My colleague the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. John MacLeod) and I, and other Highland Members who, unfortunately, are not with us this morning, are seeking the postponement of the closing down of railway stations on 13th June on the line operating from Inverness to Wick. We have been trying to bring this matter to the urgent attention of the House for several weeks, but as all Members know, it is extraordinarily difficult to get Questions down to Ministers because of the protection which the British Transport Commission enjoys under the Act which created it. We only managed to get an oral Answer to one Question, and an important Question to the Prime Minister, a key question on this issue, was transferred, I imagine, by his highly intelligent secretariat, to another Minister at a time of day when it was quite impossible to get an oral Answer. Therefore, we regret that the House is not well informed on this subject and that neither the Press nor the public are well informed. We are hopeful that today we shall be able to change that situation.

The most outstanding feature of our efforts has been the lack of Ministerial responsibility. The Minister of Transport, who is the Minister responsible to Parliament for railways, is unable to make a request to the Transport Commission or to urge the Commission to do something. All he can do under the Act is to intervene, and it must be an intervention on a matter which affects all the railways. He could intervene, no doubt, to say that all engines should be painted a certain colour and coaches another colour, but he cannot intervene in regard to the closure of railways in one half of Scotland. This is because of the restrictions imposed upon him by the Act. I suggest that that is a matter to which this House must give attention in the near future, because it means that there is literally no Parliamentary control whatsoever over the railways.

Another feature which has come out with the utmost clarity in recent negotiations, and from what we have heard from the Highland deputation of local authorities, is the omnipotence and power of the Transport Users' Consultative Committee for Scotland. It does not seem to be acting in any way like a consumers' council, but has almost absolute power.

On 9th May last year, the Transport Commission, through the Chief Commercial Manager of British Railways, Scottish Region, addressed a communication comprising fourteen foolscap pages, including appendices, to Mr. Reid, Secretary of the Transport Users' Consultative Committee for Scotland. The heading is:

"Closing of Branch Lines and Stations—

Inverness/Wick and Thurso Line.

The Mound/Dornoch Branch.

Muir of Ord/Fortrose Branch."

This letter was publicised, I imagine, in the Press and was sent to all of the local authorities in my constituency and, I think, throughout the Highlands, with the exception, I imagine, of Argyll, which is much nearer to Glasgow and which, as far as I know, is not affected as the northern counties from Inverness upwards are.

The local authorities objected and, at a meeting held on 17th July last year, their objections were dealt with. On 29th July, a letter was addressed to all of them from which I propose to read the material excerpts. This letter was written on 29th July. The House rose either that day or the following day, This meant, therefore, that no action could be taken by any Member of Parliament in the House on this important letter for three months.

The letter was sent to all the objectors. I propose to quote from the copy which was sent to Sutherland Council. It states:

"After hearing the representatives of the interested authorities and the British Railways' representative at a meeting on 17th instant, the Committee discussed very fully the oral and written objections to the British Transport Commission's proposals in this case, during which discussion the Committee were assured that a daily bus service would be provided between Embo and Dornoch, that a bus would be put on from Inverness to Dornoch and Tain each night, and that, if necessary, this bus would be run later on Saturday nights.

The Committee finally approved of the British Transport Commission's proposals … the Committee have requested the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to issue a statement for the information of the various authorities, whose representatives have been heard, reconciling the apparent contradiction between declared Government policy for the Highlands and the pressure put upon the British Transport Commission to effect economies in all parts of the country, including the Highlands."

That pressure, presumably, was applied by the Government. That meant that everything to which the objectors objected had been overruled. This so-called consumers' council was responsible for that.

I have a little experience of this consumers' council. Some years ago, I made strenuous efforts to induce the railway north of Inverness to reduce its rates for coal transportation and for briquettes and for bricks, but I found that I simply could not get a rate from the railway that would enable the traffic to flow. The development in Brora is probably the largest producer of heavy materials in the far north of Scotland. It produces between 500 and 1,000 tons per week, which, I thought, would have been attractive to British Railways when empty trains were being run day after day from Wick down through Inverness to the Lowlands.

In spite of the very great support which I got from the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, with the Rt. Hon. Tom Johnston backing me throughout, we were unable to move British Railways at all. I appealed to the Minister, who did his best, but, once again, I suppose, he was up against the intervention issue, the Act of Parliament restricting him from doing anything. I got great sympathy from everyone, but no concessions, with the result that all that traffic has been lost to British Railways. None of it goes by rail. It all goes by road.

Almost in despair, I decided that I would go to see the Secretary of the Committee, and I did so. I found him to be a charming man, but I was surprised to find that he was sitting in a room almost across the corridor from the General Manager of British Railways in Scotland, with whom I had been negotiating so unsuccessfully. The Secretary is a railwayman. He has spent most of his life on the railways and he was appointed to this job, which strikes me as wrong. The Committee is supposed to represent the passengers, the people who do all the millions of miles of passenger journeys, and the freight users.

I should have thought that a man who had served most of his active life on the railways was most unsuitable to be put into a job of that kind. He is bound to look at things through railway eyes. I have no doubt of his integrity, but he almost starts in a prejudiced fashion. He was not prejudiced as far as I was concerned, but he surprised me by saying that he knew all the difficulties at Brora, and so did the Committee, so that there was no point in bringing the matter before the Committee. We had not brought it to the Committee and I wondered how it had got there. Anyway, it had got there and the Secretary knew all about it. He said that nothing could be done. That was rather a blow. That did not seem to me the kind of action that a consumers' council should take. Certainly, it was most unhelpful to us.

I have the latest report which has been issued by the Committee and I find that it has twenty-five members, including the Secretary, but that there are hardly any members for the Highlands.

Nobody north of Inverness.

This is the body which decides our fate. Transport, which is the key to all Highland development, is in the hands of people most of whom, apparently, come from south of Inverness. There are two farmers, representing agriculture. They are not from the Highlands. There are six gentlemen representing commerce and industry. There is only one man in that list, the Managing Director of McGruther and Marshall, Limited, from Inverness, and his offices are in the same building as the British Transport Commission in Inverness. I imagine that his company must be tenants.

There is a representative of shipping. I do not know what shipping has to do with a consumers' council which is supposed to look after passengers and freight, but I see that there is a representative of the coastal shipping firm J. Hays & Sons, Limited, Glasgow. There are two gentlemen representing labour. One is the General Secretary of the Scottish Union of Bakers and Allied Workers. The other is a member of the General Council of the Scottish T.U.C. and of the Divisional Council of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. There are about six representatives of local authorities and one of these is the Convener of Inverness-shire. So we have him in addition to Mr. Mackenzie, of McGruther and Marshall, Limited.

At that time, Sir Ian Bolton was the Chairman of the Scottish Board of the Transport Commission and he had a strong team of officials including, besides himself, Mr. Young, the Divisional Manager, Scottish Division, British Road Services; Mr. James Ness, General Manager, Scottish Region, British Railways and Mr. Amos, Chairman of nationalised Scottish Omnibuses, Limited—four full-time officers, the highest in Scotland, of the Transport Commission, representing railways and bus services. With Mr Reid, they would be an effective bloc on any Committee. These are the full-timers. All the others are part-timers, men who come to a meeting two, three or, perhaps, four times a year. There are two ladies on the Committee, one from Aberdeenshire, who is Chairman of the Scottish Committee of the National Union of Townswomen's Guilds, and another lady, Miss McKenzie from Aberdeenshire County Federation.

I make no imputations against any of these ladies or gentlemen, but I believe that they are at a distinct disadvantage in having to face a bloc of full-time operating managers of the railway and the bus services. These latter cannot be regarded as wanting what the passengers and freight users may want. They are obviously there because of their association with the B.T.C.

I have been looking at the first page of the Report for the twelve months ended 31st December, 1958. The Committee held four quarterly meetings, one special meeting and one sub-committee meeting, and one extraordinary feature arises. It says that during the year Mr. Donochy, who was a member of this Committee, had retired on being appointed a member of the Scottish Area Board of the B.T.C. That surely is an astounding situation. An independent representative on this part-time Committee is promoted to go on to the operating board, the commercial managers, of the railways in Scotland. I would not have thought that this Committee was a natural ground for promotion of that kind.

The House should pay some attention to this Committee, because it is apparent from what Members will hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty and from me that all local authorities in the North are extremely dissatisfied with the situation. They cannot get any redress from this House or from Ministers, and they certainly do not get it from this Committee. All the local authorities in the North, from Inverness to Caithness, combined under the leadership of Provost Wotherspoon and vigorously protested against the closures, making representations to Ministers in writing and endeavouring to make them to the Minister of Transport here—but all without success. They have not achieved anything during this long period.

What is the motive of the Commission under this Government pressure? We are told that it is to reduce an annual loss on the railway north of Inverness, which now amounts to £400,000, by £41,000 per annum. No one can complain of economies of that kind being effected, but why are they imposed upon us, the weakest in representation in the whole House? Out of the 630 Members there are only three Members for this area directly affected, plus the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), who is indirectly affected, and the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan).

In his statement on 10th March, announcing the Government's intentions on the railways, the Prime Minister indicated that the loss had amounted to over £400 million throughout the country. That is a heavy loss, but why are we picked out? Why are twenty-nine stations in our area to be closed? Why are 79 men—maybe more—who have spent their lives in the railway service being declared redundant? Why are the public being denied a full transport service by the railways at this time, when there is such grave danger on the roads and when it is the bounden duty of any Government to try and influence people to use the railways?

The great bulk of people going on holiday still go by rail. Anyone who uses London stations and others elsewhere, as most hon. Members do, during summertime sees the long queues of people waiting to get on trains. The Government's policy for the Highlands, the economic priority number 1, is the tourist scheme to rehabilitate the Highlands, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty and I warmly support it, although we do not believe that it will go as far as its promoters think. It will do a great deal for the North and will turn the Highlands into a holiday resort for workers from all over Britain. Are we helping these people by reducing railway services at this time, closing stations and branch lines? We are, on the contrary, hindering them. As was indicated in the letter from the Consultative Committee, which I read out, there is a contradiction, a conflict, between Government policy for tourism, which calls for hoteliers to build additional rooms and to create amenities of all kinds, and for the improvement of roads, and the retardation of tourists' efforts to get there by rail and to move about in the area when they do get there.

I have known of the losses that have occurred, and have made speeches in the House not only about the Highlands area but about the whole system, and have asked the Commission to cast its bread on the waters, to cut freight rates and passengers fares, and so fill the trains instead of running them half-empty or even less. But it is no good. The dreadful policy persists: expenses go up, there is only one thing to do to recover the loss, and that is to increase fares. The result is that trains become emptier. That is the main reason for the loss.

It costs me £23 return each time I take my wife to my constituency. That is a lot of money out of heavily taxed income. Other people have to pay the same rate, but many cannot afford it, so they do not go. Yet it is Government policy that they should go. It may interest the House to know that yesterday I received a letter from a Caithness man who knew that this debate was coming up and wrote to me saying that he was for some years general manager of the railways in Ghana. It is important at this stage, so I quote part of what he said:

"… cheap fares were introduced in 1935 by Mr. M. Smart, my predecessor, and I find third class bookings exceeded those of 1934 by 1,269,535 journeys or 70 per cent., whilst receipts rose by £235,223 or 29 per cent. These increases were greatly helped by the cheap fares between Accra and Nsawam and Accra-Koporidua. There was a further increase in 1936 of 432,000 journeys."

