldwin, A. E.	Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Barlow, Sir John	Ecdes, Rtl. Hon. Sir D. M.	Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Beach, Maj. Hicks	Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)	Jones, A. (Halt Green)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.	Kaberry, D.
Bed, Ronald (Bucks, S.)	Fell, A.	Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)	Finlay, Graeme	Kerr, H. W.
Bishop, F. P.	Fisher, Nigel	Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Black, C. W.	Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F	Langford-Holt, J. A.
Bossom, Sir A. C.	Fletcher-Cooke, C.	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Bowen, E. R.	Foster, John	Legh, Hon, Peter (Petersfield)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A	Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)	Linstead, Sir H. N.
Boyle, Sir Edward	Fraser, Sir Ian (Moreoambe & Lonsdale)	Lloyd, Maj, Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Braithwaite, Sir Gurney	Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)	Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Brooks, Henry (Hampstead)	Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Brooman-While, R. C.	Garner-Evans, E. H.	Luoas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Browne, Jack (Govan)	George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd	Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Bushan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.	Gower, H. R.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Bullard, D. G.	Graham, Sir Fergus	McAddan, S. J.
Burden, F. F. A.	Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)	MoCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Campbell, Sir David	Hall, John (Wycombe)	MoKibbin, A. J.
Carr, Robert	Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)	Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Channon, H.	Harvey, Air Cdre, A. V. (Maoolesfield)	Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Harvie-Watt, Sir George	Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Herneastle)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)	Hay, John	Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Cole, Norman	Heald, Rt- Hon. Sir Lionel	Markham, Major Sir Frank
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.	Heath, Edward	Marlowe, A. A. H.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert	Higgs, J. M. C.	Maude, Angus
Cooper-Key, E. M.	Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)	Maydon, Lt. Comdr. S. L. C.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Hirst, Geoffrey	Medlicott, Brig. F.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.	Hope, Lord John	Mellor, Sir John
crostwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.	Molson, A. H. E.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)	Horobin, I. M.	Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Darting, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)	Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)	Moore, Sir Thomas
Davidson, Viscountess	Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)	Nabarro, G. D. N.
Deedes, W. F.	Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.	Neave, Array
Digby, S. Wingfield	Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)	Nicholls, Harmar
Doughty, C. J. A.	Hutchison, James (Sootstoun)	Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

likely to come out of the incubator. While the Minister is being given power to utilise atomic energy for civilian purposes, he is also being given a blank cheque to manufacture atom bombs and hydrogen bombs. In those circumstances, we must look upon this Bill with a certain amount of misgiving.

While we cordially agree with the development of atomic energy for useful peace-time purposes, for relieving the burden and toil of mankind, we must register a protest that under this Bill, under a cloak of secrecy, a great deal of scientific brain and energy will be devoted to manufacturing weapons for atomic warfare. If there had been no such possibility we could have given the Bill an even more cordial welcome. If this Bill is used for the development of atomic energy for war purposes, for the development of bombs with which to blast other countries—even in the sacred name of defence—it will be found to be a curse and not a blessing.

Question put.

The House divided: Noes,167.

Nield, Basil (Chester)	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D	Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Nugent, G. R. H.	Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Odey, G. W.	Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas	Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C N
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.	Tilney, John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Scott, R. Donald	Touche, Sir Gordon
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)	Shepherd, William	Vane, W. M. F.
Page, R. G.	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Perkins, Sir Robert	Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)	Vosper, D. F.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.	Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)	Wakenfield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.	Spearman, A. C. M.	Walker-Smith, D. C.
Powell, J. Enoch	Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensinglon, S.)	Wall, P. H. B.
Raikes, Sir Victor	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Rayner, Brig. R.	Stevens, G. P.	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Redmayne, M.	Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C
Rees-Davies, W. R.	Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)	Watkinson, H. A.
Remnant, Hon. P.	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.	Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Renton, D. L. M.	Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)	Wellwood, W.
Ridsdate, J. E.	Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Robertson, Sir David	Stud holme, H. G.	Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)	Summers, G. S.	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)	Sutcliffe, Sir Harold	Wills, Gerald
Roper, Sir Harold	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard	Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Russell, R. S.	Teeling, W.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
		Mr. Oakshott and Mr. Allan

NOES
Adams, Richard	Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)	Proctor, W. T.
Albu, A. H.	Herbison, Miss M.	Pryde, D. J.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Hewitson, Capt. M	Rankin, John
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)	Hobson, C. R.	Reeves, J.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.	Holman, P.	Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Bacon, Miss Alice	Hough Ion, Douglas	Reid, William (Camlachie)
Baird, J.	Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)	Rhodes, H.
Bartley, P.	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Richards, R.
Benn, Hon. Wedgwood	Hugnes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Robens, Rt. Hon. A
Benson, G.	Hynd, H. (Accrington)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Beswick, F.	Hynd, J. B. (Atteroliffe)	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Blackburn, F.	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Blenkinsop, A.	Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)	Ross, William
Blyton, W. R.	Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.	Short, E. W.
Boardman, H.	Jeger, George (Goole)	Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Bowden, H. W.	Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth	Johnson, James (Rugby)	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Brockway, A. F.	Jones, David (Hartlepool)	Skeffington, A. M.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D	Jones, Jack (Rotherham)	Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Brown, Thomas (lnce)	Keenan, W.	Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Burton, Miss F. E.	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W	Snow, J. W.
Chapman, W. D.	King, Dr. H. M.	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Chetwynd, G. R.	Lawson, G. M.	Sparks, J. A.
Clunie, J.	Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Collick, P. H.	Lindgren, G. S.	Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.	Swingler, S. T.
Cove, W. G.	MacColl, J. E.	Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	McGovern, J.	Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Crossman, R. H. S.	McKay, John (Wallsend)	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Daines, p.	McLeavy, F.	Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Darling, George (Hillsborough)	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Tomney, F.
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Mann, Mrs. Jean	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Delargy, H. J.	Manuel, A. C.	Viant, S. P.
Dodds, N. N.	Mason, Roy	Wallace, H. W.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Mellish, R. J	Warbey, W. N.
Edelman, M.	Messer, Sir F.	Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)	Mitchison, G. R.	Wells, Percy (Faverham)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)	Moody, A. S.	Wells, William (Walsall)
Evans, Edward (Lowesloft)	Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.	Wheeldon, W. E.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)	Morley, R.	White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E)
Fienburgh, W.	Morris, Percy (Swansea, w.)	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)	Wigg, George
Follick, M.	Moyle, A.	Wilkins, W. A.
Forman, J. C.	Mulley, F. W.	Willey, F. T.
Gibson, C. W.	Neal, Harold (Bolsover)	Williams, David (Neath)
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.	Oliver, G. H	Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)	Orbaoh, M.	Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)
Grey, C. F.	Osweld, T.	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Palmer, A. M. F	Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	Pannell, Charles	Willis, E. G.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	Parker, J.	Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, S.)
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)	Parkin, B. T	Wyatt, W. L.
Hamilton, W. W.	Pearson, A.	Yates, V. F.
Hannan, W.	Perter, T. F.
Hargreaves, A.	Popplewell, E.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)	Porter, G.	Mr. Royle and Mr. Arthur Allen
Hayman, F. H.	Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Army And Air Force (Annual) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

8.31 p.m.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Bill is in the same form as the one introduced last year. It is designed to prolong the Army and Air Force until 31st July, 1955. Last year when I introduced a similar Bill there was comment from hon. Members opposite because, owing to the fact that the Government had not put down Amendments, it was ruled not possible for hon. Members to put down any Amendments. Through the usual channels we informed hon. Members that this Bill would be in the same form, and I understand and appreciate that hon. Members wish to comment on the Ruling. I think that hon. Members on both sides will agree that as there is a Select Committee considering the whole question of the revision of the annual Act, it would be most unwise to take their recommendations piecemeal.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the authority on which he states that Amendments which my hon. Friends might have wished to put down would have been out of order, because there was no reference to that?

I stated no authority.

I do not see how a discussion about Amendments could be in order at this stage.

I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Perhaps I might say that I mentioned the question of Amendments only because it was the subject of discussion on the last Second Reading. I wish to make it clear that the Government appreciated the point made by the Opposition.

On a point of order. Surely, it is not within the competence of the Minister to express a view about whether or not an Amendment is in order?

At this stage it is not in order to discuss Amendments at all.

The hon. Gentleman, who is not slow to take up these points, has misrepresented me, because I never said whether or not they were in order. I merely stated the fact that on the last occasion hon. Members took exception to the fact that they could not move Amendments.

I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that this is the Second Reading.

I apologise. I was led away, not for the first time, by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). I think that hon. Members will agree that in view of the work being done by the Committee, it would be most sensible and logical to await the completion of their report and to take it all at one bite.

I hope that I shall be in order, on behalf of the Service Departments, if I pay tribute to the work now being done by that Committee. It has had no fewer than 65 meetings. It has worked in great harmony and, if I may express an opinion at this stage, with considerable success in undertaking a very large task. I should not like to conclude without paying tribute to the excellent work which the Committee has done.

8.35 p.m.

It is notoriously difficult for anyone to say anything on the Second Reading of this Bill without getting out of order. With a view to walking that procedural tightrope correctly, I should say at once that it seems to me that any question of whether any hypothetical Amendments either were in the past or might in the future be in or out of order is a matter which we must leave over for the present to be adjudicated upon by the Chair when we reach the Committee stage.

The Bill is the device by which the Government invite Parliament to prolong the duration of the Army and Air Force Act. The reasons Governments have to ask that permission annually are weighty, historical and constitutional, and I shall not attempt to weary the House by rehearsing them. Indeed, this annual asking and granting of permission is one of the devices whereby it is made formally clear that sovereignty in this country resides not with the Government but with Parliament, a matter of which Governments need to be reminded from time to time.

It is true to say, as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, that this year neither on Second Reading nor on any subsequent stage of the Bill are the Government likely to find that the House is at all cantankerous or slow to grant them this annual permission, but I think it right to make it clear, on behalf of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House and, indeed, of the House of Commons and Parliament as a whole, that the fact that we shall not make any difficulties this year does not mean that Parliament regards lightly, or as of no account, its annual opportunity for saying "yes" or "no" when the Government ask for this permission. The sole reason for treating the matter comparatively formally this year is that when the Select Committee has subsequently reported, Parliament will be in a very much better position to consider the Army and Air Force Act as a whole.

When a tribute is paid, such as that which the right hon. Gentleman has paid to the work of the Select Committee, it is usual for the speaker from the Opposition who follows the Minister to say that his sentiments are fully shared. I am in a little difficulty in joining in the very kind compliments which the right hon. Gentleman has paid to the Select Committee because I am a member of it. However, on behalf of all the other members of it, I might perhaps be allowed to say that, with that exception, I am sure that' the compliments of the right hon. Gentleman are well deserved.

It might even be appropriate on this occasion to say what I am sure that all members of the Select Committee who may be present would like me to say, and that is that these compliments apply in very high measure to the right hon. Gentleman who is the Chairman of the Committee. I think that I shall carry all members of the Select Committee with me if I also add a word of commendation to the Under-Secretary of State for War who has had to combine membership of the Committee with the ordinary Departmental duties of his office. I am sure that I shall have the agreement of those of us who are not in agreement with him politically when I express our appreciation. I ought also to add our appreciation of the work of the Departmental Committee which has worked side by side with the Select Committee and without which it would have been impossible for the Select Committee to do its work.

Having remained upright on the procedural tightrope so long, I will conclude by reminding the Government that the fact that the Bill is likely to have a very easy passage this year does not mean that anyone in any quarter of the House is unaware of the constitutional importance of this occasion.

8.40 p.m.

We certainly make progress. Last year the Government tried to get the Bill through "on the nod"; this time we have been favoured with an opening speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War which we all very much appreciate, but I do not think we ought to allow this Bill to be given a Second Reading without receiving one or two further assurances from the right hon. Gentleman as to the future.

In 1952, the Bill was presented with Amendments, which meant that the matter could be fully discussed. I shall not discuss the Amendments, but simply state the fact that the Bill was presented with Amendments, with the result that 16 hours were spent on discussing this important matter at the Second Reading stage. We are now precluded, by the Ruling of the Chair and the presentation of the Bill in a special form, from saying all that we would like to say on Second Reading. In 1953, the Bill was presented with no Amendments, which also precluded a discussion similar to that of the previous year.

By the provisions of Clause 2, the Bill keeps in force the Army Act and the Air Force Act, copies of which I have here. In 1952, this House decided that the Army Act and the Air Force Act were antediluvian, out of date and obsolete. Therefore, the Act which we are now continuing in force under Clause 2 of this Bill has already been decided to be out of date. A Select Committee was set up, and we were promised—

The hon. Member is being very ingenious, but all that this Bill does is to extend the operation of the Act. We cannot go into the history of the matter.

I am saying that this Bill extends the Army and Air Force (Annual) Act, which has been described as obsolete, and has been so decided by this House, and I am only asking that we should have some assurance from the Secretary of State for War about the future. The right hon. Gentleman has given some assurances this evening, and has said that he knows of the good work which the Select Committee has been performing and has paid a tribute to it. It has been at work longer than we expected, because the right hon. Gentleman promised in 1952 that we would have an entirely new Army and Air Force Act, but we have not yet got it. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Committee has been doing a very good job, and, knowing the members of the Committee, I should imagine that they are doing as good a job as possible without the assistance of an exprivate soldier, which they have not got at present.