I will send that letter to the Minister today, because he should read it. This was done by a Caithness man and his predecessor in Ghana. It was a great success. All my life I have been convinced that the only way in which railways can pay is by going for cheap travel. The railways have to be run seven days a week to provide universal services. If we fill the trains and run more and more there will be no difficulty in making the railways pay their way. That was the experience in Ghana, and it was the experience in my youth when the railways were privately owned and when one could travel long distances in fast trains, in cleanliness and comfort, at low rates. It could be done again.

It is ridiculous, however, if the Government can only pick on the weakest victims—the Highland counties—and say that they must bear cuts. The Government want more tourists to go to the area. How are they to get there? Look at the success of the car ferries from London to Perth, Newcastle to Inverness from London to Edinburgh and Glasgow to Eastbourne, and from King's Cross to Edinburgh in the new daylight ferry.

The Starlight Express as well.

Hundreds of men prefer to put their cars and families on the train to Scotland rather than drive up the A.1 with its dreadful record of accidents and deaths. The Government should be ashamed at what is happening on these railways. When these proposals first came along last summer, I supported the British Transport Commission, but there were lots of things I did not know. I knew that this was Government policy, and I wanted to support the Government. I knew that the policy was against things which ought to be done, things such as reducing fares and freights, but I did not know that some of the stations would be kept open only for goods while being denied to passengers, and I did not know that the alternative bus and train services would be inadequate and so would conflict with the Government's tourist policy for the Highlands.

I did not know that only about 40 minutes would be saved on the journey from Inverness to Wick. It takes a whole working day to make that journey. I did not know that diesel trains would not be used, that the estimated saving of £255,000 per annum would not be made, and that a subsidy might be made to enable an essential public transport service to be maintained in the Highlands.

Most of these important matters came to my knowledge when for the second time Provost Wotherspoon brought the Highlands deputation here on 12th May. Only then and from them did I learn most of the things I have been relating. I propose to deal with all of them.

First, the closing of stations to passengers. Away back in the Parliamentary Session of 1884, when Mr. Gladstone was Prime Minister, he appointed a Royal Commission and it passed a unanimous resolution creating what has been known ever since as the Third Class Passengers' Charter, insisting that they should travel in future in covered coaches with scats—previously they travelled in open trucks—making the maximum fare a penny a mile, insisting that the speed should not be less than 12 m.p.h., and fixing rates for children aged between 3 and 12 at half fare, and prescribing that children under 3 should pay no fare at all.

Passengers, of course, have had historic rights of priority over goods. Cattle, sheep, pigs, poultry, parcels and other goods are not entitled to enjoy the priority which was given under 300 Acts of Parliament to railway passengers when the companies were being created.

At Rogart, in my constituency, the service is to be left to two full-time men. When I asked the Minister of Transport to intervene with the Commission—I asked the Commission first of all, but it refused—to urge that all trains should stop for one minute at Rogart and at other stations similarly situated, he refused to do so. Trains pass under this House at the rate of about 60 an hour every day. A stop of more than one minute is seldom required. I use main line trains between Victoria and Cooden Beach. Frequently on a Monday morning or Friday night a hundred people get on or off in a minute. The Commission will not let the Highland trains stop for one minute. There is no problem about tickets. They could be sold from a slot machine or by the guard or the conductor; there is invariably a conductor.

But the preference is for goods. There is not to be preference for passengers. They are shut out. What are people like crofters, agricultural workers, to do? They cannot afford a special to take them from Lairg back to Rogart. The alternative is to walk, or try to find a bed for the night. That will not be much encouragement to tourists either, I should imagine.

Now for the alternative train and bus services. My hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty will deal with the changes in his own area, because there has been a great row going on about the inadequate services between Tain in north Ross-shire and Inverness. My own area is not affected in quite the same way, for in my area there is a total loss of local service between the Mound and Dornoch. In my hon. Friend's constituency there is a branch line between Muir of Ord and Fortrose. That is to be closed, too.

I am told that children who go to school from Rogart are in difficulties. They have to get to Golspie on the east coast, but people who live at Rogart and work out of that area are faced with very great difficulties.

Of course, the bus services will lose money. The service is unsatisfactory to my constituents and it will lose money. There is no doubt about that. No one knows that better than Mr. Amos, the General Manager. So all we are doing is, we are saving something on the nationalised railways and part of the saving we are losing on the bus services.

The next point is the saving of time on the journey. I leave this House at 6.30 when I go by rail to my constituency. I travel in the evening, and I dine and sleep and breakfast on the train. At 9 o'clock the following day I am in Inverness ready to face another day. But if I go on by train to Thurso or Wick in my constituency, I get to my hotel about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, so that that working day is lost. Of course, as a Member of the House I can have free travel there, but the one free thing in my life I am unable to accept is that. I prefer to hire a drive-oneself car, and drive up the coast to Wick or Thurso for lunch. I only lose half a day. What applies to me must apply to thousands of other people. That is one reason why the trains are so empty. That saving of time is 40 minutes in a journey of 160 miles between Inverness and Wick. It is a pitiful saving and can hardly justify the closing of so many stations.

Now for the subsidy question. I am no lover of subsidies. I would much prefer the railways to manage as they were managed in other days—in competition. Both sides of the House believe in competition, I think. The whole idea of the strenuous efforts we are making to get into the Outer Seven and into the Inner Six is, as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport so well knows, to bring the cold blast of competition into our home industry.

However, I do not like subsidies, but when I heard of this loss of £400,000 per annum and of the saving of £255,000 which we were to get from diesel trains I was impressed. But we are not getting that saving. That is according to the information which I got from the Highland deputation, from Mr. Mackenzie, a Highland railway man of great experience, who made that statement in one of the rooms downstairs. The subsidy amounts to about £165,000, not an awful lot as subsidies go. This is something which will enable the maintenance of an essential public transport service in the northern counties, and maybe, if the things which my colleagues and I are hoping for come about, there will be more people in the north and more traffic.

For the first time for over a century the three principal towns in the north of Scotland are showing increases in population. There is an increase of population in Inverness due to the introduction of some small factories. There is an increase of population in Thurso and Wick because of the siting of the Dounreay project in Caithness. The population of Thurso has more than doubled in the last few years and is still rising, and the population of Wick is increasing, too. I think that that is true of the county generally.

There are the three largest towns increasing simply because we are having an opportunity of earning their own livelihood in industry and we take to it like ducks to water, the sons of farmers, and crofters and the women too. If our hopes are realised in the lifetime of this Parliament and we get industries into towns like Invergordon and Wick, Dingwall and Tain, towns which have been going back and back over the years of neglect, we shall not need to incur subsidies at all, particularly if the Government adopt measures similar to those adopted so successfully in Northern Ireland. That policy paid off and I am certain that a similar policy would bring to an end the maldistribution of population in Scotland where we have piled too many people into a narrow industrial corridor running from Greenock to Glasgow, the Lanarkshire towns to Edinburgh with a fringe in Dundee, a small fringe in the Borders and a smaller one still in Aberdeen.

I am seeking three months' respite and I beg the House, though so small in number today, to support our efforts. Let us have three months' respite while the Government re-examine their proposals and the opposition to them, and the facts that will be given in today's debate. Let them view the situation in the light of all these matters which I have mentioned today, which I did not know previously and I do not think the Government knew. I am certain that the letter written on 9th May had been on the stocks for months and perhaps a year or two. This project was thought about when we were going downhill. We are now going uphill. The Government are trying to help us in other directions but they are withdrawing these services.

By means of D.A.T.A.C. and the Local Employment Act, the Government are trying to improve the situation in the Highlands. I said in the House the other day that unemployment in Caithness and Sutherland is the highest on the mainland of Great Britain and the Minister did not challenge that statement. It is true. Unemployment has often run at 20 per cent. We used to solve it by emigration, but this is not so popular as it was. People are staying. They are willing and anxious to get work and it is within the power of the House to see that they get work. I hope that what I am seeking today, which I know will be strongly supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty, will also be supported by the House.

I also welcome this final opportunity to ask the Government to reconsider their intention not to intervene in the decision of the British Transport Commission which will be implemented on 13th June. This is our last chance to make representations. The meagre attendance in the House today shows how difficult it is for the small number of Highland Members, representing such a large area of Scotland, to secure full support when we are fighting a just cause.

I feel, however, that today perhaps we are at last able to get on to somebody. My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) pointed out how difficult it was to table Questions on these nationalised services. That difficulty is being experienced by all hon. Members, and I know that the Government are themselves worried about it. The case we are fighting today emphasises that very point. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has constantly said that he has no power to intervene.

When the Secretary of State for Scotland was approached he advised, "Approach the Minister of Transport." The Minister of Transport advised, "Approach Sir Brian Robertson". Sir Brian Robertson said, "Go to the Scottish Area Board". The Area Board said, "Go to the Transport Users' Consultative Council for Scotland". The Consultative Council advised, "Go back to the Minister of Transport." We were back where we started. It is like a comic opera, and the whole thing is intolerable. There must be some method by which the Government can intervene when these matters affect the social welfare of the whole of the northern area of Scotland.

I fully appreciate that the railway system in the North of Scotland must be reorganised, as in other areas. But so do the local authorities and the other bodies which have made all these representations to the Minister against these proposals. I maintain, as others do who have studied this question, that the steps which are now being taken are too drastic and that these proposals will have a most serious effect on the social and economic welfare of the Highland area.

These people ask why this action is being taken at the beginning of the tourist season. My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland has appealed, as I now appeal, that the action should be at least delayed for three months until the tourist season is over. Surely it is possible to do that even if the Government accept the British Transport Commission's decisions. The Government are forcing more and more traffic on the roads when we are continually hearing appeals from the Minister of Transport in which he talks about road safety and about how overcrowded our roads are. Local authorities are being urged to spend more and more money on the roads, yet this policy is applied at the beginning of the tourist season, forcing more and more people on to the roads at a time when tourist traffic is growing. People are also asking why this is being done at present when the Government are reviewing the railways of the country as a whole. Why do it now?

I also believe, like my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland and all the local authorities in the Highland area, that this is quite contrary to the Government's declared policy for the development of the Highlands. I do not want to weary the House with a long history of events which have taken place since I first raised this question on the Adjournment on 17th June, 1959. I then declared and maintained that the people who live in the Highlands must be provided with adequate public transport services of some kind or another. In reply to that debate the then Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport pointed out that opportunities of making objections or representations to the Transport Users' Consultative Council for Scotland would be given to the local authorities and others concerned.

What do we now find? One of the main accusations made by a representative from my own local authority in the North was that a fair and just hearing was not given in Edinburgh when objections were made. The objectors were subjected to a time limit in putting their case, and they also felt that the Transport Users' Consultative Council was certainly not an unbiased body. My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland has dealt with that and I have great sympathy with the views which he expressed. There is no repre- sentative on that body who lives north of Inverness, the very area with which we are dealing today. This is a most odd situation, as the Minister must agree. I ask him to look into that point further if the Transport Users' Consultative Council is to be consulted in future, especially on matters affecting the Highland area. Observations and objections have certainly been made in no uncertain manner, but little or no attention has been paid to these representations. It was felt, and I felt it too, that the British Transport Commission had already made up its mind and that was that. I sincerely hope that attention will be paid to this final appeal today.