Before I assent to the Second Reading of this Bill, continuing in operation an Act which is obsolete, I require from the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that, in the interim period between now and the coming into operation, we hope next year, of the entirely brand-new Army Act, he will see that the Army is administered, not in the spirit of the old and obsolete Act—

The right hon. Gentleman could not in this debate give that assurance, because it would be out of order.

We are being asked in this Bill to continue the operation of the Army Act, and we have already discussed, under your Chairmanship, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the work of the Select Committee which was set up to amend the Act and to present a new Act at the earliest possible moment. All that I am asking is that the spirit of the new Act should be the spirit in which the Army is administered from now on and until the publication of the new Act.—

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[ Mr. Legh]

Committed upon Monday next.

Supreme Court Officers (Pensions) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

8.45 p.m.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill has several different purposes in connection with pensions in the Supreme Court and one cannot therefore present it as having any single thread or purpose beyond that. The main provisions of this Bill affect two classes of officers—the official referees and the judges' clerks and secretaries. I think it is right to say a word about the nature and importance of the work of the official referees. It is well described in paragraph 102 of the Second Interim report of the Committee on Supreme Court Procedure and Practice, which puts it as follows:

"Official referees were established in 1873 by the Judicature Act of that year, and originally their duties consisted mainly in assessing damages after liability had been established at the trial, or in taking accounts. In recent years, however, the ambit of the matters referred to official referees has greatly increased and to day a large variety of matters are tried before them, in particular heavy and complicated cases involving matters of detail, e.g. cases arising out of building contracts, claims for possession of leasehold premises upon forfeiture for breach of covenant to repair and damages for breach, and claims for commission where a servant or agent is remunerated by commission."

These are, of course, difficult and important matters, and the official referees are in fact constantly engaged in trying long and complicated High Court cases which frequently involve a large amount of money. Quite briefly the main purpose of this Bill, as far as they are concerned, is to provide an improved basis for the calculation of pensions in the case of official referees retiring after 1953 so that they may earn the maximum pension after 15 years' service instead of after 25 years' service. The provisions of Clause 1 are directed to that end, and there are a number of complicated matters in connection with it which I do not think the House would expect me to go into at this stage. But that is the basis of Clause 1.

Clause 2 deals with the secretaries and clerks for the judges. I think I should give a brief word of explanation. Hither to, provision has been made for the appointment and payment of these clerks but not for any pension. For some time there has been a considerable amount of discussion on the subject, and the view was taken generally that a pension ought to be provided for. The difficulty which arose was that hitherto on appointment to the bench a member of the bar has had the right of taking his clerk with him. When the question of pensions was raised, the point was at once taken that if these clerks were to be made pension able it was not possible any longer for the judge on his appointment to retain the right to nominate his own clerk and take him with him. There was a great deal of discussion on that matter, barristers' clerks not being anxious to have this system introduced, but in fact when one comes to consider it, it is clearly not possible to persuade those responsible to undertake the payment of pensions from public funds and to allow a system of what one might call personal nomination to exist.

I should say at once that the matter has been carefully considered. It was considered by the judges. The judges took the view that, in order to get the pensions for their clerks, which they were anxious to do, they were bound to give up their right of patronage or nomination. The Bar Council also considered the matter, and they came to the conclusion that, as a matter of argument and logic, it was not possible to maintain the present position. That is shortly one of the points that I have no doubt some hon. Members will have something to say about. All I can say is that, as I understand it, once one went into it it was almost impossible to maintain that one could have those two very different conceptions existing together. Now we shall have the position that one finds in the Bill.

I will refer quite briefly to Clause 2 (3). After provision has been made for secretaries or clerks to be attached to the judges, provision is made that they shall be appointed by the Lord Chancellor and shall be officers of the Supreme Court. I ought at once to point out that the language must be read carefully. They have to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and thereafter they become officers of the Supreme Court. I believe it has been suggested that that might be read as implying that they should be officers of the Supreme Court to start with. I can say that it certainly is not intended to mean that, and I should have thought that it was quite clear from the sequence and order of the wording that the appointment is the thing which, having taken place, makes them officers of the court, and thereafter they are for all purposes officers of the Supreme Court.

I should say at once that the barristers' clerks have been very rightly concerned that, at any rate in the future, those holding these offices should be barristers' clerks. They obviously have the training and experience which is desirable for the purpose. Hon. Members will see that the appointment is to be made by the Lord Chancellor, and I can say that the Lord Chancellor intends to appoint barristers' clerks to these positions, and he considers that it is most unlikely that any occasion would ever arise when they were not available. But quite clearly it would not be possible to provide that they must in all circumstances be barristers' clerks, because if one had a case where there were no barristers' clerks available obviously a difficulty would arise. But I can say that the Lord Chancellor does intend that they should be barristers' clerks. A fortiori there is no question of their being appointed from existing officers of the Supreme Court. They are to be chosen from amongst the barristers' clerks by the Lord Chancellor, and he intends to set up an appropriate selection board.

Another point which has been raised is what will be the position if a barrister who would in the normal course of events be able to take his clerk with him is appointed a judge. If there is not a vacancy at that moment, does the clerk thereby lose his chance for ever? The answer to that, as I hope one would expect, is the reasonable and sensible answer that there is nothing whatever to prevent that clerk from making an application the next time a vacancy arises, and in the ordinary and normal course of events one would expect that the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Chancellor's Committee would appoint him to the next vacancy. I think one can take it that that would be the position; and that hon. Members will agree that it is not really possible to put it in the Bill in any more positive terms.

There may be some other minor matters arising, but I do not think I need trouble the House with them now. I ought to say, with regard to Scotland, that the clerks there have been pension able for a number of years. In Scotland these things are always attended to carefully, and that has been in hand there for some time.

Provision is made in the Bill in respect of Northern Ireland where these officers are called tipstaves. I thought that the plural of tipstaff was "tipstaffs" but I find that it is tipstaves. In this country the tipstaff is the gentleman who leads people away to be suitably dealt with after they have misbehaved themselves in court, or arranges for their presence if they are unwilling to be there otherwise. In Northern Ireland the tipstaff is a more peaceful and harmless person—the judge's clerk; so if Members were alarmed by that name, I can assure them that they need not be concerned.

There are one or two minor provisions, but I do not think that at this stage the House will wish me to enlarge upon them, although I can, if necessary, give explanations about them. For example, in Clause 3 there is a provision which dispenses with the necessity for a Civil Service certificate. It is a complicated point, but I do not think it is a matter which should really require elaboration at this stage.

It will, I think, be generally agreed that these are useful and desirable provisions, and I hope that the House will think it proper to give the Bill a Second Reading.

8.57 p.m.

The Attorney-General has explained to the House the purposes of the Bill. Though it is small, it is of great interest and great importance to those of us who practise in the legal profession. I should certainly advise my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the House not to offer any opposition to the Bill. The Attorney-General adverted to a subject in connection with barristers' clerks and judges' clerks about which, as he knows, and as he has indicated, there is considerable interest and some controversy in the profession. I should like to say a few words about that in a moment from my own point of view.

Before I come to that, however, and in order that I may take the matter in sequence, I should like to raise one point with the Attorney-General about Clause 1, and I should be glad if he would give to the House his observations upon it. He has explained that Clause 1 introduces better pension provisions for official referees. I, and I am sure all my brethren in both sides of the profession, would at once" pay tribute to the importance of the work of the official referees. It is, however the Clause to official referees.

I ask the Attorney-General whether it is not possible to include them within the framework of the Bill. Under the terms of the Bill, the official referees are enabled to reach their maximum pension rights after 15 years' service. In other words, the period is reduced from 25 years—the present period—to 15 years which is the period provided by the Bill. The masters of the Supreme Court are left by the Bill in the situation that they have to serve the full period of 25 years before they can reach their maximum pension provision. I simply put this before the Attorney-General. I think that I am right—and he may be able to correct me if I am wrong—when I say that civil servants in general reach their maximum pension rights—and I say "in general"—after 25 years' service.

A master, before he can become a master, has to practise for 10 years at the Bar; he has to be a barrister of 10 years' standing before he qualifies for appointment. Having passed through that period he has, under the present arrangements, to serve for a further 25 years before he can attain his maximum pension benefit. I should have thought it would have been fair—as indeed is done in the case of official referees—to say that, bearing in mind that 10 years' qualifying membership of the Bar, a master should also have to serve for only 15 years after that in order to attain his maximum pension rights. He would then be in the same position as the civil servant, the total period including the 10 years' membership at the Bar, being 25 years as in the case of the civil servant.

Which civil servants are referred to?

I referred to the provision with regard to official referees. The Attorney-General has pointed out the very serious and onerous duties placed upon the shoulders of official referees. I am sure that he would agree that very onerous duties, requiring great experience, great knowledge of the world, great tact and a very thorough understanding of legal principle, are incumbent in the office of the masters of the Supreme Court. Without elaborating the point further, I simply put it to the Attorney-General that it is perhaps a little anomalous that, although this provision is made for the official referees, no similar provision is made for the masters.

My second point has indeed been canvassed by the Attorney-General him self. The right of a member of the Bar when appointed to the High Court bench to take with him the clerk who may have been with him for the whole of his pro fessional life is, of course, very highly prized by judges, and it is a privilege—or the expectation of a privilege—greatly valued by their clerks. For myself, I feel that it is a right which should not be taken away, unless it is unavoidable that it should be foregone in order that pensions can be given to barristers' clerks. The Bill deprives them of that right.

The Attorney-General says that, when it is considered, the matter becomes clear and that it cannot be gainsaid that if pensions are to be granted the right of patronage, as it 'is called, has to be taken away. I must confess that I do not understand why the two cannot co-exist. Why cannot a judge, as heretofore, take his clerk with him on to the bench, and the clerk, for whom already provision is made so far as payment of salary is concerned, become entitled to pension rights in addition to his ordinary salary or remuneration?

I think that the Attorney-General will have noticed from the sounds that have gone round the House on my making that observation that there is a great deal of feeling about it. If it is unavoidable that the right of patronage has to be foregone, so be it. It is a matter that everyone—and I am sure the Attorney-General himself—will greatly regret. But if it has to be, it must be. The barristers' clerks association will no doubt accept it, because the right to pension is regarded as of very great importance in these days. I ask the Attorney-General, in order to allay the disquiet in the matter, to indicate in some slightly greater detail why in his opinion it is axiomatic that, if there are pensions, the judge must forgo the right he has hitherto had of taking with him on appointment to the bench the clerk he has had throughout his professional life.

One observation that the Attorney-General made will, I am sure, give great satisfaction, and that was his observation that the Lord Chancellor will fill the panel from which judges' clerks will be chosen with persons who actually have experience as barristers' clerks. I think that everybody who has practised in the profession will feel a deep debt of gratitude to the barristers' clerks and the judges' clerks for the smoothness with which their professional engagements can be carried out. A great deal depends on the knowledge of, and the mutual co operation between, judges' clerks on the one side, with their knowledge of the practical workings of the profession, and barristers' clerks on the other.

It is, therefore, regarded as of great importance in the profession that those who serve as judges' clerks should be former barristers' clerks. The Attorney-General has given an assurance that the Lord Chancellor will, so far as possible, fill what I suppose will be a kind of panel from the ranks only of barristers' clerks. That, I feel will be a matter of great satisfaction, and will ensure the smooth working which has hitherto appertained to the carrying out of judicial business.

Those, I think, are the two points I would desire to raise on the Bill. The rest of the Bill, as the Attorney-General has pointed out, deals with machinery matters, except that similar provision is made in the case of the tipstaves in Northern Ireland. No doubt the problem in Northern Ireland is similar to the problem as we envisage it in this country. I feel grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for explaining so clearly the purposes of the Bill, and, as I said, I would advise my hon. and right hon. Friends certainly not to oppose it, particularly in the circumstances of today when pensions are of the utmost importance to barristers' clerks. Indeed, they are of general importance. This Bill does secure those rights.

I would, however, ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman at the conclusion of the debate to say why it is that, as I have already indicated, he finds it so unavoidable that the right of patronage has to be forgone if pensions are to be granted. Those are the two points I desire to raise, and I shall be glad to hear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman may say in answer to them.

9.7 p.m.

I cannot let this Bill pass without saying a word myself. I stand in this position, that I cannot possibly now have any personal interest on behalf of my clerk or anybody else, whereas most of my hon. and learned Friends here have an indirect personal interest on behalf of their clerks. I want to re-enforce every word that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) has said on behalf of the position of barristers' clerks. When members of the Bar are appointed to the bench they do find everything extraordinarily changed, and I can say from my own personal experience that it is of immense importance to them that they have, each as his one confidential person, someone whom they have known most of the years of their professional life. It does make the most enormous personal difference.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why the right of patronage has to be forgone if there is to be a pension from public funds for one's clerk. I am wholly unable to understand why a clerk appointed by the Lord Chancellor should be more entitled to a pension than a clerk nominated by someone who has been selected as one of Her Majesty's judges. I cannot see what the principle there, and I do not believe that the profession as a whole understands what the principle is.

Be that as it may, I can understand that some members of the Bar have clerks who are of some considerable age, and I realise that if they nominated a man as a clerk who is past middle age there might be difficulty in giving him an adequate pension. I can see that it may be necessary to safeguard to some extent that the clerk nominated by a judge shall be under a certain age.

I cannot see why there should be a total prohibition upon the judge taking his clerk with him, if the judge wishes to do so, even though it is impossible under Civil Service rules to allow the clerk to draw a pension. I cannot see why, nevertheless, the judge should not be allowed to take his clerk with him and at any rate have his salary while he is a cleric paid in the ordinary way, as provided at present, leaving the judge to provide through an insurance company or in some other way, if necessary, for or towards a pension in due course.

The Bill as worded at present makes it impossible for a judge to take his clerk with him unless the Lord Chancellor appoints the clerk at the judge's request, which I have no doubt the Lord Chancellor will endeavour to do as far as possible. The difficulty is that a certain number of clerks will survive the services of the judge whom they serve at present and the new judge will find that he has to take over the clerk of a previous judge. In some cases that may be greatly to his advantage, 'but on the other hand he may not like it and he may not want that man. Yet he will have to take him over.

While I am greatly comforted by a great deal of what the Attorney-General said about the intention of the Bill and how it is to be worked, even as drafted at present, nevertheless I think there is a serious grievance for both the clerk and for judges-to-be, of whom no doubt I see several around me at present, and I hope that the greatest effort will be made to make it possible for a judge in 'the future to take his clerk with him if he wishes to do so, knowing the man and relying on his services. In that way he will not find himself with a strange clerk.

I have tried to follow the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, and I am intrigued by the situation which arises if the judge retires or dies before his clerk. A new judge comes along and brings his own clerk, because that is only fair. What happens to the first clerk?

I have not made myself clear. The point I was making is that it would not be possible for the new judge to take his clerk with him because there would already be in office 'the clerk of the dead judge. The new judge would have to take him over.

That seems to be the Attorney-General's argument.

9.15 p.m.

I wish to welcome the Bill. Three or four years ago I raised in the House the question that official referees had to serve 25 years for their pension whereas Her Majesty's judges were entitled to their pensions after 15 years. My observations having been reported, I am glad to say that I received two letters from official referees thanking me for my efforts. I do not pretend that anything I said had an effect upon the Treasury and produced Clause 1, but nevertheless I welcome it, for it is a provision which I think ought to have been brought into operation some years ago.

Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) and the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), I am not so pleased with Clause 2, and I should like to support everything which these two right hon. and learned Gentlemen said. It is no doubt a privilege for the judge to take his clerk with him when he goes on to the bench, but those who practise at the Bar know the great work which barristers' clerks do and the relationship which often has extended over very many years. It is perhaps one of the most intimate relationships which exists either in the professions or in the world of commerce. I doubt whether there is a more intimate relationship than that which exists between the barrister and his clerk, and suddenly to sever it when the master goes on to the bench is deplorable.

In the past, the master has been allowed to take his clerk with him. I have not seen any argument to justify this privilege being taken away from newly-appointed judges. I can see the argument, although it has not been presented, and the argument is the Treasury. I am quite certain that is the argument. We all know that the Treasury has always been the nigger in the woodpile. They do not mind breaking this relationship and taking a stern line even with Her Majesty's judges in order to save a few hundred pounds a year or perhaps a pension in 10 years' time.

I have no doubt that the answer which will be given is, "Oh, well, every judge dies leaving a clerk and he is already on the rank; we shall have no work for that clerk to do." But that is not quite true, because there are several jobs such men can take and they would be taken on again as soon as need be. I am quite sure that vacancies so arise from time to time, and I do not think that this is an insuperable difficulty. I have taken the advantage of reading certain correspondence sent to members of the profession by the Barristers Clerks Association, and that reveals no real answer—

Were they marked "confidential"?

I do not think that either was marked "confidential." Certain parts of them were marked "confidential," but I am quite sure that no real argument has yet been deployed, and I hope that we are not going to hear the only possible argument, namely, that it would cost the Treasury a bit of money.

9.17 p.m.

I should like to join in the chorus of welcome given to this Bill and to congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the summit of his labours here in this matter of introducing it for Second Reading, and to thank him for putting up with in genial fashion a certain amount of persistence on my part.

I am very glad to hear that it is entirely non-party and has the support of both sides of the House. It always has had. The proposal relating to judges' clerks has the support of right hon. and hon. Members of all parties, and because we like the heritage of views expressed here, I should like at this moment to recall, on the basis of what they have said, that there are those not now with us for one reason or another who, I know, would be glad that this Bill has been at last introduced. I think that the late Sir Stafford Cripps, Sir Geoffrey Hutchinson and Mr. Conolly Gage and others, who are not with us now but who were all greatly respected Members of this House, were all supporters of proposals for pensions for judges' clerks.

It is right that it should be a non-party proposition because the State has been a bad employer in respect of judges' clerks, and we have all to bear the responsibility. It may be that there was a time when a man who was appointed a judge could accumulate from his hard earned earnings enough money to make provision for his clerk himself, and it may be there was a time when a barristers' clerk could make enough money to provide for the education of his children, set them up and provide for his own old age. But these times have gone with modern taxation, and what has happened is that the judges' clerks have been left by all of us as the only officers employed about the law courts who get neither pension nor gratuity but only an ex-gratia payment equal to 14 days' payment, whatever length of service they have rendered. The time is overdue to put an end to that.

Like every member of the legal profession here, I attach the greatest importance to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has been saying about the intention with regard to people to be appointed under the Bill to the position of judges' clerks. It would be a public disaster if people other than ex-barristers' clerks were ever appointed to that position, but—I am not making a joke about gowns—considering the stuff of which Lord Chancellors are made, I do not believe there is any risk that they would not take the same view as all learned Members in this House take about the necessity of having them.

In the barrister's clerk's job, as in most others, one cannot compete with experience. Their experience as barristers' clerks is just what makes a good judge's clerk. I do not mean that no one could learn the job, but I can conceive of no way in which the art could be learnt except by being a barrister's clerk. We know what barristers' clerks do in smoothing out the difficulties of counsel, solicitors and litigants, making the work run smoothly, as the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) said—I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not mean making a judge in good temper, because that is one of the functions of advocates rather than of the clerk—and arranging the list and knowing those little difficulties which experience learns and which make all the difference.

I do not altogether share the difficulty in understanding what, I suspect, is the Treasury point of view, which seems to have impelled the necessity for depriving the judges of the patronage they had before. I could not imagine, even before hearing my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) speak, that one could induce anybody who had ever been a judge to part with that right of patronage except for very good reasons. I can conceive no relationship more important in its confidence and friendship than the relationship of the judge and his clerk has to be. But the fact remains that His Majesty's judges, as they were—not Her Majesty's judges—were persuaded that it was an unavoidable prerequisite to get pensions for the judges' clerks that they should give up their right of patronage, and they did.

This is locking the stable after the horse has gone. Of course, the judges who have already appointed their own clerks say that that is a good thing. But the question is the Bar. We as members of the Bar, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, with diffidence, might hope that in some unexpected accident we might have an opportunity of appointing a clerk. We are the people who are concerned with giving up the right, and not Her Majesty's judges, who already hold that position.

I have also read the correspondence marked "confidential" and did not fail to notice the point that the hon. and learned Member has been developing. But it was not the point I was on, which was that unless one assumes that His Majesty's judges completely missed the point, someone was cunning enough to persuade His Majesty's judges that there was a sound reason for saying that this was an unavoidable prerequisite if pensions were to be got for judges' clerks.

For my part, I would urge gentle hesitation lest an over-enthusiastic insistence on trying to restore the right of patronage which they were persuaded it was right to give up should have the effect of getting rid of pensions for judges' clerks, which are, after all, the summit of attainment in negotiations which have gone on under successive Governments. It would be a pity to waste that.

I share very much the regret expressed by the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend that in connection with what is done in the Bill for the official referees it has not been possible to include others. A fair specimen is the Queen's Bench Division Masters. I say nothing about Chancery Masters because I do not understand the mysteries of that quarter. But it is a fulminatingly unattractive proposition to lay before a man that "I will appoint you probably after the age of 50. You will be compulsorily retired long before you get to 75, and you have yet to work 25 years to get your full pension." If that was not an attractive proposition for the official referees, it certainly is not for the Queen's Bench Masters. I am sorry that we will, no doubt, be precluded by the Financial Resolution from grumbling about the matter in connection with the Bill.

Would the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that precisely the same observations apply in the case of barristers' clerks appointed as judges' clerks as the reference which he has made to official referees?

No, I am not in a position to agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman, because I do not remember in detail what the Schedule of these pension schemes looks like, but as far as I remember it does not work out in the same way for the people that I have in mind. I was just saying—and I resume my sentence in the middle—that despite these minor observations I should like the House to be grateful for the mercies which are far from small which this Bill provides.

9.26 p.m.

This Bill has much to recommend it, but one of its serious defects has been referred to. I hope that will be cured before the Bill becomes law. The learned Attorney-General referred to it, but not, I thought, with his usual persuasiveness. He seemed to speak of it with a guilty conscience and to anticipate the objections which are now being made to this particular part of the Bill.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman tried to explain away this evil feature which is criticised in Clause 2. It is curious that the Bill turns aside from its main purpose in order to injure a worthy and useful class of servants of justice. After all, I am sure that all lawyers in the House will agree with me when I say that barristers' clerks and judges' clerks are servants of justice, as indeed barristers and judges are also.

The curious thing is that this strange attack upon judges' clerks is irrelevant to the main purpose of the Bill. It is unnecessary, it is illogical and it is unjustifiable. It departs from the general tenor of the Bill in an invidious way to take away the rights and expectations of one class of servants of justice who are entitled to better treatment because they usefully serve the administration of justice.

Their case can be easily overstated, but I do not want to do that, because they have a good case. It has been the subject of consideration and correspondence for some years. I know I am right in saying that it has been the good will of the judges, of the Bar Council, of the Lord Chancellor's Department and of the Barristers' Clerks' Association. It is now being frustrated by this Bill at the instance of the Treasury in an unjustifiable and arbitrary manner and without reason assigned and without notice given to the persons most concerned. It seems to me an obvious case in which Parliament should exert itself to over-rule the Treasury to see that justice is done to this important class.

The harsh treatment of this worthy and useful class is inconsistent with justice. The purpose of the Bill is clearly expressed in the Preamble, but it is rather long because it relates to various other classes of persons with whom I am not here concerned. I propose to devote my few observations to judges' clerks as mentioned in Clause 2. For my argument it is sufficient to point out that the purpose of the Bill is expressed in these words from the Preamble:

"to confer pension rights on certain officers attached to Judges of the Supreme Court in England …to amend the law with respect to the appointment and conditions of employment of the said officers."

I have no quarrel with this purpose, which is meritorious and just. My quarrel is with the invidious manner in which that purpose is implemented by the Bill. It is carried out in such a way as to attack the mode of appointment, the status, the salary and the superannuation of judges' clerks.

Clause 2, the objectionable Clause, is long, involved and, in my submission, unworkable for the reasons I am suggesting. Under it various anomalies arise. A judge who heretofore has been able to appoint his own clerk is to appoint his own clerk no longer. The person who may be appointed by the Lord Chancellor need not necessarily be a person of legal experience as heretofore and may be a complete stranger, uncongenial to the work and uncongenial to the judge. In my submission, that is a departure from tradition, is bad, is wrong, and should not be allowed to pass into legislation.

The Bill alters for the worse an historic and traditional practice which for many generations was found useful and satisfactory and under which each new judge was free to appoint, and in fact did appoint, his own clerk, whose experience he knew and whose qualifications he had tested in the practice of the legal profession. This long-standing practice today has statutory recognition in the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, Section 21. It arose from the intimate and professional relation between barrister and clerk, whose skill, knowledge and experience were gained together over many years. Up to the present it has served well the administration of justice and today it is an important and useful element in legal life and administration.

Now, suddenly and without notice, it is proposed to change all this, to take away the power of a new judge to appoint his experienced clerk as heretofore. Under this Bill the new judge's clerk need not have the experience, need not have the specialised training, need only belong to a pool of civil servants into which will dip not the judge, whose clerk is required, but the Lord Chancellor, whose clerk is not required. The essential personal relation will have been destroyed and the skilled and specialised clerks will disappear, with loss to the administration of justice and to the community. The present proposal is a bureaucratic extravaganza.

rose—

If I may finish my sentence—and is in my submission ludicrous and fantastic.

If my hon. and learned Friend has finished his sentence, because I am trying to follow the argument carefully, will he inform me who asked for this Bill? Was it the Treasury or was it the legal profession?

I am not the promoter of the Bill and I know not who asked for it, but I do know that the legal profession does not want it—

Oh.

And the clerks do not want it. The idea seems to be to create a kind of pool of potential clerks, and to fish out these submarine creations ad hoc in place of the skilled and experienced clerks now used for the purpose.

It is a new branch of the profession.

There is no reason given for this arbitrary and unexplained departure from the settled and useful practice recognised by the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Acts of 1925 and which has been working successfully under that Act since that time.

There are many and cogent reasons for continuing the prevailing practice and I shall mention three. First, the high proportion of judges who on appointment took their own clerks with them; secondly, the low proportion of judges who did not; and thirdly, the great number of judges who have praised the usefulness of the present system and eulogised the skill, faithfulness and great service of their clerks.

I have heard no adequate reason why this radical change should be made in the legal profession, why the clerks should not be selected and appointed as they have been heretofore. I submit that the provision in Clause 2 is bad. I hope that it will not commend itself to this House and that it will be changed in such a way as to leave still working that good system which has operated so well up to the present.

9.36 p.m.

I propose to make a few observations about the melancholy provisions of this Bill. They are melancholy because of all this talk about Government pensions, and how much pension, and when someone shall get a pension. In an old-fashioned, Tory way I prefer private property, and therefore I find all this discussion about when one should get a pension and how one should get a pension extremely melancholy. However, one must take things as they are.