I obviously cannot go into all the objections and observations that were made, but I should like to deal with a few of them. My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland has dealt with some. The first of the objections pointed out that the figures published in the memorandum by the British Transport Commission on traffic north of Inverness were most questionable and misleading. I should like the Minister to re-examine the figures given to him. They were estimated on a census taken in March, which is the quietest period of the year in that area. Another point made is that a large number of additional travellers in the north in the summer months are not, of course, reflected in the figures for the area as their tickets are purchased mainly in the south. The same factor of course applies to much of the freight traffic going north where payments are made in the south.

The local authorities concerned all agree—and this was touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland—that the bus companies are quite unable to give adequate service, particularly during the summer months. The public, they feel, are being forced to use the buses under the control of the British Transport Commission more to suit the Commission's present policy than to provide a suitable service for the public. That is certainly true.

Again, in general the type and condition of bus in use is most unsuitable for the area. We find double-decker buses without doors or heaters being used. That is not the kind of transport vehicle that people in the north should be compelled to use, especially in the winter months. It is intolerable that they should be forced on to that type of service by the closure of these passenger stations.

Another important point is withdrawal of the late train from Inverness to Tain in my constituency—incidentally, the most remunerative section of the railway line. People are being compelled to go by bus. They have a long journey, it may be from London, or even further afield,—from Glasgow and Edinburgh, certainly—up to Inverness, where they are forced to transfer into this type of bus, unheated and doorless, if they are lucky enough to get a seat. The journey will take one hour and ten minutes to Dingwall as against 38 minutes at present by the train. It will take one and three quarter hours longer to Tain over the most unsuitable roads.

I should like to read extracts from a constituent's letter giving one specific case. This lady says:

"Having travelled by the morning train leaving Edderton at 8.10 a.m. to Evaton arriving 9.10 a.m. and returning by the 5.9 p.m. train from Evaton to Edderton for the past five years, I am now concerned with the future bus time table."

She goes to work and arrives at her office at 9.10 a.m. The bus service does not arrive until 11.51 a.m. What would the boss say to an employee who arrived at that time in the morning to do her work? That lady may very well be unemployed now. It is certainly difficult enough, as people know, to find jobs in the Highlands. This time-table is going to make it more difficult for people employed in the Highlands to arrive at their businesses at suitable times.

I appreciate that the British Transport Commission finds itself financially in the most awkward position, but I believe it is itself to blame to a great extent by not making the services sufficiently attractive. I will not go into all that. It has been raised in this House many times concerning conditions all over the country, and they are certainly as bad or worse in the Highland area.

My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland has touched on the point of empty trains. The major expense is met before they leave the platform and they are running almost empty when they could very well be filled. I believe that they could be filled if prices were reduced and they were made attractive enough for the public to travel on them. I would ask the Minister to look into the question of savings.

My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland showed that the bus services will lose a certain amount of this money which the railways are saving. I was sent a letter by one of my constituents, writing about the Strathpeffer branch line, which was closed by British Railways. He says:

"They were to make a saving when they closed the Strathpeffer branch, but the facts are that they are losing more than ever—

He is talking about the B.T.C.—

"because they have had to employ more men for the alternative service than they had before plus vehicles and pay the coal merchants 7s. 6d. per ton to cart his own coal from Dingwall."

How can the British Transport Commission reconcile one extra road vehicle which they propose to put on, catering for 16,118 parcels and 12,798 tons of freight, not forgetting the extra mileage involved on the Black Isle and Dornoch branches? I should like the Minister to re-examine this £41,000 which the B.T.C. proposed to save. It will not save even that. I will read a letter, dated 11th June, sent by the Town Clerk of Inverness to the Secretary of the Transport Users' Consultative Committee for Scotland, which says:

"The proposals contained in 2 (d)

that is a reference to the memorandum which was sent to the local authorities—

"gave rise to some discussion and it seems to be the position that the closure of the Fortrose freight branch line would still leave the traffic with B.T.C. It was considered that some detailed investigation should be made as to what this is going to cost the Commission."

I should like to know what the closure of this line is going to cost the Commission.

"It may in the long run prove cheaper to maintain this branch for freight. Some members urge that there should be a close study of the movement of freight in the whole of the north and that the question of local flexibility of rates should be considered."

The action proposed on 13th June is an instance of the negative approach the Commission is making. I want to illustrate that by referring to a statement referred to in the memorandum sent to the Transport Users' Consultative Committee for Scotland on 9th May, 1959. It says that there is no future traffic potential in the affected areas. My goodness—what utter rubbish! If the Government agree with that they may as well pack up in the Highlands. The logical conclusion to this negative approach is to do away with the railway system altogether. That is just what the people in the Highlands are afraid of. If these stations are closed to passenger services I understand that alterations will have to be made in the signalling equipment and so on which make it unlikely that they will ever be opened for passenger services again.

I hope that I have said enough to convince the Government that they are not fully seized with the seriousness of the position. If we are to get the development that we are all anxious to see in the Highlands, and the Government themselves admit they are anxious to advance—and I am the first to acknowledge that they are spending large sums of money in the Highlands—they must intervene now to put a stop to these closures, at least for the summer months, and at least until they have adequate information—information for which they have already asked.

Only last week I asked the Minister of Transport whether the Scottish Transport Council had yet reported in accordance with the request made in paragraph 15 of Cmnd. 785—" A Review of Highland Policy"—and his answer was, "No, Sir." The Government have not even got all the information they asked for in their own Command Paper. Yet they are condoning this action which is being taken to the detriment of Highland development. We should not make any more cuts in the Highland system until we have had a proper review of the Highland transport system.

The Minister of Transport has asked for a report on the railways as a whole. The Highland Advisory Panel, set up by the Government, has advised the Secretary of State that these cuts should not be made until dieselisation takes place. Finally, I want to read a letter from the Transport Users' Consultative Committee for Scotland. It says:

"The Committee finally approved the British Transport Commission's proposals, but, having regard to (a) the serious concern expressed by the members of the Deputation.…"

and then concern at conflicting Government policy is expressed in relation to Cmnd. 7976, "A Programme of Highland Development". Finally, it says:

"The Committee have requested the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to issue a statement for the information of the various authorities whose representations have been heard, reconciling the apparent contradiction between declared Government policy for the Highlands and the pressure put upon the British Transport Commission to effect economies in all parts of the country, including the Highlands."

Why has the Council asked the Minister of Transport to do this? Why did it not do it itself? It shows that it has some doubt about all this and realises how serious the position is to the Highland area. I hope that the Minister of Transport has some doubt about the position and that he will take some action to postpone the implementation of this proposal.

I do not want to stand between the hon. Members who have raised this subject and the reply of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, but I want to confirm, from this side of the House, how accurate they are in the picture they give of the dismay which is felt in the Highlands at this further attack on what are regarded there as essential services. We feel that this is a Governmental responsibility. Transport services in remote areas like the Highlands are, by their very nature, uncommercial. They have to be run as a social service, and it is unreasonable on the one hand to attack the Commission for making losses and then, almost simultaneously, attack it for not running public services at a loss to meet local needs.

indicated assent.

The Minister nods his head, but the answer is Governmental responsibility.

I agree with what has been said about the timing of this proposal. This seems a most unfortunate time for the Commission to take this big decision. It is unfortunate in that it comes at the start of the tourist season and is bound to cause some dislocation in people's arrangements for their holidays, but it is also unfortunate because it comes at a time when a general review is going on of the operations of our whole railway system. This review will involve taking decisions on the serious problem of running commercial services on the one hand and what are inevitably going to be social services on the other.

Speaking without a great deal of knowledge on this point, I wonder whether the Commission and the railways have done everything they can. In my area the railways have shown remarkable ingenuity and enterprise in going over to diesel cars. As a result, in our suburban services around Dundee they have captured a great deal of the traffic that formerly went by bus. People are now travelling by train in large numbers. I wonder whether this possibility has been adequately explored in regard to the Highlands. I used to be particularly enthusiastic about the proposition put forward by Mr. Tom Johnston, from the point of view of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, namely, that the railways might go in for battery cars, which would run as rail-bus services, and would also use the local resources of the Highlands, and thus help in a modest way to provide employment.

I realise that tremendously complicated questions of accounting are involved, which I suppose have been gone into thoroughly by the experts during the review, but only this week I was told by a railway expert that the services in the Highlands are not the only ones that lose money heavily. He told me that the commuter services around London, which I use day by day, are very heavy losers of money, as are the buses. He gave me figures showing that, in effect, the suburban services around London have to be heavily subsidised.

There is never any question of cutting down those services. Why is this? Presumably it is because the population is so much greater. Perhaps it is also due, to some extent, to the fact that many Members of Parliament live in the London area, and when somebody attempts to adopt more commercial principles for London it appears that Ministers of Transport are summoned by the Prime Minister and sometimes have to resign. Unfortunately, we cannot bring this sort of pressure from Scotland on behalf of the Highland area, but it seems to me that a principle is involved here.

The Government believe that the Highland area should be made as prosperous as possible and that depopulation should be arrested. But if this is to be done positive efforts must be made by the Government. The problem is a wider one than merely a transport problem. This merely highlights the general problem of creating prosperity in the Highlands. As the Minister will know, this week there was an all-Party deputation to the Prime Minister concerning Scottish economic problems generally. One of the things mentioned there was the need for a Highland development authority. That idea is strongly supported by hon. Members on this side of the House, and it has had a strong champion in the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), who raised it in debate. It was a great pity that the Minister turned down the proposal.

A Highland development authority is essential as a Government instrument if the Government are to tackle not only transport problems but the many related problems of creating prosperity in the Highlands. Therefore, it is the Government primarily, and the B.T.C. only secondarily, who have the responsibility. We feel that the Government are not doing enough for the Highlands.

The passion with which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. John MacLeod) have spoken this morning is a measure of the frustration which they have felt over this problem and, I have no doubt, of the angry feelings of the great majority of their constituents. I accept that at once.

I must make it clear at the very outset that I cannot answer a number of questions which have been put to me, because they relate very much to the commercial propriety of what the British Transport Commission is seeking to do. As the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland rightly said at the beginning of his speech, the difficulty he and many other hon. Members are always up against is that they have no one in the House whom they can question upon the commercial operations of the British Transport Commission.

My right hon. Friend is expressly excluded by the Statute from having any responsibility for the commercial activities of the Commission. For that reason, questions about the commercial operation of the Commission's services cannot be put in the House. However, on the Adjournment we are able to take a slightly wider view. I hope that before I sit down I can give a little more information, supplied to me by the Commission, on what its proposal is all about and what it will mean, and I shall also deal with those matters which are strictly the responsibility of my right hon. Friend.

I begin by briefly sketching in the general background. As the House knows, this country has a railway system which was laid down in the early part and the middle part of the last century. As time has passed and other methods of transport than the railway have become more and more efficient and popular, we are finding ourselves with a railway system designed and constructed to meet needs and population areas entirely different from those prevailing when the system was first laid down.

It is an essential part of the Government's policy towards transport, just as it is an essential part of the Commission's policy towards its own undertaking, that the general railway system should take account of the great changes which have taken place in the last 100 years and should be streamlined and made more compact so as to reduce the burden of those services which have become completely unremunerative.

I want to make it clear from the start, as any one dispassionately examining the subject must accept at once, that it is in the Commission's interest to make a profit on its activities. It is not only under a statutory obligation to make a profit, but obviously, as manager of a commercial undertaking, it wants to make a profit and show its success.

For that reason, the Commission is not anxious to cut out services. It is particularly not anxious to cut out services where there is a reasonable prospect of making a profit. So it starts with a bias in favour of the maintenance of its existing services wherever possible. It is only when the Commission is convinced that not only is there no present but also no future possibility of a profit being made that it is obliged to propose the removal of services or the closure of stations.

In the sparsely populated areas of the country—not only in Scotland, but in other parts of the United Kingdom—where road transport is often cheaper and more convenient, the public has already substantially forsaken the railways. We know that increasing use is being made of all kinds of private transport—not only the motor car, but the bicycle, the moped or motorised bicycle, and the motor cycle. These are coming on to the roads in increasing numbers because of their cheapness and convenience. We know also that the public is making far more use today than it ever has in the past of public bus services. This is particularly the case in rural areas.

The result of all this is that many railway branch lines have become hopelessly uneconomic. Nevertheless, the railways are fighting back wherever they can. They have already developed several different types of light-weight diesel stock for better services and cheaper operation. They have had some striking successes where there is an adequate traffic potential. Although operating costs can sometimes be reduced by new equipment, it is often the case that lack of traffic alone makes it impossible to secure a significant overall improvement.

Over the last eleven years from 1948 to 1959, inclusive, the Commission has been obliged to withdraw passenger or freight services, in some cases both, from 401 branch lines affecting 3,500 miles of line. To put the matter in perspective, it is only right to point out that as a consequence the Commission has been able to make cumulative savings of nearly £4 million a year.

During 1959 Transport Users' Consultative Committees dealt with forty-nine cases of branch line closures. The estimated saving from those closures was about £700,000. Again to put the matter into perspective, it is only right to remember that this year the Commission estimates a loss on its revenue operating account of about £90 million. As the House knows, for the first time this has been taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer above the line and is to be supplied by the Government as a direct subsidy to the railways. Therefore, wherever an economy can be made it is only right in the interests of the taxpayer that we should see that it is made.

The policy of closures will have to continue for some time yet. The White Paper re-appraising the Modernisation Plan of British Railways estimated that by 1963, 1,850 miles of route would be scheduled for complete closure. The number of stations to be closed will be greater, relatively speaking, than the planned reduction in route mileage. This is due to the large number of intermediate stations expected to be closed on lines remaining open for through traffic. The Scottish Highlands case, which we are now discussing, is a case of this kind.

The House knows that the Commission's practice in these cases is to submit its proposals for closures first to Transport Users' Consultative Committees. Although withdrawals of services are basically a reaction to the decline in public demand, it is appreciated that inevitably some inconvenience will be caused to travellers. I need only remind the House that in his statement on 10th March on the Government policy towards the British Transport Commission generally, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out that if we are to have a more modernised railway system inevitably there must be some changes of this kind and some sacrifice of the convenience of the public.

The Consultative Committees, which are representative of user interests and are selected on that basis, have a very heavy task in weighing this inconvenience or hardship, on the one hand, against the cost to the Commission of retaining rail services, on the other.

I must say now, as I have said on a number of occasions at this Box, that we owe a very great debt of gratitude to these Committees for the work they do. I will deal shortly with some of the criticisms which have been made this morning of the Scottish Committee. These people give their time and services voluntarily and, as I know from examination of the minutes, and often the verbatim records, of the meetings of these committees, it is quite untrue to say that they go into committee with a bias in favour of the British Transport Commission. It is very often the other way round, as one would expect, because they are committees of users of the services.

Will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary say whether these Committees are being reviewed as part of the general review now taking place? There is very widespread dissatisfaction amongst members of the public at the way these committees operate.

I well appreciate that there is some dissatisfaction, although I think it is often based on a misunderstanding of what their function is. May I continue with what I was saying?

It is not true to say that these Committees are stooges of the British Transport Commission. In the case of the Scottish Committee, may I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty and to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland that there is at the moment Highland representation on the Scottish Committee. There are three members who represent the Highland area, but I appreciate that possibly this is considered to be insufficient. It may perhaps be of interest to the House to know that we now have in mind the possibility of appointing an additional member to represent Highland interests on this Committee.

With regard to this case, the Transport Commission's proposal to close, from 13th June next, two small branch lines and withdraw passenger and some freight services from a number of small wayside stations in the Highlands was put to the Scottish Transport Users' Consultative Committee in May, 1959. These lines are hopelessly uneconomic. They have experienced more than any others in the rest of the country the drift of traffic, especially short-distance traffic, from the railways to the roads. Apart from the branch lines, the main line stations are on 161 miles of main lines between Inverness and Wick, and there are no fewer than 40 stations on those 161 miles, which gives an average of a station for every four miles. These are to be reduced by about 20, and even then there will be a station on the average every eight miles.

The annual revenue which the Commission has been receiving from these stations on branch lines which are to be closed is £6,000 a year from passengers and £3,000 a year from freight, a total of £9,000. This is the revenue coming in, and the Commission estimates that the scheme which it proposes would reduce its current heavy losses on these lines by £41,000 a year, and would also—and this is important—give better services between the remaining stations.

It does not include, which was one of the points I made, tickets bought in the south; that is, people travelling on the line who bought their tickets outside the area.

I noted what my hon. Friend said, and I am advised that the figures I have supplied to the Committee took account of through tickets which came from people south of the Border, or south of Inverness, who were travelling to Wick or Thurso.

To compensate for this reduction, a number of additions and adjustments to bus services will be made. Some fifty extra bus journeys per week will be provided, a number of bus services will have changes in timing to make them more convenient, and better connections will be made with the other bus services and with the rail services at Inverness. This is not a particularly difficult operation, because the bus services are provided by Highland Omnibuses, Limited, a company controlled by the British Transport Commission.

So far as freight is concerned, British Road Services are extending their network in this area and will cover all the places which have heretofore been serviced by the stations about to the closed, provided that they are more than 4½ miles from the nearest alternative station.

The Consultative Committee considered the proposal and the objections in July, 1959, and there was a public hearing of the whole of the case. I have read the verbatim report of what took place, and it is a pretty big document, I assure my hon. Friend I am personally satisfied, as I think anyone who read the transcript would be satisfied, that the objectors received a very full and very fair hearing. I honestly do not think that my hon. Friend is right in saying that they were given insufficient time to put their case. Anyone who reads the transcript will immediately realise that the objectors were given every facility and all the time they needed. I ask my hon. Friend to accept that point.

As a result of its deliberations, the Committee approved the Commission's proposals, but requested my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to issue a statement for the information of the objectors, to reconcile what appeared to be a contradiction between declared Government policy for the Highlands and the action being taken to effect these closures. Having done that, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland said, there was a good deal of further complaint and objection, and the result was that in September, 1959, following the production of these further objections, a further review by the Consultative Committee took place. In the light of what had been said in the interim, the Committee looked at the whole matter again and adhered to its view that this proposal should be approved.

The next move was that a deputation from the local authorities and other interested bodies, headed by the Provost of Inverness, was received by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport on 3rd December. My right hon. Friend explained that he was unable to enter into a discussion on the merits of the case because the ground had already been covered by the Consultative Committee. He said that he was advised, as is the case, that he had no powers to intervene by giving directions to the British Transport Commission for the reason that the Transport Users' Consultative Committee had made no recommendation to him in that sense, a point to which I shall come back in a few moments.

My right hon. Friend promised that he would very carefully consider any further views which North of Scotland authorities might wish to put forward before he issued any statement on the lines recommended by the Consultative Committee. I am afraid that the deputation was not very satisfied and expressed some doubts about the advice which my right hon. Friend had received as to his powers. We therefore obtained subsequently the best legal advice open to us, and as a result our view that the Minister had no power was confirmed. The local authorities, as advised by my right hon. Friend, approached the Chairman of the British Transport Commission, and a further deputation was received in January of this year by Colonel Cameron of Lochiel, the Chairman, and other members of the Scottish Area Board of British Railways.

The Board has since informed the authorities of improvements which it proposes to make in omnibus services, including a number of further concessions, but it adhered to the plan for streamlining the railway services because it is satisfied that this is the only practicable means of preserving the railway service North of Inverness.

May I come now to the legal position. Under Section 6 (8) of the Transport Act, 1947, the position is that if the Transport Users' Consultative Committee, being either the central committee for England, the Welsh Committee or the Scottish Committee, makes a formal recommendation to my right hon. Friend, then, and only then, has my right hon. Friend the power under the Act to give the British Transport Commission a direction. In this case, the Scottish Committee gave no formal recommendation. It did not say to my right hon. Friend, "These proposals are wrong and we recommend against them." On the contrary, it said that they were right. In the absence of a recommendation from a committee, my right hon. Friend has no power. He had no power then and he has no power today to intervene, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty urged he should. We have to operate in accordance with the law laid down by Parliament, and my right hon. Friend has no power at all to step in and ask for these closures to be postponed or forgotten altogether. With the best will in the world, I must tell the House quite frankly that we are powerless in that situation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty suggested that possibly the British Transport Commission might be willing to postpone these closures until the Special Advisory Group which is advising us on rail transport has reported. Of course, that is a matter for the Commission, but I must point out that the studies of the Special Advisory Group will obviously take some time, and I question whether it is reasonable to expect the Commission to stop everything until such time as the advice has been received by the Government. Certainly, when the Special Advisory Group advises us, we expect that the Report will deal with the broad general issues and not with individual local services of this kind.

Finally, may I say a word about the savings that will be made? The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland indicated that in his view the savings were quite trivial, compared with the amount of the losses that are being made on these North of Scotland services, which he put at £400,000. The Commission states that only £41,000 would be saved, about 10 per cent. of my hon. Friend's estimate. This is something like the housemaid's baby argument—the excuse that it is only a little one. As I said earlier, we cannot avoid any opportunity of making worthwhile saving. Here we have lines where, as I have said, £9,000 is the maximum revenue, and it is estimated that that is the maximum revenue likely in the best circumstances in the years ahead. There is no evidence before us that any different form of traction, such as the diesel services suggested by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson), would eliminate losses, nor is there any large additional traffic potential.

Is that correct? I understand that £235,000 would be saved by dieselisation.

I am sorry, but as I have said, and I must repeat, we have no evidence before us, nor has the Commission, that this is the case. In any event, this is not a matter for my right hon. Friend or for myself. The question of savings that can be made is purely a commercial and operational matter for the British Transport Commission itself. Even if my hon. Friend were right, and even if I were convinced that he was right, neither I nor my right hon. Friend has power to direct the attention of the Commission to the matter. The Commission has made no secret of its belief that these closures are essential in the interests of maintaining the main line north of Inverness. If these lines continue to lose money in this way—and the Commission has made no bones about this— it would be obliged to consider closure of the main line north of Inverness altogether.