I wish to make a few observations about the proposals regarding the official referees and to say something about the clerks to the judges. When I saw that the position of the official referees was to be improved, being a lawyer, my first instinct was to think how happy it was. I then had to consider what was an official referee. He seems to have been created in 1925—though I may be wrong—and his job mostly was to attend to those more complicated matters of detail that the High Court judges have not the time or the patience to deal with. He is a permanent official, appointed by the Lord Chancellor and holds office during good behaviour. He is removable by the Lord Chancellor. He retires, if he survives the ordeals of his office, at the age of 72. Whitaker's Almanack—which is not as accurate as I thought—tells me that his salary is £2,500, but I am told from other sources that it has been increased to £2,800.

The qualification for this responsible office is 10 years' standing as a barrister. In that he is not unique for, as a right hen. Gentleman opposite pointed out, the qualifications for masters in the Queen's Bench and indeed in the Chancery Division is also 10 years and their tenure of office is in all respects the same as that of the official referee. Therefore, one wonders why, of those officers of the court, the official referee should have been picked out. It would seem true that he is, in some senses, a more responsible official, though the only difference I can find in fact is that at the moment appeals go from him on certain points of law to the Court of Appeal, while, of course, from Masters in the Queen's Bench and Chancery Division they normally go to the courts. His standing, at any rate in 1925, was exactly the same as that of about 13 other officials. He was in the gay company of the Master in Lunacy, the Legal Visitor in Lunacy, the Registrar of the High Court in Bankruptcy and the Taxing Master. In 1925 something like eight other officials received the same amount of salary as that which he received.

If it be true that his salary has now increased, as I am told it has, he is still on equality with a number of people who appear in the Schedule to the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925. Why, then, has he been singled out? Why has he had his pension rate altered from 25 years to 15? He has already had the advantage of an increase in salary. That may be explicable by his duties, but we have seen from the Evershed Report that it is proposed to give additional and more onerous duties to the masters in the Queen's Bench and in Chancery. Therefore, I wonder why he has been picked out for this favour.

Indeed, it is a favour because after 15 years the master will not be getting even half what the official referee is getting. It is only after 25 years that he reaches that standing. One might easily accept the proposal for the official referee if one were convinced that there was some great urge that he should be distinguished from what were his colleagues, at any rate up to 1925. I confess that I am not aware—it may be through sheer ignorance—of the reason why he should have this signal advantage over those who were his colleagues.

It is quite ludicrous, as has been pointed out, because it is almost impossible for the master of the Queen's Bench Division to qualify for full pension. During the last 15 years the average of the age of appointment in the Queen's Bench Division has been 50½. He cannot reach his 25-year full pension, as some complicated arithmetic will convince us, because 25 years cannot run between the age of 50 and the retiring age of 72. I hope that we shall not forget entirely the position of the near relations of the official referee.

I should like to say a few words about judges' clerks. I cannot describe the horror and disappointment which I felt when I heard my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Mr. Hylton-Foster) endeavour to put a pistol at our heads. What is this threat about pension or patronage? Why have we to say, "If you retain the patronage you cannot have the pension"? It seems to me a very evasive argument. Happily we are a people governed a great deal by tradition. It has long been tradition at the Bar for relationships between clerks and practitioners at the Bar to be intimate and personal. For these reasons, it was the tradition that when a member of the Bar was promoted to the bench he took with him the advantage of that intimacy. He took with him his clerk. That was, so to speak, recognised by the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, and the salaries were provided for by the Acts of 1937 and 1938.

That was the position. It is found necessary, for reasons which I confess that I have not yet appreciated, to say that if a man is made a civil servant that right of patronage should go. If I can understand the argument which would be in favour of that, it would be this. If we have a pool of clerks, we do not want that pool increased by the addition of new clerks when a judge is appointed, because we may have enough clerks on the establishment. On the face of it that seems true, but let us look at it in practice. What has happened about judges' clerks in the last 25 years? Have we found them going penniless when they were not on the strength? Have we found that when a new judge was appointed and took his clerk with him some unhappy judge's clerk was made destitute?

Does my hon. and learned Friend remember any of the distressing cases of hardship which have given rise to the agitation for pensions? Does he recall the judge's clerk who, after a considerable number of years' service, was reduced to going to the National Assistance Board in order to survive before he could get another job?

I should think that it is now not clerks but barristers who are seeking National Assistance. I am not aware of one case of the type which my hon. and learned Friend has mentioned. There are always cases of someone being displaced, but let us take the broad view. Perhaps the Attorney-General can help us here. Has it happened during the last 20 years that when a judge has been appointed and has brought his clerk with him, the clerk of another judge dying or retiring has been out of work and could not be fitted in anywhere else? If it has not happened, the danger of allowing new judges to appoint their own clerks is a very small one. If when a judge brings his own clerk in there is not such dislocation that he cannot be absorbed in the system, then we have nothing to fear by retaining the right of patronage.

I have not had the experience which my hon. and learned Friend has had about the one sad case which has impressed him. I am sure that it is true, and it is very sad. However, I obtained some information today from a senior clerk who said that during his 29 years' experience he knew of only three or four cases of judges' clerks who were displaced because their judges had retired or died and there was no other place for them. He says that it is very rare for the clerk not to be absorbed by the establishment. If that be true, the risk of allowing patronage to remain with the judges when appointed, as a result of which there may be three or four supernumerary clerks, is not a risk which would justify the legislature in removing it. There are occasions when clerks are ill, and there has to be a sort of reserve. There may be some dispute as to what that reserve should be. However, taking it on balance, is it not being a little parsimonious to try to save a few hundred pounds, thereby destroying this very intimate relationship?

I do not ask the Attorney-General to take the whole of the question of patronage, but could there not be some compromise so that on his first appointment, when he is most nervous and most needs the advice of his clerk, a judge should have the opportunity of patronage or nomination of patronage, provided that the circumstances were not so overwhelming that the Chancellor said that unemployed clerks must be used?

I am diffident about mentioning these things before my learned and more distinguished colleagues, but they cannot be balanced in the Treasury. These matters of association with judges are things on which a few hundred pounds might be ill-spent if they were merely saved for general taxation purposes. I imagine that the judge, when appointed, is in a strange position. His friends are often diffident about telling him of the mistakes he is making, and his colleagues perhaps are not very interested. There is probably in the whole world only one person who could do so—the man who saw him as a struggling junior, who remembers his mistakes when he was a promising "silk" and all his struggles, and who could go to him and say, "You are not doing so well in this case; you are putting your foot in it. That is not the way that Mr. Justice So-and-So used to behave." Perhaps he is the one man in the world who could speak in that way to that young judge on his first appointment.

If we take a civil servant, picked out of a pool, who probably served a man who hated him, does anybody think that he could give the young judge that assistance? Indeed, I know that the learned Attorney-General, with his great experience and great affection for the Bar, in his heart believes what we believe.

I do not believe what the hon. and learned Gentleman has just said, anyway.

He believes, in fact, that there is only one man who is in a position to help that judge over those first few nervous years. If the Treasury has to pay a few extra pounds for that, it will really be paying for the administration of justice in the traditional English manner.

I hope that, when we come to the Committee stage, some of us may get together and at any rate give a little more security or relief for the newly-appointed judge in order that he shall not be denied his guide, philosopher and friend.

9.52 p.m.

The matter which arouses the widest interest in this debate is the effect the Bill will have upon judges' clerks, and the point whether, if it is necessary that they should be pensionable, they should be nominated by the Lord Chancellor out of a Civil Service panel. But there is one other matter to which I should like to refer.

The Bill provides for the appointment of secretaries for the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, and its provision in that respect differs from the provision in the 1925 Act, in that it contemplates that the appointment will be whole-time. I appreciate that that necessity arises from the very laudable desire to make a secretary, who is, in fact, occupied whole-time, a pensionable officer. He seems to be employed as a Civil Servant, and, therefore, he gets his pension accordingly.

That is very fair, and I raise no objection to it, but it does mark another step in the process of the encroachment of the Civil Service, with Civil Service jargon, system, methods and bureaucratic conceptions, into fields which hitherto have been entirely free from them. I think it will be a great pity if that change passed without comment this evening in this House and without an expression of regret that it should be so.

I speak with feeling about this matter, because, if I may introduce a personal note, before the war I held the office of secretary to the then Lord Chief Justice, and I held it for five years. Of course, it was undoubtedly a very great honour and privilege for me, but it had none of the characteristics of a Civil Service appointment. Far from it. It was far from being whole-time, and I was free, while I held the appointment, to practise at the Bar, and, in fact, did so during that period.

I venture to think that the arrangements which existed then under the provisions of the 1925 Judicature Act was of a kind acceptable to the judges concerned. It was acceptable to them to have an association with the junior members of the Bar ready to take an opportunity that presented itself to help them in the hundred and one matters which arise for them to give such help. This Bill will put an end to that kind of appointment and association.

indicated dissent.

I see the right hon. and learned Gentleman shaking his head. He may have in mind a provision in the Bill which provides that, with the consent of the Lord Chancellor, a barrister may be appointed to carry out the duties of these offices part-time. It is true that that provision occurs in the Bill, and it is valuable as far as it goes, but I very much fear that the upshot will be that little advantage will be taken of it.

I think that the whole nature of this thing is such that, once this is to be an appointment which can be whole-time and pensionable, it will be found, in practice, that it will be always treated as such, and that the people appointed will be whole-time persons who are pensionable, and, for all practical purposes, Civil Servants. I wished to make those observations about that part of the Bill because it has its interest. Undoubtedly, the matter of wider importance is that which has been dealt with by other right hon. and learned and hon. Gentlemen about the effect this has on the clerks. On that issue there is not very much left for me to add.

Undoubtedly it is true, and perhaps bears repetition, that when a member of the Bar was appointed a judge and took his clerk with him to the bench it was an arrangement that was of very wide importance and very great advantage indeed. It suited the judge; it suited the clerk, and a circumstance which deserves special emphasis is that it had great practical administrative advantage. It facilitated to a degree that was marked, although not readily measurable, much of the administration of the court, such as the determination of the timetable and the progress of the judge's business, because the barristers' clerks knew his clerk of old, and they knew his ways, and how he handled things.

Undoubtedly, that had great practical advantages, which will now be lost in spite of the concession that the members of the panel will be former barristers' clerks. That only goes half-way to meeting the point. Once again we are informed that this is to be arranged because it is felt desired to make the position of the judge's clerk pensionable. That is a laudable and proper motive, but we have not received, and are far from receiving, any satisfactory explanation why it should be so.

I share the objections which have been raised by my hon. Friends on that point. No explanation has been given. Judges are pensionable, and yet it is a sacred constitutional right that the one thing in this world that they are not is civil servants. If judges can be in receipt of pensions and yet cannot, above all things, be civil servants, one asks the question to which, with all possible respect, one expects an answer: what is the objection to judges' clerks being pensionable, and at the same time not upon any Civil Service establishment?

It was put forward from the benches opposite that the judges appeared to have accepted the offer. I agree. That carries weight. It suggests undoubtedly to my mind that there is a formidable argument which must have gone a long way towards persuading them. But if that formidable argument exists, it is entirely open to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General to present it to the House, and one hopes that he will do so.

I should like to support the views which have been expressed on both sides of the House that this matter deserves reconsideration. If the difficulty is still insisted upon that judges' clerks to be pensionable must be deemed to be civil servants, then undoubtedly I should have thought that there is very great force in the proposal which has been made that judges on appointment should still continue to -take their clerks to be judges' clerks after appointment, and that the clerks should be at first supernumerary to the panel. The proposal was made by the Barristers' Clerks Association, and it is a good one, and I gather that by some mysterious actuarial calculation it is not expected that there will ever be a greater number of judges' clerks supernumerary to the panel than three. So the question of cost involved is not considerable.

How can my hon. Friend say that?

I am asked how I can say that, and I have some difficulty in answering it, but it has been worked out, though not by me. The argument has been met. Even so I do not at all base this argument upon any calculation of that kind, but I maintain that in the ordinary course of events the number of clerks supernumerary to the panel will not be large. That can be safely said.

Attempts have been made to make a calculation, but if there is difficulty in accepting such calculation there is no doubt that the number will not be large. Consequently the expense will not be great. I look forward in Committee to receiving a concession upon this point, and, so far as this evening's labours are concerned, we are still hopeful of hearing from the right hon. and learned Gentleman what is in the last analysis, the objection to judges' clerks being pensionable and at the same time not civil servants.

10.4 p.m.

I think that the answer to the question posed by the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice), the ton. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) and others—that is to say, why should there be this connection between the abandonment of patronage and the right to a pension?—is surely this, and it was touched upon by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens). So long as judges can appoint their own clerks, they may appoint them when they are relatively old and have not much time in the public service in which to earn their pension. As far as the Civil Service is concerned, as we have heard from these varying figures of 15 to 25 years, at least 10 or 15 years are considered necessary before a pension is earned.

Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that the bulk of civil servants, in order to get their full pensions, have to serve 40 years and not 10, 15 or 25 years. I am a bit fed up listening to all this talk about 10 and 15 years.

That may well be, but it makes me even more frightened, and I am obliged to the hon. Member for his intervention.

What I am afraid of is that under the new arrangements that have been come to, judges' clerks will be appointed much younger and retire at a much younger age. From the public interest point of view, that will be very bad. I am very glad we have with us tonight my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour, because he is constantly urging upon the country the necessity for keeping people in the sort of jobs which they can do when they are getting on in life, and of all the jobs one can think of, that of a judge's clerk is one of the most suitable.