It is perhaps cold comfort to my two hon. Friends who have represented the interests of their constituents in the debate, but I am afraid that neither I nor my right hon. Friend has any power to intervene in this matter. I can certainly express my sympathy, for what that is worth, with the constituents of my hon. Friends, who may perhaps feel that they will suffer from the closures of these stations and lines, but I think that one has to pay attention to the alternative road services being provided. We are enormously improving and extending the road network in the Highlands, and I hope that by that method communications will in future be as good as they have been in the past, albeit on road rather than on rail.

When the House turns its attention to the affairs of Central Africa, it is usually concerned with the experiment in federation and the problems which come from that, or more directly with the affairs of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland which, because they are Protectorates, are the direct responsibility of the United Kingdom. We in this House do not often speak about the problems of Southern Rhodesia, and the impression may have been created that this territory is in no way responsible to the United Kingdom or to this House. That, of course, is wrong. We have a direct responsibility in regard to the Constitution of Southern Rhodesia.

I should like to quote the relevant clauses in the Southern Rhodesian Constitution which cover this point. Clause 28 provides that no law in Southern Rhodesia shall become law

"unless such Law shall contain a clause suspending the operation thereof until the signification in the Colony of Our pleasure thereupon, the Governor shall reserve (a) any Law, save in respect of the supply of arms, ammunition or liquor to natives, whereby natives may be subject or made liable to any conditions, disabilities or restrictions to which persons of European descent are not also subjected or made liable."

Clause 30 provides:

"No Law passed by the Legislature shall take effect until either the Governor shall have assented thereto in Our name and on Our behalf, and shall have signed the same in token of such assent, or until We shall have given Our assent thereto by Our Order in Our Privy Council."

Clause 31 states:

"It shall be lawful for Us, Our heirs and successors, to disallow any Law within one year from the date of the Governor's assent thereto, and such disallowance, on being made known by the Governor by Speech or Message to the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly, or by Proclamation in the Gazette shall annul the Law from the date when the disallowance is so made known."

I have quoted those clauses so that they may be on the record. I know that they are well known to hon. Members opposite who have had the advantage of reading a book by the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations in which he made specific reference to these clauses and to the responsibility of the United Kingdom in relation to Southern Rhodesia.

There is a provision in the Constitution concerning amendment of the Constitution. But no amendment can be made without the approval of the United Kingdom. It is clear from clause 26 (2) that a law passed by the Legislature may repeal or alter any of these provisions, but not any of them relating to the protected clauses, and, according to Clause 26 (3):

"Any law made in contravention"

of these provisions

"shall to the extent of such contravention but not otherwise be and remain absolutely void and inoperative."

Quite clearly, Southern Rhodesia is not an independent country. It is subject to the legislation of this House and to the scrutiny of the Government of the United Kingdom.

It is true that the powers in the Constitution have not been used since 1923, when Southern Rhodsia became a self-governing Colony. Some people tend to make out that because of this the powers have lapsed. That, of course, is wishful thinking. The powers are still in the Constitution and the United Kingdom Government can still use them. Although the powers have not been used, they have had a very great influence on the policies pursued by the Government of Southern Rhodesia since 1923. During the period of the Labour Administration after the Second World War, all legislation to be introduced into the Southern Rhodesian Legislature was referred to the Secretary of State in the United Kingdom for his scrutiny. At least on one occasion, namely, with regard to the changes proposed by the Government of Southern Rhodesia concerning the franchise, representations have been made ensuring amendments in the proposals then being put forward by Sir Godfrey Huggins, now Lord Malvern, who was then Prime Minister. These powers have had an influence. Apart from the influence that they have had, they are now recognised by Africans in Southern Rhodesia as of great significance. That is a fact which none of us can ignore.

Today, Southern Rhodesia is a dictatorship. It is a dictatorship of the minority over the majority. It may, in some Members' eyes, be a paternal dictatorship, but I would dispute that. To the Africans, it is a very harsh and repressive dictatorship. This is because only a minority of the population has the vote, and the Government, therefore, represent only that minority which is almost wholly European and legislates for the whole population, which is, of course, nine-tenths of non-European race.

To the Africans the Government is a dictatorship and they regard the Native Affairs Department as the arm of that dictatorship. The Africans feel it to be a dictatorship because they are subject to some of the harsh legislation which has been passed since 1923. They are subject, for instance, to the Land Apportionments Act which allocates 53 per cent. of the land area in Southern Rhodesia to the European minority which, numbering just over 200,000, is less than one-tenth of the population.

Africans have no rights on over half the land area in their own country which has been allocated to Europeans. Certainly the 80,000 Africans who were forcibly removed from the land area which they had occupied for a long time would regard the Government as very repressive, and those Africans in the towns who are subject to the pass law regulations which flow from the operation of that Act also are aware in their everyday lives of the repressive character of the Government in Southern Rhodesia.

In the towns of Salisbury, Bulawayo and Umtali—in fact, all the towns in Southern Rhodesia—the Africans are denied the rights which are open to the European population. As the Minister knows, in Salisbury itself no African is allowed to own or occupy property in what is the European designated area, which includes all the commercial centre and the suburb stretching out of the city for some way. No African is allowed to practise a profession in the towns. He must follow his profession in the rather remote African townships. There is one exception to this—an African barrister, Mr. Herbert Chitepo, for whom special provision was made to enable him to occupy an office in Salisbury, and in order that he could have this permission a special amendment to the Land Apportionments Act had to be passed.

Then there are the laws which have recently been passed. There are the Preventive Detention Act, which enables the Government to look up anyone for five years without trial; the Unlawful Organisations Act, which banned almost all the African political organisations which existed in Southern Rhodesia, and also the organisations of Africans in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia; and the Native Affairs Amendment Act, a Section of which I should like to read because it demonstrates beyond any shadow of doubt how repressive the Government of Southern Rhodesia is.

Section 52 reads:

"Any native who makes any statement or does any act or thing whatsoever which is likely to undermine the authority of any officer of the Government of the Colony or of the Federation or of any chief or headman or of any head of kraal in authority over him or to bring such officer or any such Government department or any chief or headman or head of kraal into disrepute or contempt shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months."

That is an example of repressive legislation which is regarded by the Africans themselves as the action of a dictatorship.

Furthermore, Africans are not allowed to attend or organise meetings of twelve or more people. They are subject to a fine of £100 or to imprisonment for a period of twelve months if they organise such meetings without obtaining prior permission from a Government official. Even the chiefs have been put in an impossible position. They no longer represent their own people. They are civil servants subject to the dictates of the Government. In a recent case Chief Mangwende was deposed because he took a favourable interest in the activities of the local African Congress.

I wish I had time to describe the discrimination from which Africans suffer in Southern Rhodesia—discrimination in education, in the towns and in the allocation of skilled jobs. There are many ways in which they suffer from discrimination in their everyday lives. There have been several developments in the last few years to break down certain aspects of this discrimination, and, no doubt, hon. Members opposite will refer to those examples. But I ask them to consider whether it would have been possible for those very minor amendments in colour bar discrimination to have been introduced if the Government of Southern Rhodesia had not been liable to scrutiny and to some, if remote, control from the Government of the United Kingdom.

Above all, the Africans resent the fact that they are almost wholly without votes in Southern Rhodesia. Votes are given only to those with certain high qualifications, which ensures that the control of the Parliament of Southern Rhodesia is in white hands. Of course, all the thirty members of that Parliament have been and are white. The Africans themselves have no direct representation. On 8th April last this House unanimously condemned apartheid and racial discrimination in South Africa. I think that the House, having condemned these practices in South Africa, should equally condemn them in Southern Rhodesia. I am sure that the country as a whole would share our condemnation of the racialist practices pursued.

The policies pursued in Southern Rhodesia and in the Union of South Africa are very similar. But there is the protection in the Southern Rhodesian Constitution which, so far as the Africans are concerned, is of very great significance indeed. The Africans value the protective provisions to which I have referred, and if they were arbitrarily removed from the Constitution it would put the Africans in a position identical with that of the Africans in the Union of South Africa, and it would be a matter of utter despair for them.

We have recently had a visit to this country by the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, Sir Edgar Whitehead. He came to see the Secretary of State to ask that the protective clauses in the Constitution should be removed. He failed in his mission. He did not succeed in persuading the Secretary of State to agree to the deletion of these clauses. I congratulate the Secretary of State on the way in which he handled this very delicate situation. I am also glad that he received a delegation from the National Democratic Party representing the Africans of Southern Rhodesia and I thank him for the sympathy and good will which he showed them.

Whom did the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia represent? He refused to have in his own deputation a representative from the opposition Dominion Party, which asked that the leader of the opposition should be allowed to join with him in the representations which were being made to the United Kingdom Government. Sir Edgar Whitehead refused. He chose to come on his own to the United Kingdom, and therefore he represented not the people of Southern Rhodesia but only the United Federal Party.

The United Federal Party cannot be said to represent even the majority of the white settlers in Southern Rhodesia because at the last territorial election in Southern Rhodesia the United Federal Party had less than half of the first preference votes which were passed. The Dominion party, in fact, received a greater proportion of the first preference votes. Therefore, Sir Edgar Whitehead in visiting this country represented a minority of a minority.

Before he came he did not consult the other political parties. He certainly did not consult the Africans who are protected by the clauses which he was asking the United Kingdom Government to delete. His approach to this question has been party political throughout. He hoped to gain electoral advantage from his discussions with the United Kingdom Government to help him in the next territorial election.

There are those in this country, and I believe even in the ranks of the party opposite, who suggest that despite all the constitutional objections, we should negotiate with Sir Edgar Whitehead because he is a moderate. They also put forward the point that if federation had not been imposed in 1953, Southern Rhodesia would have been an independent country anyway. That is an academic question. It is, indeed, questionable whether Southern Rhodesia would have gained her independence on the basis of White minority domination. But apart from that point, the fact is that we have to deal with the situation as it is in 1960.

There are objections on three grounds to the United Kingdom negotiating with Sir Edgar Whitehead and the United Federal Party. In the first place, I dispute the suggestion that he is a moderate. He has pursued some most repressive policies since he became Prime Minister, and I should doubt very much whether anybody who has been affected by the recent repressive Acts which have been put through under Sir Edgar Whitehead's guidance would believe him to be a moderate. In fact, he is a prisoner of his own Cabinet colleagues—the very same men who stabbed Garfield Todd in the back when he attempted to be a liberal Prime Minister and who brought in Sir Edgar Whitehead in place of Garfield Todd. Those men still have great powers in the Southern Rhodesian Cabinet.

The next Government, however, is more likely to be that of the Dominion Party than of the United Federal Party. Those who claim that the United Federal Party is a liberal party in Southern Rhodesia will have to recognise that the Dominion Party will be in power after the next election, and that the policies of the United Federal Party are not likely to be pursued even if it is a liberal party, which is disputable.

The second objection to negotiations with Sir Edgar Whitehead is that safeguards introduced into the Southern Rhodesian Constitution to replace protective clauses which are deleted are likely to be utterly worthless. I ask the House to consider what has happened to the protective clauses and safeguards in the Federal Constitution. The African Affairs Board, which was given as a great example of what safeguards could be introduced, has been shown to be worthless. All of us lament the fact that in South Africa over the last half-century all the protective and entrenched clauses in the Constitution have been torn up. No safeguards in a constitution can be useful when the government concerned wish to override them and have the support of the electorate in so doing. The only safeguard for the Constitution of Southern Rhodesia is to give the Africans the vote, so that they themselves can share in the effective power.

The third ground of objection is that the Africans were at no point consulted about the changes in the Constitution.

The Constitution now gives a direct relationship between the United Kingdom and the Africans in Southern Rhodesia. We are the protecting Power and the relationship is similar to the protection which we give to Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, although not an exact parallel.

The Prime Minister himself has said that we will not withdraw from our responsibilities for the two Northern Protectorates, except with the agreement of the protected. If we are prepared to do that for the two Northern Protectorates, if it is right and just that we should consult the Africans of the two Northern Protectorates before withdrawing from our responsibilities for that area, it is right and just that we should consult the Africans of Southern Rhodesia who enjoy protection from the United Kingdom.

If the protective power were withdrawn without consulting them, it would be a matter of utter despair to those concerned. Such an action is likely to provoke unrest in the Colony and to make matters very serious. Certainly it is not likely to improve race relations and it would make it much more difficult to achieve a settlement of the political problems of the Territory.

Because we have put these arguments from this side of the House, we are sometimes accused of being anti-European, and we are sometimes told that we are interfering. The politicians of Southern Rhodesia ask, "Are we not qualified, being on the spot, to take care of our own affairs?". The answer to that is that they are qualified to take care of their own affairs, but not qualified to look after the affairs of the majority of the population, the nine-tenths of the population, which is non-European.

To allow complete independence to Southern Rhodesia on the basis of white control would be to invite the whites to pursue policies which would be to the great disadvantage of the overwhelming majority—as has happened in the Union of South Africa. In our approach to the subject, we are just as interested in the future welfare of the Europeans in Southern Rhodesia as we are in the future welfare of the Africans. We say that it is just as much in the interests of the white settlers that there should be a peaceful and agreed solution to these political problems, and that it would put the Europeans in an impossible position in the context of Africa today if the Government were to do what Sir Edgar Whitehead has asked them to do.

In all these Territories in Africa, there must eventually be complete political equality. That is the warning of the winds of change, and it would be in the best interests of the European settlers in Southern Rhodesia to recognise that that is coming. Most white settlers in Southern Rhodesia are decent hardworking people who are not interested in the intricacies of politics. They should feel the winds of change on their cheeks and give short shrift to the politicians who, for selfish reasons, want to cling to political power and prevent the emergence of Africans as a political force in the Territory.

Among the white settlers there is a minority which is courageous enough to come out and say bluntly that it believes in African emergence in Southern Rhodesia. I admire such people and I am privileged to number some among my friends. In fact, only this morning I heard from one of them in Salisbury. They are among the minority who work for and preach African advance and they are the people to whom the other white settlers of Southern Rhodesia should listen.

They can look across the border to Tanganyika where only a few years ago reactionary white politicians were forecasting all sort of terrors if the Africans had political advance. That forecast has proved absolutely wrong, because political advance for Africans in that Territory has meant better race relations and better hope and confidence in that Territory. The future of white settlers in Tanganyika is secure, as it has never been secure, as the result of allowing African political advance.

There are major lessons in that for the settlers of Southern Rhodesia and we ask them to look at the example of Tanganyika and learn from it. I am not trying to gloss over the real difficulties in Southern Rhodesia as these adjustments in the attitude of the white settlers come to be made, but those adjustments must happen, particularly as the result of the influence of independence in the Congo, which is coming within a month, and, of course, the emergence of African territories over the whole Continent. The lesson in Africa is that the Africans can no longer be suppressed. The white settlers in Southern Rhodesia must come to terms with that situation.

In those circumstances the influence of the United Kingdom is absolutely vital. We cannot discard our responsibilities. The question we have to ask is how can we best discharge them. What reply can we give to Sir Edgar Whitehead? We cannot say that the Constitution needs no amendment—clearly it does, for it is out of date and it needs to be changed—nor can we impose a solution.

We should, therefore, call a constitutional conference at which would be represented all the political parties of Southern Rhodesia and the Africans themselves. The recent deputation of the National Democratic Party, which made such a fine impression on all of us who met it, showed that the Africans themselves, through their responsible political leadership, are prepared to negotiate.

We should respond to that example and call a constitutional conference in the United Kingdom at which suggestions about the future constitution of Southern Rhodesia could be put forward and explored. That approach to the problem of the future constitution of Southern Rhodesia is much more likely to secure goodwill and peaceful relations between the races in Southern Rhodesia which, I am sure, it is the wish of the whole House to secure.

The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) for raising the subject of the Constitution of Southern Rhodesia, as it has given an opportunity for the anti-Rhodesia propaganda, which is being propagated in this country, to be answered. In spite of the very reasonable terms of the end of the hon. Member's speech, the burden of his speech was a direct attack on the Southern Rhodesian Government. He said that it was a dictatorship and he compared it with the Union of South Africa and implied that it showed a constantly increasing indulgence in discrimination against Africans. I want the House for a few moments to examine the facts.

When we deal with Southern Rhodesia, we are dealing not with a country like Northern. Rhodesia or Nyasaland, a country emerging from colonial status, but with a country which has been internally self-governing for 37 years—we are dealing far more with equals than we are when we deal with Nyasaland, Northern Rhodesia, or other Colonial Territories in Africa.

I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that the Africans regard themselves as in a position similar to that of the Africans in the two Northern Protectorates and feel that they, too, are emerging from colonialism and suppression.

I am dealing with the subject of Government, because the burden of the hon. Member's speech was an attack upon the Government of Southern Rhodesia. I was saying that when we deal with the Government of Southern Rhodesia we are dealing with a Government with a status virtually equal to our own.

On 9th May, the hon. Member asked a Question about the number of Bills in Southern Rhodesia which had been referred to Her Majesty's Ministers in the United Kingdom as discriminatory. The answer was twelve. Those not in tune with African affairs may be surprised that such a large number of Bills were brought to Her Majesty's Ministers in this country for approval or rejection.

The reason is that any Bill which contains a technicality of discrimination is referred to this country. The hon. Member mentioned the Land Apportionment Act, but the original reason for that Act was to prevent richer Europeans from buying and exploiting African land. The reason for discrimination against Africans in the liquor laws is that in the old days there was a trade in gin and other intoxicating spirits which was exceedingly dangerous and had unpleasant effects on uneducated Africans. Such discriminatory measures stem from history, but I agree with the hon. Member that to some extent they have now become out of date.

However, there are other instances. The adoption system for Africans is entirely different from the adoption system in this country and if there is legislation to cater for native custom, there is bound to be discrimination in some form.

The hon. Member mentioned the emergency regulations and said that they were dictatorial and unpleasant. That may be, but they saved Southern Rhodesia from an emergency. We had trouble in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, but none in Southern Rhodesia, so at least those regulations seem to have been justified by events.

I may be wrong about these figures, but I believe that only 54 Africans are still imprisoned under the emergency regulations. I used the word "imprisoned", but I should explain that 40 are restricted, while 14 are in prison. I think that those figures are correct, but if the hon. Member disagrees with them, no doubt he will correct them later.

I agree that there is still discrimination in Southern Rhodesia and I am at one with the hon. Gentleman in wanting to see it ended as soon as possible. I believe that this is also the desire and the policy of the Southern Rhodesian Government. The Land Apportionment Act should be modified and, if possible, abolished. The pass laws should also be modified, but they exist to prevent an influx of Africans into the towns which would create unemployment and housing problems, similar to those we are now seeing develop in Nairobi.

The difficulties in Southern Rhodesia are not necessarily due to differences between black and white. Rather are they difficulties of differing standards. Southern Rhodesia is now passing through an industrial revolution such as this country passed through some 150 years ago. Just as society has become more equal in this country, so it will become more equal in Southern Rhodesia, irrespective of colour.

The hon. Member attempted to compare Southern Rhodesia with the Union of South Africa. The whole House rejects the concept of apartheid, and I do not think that this comparison is in any way fair. I refer the hon. Member to an excellent booklet, The Race Relations Journal, where he will find, on pages 20–21 a survey of discrimination, comparing the Union of South Africa with the two chief towns in Southern Rhodesia, Bulawayo and Salisbury. The person who compiled this survey worked out a points system; no separation or no discrimination—no points; partial separation, one point; complete separation, two points; and separation by law, three points. Using that technique, he came to the conclusion that in 1958–59 the Union of South Africa rated 83 points of segregation, whereas Southern Rhodesia moved from 64 points in 1958 to 50 points in 1959.

Since the survey was completed, the Union of South Africa—and I exclude the emergency regulations—has moved in a more restrictive direction, whereas the Southern Rhodesia Government has moved in exactly the opposite direction. Since the survey, segregation in Southern Rhodesia has been abolished in the Post Office, the hotels and the trains. The Civil Service has been opened up and the Industrial Conciliation Act has been applied to Africans and Europeans alike. The liquor laws against the Africans have been reduced, and apprenticeships for both races now exist.

The point I want to make is that the Union has moved one way—a way of which the House disapproves—whereas southern Rhodesia is moving in the opposite direction. Many of us possibly wish that Southern Rhodesia would move faster in that direction, but we must recognise that the Government, with a majority of two in Parliament, are doing the best they can in the present circumstances.

An African in Salisbury a few weeks ago said to me, "We recognise that race relations here are reasonably good but the structure of the pass laws and of the Land Apportionment Acts exists in this country, as in South Africa. We recognise that it is not applied in the same way here and, therefore, we have not the same objection to it as exists in the Union, but the Government here could change, and we therefore want to see the law changed." I would go a long way with that view, and I believe that the Southern Rhodesian Government would, too, certainly if they had a larger majority in their own Parliament.

I turn to the constitution. The hon. Member for Wednesbury makes the point that there is no African in the Southern Rhodesia Parliament. He did not, however, point out that Southern Rhodesia is the only territory in the Federation which has a true common roll. In other words, the people, irrespective of their colour, when they are qualified for the common roll, vote for any Member of Parliament, whereas in the other territories there is an A roll and a B roll, and those on the B roll, mainly Africans, vote only for certain Members. This common roll is a basis of democracy and a basis which will eventually ensure that the majority view in Southern Rhodesia prevails. In 1957 the Government in Southern Rhodesia reduced the qualifications for voting on this roll to £240 and literacy or £120 and a two-year secondary education so as to bring in more Africans.