Although great experience is necessary, and great knowledge of humanity, it is not a particularly arduous job physically. It is a job which many judges' clerks have gone on doing into their 70s and even their 80s quite satisfactorily. It is one of those tapering-off jobs, as they are sometimes called, which are normally so difficult to find and which happen to have arisen in practice in this sphere.

I should be very much obliged to the Attorney-General if, when he replies, he could tell us whether the retiring age of civil servants, whatever it may be, is to apply for judges' clerks under the new dispensation, because if it is, that seems to me to be a very retrograde step. It will mean that they will have to be appointed much younger, when they ought to have gone on in the heat of the day, instead of going into this distinguished but not very arduous position of a judge's clerk. It means that 10 to 15 years of their more active service will be withdrawn and they will be, so to speak, put out to grass much too soon. That is one of the dangers of trying to fit a very special sort of employment into the national structure of the Civil Service.

I very much hope that my fears in this regard will prove to be groundless, because I speak here not so much from the professional point of view as from the point of view of the wider public interest. It is very important, even in small matters like this, that we should be constantly watching, as watchdogs, to see that people are not going to be compulsorily retired or that younger men are not put into jobs which have so satisfactorily been done by older men and ought to go on being done by older men if the policy of the Ministry of Labour is to mean anything more than mere exhortation.

10.8 p.m.

What has tempted me to intervene in this debate has been the observations of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell). He dealt first of all with Clause 1, which relates to official referees. Unlike him, I welcome the provision of an improved scale for calculating their pensions. The fact that the group of people for whom these provisions are to apply might well be wider is no reason for not welcoming the granting of a measure of justice to official referees. It will be up to my hon. and learned Friend to continue to put forward the claims of those who will then be, to use his own phrase, the poor relations of our official referees, and in doing so he will have my support.

I welcome the provision for the official referees, but I should like to see more benefit.

I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend has made his position perfectly clear in that respect.

There is little I can usefully add to what has been said already on the Clause relating to judges' clerks. If the Attorney-General was in any doubt as to the sentiments held on that subject by Members of the Bar, I am sure he certainly is not now. Subject to the qualification in relation to pension rights, I should say that the present position of judges' clerks, both as to manner of appointment and subsequently, is generally satisfactory. Again, in contrast to the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East, I am satisfied that among judges' clerks and barristers' clerks alike there is a feeling that the provision of a pensions scheme is long overdue. I believe that it would be creating an entirely false impression to suggest that there was not that strong feeling amongst both judges' clerks and others as to the need for adequate pension provisions.

The only doubt that arises is as to whether the price demanded for the granting of pension rights is one which has to be demanded at all. It is not a question of whether the price is too high. I think that the Attorney-General will be fully aware now that this House is far from satisfied at present that an adequate explanation has been supplied by him as to why this change in former appointment is required in order that pension rights may be granted.

If it is not possible to amend the position in Committee so as to provide that, apart from the pension, the position should remain substantially the same, as it is today, at least some safeguards should be introduced. Whether or not any substantial change is made in the provisions of Clause 2, I believe that if the sentiments expressed on both sides of the House are respected in practice, there is no reason why there should be any violent departure from the present position. Otherwise we shall do great harm to an office which plays an important part hi the administration of justice in this country and do great disservice to Her Majesty's judges, whom these clerks serve.

10.13 p.m.

As a completely non-legal man, I feel very hesitant about taking part in this very legalistic debate. I do not think that I have ever listened to a debate in which so many of the brighter luminaries of the Bar have taken part at the same time. Passing through my mind is the sincere hope that from now to the end of my days I do nothing wrong in law, because it seems that here I have not only my potential judges but my potential prosecutors.

I do not know for whom to be more sorry—the judges' clerks or the judges. I cannot make up my mind. Should I feel sorrier for the poor judge who, for the rest of his life, has to stick a clerk who knows all his weaknesses, who knows all his faults and all his misdemeanours, and to whom he is, in the words of the poet, a complete nonentity? Or should it be the clerk who has to stick "the old man" for the rest of his life?

It has not become clear to me yet for which of them to be the sorrier, but of one thing I am certain. There are certain things in this Bill which the bulk of civil servants would be very pleased indeed to get. There has been a good deal of talk tonight about conditions in the Civil Service. I have heard people talking about 15 or 20 years' service for the bulk of civil servants. That is just nonsense. The bulk of them have to go on for 40 years. I do not mind judges' clerks and others getting pensions. I am going to support the Bill, because I am in favour of people having the best possible pensions at the end of their service. I only wish that the Financial Secretary would go back to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and say that we want better pension provisions for postmen and others.

I am going to suggest, on the other hand, that if the Treasury have to pay some of these things, they are entitled to have certain safeguards in regard to their establishments. It really amuses and surprises me to hear hon. Members on both sides of the House talking about this question of establishment as if it did not matter at all. One of my hon. and learned Friends said we could have supernumeraries, but start talking about supernumeraries in the clerical and executive grades and everybody laughs.

The simple issue is that here a grade is to be built up to meet the rights to pension. There will be a certain number of people who will be entitled to be in that grade. If, because of the whims of judges, that number should be exceeded beyond the fixed establishment, what will happen? Having heard all that has been said tonight about the judges' clerks, it would seem to me that we could short—circuit the judicial structure and make the judges' clerks into the judges, and save a transaction, because they seem to know all there is to know and as much as the judges themselves.

We must have a sense of proportion in these things. As an old civil servant I ask myself why, if a lawyer can have his adviser and assistant with him always, a civil servant cannot take his clerk with him from one Department to another, or as he progresses in the Service. There is as good a case there as here. In the Civil Service there are grades, and if we can get a grading amongst the barristers' and judges' clerks of men who are extremely capable and able to advise and guide Her Majesty's judges, what right have we to refuse it in the Civil Service generally?

Some of my hon. and learned Friends have not wanted the judges' clerks to be referred to as civil servants, though personally I should be very proud to be called a civil servant, having regard to the traditions of the Civil Service. One of my hon. Friends said that their jargon is nonsensical.

I should like to make it clear to my hon. Friend that I entirely agree with what he has just said, and when I referred to Civil Service jargon the last thing I desired was to be in the least degree disrespectful to the Civil Service, and if my hon. Friend dislikes my expression so much, I shall withdraw it. However, although it is true that we have the best Civil Service in the world, some of the expressions the civil servants use in their business are not always what some of us would always desire.

The same applies to lawyers, too.

I accept my hon. Friend's apology unreservedly, but in fairness to the Civil Service I must say that some of the legal jargon not only in this House but in the courts baffles me absolutely. It not only baffles me but sometimes baffles juries and the Court of Appeal and even the House of Lords. So, perhaps, we are even.

Lawyers use and interpret legal language.

Yes, but my hon. and learned Friends must not reflect on other people who earn their living in an honest way.

However, I think the Bill is a good step forward, as I think that the judges' clerks would agree. I have no objection to the masters' clerks coming in, too, if they give the same sort of service and are as indispensable.

In as far as the Bill deals with pensions, it is an extraordinary good Bill. I have never seen anything like it in the Civil Service or in the private sector of industry, and anybody who says anything to the contrary does not "know his onions." If it is a good Bill, we do not mind trying to improve it in Committee, but I could not listen in silence tonight to some of the comments made against the Bill.

My hon. and learned Friends and others have suggested that the Bill is unfair towards people. In my opinion, it is a good Bill for those people. With other hon. Members, I shall seek to improve it, within reason, in Committee, but I should have thought that the legal profession would at least have dealt with some of the very good points in that Bill. Not one of them—and this includes my hon. and learned Friends—has dealt with the good points. They have simply dwelt upon what they would like to get in the form of privilege for some old tradition in the legal profession which they are serving so well.

10.22 p.m.

I should like to add to the chorus of welcome to the Bill, but I want to speak briefly about the position of Queen's Bench masters. While I unreservedly applaud the intention to improve the pensions rights of official referees, who are important judicial officers, I think there are heavy public grounds for saying that the masters of the Queen's Bench—I know little of the Chancery Division—should share in these benefits as well, because the public is looking for more economical and more rapid litigation, which is a very difficult thing to accomplish.

The Evershed Committee, after six years of ramification and exploration, has reached the conclusion that one of the best ways to achieve this is to have what it calls robust summons for directions which must be employed energetically by robust masters. If the masters look at this Supreme Court Officers (Pensions) Bill, they will quickly feel very sick and weak and will not be able to do their work well.

For those reasons, I want to underline what has been said in the debate. If the Evershed Report is to be seriously tackled by officers in the correct background, properly pensioned and properly paid, and these heavy duties accomplished and the law speeded up and made more economical, this matter will have to be attended to, and it is a great pity that it is not being attended to now.

10.24 p.m.

There have been, for a legal debate, a large number of speeches in a comparatively short time. I should very much like to identify myself with the speeches made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) and the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens).

There are two parts of the Bill which call for particular attention, the first dealing with official referees and the second dealing with judges' clerks. Personally, I welcome most strongly the provisions made for official referees. I think they have an extremely arduous job, and I believe it is high time that the judicial functions which they perform should be recognised and dealt with in the way in which the Bill deals with them.

When I heard his speech, I regretted what the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) said, because it seemed to me, as it seemed to the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) that he was hoping almost that the official referees would not be given the advantages of Clause 2 unless those advantages were also given to masters. I was very glad indeed that he corrected that false impression when he had an opportunity to do so. Of course, I hope that the masters will be given the same privilege, but I must disagree with the speech of the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Finlay) and warn him that if there is a movement to give Queen's Bench masters a privilege which is not being given to Chancery masters, he is asking for trouble.

When my hon. and learned Friend is talking about masters, both Queen's Bench masters and Chancery masters, there is this difficulty: in the provinces those offices are often held by solicitors, who are called registrars, who exercise the functions of masters. Is it proposed to include them?

That is an interest which my hon. and learned Friend perhaps has at heart. Of course, the Chancery masters are always chosen from the solicitors' profession and not from the Bar.

I come to the more controversial part of the Bill, which deals with judges' clerks. Like everyone else, I very much welcome the statement made by the Attorney—General, and his assurance that the judges' clerks would be chosen from among barristers' clerks. I am quite sure that all of us welcome that assurance. I am, however, a little concerned, as some other hon. Members were, about the possible limitations that may arise from that assurance. May I, therefore, ask the Attorney—General, as one of his Back Benchers did, whether there will be an age limit, first, on the time of appointment of these clerks, and, second, on their retirement age.

There is to be none.

I am glad to hear that. Will the clerks who are to be appointed be appointed with a view to their possible expectation of life lasting beyond the period which would be necessary to qualify for a pension under the Civil Service arrangements?

I say quite frankly that I was not surprised to hear the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Droylsden (Mr. W. R. Williams) about some of the speeches which have been made in this debate. I personally—and I say so quite frankly and bluntly—have no sympathy whatever with the attitude that we are dealing here with a right of patronage, and that as an additional right of patronage it might be preserved. I have no use for that argument.

What does concern me about this is not that at all. It is the essential part that the personal relationship of judge and clerk plays in the administration of justice. It is not good enough, from the point of view of the efficient administration of justice, if the clerks from whom the judges' clerks are to be appointed are young clerks, secondary clerks in barristers' chambers, who have not the confidence of other clerks, and who have not had the long experience of the clerks who, in the past, have been appointed as judges' clerks; and who will not, therefore, fulfil the vitally useful personal function which judges' clerks do perform now in the administration of justice in the courts.

Therefore, I feel, much as I welcome the assurance given by the Attorney—General, a little doubtful as to whether or not it will ensure that the clerks who will be appointed as Judges' clerks are the senior clerks, who are the only clerks who have the confidence of the barristers' clerks at large and of the judges in particular to whom they are appointed.

Quite obviously, the barrister's clerk who has only been a barrister's clerk for three, four, five or six years cannot possibly have either the experience or the personal relationship of a judge's clerk of very much greater experience. This was brought out clearly in the speeches of the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South and the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East. That, therefore, is really the crux of the matter. This is where I personally disagree most strongly, if I may say so with respect, with my hon. Friend the Member for Droylsden. He did a very valuable service to the debate in bringing forward the Civil Service point of view in approaching this problem, and it is a point of view with which I am personally in complete disagreement.

He rightly asked—and no doubt that is the Civil Service point of view—how can there be supernumeraries, and so on, when the problem is to have a grading which is decided with a view to pension rights? That, of course, is the whole gravamen of the charge which we make against this Bill. We are afraid that that is precisely what will happen, that the judges' clerks wil be chosen, not with a view to the personal relationship, ability and service which they can render because of their personal relationship with other barristers' clerks and judges, but because of their quite accidental quail- fication by reason of their juniority, if I may use the word, in age for grading for pension rights.

We say that the criterion for the efficient administration of justice in the courts of this country does not depend upon grading for pension rights, but upon the personal relationship of the clerks with the judges and with the other barristers' clerks.

The point I was putting was that if people are brought into a scheme, that creates grades. When that is done, there are a sufficient number of people in the grade or grades to do the work, no more and no less.

The speech of my hon. Friend impressed me very much, because it was very valuable to have a Civil Service point of view on this matter. I remember his words very well, and I am not sure that there is any difference between my interpretation of what he said and what he now says he said.

I wish to emphasise this personal relationship, not as a matter of patronage, with which I have absolutely no sympathy, but as a matter of an essential contribution to the working of our courts. Here, I think, we come to the very crux of the problem. I am deeply convinced, as I am sure is the Attorney-General, that the high reputation which this country enjoys for the administration of justice depends very largely—not entirely, but very largely—upon the fact that judges know barristers, that barristers know judges, that barristers can depend on their clerks, that barristers' clerks know judges' clerks and that everyone is thoroughly known and thoroughly assisted in the administration of justice.

That is one reason why I should be strongly opposed to a fusion of the two branches of the profession. I think that that personal relationship is a vital element in the administration of justice in this country; and I am afraid that this Bill, in so far as the value of the contribution made by judges' and barristers' clerks is concerned, will to some extent impinge upon that personal and valuable contribution upon which the administration of justice in this country is so largely based.

The matter can be dealt with in a different way. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend referred to pension rights and to the practical and essential requirement of having pensions, and I entirely agree with him. What we wish to impress upon the Attorney-General is this. Cannot some arrangement be made whereby these pension rights can be dealt with in rather an elastic way and be made subsidiary to this essential feature of preserving the personal nexus? That is the line on which I suggest we should investigate the proposal in the Bill.

It can be dealt with in different ways. It can be dealt with as my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) suggested, by having supernumeraries, and three was suggested. Three supernumeraries is on the basis of experience of what has actually happened. They would not be out of occupation. They would be required for commissioners of assize, and also they could act when judges' clerks are ill, and on other occasions. They would not be unoccupied. That would be one way of dealing with the matter and maintaining a Civil Service structure for pensions.

Another method would be to have the judge's clerk appointed for the duration of the life of the judge, or so long as he remains on the Bench. He becomes a clerk to the judge when the judge is appointed, and if the judge retires and the clerk goes with him, his rights would be comparatively, or could be made comparatively, the same as the judge's rights on the basis of the 15-year scale or, if he retires earlier, on a comparatively reduced term. Another method would be to say that if it were found that when a judge retired and the clerk continued until another appointment is made because of a judge's clerk dying or retiring then the judge should have the right of selection.

Any of these schemes would help far more to preserve the personal nexus than the scheme brought forward by the Bill. We do not know what Civil Service scheme would apply to the judges' clerks under the Bill, or what the qualifying period would be, or how it would work. What we are concerned with here is the problem of reconciling any such modification as may be necessary in pension rights with the right of personal appointment. I do not want to press the Attorney-General to deal with this matter in detail now. I realise perfectly well that if he is to reply tonight in response to urgent pressure he will have to give a comparatively negative answer. We all know that perfectly well.

I do hope that he will look at this matter benignly. I do not want to pursue any crusade against the Treasury, nor do I want to deal with this matter in any hostile manner, but I appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman not to give a categorical answer tonight to the points put to him. He has made perfectly clear in his opening remarks what lies behind the Bill. What we do press for, and we are not pressing for it in any hostile manner, as I am sure the Attorney-General realises, is that, having heard the remarks in the debate and the almost complete unanimity of the observations from all sides of the House, he will consider those observations and see whether or not it is possible, by some modified scheme, to reconcile pension rights with the preservation of the personal nexus which is so vital to the workings of the profession. I would much rather he did that than that he should give any kind of categorical answer this evening.

10.45 p.m.

If I may speak again, by leave of the House, I would observe that one or two hon. Members have rather complained that I did not give judgment when I moved the Second Reading of the Bill but I thought that it would be better and perhaps more courteous to the House if I listened to the arguments, partly because I might be more helpful to the House and partly because some of the arguments in debate have a way of cancelling each other out. It saves time if one does not have to deal with a matter.

I am sure that the House has been entertained to hear the varying styles of advocacy and the different way in which the same case can be put by different advocates. The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) adopted the method of Boanerges in describing this Bill as an imposition on a deserving body of men. He said that it was done without the slightest notice, and he said it without mentioning that the correspondence to which he referred was dated June, 1951. He went so far as to say that there was danger that men would be appointed who would be personally uncongenial to the judges, because they would be appointed personally by the Lord Chancellor, who is not a judge. That seems to be one way of putting the case. I am not complaining about that.

I should like to thank the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) for the very moderate and helpful way in which he put the case. He said something with which we are all in agreement, and which had been said already by the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen). I think that I should take up at once what the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan said because I entirely agree with it. He said that if we could be assured that as far as practicable the present spirit was to continue that would go a long way towards removing his anxieties.

I can certainly say that that is the intention and that there is no intention whatever of any such thing as taking advantage of the age of the clerk to save money, or anything of that kind. I should have thought that all hon. and learned Gentlemen who have spoken would have known my noble Friend sufficiently well not to suspect him of being a party to anything of that kind. I remind the House that under the terms of Clause 2 (3) it is the Lord Chancellor who is personally responsible for these appointments, and therefore I think that we must give him some credit for the way in which he will approach the matter and the way in which, in fact, he has already approached it.

After having said that, I should like to turn to the more practical side of the subject and remind the House for a moment of what is the situation. It is that, after the matter had been put forward by hon. Members in this House and representations had been made outside, it was carefully considered, first by the judges. I will not mention his name, but I do not think that one of my hon. Friends could have been very serious when he said, "Well it was only the judges who had clerks already appointed who said it. They were not thinking of anybody else." That is another example of the forensic way of putting the point.

The judges came up against the point of view which was put forward by the hon. Member for Droylsden (Mr. W. R. Williams) in a way with which I would not venture to compete or repeat, because he speaks from a great knowledge of the subject. The sort of considerations they had in mind are very clear after the brief but extremely cogent remarks of the hon. Gentleman.

One must remember, for example, that money will be provided out of public funds to pension a class of men who are normally far beyond the age of men who benefit from pensions schemes provided out of public funds. I have no right to speak for them, but it is clear that that was a point of great importance in the minds of the judges. Another point, or another way of putting it, is that the idea of appointment to the public service, by authorities not responsible to Parliament, of persons who are going to become pensionable at the public expense is something of which we ought to be very careful. I say that because I am sure that hon. Members agree that that is entirely out of accord with modern constitutional ideas.

To hear some hon. and learned Members who have spoken, one would think that judges' clerks were mentioned in the Act of Settlement and that one would have to have a Resolution passed by both Houses before one could remove them. I do ask hon. Members to have a sense of proportion, making all allowances for the fact that they are doing a very fine job for their clerks. The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) declined to say much about that, but I did observe, with some interest, that he said there were difficulties about it. He referred, for instance, to the question of age, and said that that would create difficulties; and he mentioned waiting lists, and remarked how some other employment might have to be found.

But he was supporting exactly what I have ventured to suggest to the House is the proper point of view. One cannot have cast-iron rules, but there can be a normal pension system, and one can have faith that the Lord Chancellor will be able to administer this scheme so as to preserve those features of the present system which we think ought, so far as is possible, to be preserved. So, I should like to accept the invitation—if I may say so, the wise and helpful invitation—of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas), who has just spoken and say that we shall certainly, when we come to the Committee stage, consider if it is at all possible, dealing with the actual working of the system in such a way that we shall preserve those desirable features. I cannot promise that we shall succeed, but we shall try.

What I cannot say is that we shall adopt a combination of two inconsistent things; appointment by individuals not subject to Parliament on the one hand, and on the other, of the application to those appointed of a Government pension scheme. That we cannot do. The only other point to which I would refer in this part of the Bill is that, from the views which have been expressed by some hon. Members, it almost appeared that the view was held in some quarters that there should be no pension scheme at all. That really is not a reasonable proposition.

In these days we really must provide for these judges' clerks. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) asked, in effect, how many of the clerks were destitute. We hope that there are very, very few. but unless we do something about the matter, there will certainly be cases where people will be very near the limit.

I should not like it to go on the record that I have said anything to suggest that I am opposed to the question of pensions. I said there would be very few supernumaries and that, therefore, there would be no greater charge on the Exchequer if a new judge brought in a new clerk and there was no job for the existing clerk.

I am sure the hon. and learned Member has made his position quite clear. I would only say in that connection that we hope sincerely that in a large number of cases the position would work out in exactly the same way as it does now. That is what we want it to do.

I should like to mention briefly the other aspect, the question of the Queen's Bench masters. The hon. and learned Member for Cardigan put it very helpfully. He said that this controversy had been going on for some years, that the position of the official referees had been under consideration for quite a long time, and that the Government had managed to screw themselves up to the point of giving them this improvement in their position. Let us be thankful for that, and then let hon. and learned Members devote their admirable energies and eloquence, which, we know from this evening, they have available in large measure, to persuading the Government to give the Queen's Bench masters the same rights.

I certainly am not saying anything contrary to that, but I say this, and I hope it will not be considered flippant at this time of night. If we have succeeded in putting before the House and before hon. and learned Members a proposition which enables, at any rate, some of the judicial officers to be better off, had they not better be thankful for that and continue to hope for better things in the future?

It would not be wise for me to enter into further detailed arguments. I agree that there is nothing in the Bill with regard to the actual details of the scheme. I said with regard to the retiring age—I interrupted to point this out because I thought it would be helpful at that point—that there is no question of having any cast-iron retiring age. I certainly should decline to have anything to do with the operation of a scheme which took into account saving money rather than providing the best clerks and the best possible scheme.

The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East was kind enough to acknowledge that I cannot give any undertaking, and I cannot give any undertaking beyond saying that if, when we reach the Committee stage, it is possible within the bounds of the Bill to frame any more concrete provisions as regards the actual terms of the pensions scheme and its operation, we shall have an open mind about it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[ Sir C. Drewe.]

Committee upon Monday next.

Supreme Court Officers (Pensions) Money

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[ Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session, it is expedient to authorise—
(a) any such increase in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1950, or the Administration of Justice (Pensions) Act, 1950, or in the sums payable into the Ex-chequer under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1950; and
(b) any such increase in the salaries pay able out of moneys provided by Parliament under (he Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925:
as may be attributable to provisions dealing (with effect from the beginning of 1954 or any later date) with any of the following matters, that is to say—
(i) pension rights of persons who, after not less than five years pensionable service, retire from or die while serving in the office of official referee, and the service which an official referee may count as pensionable service;
(ii) salary or pension rights of secretaries and clerks of the Judges of the Supreme Court in England; and
(iii) pension rights of tipstaves attached to Judges of the Supreme Court in Northern Ireland or of persons employed in the lunacy office in Northern Ireland;
or as may be attributable to any modification of existing enactments in so far as they make the salary or pension rights of an officer of either of those courts dependent on his appointment with a certificate from the Civil Service Commissioners.—[The Attorney-General.]

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

Superannuation (President Of Industrial Court) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

10.54 p.m.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The purpose of the Bill is to make provision for the payment of a pension and certain other benefits in respect of service as President of the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court, as, I am sure right hon. and hon. Members know well, is an essential feature in the national machinery for preventing and for settling industrial disputes. Those differences ought, wherever possible, to be settled by negotiation between the parties. If that fails there is, over a large section of industry, voluntary joint machinery which the two sides have set up themselves.

But sometimes differences cannot be composed even by that machinery; there are cases where there is no such machinery available, and it is to meet these needs that the Industrial Courts Act of 1919 set up the Industrial Court which has ever since been available if, and only if, both parties consent to use it. There were, before the Industrial Court, other means of getting an arbitration, but that Court was the first standing body established for arbitration in industrial disputes. It owed its origin to the recommendation of the Whitley Committee, which said that there ought to be standing arbitration council to which

"differences of general principles and differences affecting whole industries, or large sections of industries may be referred in cases where the parties have failed to come to an agreement through their ordinary procedure, and wish to refer the differences to arbitration."

In accordance with that, differences—a great number of them—have gone, ever since, to that Court, with the consent of both parties concerned. It is not only the first standing body for that purpose, but it is the only permanent body constituted by statute for the purpose of arbitration in industrial disputes. It is entirely independent of Governmental or Departmental control or influence.

Under the statute which set up the body, the members of the Industrial Court are appointed by the Minister of Labour for such terms of service as he may fix. Some have to be independent persons; some are persons representing employers; some represent workmen, and there must be one or more women serving there. One of the independent members—the one with whom we are concerned tonight—is appointed by the Minister to be President of the Court. That is a full-time salaried appointment, and the President also undertakes other arbitration activities additional to those which he performs in the Court, and does that without any extra remuneration.

I now wish to say something about the work which the Court has done in the 35 years of its existence. It has played no less than a vital part in the development of good industrial relations on a voluntary basis. In addition, there are many industrial agreements which provide for the reference of outstanding differences to the Court as a matter of agreement within their own machinery, and for the acceptance by those parties of the Court's findings. That that should be so in these days is some tribute to the way in which the Court has functioned over the past 35 years.

Apart from what I have said about its work so far, when there are questions about the fair wages resolution and whether that has been properly carried out, the Minister of Labour, whoever he may be, normally refers that to the Industrial Court. In total, up to the end of last year the Court had made awards in no fewer than 2,491 cases. These are awards that, in many cases, have dealt with actual or threatened disputes in large and important industries.

To be the President of that Court is to hold a very important post. It is quite clear we want for it someone of the highest calibre, and the number of persons from whom we could find such a person is limited. He has to have knowledge and experience of industry and of industrial arbitration. He has to have the necessary intellectual capacity and the personal qualities which will commend him to both sides in industry as a skilled and absolutely impartial arbitrator. There is no wide field in which we can choose.