An extremely important point for consideration is how many Africans could vote in Southern Rhodesia under the existing constitution and franchise and how many do actually vote. I have checked the number of those who could vote and it is 17,550. When I mentioned such a figure previously, hon. Members opposite were inclined to scoff and to say, "Anybody can produce figures". In case they feel that way today, I will give them the breakdown of the figures. Africans earning more than £20 a month total 8,000 of the total; teachers, 5,500; British South African police, 350; Africans in the Southern Rhodesia Civil Service, higher grades, 300; Purchase Area farmers, 800; Eastern District irrigation plot-holders, 200; other civil servants, 400; farmers in the Reserves 2,000. That is how the figure is arrived at. But the number who actually exercised the right to the franchise was not 17,550 but only 2,159.

The hon. Member will agree that the special roll is limited to 20 per cent. of the ordinary roll and sealed off at that point.

I was coming to that. There is a cut-off at 20 per cent. When 20 per cent. of the Africans qualify under the two lower qualifications I have mentioned these qualifications are automatically cut off. When that law was made, however, it was made clear that it was extremely unlikely ever to operate, for, as African education improved, they would qualify for the higher-range qualifications either on grounds of finance or education and the number allowed under the lower qualifications would therefore automatically increase. But I again remind hon. Members that out of 17,000 Africans who could vote, only 2,000-odd have bothered to do so, and I suggest to the hon. Member opposite and to the Africans that they would have a far stronger case if they exercised in full the rights which they now have in Southern Rhodesia.

In parenthesis, I would say that on the Federal roll the figures are much higher. I am told that 29,000 Africans could vote in Southern Rhodesia in Federal elections, and the number registered is 2,186. We have again the same story. I suggest, therefore, that there is no case to extend the franchise at present.

The hon. Member for Wednesbury said that the Southern Rhodesia Government should consult all bodies of opinion, and he mentioned the National Democratic Party. I echo his words about the very good impression which they made in this country, but he implied that they were the only representatives of African opinion in Southern Rhodesia. I remind him that the United Federal Party has Africans in it, as has the Dominion Party, and that nearly 50 per cent. of the Central African Party are Africans. I suggest that these may well outweigh the numbers who belong to the National Democratic Party. Let us not forget that in the Federal House there is already one African Minister and eight Members of Parliament who are Africans sitting as United Federal Party Members in that House.

Mostly elected by Europeans.

The whole policy is to try to see that all Members of Parliament are elected by both races. Only then shall we have a multi-racial community. That is what we are trying to do, to create truly multi-racial parties. The hon. Member spoke of the fear of the Africans. I can only suggest that he examine the pledge given by the Prime Minister in the House on more than one occasion. The last time was on 14th April, when my right hon. Friend repeated what he had said on 18th February:

"in the event of any change being made in the Constitution of Southern Rhodesia, the interests of Africans would of course be given full weight."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th April, 1960; Vol. 621, c. 1470.]

Conservatives want to see the ending of discrimination just as much as do the Socialists. Moreover, I suggest that we approach this matter in a much more logical way. We realise that these things take time. We have to look at things as they are in Africa, not as we want them to be. I should like to quote from a recent Conservative pamphlet. "Wind of Change", which puts this point of view very clearly. To the Africans in Southern Rhodesia I would quote this paragraph:

"Until the African peoples come to share the same degree of respect for individual and minority rights, their independence will make but a hollow sham of liberal democracy. It would be a dereliction of duty for Britain to abandon responsibility for those multi-racial communities which are under her ultimate authority until she is satisfied that this respect for minority rights exists."

To the Europeans of Southern Rhodesia I would quote the following paragraph:

"There is a second principle, however—the guardianship of the heritage of the African majority. That is made clear by the British Government's commitments which have been repeatedly reaffirmed and which cannot be repudiated."

The House must also bear in mind this final quotation, which deals with all multi-racial states in either Central or East Africa:

"We must therefore reconcile ourselves to the fact that multi-racial states may take much longer to become capable of sovereignty or internal self-government than homogeneous states."

The basic difference of interpretation between hon. Members opposite and we on this side of the House is one of speed. They want to go fast, we wish to go more slowly. I think that that difference stems from the fact that they see the problem in the context of black and white. We see it in the context of different standards—I have already quoted the parallel of our own industrial revolution. We are against discrimination. We believe that the Southern Rhodesia Government is also against discrimination. We believe that their record shows this over the past years. We believe that Southern Rhodesia is taking the middle course between the repression of the Union of South Africa and the irresponsibility of the Congo, where the Belgians are leaving the country before any central Government has been established. We believe that the moderate centre course taken in Southern Rhodesia may well prove the right course for Central Africa. If that were so, it would sound the death knell of apartheid in the Union.

There is little time left and I must obviously give the Parliamentary Secretary an opportunity to reply. I therefore do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) in his discussion of the present conditions in Southern Rhodesia. I prefer to bring the debate back to a question very much before the House—that, as a result of a statement made by the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations on Monday, 9th May, it is clear that a request has been made to us to consider alterations in the powers which are vested, through Her Majesty, in the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to exercise some supervision of any discriminatory legislation which may be introduced by the Southern Rhodesia Government.

I think that all agree that this is a most important question immediately in front of us, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) has done a very useful service to the House in raising the matter today. If the House is asked to modify in any way—and so far the way has not been specified—the powers which are reserved to the United Kingdom Government in this respect, the House must be alert and vigilant, and it certainly must indicate as clearly as it can to the Southern Rhodesia Government the kind of conditions under which it will consent to anything of that kind.

As we know, Southern Rhodesia is part of the Central African Federation. Within that Federation there are three territories, each with a different type of con- stitution. Since the Federation was established, one of the Constitutions, that of Northern Rhodesia, has been modified. Very shortly the Constitution of Nyasaland will be modified, and arrangements are going ahead for that to be done. In order that it may be done with the prospect of success, it is to be modified after the holding of a constitutional conference. It is therefore recognised that the present Constitution of Nyasaland is out of date and unsuitable to the times, and it is recognised that before it is modified the wise and sensible thing is to hold a constitutional conference.

Southern Rhodesia, in effect, is asking for a review of its Constitution, particularly that part of it which reserves powers to the Secretary of State in this country. This is also an indication that the Southern Rhodesia Government regard their Constitution as inappropriate. Moreover, the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia has indicated that he wants this constitutional review to take place, just as the Nyasaland review is taking place, before the review of the Federal Constitution takes place. The positions of Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland are, therefore, on all fours; in both cases it is recognised that there is a need for a review of the Constitution before the review of the Federal Constitution takes place.

My hon. Friend and the rest of us on this side of the House are arguing that these two Constitutions are identical and that the procedures to be followed in each case should also be identical—in other words, that if a constitutional conference is the appropriate vehicle for ascertaining the practicability of constitutional change in Nyasaland, so it is in Southern Rhodesia.

The hon. Member for Haltemprice reminded us that Southern Rhodesia has for a long time been a self-governing Colony, but surely that is no obstacle in the way of Her Majesty's Government, if they so wish, modifying the Constitution. There are examples in the past where this has been done. Southern Rhodesia is not the only self-governing Colony in the British Commonwealth. Recently the Bahamas had its Constitution reviewed, though it has been self-governing for very much longer than has Southern Rhodesia. In that case, Her Majesty's Government had to use their ultimate authority to change the Constitution of a self-governing Colony. For various reasons, which I have not time to discuss, the ruling group in that Colony resisted any change for a very long time—resisted it very bitterly and with very violent speeches in the Legislature. But the right hon. Member for Bedford, Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), who was then Colonial Secretary, nevertheless went ahead and brought about a valuable change in the Constitution of that country, so that although it has not yet votes for women, it has at any rate advanced a very long way along the road to democracy.

A change having been asked for in this case by the self-governing Colony of Southern Rhodesia, the case for a review and for the exercise of Her Majesty's Government's ultimate powers is obviously complete. In view of the history which I have outlined, nobody can suggest that there should not now be a thorough review of the present Constitution of Southern Rhodesia, as there has to be one in respect of Nyasaland and as there has been one for the self-governing Colony of the Bahamas.

We are, of course—I hope that it is not necessary to repeat this; the hon. Member for Haltemprice at one moment seemed to deny it, but I do not think he really denies it in view of his latter remarks—not hostile to the white population of Southern Rhodesia. We hope very much that it will be possible to find ways and means for black and white men to continue to live side by side in the Federation or in whatever modification of federation comes about in Central Africa generally. We have always said this, and it is still our view. We want to seek ways and means of enabling the races to live there in harmony. In our debate on the Central African Federation, I expressed myself strongly in favour of that Federation, because, in my belief, it could produce a real partnership between the races; but I was against the imposition of federation, as were the vast majority of my colleagues on this side of the House, because I was afraid that imposition would destroy the possibility of harmony and partnership between the races.

Without going into all the details, what has been done in recent years in Southern Rhodesia gives us little certainty that we could get a satisfactory degree of change in that Constitution merely by discussion between the United Kingdom Government and the Southern Rhodesian Government.

In the light of all that has gone before, remembering all the discriminatory laws which have been passed—even the hon. Member for Haltemprice admitted that twelve of them had to be submitted to the Secretary of State for consideration; remembering all that my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury has recited about the working of these laws and the discontent they have caused, the fact that there might be potentially an increase in the number of Southern Rhodesian black voters who might vote at some future election is surely not enough to allow us to give anything like a blank cheque to the present Government of Southern Rhodesia for the modification of its Constitution.

What we want to avoid, for the sake of preserving peace and harmony in Central Africa, is a repetition of the mistakes that have been made in the past. Too often, Her Majesty's present Government have conceded too little too late. When the hon. Member for Haltemprice says that there is a difference between the two sides of the House on the question of speed, it is there that the difference lies. We want this time to ensure that it is not a grudging concession of too little too late, but that what we shall have is an imaginative recognition of the right of the African people to determine their own future and to take part with the white people already living in Southern Rhodesia in the formulation of the conditions in which a new Constitution can be born.

That is why we say that if Her Majesty's Government are to admit at all the case of Sir Edgar Whitehead, they must say, "Let there be a constitutional conference similar to that which has been called in Nyasaland, and let us find ways and means of ensuring that Africans who come to that conference are truly representative of all shades of opinion among the African people, so that we can make a real advance, make it in time and make it on a sufficient scale to enable us to believe that it may endure". There must be consultation with the African peoples before any changes whatever in the delegation of power from this country to any African State are made. The best method of consultation is not merely to talk to one or two tribal chiefs or one or two leaders who happen to sit in Parliament, or one or two eminent persons who have made a specially satisfactory personal career in those countries. The only way to make consultation effective, and to be sure that it means something and that there can be advance as a result, is to have consultation through representative organisations assembled together in conference. I hope we shall hear today that that is Her Majesty's Government's policy.

I had not intended to intervene in this debate and so I will be brief. I had hoped that the whole of the debate could be purely on the constructive side of discussing ways to solve what is one of the most difficult multi-racial problems in Africa. My reason for describing it as one of the most difficult is that we have there a form of colonial power which is in nearly the same category as a Commonwealth nation and yet, at the same time, there is an emerging African population. Together, this presents one of the most difficult of the multi-racial problems.