The President of the Court need not be—some of us would, perhaps, not be as keen about this as others—a lawyer, but it is perfectly clear that legal training and experience are, and have proved to be, of great assistance to the person who performs this task. I see that an hon. Member who has served much in this sort of work agrees with me. Up to now the three distinguished men who have held the post were lawyers—Sir William Mackenzie, Sir Harold Morris and Sir John Forster, three distinguished and highly reputable lawyers. In practice, I think most of us would agree, the candidate for the office will have to be chosen not only from among experienced lawyers with the qualities I have described, but be of the calibre of men who are appointed judges in the High Court of Justice.

At a time like this, in that limited field, when for all of us, I hope, the span of life is lengthening, when personal savings for old age are hard to accumulate, when pensions are becoming, as we have seen already tonight, a more important condition of employment, when judges are getting pensions not only for themselves but for their widows—that is a time when, I think, it is unreasonable to expect that a man, or that a man ought to be asked, to give up a successful practice at the Bar for the post of the President of the Industrial Court, unless it also is a pensionable appointment. If we are to find the right man from time to time for that post, I think we must be able to give him reasonable security for himself and his dependants in later years.

I want to say only a word about the present incumbent. He has served as President of the Court from December, 1945, until now. His present term of office will carry him to 1958. My predecessor in office, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) knows of his work, as I have known it over the last 2½ years. I do not think that anyone who has seen his work will doubt the great service he has rendered to industrial relations by the distinguished way in which he has carried out his task. That is the man, and that is the post in respect of which this Bill makes these provisions.

I do not want to trouble the House with the provisions of the Bill beyond saying what, I think, the House will want to know that they are, broadly, similar to those provided for judicial and quasi-judicial officers generally, such as are given to county court judges, the National Insurance Commissioners, and so forth. They are broadly comparable with those, and as such I commend them to the House.

I think the Bill can be fairly described as no more than a tidying up Measure. It proposes to give the holder of the office of the President of the Industrial Court superannuation benefits corresponding to those enjoyed by those who hold similar judicial and quasi-judicial posts, but it has real and practical importance because on it depends for those who come after me whether they will be able to secure on proper terms a person with the great qualities needed for this highly important task in the industrial future of this country.

What salary attaches to the post?

The salary attaching to the post is £4,000 a year in the ordinary way. At present, the holder of the office has £4,500 a year, but if this Bill goes forward the pension will be related to a salary of £4,000.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman, now laying down that, regardless of the other necessary qualifications, the persons who hold this post shall be possessed of legal qualifications first and foremost, and that persons not having legal qualifications will be debarred from holding it?

No, Sir. That is not the intention, nor did I intend to say that it was, if I appeared to do so. I merely meant to say that in the past it had been found convenient that a lawyer should be appointed, but there is no intention to confining appointment to lawyers, or to persons holding any particular professional qualifications.

11.6 p.m.

We are indebted to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his clear exposition of the Bill, and appreciate the history he gave us of the Industrial Court and what he told us of the work of the present holder of the office, and of his predecessors. I was able to see the work of the present holder of the office when I was Minister of Labour, and I have been privileged more than once to sit under his chairmanship when I was a trade union official dealing with industrial disputes. It is true, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman, has said, that this office must be filled not only by distinguished men of repute, but by men in whom both sides of industry can have the utmost confidence.

There is not the slightest doubt that the present holder of the office enjoys that confidence, but we are not dealing with the Bill for the present holder. We are concerned with the principle of whether the President of the Industrial Court should have a pension. I believe that he should. I believe that this is a good Bill which will enable the Minister, or those who may succeed him, to widen the field in which they can seek the kind of man who must fill the office. The Industrial Court is an important part of industrial relations. I do not know what the organised workers would do if suddenly the Court were swept away. It has become part and parcel of the constitutional way of dealing with problems which arise when disputes occur in industry.

Therefore, it is important that people who would like to do the work should not be prevented by financial reasons. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, made clear that no Minister of Labour is tied to selecting persons from the legal profession; but it will be the case that from time to time people in that profession will be considered for appointment. Men who may desire to do the work, and who have great experience, cannot be expected to make sacrifices which it is really impossible for them to make so as to do this valuable work in industrial relations. I therefore welcome the Bill. We can make detailed examination of it in Committee. The principle is right, and I hope the House will approve the Second Reading.

11.10 p.m.

I, also, have the greatest respect for the President of the Industrial Court. I know from my own first-hand experience of his fairness, his impartiality and, above all, his great sense of humour which gets him out of many a difficult situation. I am glad that he is to get this pension and I hope that he will live to a ripe old age to enjoy fishing in the North of Scotland.

But why is the Bill restricted to the President? Why are the other members of the Industrial Court left out in the cold? They sit together as a Court, they have equal responsibilities and equal burdens. When they reach a decision they give it on behalf of the whole Court. It seems to me only fair that they should be treated equally—yet one is to receive a pension and the others are not. I ask the Minister to consider that point and to enlarge the scope of the Bill in Committee.

11.12 p.m.

I should like to re-echo the sentiments expressed by the Minister and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) in recommending the Bill to the House. It is 30 years since I first appeared before the first permanent president of the Industrial Court, Sir William Mackenzie, who was followed by Sir Harold Morris, before whom I appeared on more occasions than I care to remember, mostly to my advantage and occasionally to my disadvantage. When it was to my disadvantage, they were very bad days; but on reflection, in the quiet hours of the evening of the day of the arbitration, I was compelled to agree that the arbitrator's decision was right, even though it went against me.

I have had experience, of course, of the present President, Sir John Forster. I think the Minister will agree with me when I say that Sir William Mackenzie and, in particular, Sir Harold Morris, did great and important work in establishing the confidence of the workers in this country in the machinery of arbitration. That was the great contribution which these two outstanding arbitrators made. They paved the way for the establishment of the National Arbitration Tribunal; they created the foundation on which it was so successfully established.

It came to me as a great surprise to discover, on the retirement of Sir Harold Morris from the presidency of the Industrial Court after 25 years' service, that the retirement carried no pension and also to discover, about the same time, on the retirement of one of the permanent assessors, the late Mr. F. S. Button, whom I knew personally for many years, that his retirement carried no pension, either. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Stroud and Thornbury (Sir R. Perkins) mention that the Bill was concerned solely with the provision of a pension for the President. That is so; it provides justice which should have been provided years ago and is a piece of tidying up legislation, as the Minister said. I do not expect the Minister to reply to all these points tonight, but I want to reinforce what the hon. Member for Stroud and Thornbury said.

I wholeheartedly support the Minister's view that it is essential that those who are appointed to the chair should be men of eminent legal ability. That, I think, is essential. Secondly, it is essential, too, that assessors should be men drawn from industry where they have had direct experience of the works side of industry and an intimate knowledge of collective bargaining and all it entails. I hope that the Minister and those who follow him in the selection of assessors will see that they are men of outstanding and proved ability and that they will be permanent appointments and not merely selected from a pool according to need.

With those few observations, I am delighted to support the Second Reading of the Bill.

11.16 p.m.

My right hon. and learned Friend has said this is a tidying up Bill, but what I should like to know is where the tidying up begins and where it ends. This is a departure from the principles we have followed and it is a costly one. It is apparent to me that it will not by any means be the end of the transaction. Already, my hon. Friend, the Member for Stroud and Thornbury (Sir R. Perkins) has made it clear there are others who require pensions. There are a large number of people outside this House who have no expectation of a pension and have to make their own provision for it.

I made up my mind to take every opportunity I had of opposing further public expenditure when I heard my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer make his Budget Speech and refer to £1,000 million more to be spent. It may be right that the Minister should bring this before the House, but I am bound to say that the country cannot afford a continual rise in public expenditure and this is such an increase.

11.18 p.m.

I, too, wish to oppose the Bill. I believe it is right and proper that public service should be rewarded in accordance with the service rendered, but there are other things that have to be considered besides rewarding one who has been a person of considerable merit. I am glad the Minister made it clear that the first essential for selection as President of the Court shall not be legal qualification. I have some experience of tribunals, but no experience of this particular Court. I come from an industry that never needs to use it. My industry settles problems by using horse sense among commonsense employers and employees. I am concerned that even our own Front Bench should suggest that people of eminent legal qualifications should do this job.

During the war, the late Mr. Ernest Bevin had considerable trouble with tribunals because of persons possessed of knowledge of the law but no knowledge at all of workshop practice. I had personal experience of being brought in as the first non-legal person in the North of England to take over the Manchester Tribunal. I learned a great deal about both sides of the picture, including the law.

Is this Bill to be confined to the existing potentially retiring President? What about retrospective provisions? What about the pioneers who have made the job as successful as it is? Is it to be completely retrospective to those still living but not in the job? The President's job can only be made successful by the thought, care and attention of those who sit with him. It is impossible for the President to come to a decision without the co-operation, thought and knowledge of people with a vast amount of industrial knowledge. Those people ought to be considered.

I could go further back still. One could go on until one came to the last boy who goes into industry, and who has a grouse which might eventually find its way to the arbitration court. That is rather an extreme point of view, but there it is.

I want to be very certain that this Bill will not create the precedent that a person shall, first and foremost, have legal knowledge. Take the case of the younger men who have sat as members of this Court for 10 or 15 years. They are extremely able people who have been able to help the President by the knowledge and experience which they have gained on the industrial side. They would make very fine potential Presidents, but, not being possessed of legal knowledge, they would be debarred from that appointment.

I would not object to this money being paid. A short time ago we had a closed shop debate on pensions for judges' clerks. At the beginning of Questions today we had an argument about how soon we can do something to give Members of Parliament a pension. It is part of the activities of some people to see that hard-pressed Members of Parliament should be given consideration in this respect. I am all for these people being given an adequate sum of money, plus a reasonable pension.

I agree with the Minister practically up to 99 per cent, on most things. He is one of the Ministers—and I say this to him puiblicly—for whom we in industry have a very great respect. It is a good job that we have a man with his type of mind in his office at the present time. But I do not agree with him when he says that this President not only does this and that job, but also an enormous number of other jobs for which he gets no remuneration.

Surely, when the original remuneration for the post was being considered, all these other jobs were taken into consideration in arriving at the appropriate amount. Surely the fact that he does an individual arbitration case was token into consideration when the £4,000 was fixed, for not only have we got to face superannuation, but also the cost of increased salary.

11.23 p.m.

I wish to cross swords with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), who seemed to disapprove of the pension scheme as provided for by this Bill. In these days, it is almost impossible to make provision for old age out of quite large salaries. I think that the State ought to be a model employer and provide pensions for all its servants, and I have great pleasure in supporting the Bill. I also agree to the assessors being added.

This House has spent many hours in dealing with questions of pensions, and it should realise that the days have gone when a public servant was able to save for his old age. It is time that this or some other Government should consider whether we could not save the very valuable time of the House by the introduction of a general powers Bill in respect of pensions for civil and public servants which would allow the Government, by Order in Council—against which we could pray if need be—to give pensions in proper cases to those in Government service.

It seems to me that the principle of pensions having been agreed by the House twice tonight, we shall now have Bill after Bill after Bill for various civil servants and other public servants introduced here and discussed at great length. I suggest to the Government that some general powers might be taken by the Government to deal with pensions for the Civil Service without the necessity of having to bring in a Bill on every occasion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[ Major Conant.]

Committee upon Monday next.

Superannuation (President Of Industrial Court) Money

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[ Queen's Recommendation signified]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for pensions and other superannuation benefits in respect of service as president of the Industrial Court, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the amount of any superannuation allowances under that Act and of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under paragraph 1 of the Third Schedule to the Administration of Justice (Pensions) Act, 1950.—[Sir W. Monckton.]

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

Grand National (Cruelty)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Major Conant.]

11.27 p.m.

I want to raise a matter which is causing grave anxiety among a large section of the community—whether there is cruelty to horses in steeplechasing, and, in particular, in the Grand National. May I make two points clear? First, on behalf of myself and other hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House who support my views, we do not wish to abolish steeplechasing or the Grand National? All we wish the Government to do is to use their influence to ensure that there is no cruelty in steeplechasing or the Grand National.

Secondly, may I offer my thanks to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary for the great interest he has taken in the matter, and for the fact that he invited the stewards of the National Hunt Committee to meet him yesterday, presumably to discuss recommendations for making the Grand National safe. I hope we shall hear from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary something of what took place at those discussions yesterday.

The question now is whether the Grand National does involve cruelty to the horses. Under Section 1 (a) of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, it is an offence cruelly to beat, override or overdrive any animal or cause it so to be used. Mr. Justice Wightman, as long ago as 1863, gave what he described as a rough and ready description of cruelty, which was that cruelty is unnecessary abuse of the animal. If we could analyse figures and statistics available in connection with both the Grand National and steeplechasing I think the whole House would agree that there is justification for the great anxiety that many hundreds of thousand of people feel, in particular over the Grand National as it is run at present.

I have had over 600 letters, telegrams and petitions, all of them completely unsolicited, because there is no pressure group working on the subject. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has ridden a middle course in this matter. It has not invoked any agitation and the 600 letters that I have received and the large number of communications that hon. Members on both sides of the House have received are completely unsolicited. They spring from a deep feeling that horses are being cruelly treated, particularly in the Grand National.

The figures, which are illuminating, are difficult to obtain. It is not easy to get the National Hunt Committee or the promoters of the Grand National to give any figures. They are not very prone to quote figures. I trust that tie figures that I shall give to the House are accurate. I have obtained them from figures given in the newspapers at the times of the various races. In 1950, 49 horses started in the Grand National, only seven managed to finish the course and two were killed or destroyed on the course. In 1951, 36 horses started the race and only three managed to finish the course. I am glad to say that in that year no horse was killed.

In 1952, 47 horses started and only 12 finished, one was killed and one was so seriously injured that he has not been able to run again. In 1953, 31 horses started the race, only five finished and two were killed. This year 29 started, only nine finished and four were killed. Therefore, in this so-called Grand National we have a grand total of 192 horses which started and a total of only 36 that managed to finish. If my mathematics are correct, about one-fifth of the horses that started the race managed to stay the course, and a grand total of nine horses have been killed in the last five Grand Nationals.

rose—

I cannot give way, as I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Walton (Mr. K. Thompson) may be fortunate enough to be called, because the Aintree course is in his constituency.

I cannot give any period for these figures, but I have managed to find the names of no fewer than 53 horses that have been killed or destroyed on the course at Aintree in the running of the Grand National—53 horses killed or destroyed in what is called a sporting activity. Can one wonder that people are irate at this wicked massacre and slaughter of dumb animals? For the 1952–53 National Hunt season I have managed to find the names of no fewer than 202 horses killed in steeplechasing. It would not be unfair to say that if I can find as many as 202 killed in one year of steeplechasing the total must be very much higher, and that completely excludes all horses maimed, crippled, trampled on and otherwise damaged for life by being put in races for which they are not suitable and in which the obstacles are far too great for the animals to manage to negotiate.

Those are the facts, and, I believe, show quite conclusively that this type of race in its present form, should not, in all public decency, be tolerated in this country any longer. What about the course itself? It is 4½ miles long, and has 31 fences; and I am advised by some of those people who know all there is to know about steeplechasing that it is the most gruelling steeplechase in the world.

There is nobody in this House who knows less about steeplechasing than I, and that is the very reason why I feel that I can speak not for the vested interests of racing, but for ordinary, decent people who are shocked and horrified at the massacre which is carried on in the name of racing. If I had a vested interest I should not feel so well qualified to raise this matter on behalf of people who, like myself, know only of the vast number of horses killed, or afterwards destroyed, in the Grand National and in steeplechasing generally.

There have been a great many recommendations made by persons who know a great deal about racing, and I see from the "Observer" that John Hislop, who, I presume, is the racing correspondent of that newspaper, and who, I understand, has ridden several times in the Grand National, wrote only a few weeks ago:

"There are a few owners and trainers who do not appreciate the difference between a horse suited to Aintree and one who is not … Owners should ensure that horses are in a thoroughly fit condition to run, especially with regard to the state of the horse's heart. The fences should be of birch instead of thorns.…"

and these words are most illuminating in my opinion

"thereby eliminating the chances of a horse being staked."

This, I remind hon. Members, is a "sport" in which an experienced correspondent of a reliable newspaper writes of the chances of a horse being staked. How horribly nauseating! He goes on:

"The ditch on the landing side of Beecher's Brook should be filled in as it is an unnecessarily and occasionally dangerous trap."

This race has been going on for years with this trap and with fences capable of staking horses, and yet there are some people who criticise such as myself for regarding these conditions as being outrageously cruel to the animals concerned.

If I may, I would just say something of the recommendations which, I understand, have been made. First, that there should be a revision of the conditions of entry, both for horses and for jockeys, so that only the best quality horses may run, and only fully experienced jockeys may be allowed to ride. Secondly, that the field should be limited to 20; thirdly, that the 4½ miles course is too long; fourthly, that the jumps are too solid, too numerous, and too severe; and, in this connection, I would ask if all hon. Members realise that the jumps are of growing trees which are merely lopped. That they are trees now deep rooted into the earth, and with enormously thick trunks. They are, therefore, completely rigid. All this nonsense that one sees of putting brushwood over them is only to make them look a little less formidable than they are.

The next suggestion is that no horse should be allowed to carry on handicap over 12 stone.

I do not know whether the hon. Member is now proposing legislation to give effect to all these conditions, because that would be out of order on the Adjournment.

I fully appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to suggest that these are matters for which the Government should set up a committee of inquiry, from which the Government should receive recommendations.

One of the matters which I should very much like the Minister to bring before the committee, if he is good enough to have a committee formed, is that there should be, not merely a cursory veterinary inspection, but a completely thorough veterinary inspection at the first forfeit stage of the race and that in that veterinary inspection there should be the use of the electro-cardiagraph to ensure that no horse is liable to drop dead during the race from cardio-vascular disease.

The other recommendation which I should like to be put before the stewards of the National Hunt Committee is that ferocious whipping should be eliminated. If anyone wishes to see a thoroughly nauseating sight, let him see the film of the Grand National and see the two horses being whipped ferociously and solidly right from the last jump to the winning post. If that does not constitute cruelty to animals, I cannot understand what is cruelty.

rose—

If you or I, Mr. Speaker, saw at the end of its day's work a horse pulling a cart being whipped ferociously and solidly by the person driving it, we know perfectly well that that person would be brought before the magistrates and, I trust and hope, would be convicted under the Section of the Act to which I have referred.

I hope that the Minister will form a committee and that it will not consist exclusively of members of the National Hunt Committee, because, reputable gentlemen though they may be, they must in a matter of this nature be a little suspect as to whether their sympathies are not entirely with the keeping of the Grand National in its present form. I suggest that the committee should consist of persons not only from the National Hunt Committee, but also from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and of other individuals who would be of use on a committee of this nature.

If that is not done, while I do not wish to incite anybody here, I feel that if the Grand National in particular is run in its present form again next year, there will be ugly demonstrations, because feeling now is most acute that this race, with its cruelty, must be modified so that cruelty no longer exists.

11.43 p.m.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown (Mr. H. Johnson) for allowing me two minutes in which to make a few observations on this important matter. I am not sure what is a fair Parliamentary proportion and whether it is possible to put right in two minutes the inaccuracies, exaggerations and distortions of 15 minutes, but I realise that that is no responsibility of my hon. Friend.

This great race—and it is a great race—is a very important part of our horse-racing season. It is, in fact, the summit of the steeplechasing events of the steeple-chasing season. Entered into the race are only horses which have passed a stiff and recognised qualification. They have to pass a qualification which includes success in similar races or round similar courses. There is no question whatever at present of horses which are, on the face of it, unsuited for the course being entered.

Nevertheless, I will agree with my hon. Friend as far as this: that if a system can be devised which will ensure that only horses suitable for entering a race around this course as it is now, and of having a reasonable chance of completing the course, are accepted, then we should certainly examine those proposals. If only jockeys are allowed to enter who have demonstrated that they have the necessary qualifications for completing the set course on such a horse, then I think we ought to examine proposals to secure that end.

What I want us to avoid more than anything else is that we should so distort this race that the so-called Grand National that would result would be nothing more than a small park course requiring the skill, strength and stamina of third-rate horses. We have, in this great race, a contest between horses of a supreme class, which demands strength, courage, and stamina in horse and man.

I have no authority whatever to speak for the promoters of the race, but I do know that the course has, on many occasions in recent years, been considerably altered to facilitate smooth running of the race, and I believe that the pro-motors would be willing to do what they can in framing any measure to ensure that without destroying the character of the Grand National.

11.47 p.m.

There has been considerable discussion of the Grand National this year, and I think everyone, whatever his views on the subject, will regret the death of the four horses which fell in the race. It is entirely proper for my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown (Mr. H. Johnson) to call attention to the matter on the Adjournment and to suggest action which might be taken by the authorities who are in a position to take action, or, indeed, by the Government, so long as he does not suggest legislation.

I must say a word now about the attitude of the Government to this matter. The hon. Member has asked for an inquiry, and I think the House will appreciate that the suggestion of an inquiry is often a device to urge legislation when it would be out of order to do so specifically. I do not for a moment charge my hon. Friend with that and I shall assume that he is not proposing to urge legislation. Therefore, I must simply repeat to him that in the view of my right hon. and learned Friend an inquiry would serve no useful purpose. The facts are known, and the law on the subject is known and explicit.

My hon. Friend referred to Section (1) of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, and that is a relevant statute. Whether it is applicable in any particular case is a matter for a court of justice, and it would be entirely improper for me to express any opinion on the matter here this evening. I should add that, as in the field of the criminal law generally, it is no part of the Home Secretary's responsibility to institute criminal proceedings. I cannot emphasise that too strongly. I understand that there were several inspectors of the R.S.P.C.A., and, I believe, also representatives of other animal protection societies present at Aintree when the race was held, and I think I had best leave the matter there.

As regards the running of the race, I have already said the Government have no responsibility in the matter at all. The regulation of the conditions is a matter for the authorities concerned, in this case the National Hunt Committee. It is certainly no part of the Government's duties to interfere with the National Hunt Committee in the execution of its powers and duties. I do not believe that anyone has argued or would argue that the Government should interfere with the National Hunt Committee in that connection.

Of course, the Government cannot remain wholly indifferent in a matter of such widespread interest on which many constructive proposals have been put forward both in the Press and to the Government directly. It is certainly proper that the Government should do what is necessary to bring the views that have been expressed to the notice of those who are responsible. It was for that reason that my right hon. and learned Friend invited the stewards of the National Hunt Committee to meet him. That meeting had the additional advantage that he was able to be fully informed by them of the material facts as they knew them.

It is my duty to give the main facts to the House—I can do so only very shortly tonight—as accurately and as freely from bias as I am able to do. Let me first say something about the four fatal accidents which are the whole cause of this debate. The horse, Legal Joy, had been second in the 1952 Grand National. It fell in the first round at the 13th fence, which is a plain fence and one of the lowest in the race. The horse, Dominick's Bar, collapsed and died at the second fence. The horse, Paris—New York, fell at the fourth, which is a plain fence 4 feet 10 inches high.

So far as those three horses are concerned it was certainly not the kind of obstacle referred to by my hon. Friend, or the length of the face, that appears to have had anything to do with the matter. The horse, Coneyburrow, fell at the 28th fence which is 5 ft. high with a ditch 4 feet 7 inches wide. That horse had previously made a mistake. He did not appear to have suffered from that as he caught up with the leaders again. He had already won the Grand Sefton Steeplechase over three miles of the same course last November. I have stated the facts as objectively as I can without seeking to place any emphasis upon them, since I conceive that to be my duty.

As regards the qualification for the runners in the race, when the race was resumed after the war the qualification was that a horse must have been placed first, second or third in a steeplechase of a certain value and over a certain distance. In 1952, this qualification was tightened up and it was only winners of such races that were qualified to enter the Grand National. It is, no doubt, because of that change that there has been a tendency towards smaller fields. This year the field was the smallest since the war.

The attention of the Home Secretary has been drawn by the stewards to a document containing the names of 45 horses which are stated to have been killed in the race. I think that that document has been fairly widely circulated. The stewards have checked the information in that document, and have told the Home Secretary that the list begins with the year 1839. According to the information which is available to them six, at least, of the horses listed did not die in the Grand National. It is right that I should mention that categorical information. It gives some idea of what the position is over a rather long range of time, and it is desirable that the House should be given the best information available to the Government.

I have given the bare, principal facts as I know them. I have listened to what has been said by my hon. Friends on this matter, and I can assure them and the House that what has been said will be considered by the Government and will be brought to the notice of the National Hunt Committee and of the other authorities concerned.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Four Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.

Volume 526: debated on Thursday 29 April 1954

House Of Commons

Prayers

Oral Answers To Questions

Agriculture

Eggs (Marketing And Prices)

Sugar Beet Factory, Southern England

Attested Stock (Movement Licensing)

Farm Survey Visits

Support Prices (Quantification)

Farmer, Saint Helens (Dispossession)

Progeny Testing Scheme

Home Department

Police Forces (Cost)

Poisons (Antidotes)

Swans (Protection)

Prison Deaths (Burial)

Remand Homes And Approved Schools (Punishment)

Immigration

Father Ingram (Warrant)

Juvenile Courts, South London

Food Price Increases

Heavy Goods Vehicles (Speed Limit)

Ministry Of Health

Hospital Beds (Private Patients)

World Health Organisation (Budget)

Foreign Residents (Tuberculosis)

Emphysema (Research)

Cancer

Children In Hospitals (Parents' Visits)

Oranges (Thiourea)

Maternity Home Fire, Reading

Education

Schools (National Service Information)

State Scholarships

Unesco

Grammar School Pupils (Leaving Age)

Teachers (Wastage)

Bechuanaland, Basutoland And Swaziland

Trade And Commerce

East-West Trade Controls (Relaxation)

Merchandise Marks Act (Prosecutions And Infringements)

Defence Expenditure

Indo-China

Communist Activities

Admiral Radford (Talks)

Commonwealth Prime Ministers (Consultations)

Defensive Exercises, Bahamas (Foreign Servers)

Business Of The House

Orders Of The Day

Atomic Energy Authority Bill

New Clause—(Authority For Producing Thermo-Nuclear Bomb)

Clause 1—(The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority)

Clause 2—(Functions Of The Authority)

Clause 5—(Powers As To Purchase Of Land, Carrying Out Works, Etc)

Clause 7—(Machinery For Settling Terms And Conditions Of Employment Of Staff Etc)

First Schedule—(Provisions As To The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority)

Army And Air Force (Annual) Bill

Supreme Court Officers (Pensions) Bill

Supreme Court Officers (Pensions) Money

Superannuation (President Of Industrial Court) Bill

Superannuation (President Of Industrial Court) Money

Grand National (Cruelty)