My reason for intervening is that I do not believe that some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) do any good whatever in finding a solution. When somebody gets up and begins to talk about the Government of Southern Rhodesia as a dictatorship and refers to the members running that Government as selfish politicians or suggests that the Government here are completely suppressing all the Africans, that must do harm, as I believe it will, to the white population and to the African. It will not achieve what I want to see achieved by this sort of debate. Therefore, we must be extremely careful when dealing with this matter to realise that many of the Members of Parliament in Southern Rhodesia are ahead of, and not behind, much of the white Southern Rhodesian public opinion. They are leading and not being led. Any attack that is made on them is much more likely to strengthen the Dominion Party than to achieve what the hon. Member for Wednesbury sets out to achieve. That is the reason for my intervention.

When we begin casting doubts on what the Native Affairs Department is able to do and casting doubts upon the African Affairs Board, we are hindering, not helping. I should like here, in the House of Commons, to pay tribute to those two bodies for the great work that they achieve.

I should like to see an extension of the African franchise in Southern Rhodesia as soon as possible. I would also like to see, not only the extension of the franchise, but Africans as Members of Parliament; but it must be in co-operation. It must not be instead of; it must be a working together. That is why it is no use whatever any Member of this House getting up and attacking directly the Government of Southern Rhodesia, because the result may well prove to be more reactionary than progressive, and heaven preserve us from that.

It often happens that on a Friday before a public holiday, we have some of our most useful debates at a time when not many people are present. That is what has happened today. The title of this debate was a "Constitutional conference for Southern Rhodesia". Certainly, that is what I propose to talk about in the few minutes at my disposal. One would not have guessed that title from the first 30 minutes of the speech of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse). It was only in the last minute and a half that he come to the subject of the debate. I make no complaint of that, however. I have no doubt that he was marshalling his arguments in the earlier part of what he said.

The theme of a constitutional conference for Southern Rhodesia was taken up more fully by the right hon. Member for Middlesborough, East (Mr. Marquand), whose view it was that this was the most appropriate means of ascertaining African wishes in Southern Rhodesia on any proposals that might come in future on constitutional progress.

The interest in this matter has been stimulated greatly by the recent visits to London of Sir Edgar Whitehead, Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, who has been consulting the Secretary of State, and several Parliamentary Questions have been answered in this House on the progress of those consultations. What I have to say this afternoon will not add greatly to the sum of human knowledge in that connection, but after the debate it might be useful if I restate the position to date.

First, I want to emphasise that no decisions on constitutional matters have been taken. Last November, and again as recently as April, Sir Edgar Whitehead put his ideas to us. Discussion ensued and we undertook to study what he had said. For his part he undertook to consider the position with his colleagues and we agreed to meet once again later in the year for further exchanges.

The date of the next meeting has not been decided. Frankly, I cannot at this stage say whether any proposals will result, or, if so, what form they may take. But I wish to say once again, in spite of the emphasis which has been given to this repeatedly in the House in earlier statements and replies to Questions, that in these matters the interests of the Africans will be given full weight.

The hon. Member for Wednesbury will recall that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, answering him in February, used that very form of words and, on 9th May, so did my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I wish to emphasise that point because, from the general tenor of some of the speeches which have been made, it might have been inferred that perhaps in some way we had been prevaricating on that assurance.

In addition to all that, as the right hon. Gentleman will recall, my hon. Friend the Minister of State categorically reaffirmed the Government's view on 9th May. I do not want to weary the House by quoting what he said, but it is very germane in view of the anxieties that have been expressed. He said:

"The United Kingdom Government stated that their ability to accept a scheme which would reduce or withdraw the powers vested in the Secretary of State in relation to the Southern Rhodesia Constitution would depend on whether arrangements could be devised and agreed by both Governments which would provide effective alternative safeguards, particularly in respect of discriminatory legislation and land rights, and in respect of amendment of the Constitution."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May, 1960; Vol. 623. c. 31.]

We stand by that assurance. That, I think, is the short answer—and, I hope, a satisfactory one—to the references in the right hon. Gentleman's speech to the possibility of some blank cheque being issued by Her Majesty's Government.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that assurance. When he speaks of "full weight", can we take it he means that the Government are bearing in mind that the Africans are the majority, even in Southern Rhodesia? When he speaks of effective safeguards, is he thinking of something like a Bill of Rights, supported by a convention?

It is a little too early for me to define what effective safeguards might be, because that is still the subject of discussion. But, of course, nobody can ignore the fact of the substantial numerical African majority in Southern Rhodesia. We certainly do not.

The second question which is germane to our debate is: by what means, under present arrangements, can African opinion on any proposed changes be ascertained? There has been reference to that in supplementary questions in the House. It is premature to speculate until, first of all, we know whether any proposals at all are to come forward—we do not even know that yet—and, if so, what their form is to be. But we stand by our assurance that the views of Africans will be given due weight if any changes result.

If there were to be any constitutional changes they would have to be debated in this House. While, in replying specifically to the right hon. Gentleman, I do not rule out that some form of conference might be appropriate in these circumstances, it is too early for us to say what form this could take or by what means the parties to it could he selected. We must wait and see whether proposals arise or not and, if so, what they may be, keeping firmly in our minds that it is our intention that full consideration should be given to African opinion if and when the time arises.

In saying all that, I have done little more than restate what has already been said in the House, but I think that those are two points with which hon. Members were mainly concerned. I listened with the greatest of interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). It was an excellent speech, and he put in very much better perspective some of the facts about the present Government of Southern Rhodesia. If we relied entirely on the hon. Member for Wednesbury for our information, it could only have the effect of distorting very much both the practice and the philosophy of that Government at the present time.

I was also grateful for the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Emery). I am certain that he was right to emphasise that in all our debates in this House we should bear in mind what we are trying to achieve in Africa —a just multi-racial society. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East picked up that point and I was glad to have his assurance that his side of the House—and the hon. Member for Wednesbury also made this point was not hostile to the white population of Rhodesia. It would be very tragic and regrettable if that were not so.

We must be realistic in this matter. If we are to have a multi-racial society, all races have a part to play. We know that these new countries will be urgently in need of development capital, which depends on the confidence and the willingness of people outside to venture

there. If it went out from this House that the Europeans of Southern Rhodesia were, so to speak, almost criminals, how would we achieve that confidence, without which no country, whatever its future status may be, can possibly prosper? I was therefore very glad to have the right hon. Gentleman's assurance on that point.

Nor do I think that we should criticise Sir Edgar Whitehead for embarking on these discussions now. It is entirely appropriate that the Prime Minister of the legal Government of a country which has enjoyed a very high degree of internal self-government for thirty-seven years should be free to discuss further constitutional measures with the United Kingdom at any time. Certainly it would not he in our mouths to discourage him in any way.

In conclusion, I would say that we are all in this House very conscious of the need to make constitutional progress in Southern Rhodesia. So, I am convinced, are the Southern Rhodesian Government, but, as I have said, it is too early yet to decide what, if any, action should be taken if and when further constitutional proposals are put forward. The assurances repeatedly given about African consultation and effective safeguards for Africans, alternative to those already written into the Constitution, remain completely valid. Finally there is what is the most important safeguard—that any new arrangement would have to be debated and approved by Parliament.

We are now switching from the problem of Africa to the problem of noise around London Airport. Both are difficult to solve, but I hope that both will eventually find a solution. I am grateful that this subject has been selected today. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) and I have, by Questions, raised this matter on many occasions and we are, therefore, pleased to have the opportunity of a full debate.

My constituency lies around London Airport. Some areas of it are very close to the airport, many houses being only a few hundred yards from the runways. Some housing estates were erected before the airport was constructed, for there was quite a lot of building in the area between 1930 and 1939, and since the airport has been constructed there has also been a considerable increase in houses and in population.

The areas affected by aircraft noise are mainly those close to take-offs and landings, and those in the glide paths of the aircraft when they take off and when they land. Many areas besides mine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington are affected. I should imagine that the area affected stretches from Uxbridge, Longford, Heston, Stanwell, to Twickenham, Isleworth, Brentford, Chiswick and Richmond. So the problem of noise from aircraft is one we must endeavour to solve.

I recognise the importance of civil air transport, and we want Britain to be a leading civil air Power. My hon. Friend and I both support that policy, and we are proud of Britain's air achievements and wish them to be continued, but we feel that a balance must be held between the residential population and expansion of jet flying at night till the noise problem is solved.

Of course, we have complaints of aircraft noise during the day. Indeed, I am informed that last Saturday, when a lawn tennis championship at Surbiton was being televised, a jet airliner well over 2,000 feet high prevented the scorer from being heard. That gives some idea of the degree of the noise, for Surbiton is some miles away from London Airport, and yet an airliner flying at well over 2,000 feet meant that the scorer could not be heard on television.

Up to 1st April this year the Minister did not allow jet aircraft to use London Airport during the night. Then the Minister, after noise test trials, to which I shall refer later, gave permission to B.E.A. to use the Comet 4B. This upset many of my constituents, who were prepared to tolerate noise during the day but expected to be allowed to sleep in peace at night. I have had letters, which the Parliamentary Secretary can see, bearing a large number of signatures from Feltham and protesting against the flying of jet aircraft at night. I ask the Minister to reimpose the ban.

The fear is that the permission to B.E.A. to operate the Comet will open the skies at night to other airlines. As we know, the Scandinavian and Swiss Airlines advertised tourist night flights even before they received the Minister's permission. Now leading national newspapers express the opinion that air travel is expanding so fast that the increase in the next year or so will be so vast that the Minister will be forced to allow all airlines to use London Airport at night.

Now I want to refer to the noise test trials. Quite frankly, many of my constituents are sceptical about them and feel they are a farce. I can give some reasons which I think the Minister should take into consideration. One cannot judge from a noise test trial in March what the noise will be in actual flying conditions in July and August. I think that the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) has made this point before. In July and August there is heavy summer traffic at London Airport.

The noise test trials of the Comet BIV were taken at the beginning of March. Not all the runways were used for the noise test. I think the Minister selected only one or two. The noise test trials in March were made when there were cold winter nights when people's windows were shut. That was when the Minister took the test. What are the conditions in July and August? There are warm summer nights, and windows are open; possibly there are french windows leading on to the garden. Conditions are entirely different. I should like the Minister very much to bear that in mind.

Noise is linked with weight, and these trials are taken with aircraft at a certain weight. Do we know for sure that six, nine or twelve months later the aircraft will be operating at the same weight as it was when the noise test trials were taken? I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with that point.

Another matter that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington and I have put is that of delayed flights. They have not been subject to noise test trials. Since 1st April when the Minister gave permission we have had an average of two flights per night coming into London Airport—flights by jet airliners; maybe American, maybe Boeings; perhaps other airliners of other lines; and those, obviously, have not been subjected to noise test trials, and because they are delayed it is more than possible they fly in at their usual noise.

During the five years since I became a Member of this House I have urged research into this problem. Clearly, in this modern age, air travel, which we want to go forward, will increase. Air travel is popular with business people and popular for holidays. Therefore, not only in this country but internationally, we have lagged behind in research to find a solution of the problem. In April this year the expansion at London Airport was 30 per cent. up on 1959 figures. I feel that probably in July and August the expansion will be still more. As we progress through the 'sixties it is quite possible that air travel will be twice as much as it is today.

I am certain that hon. Members on both sides of the House who are supporting me today will support me in putting the point to the Minister that, till a solution is found to the noise problem the Minister should not allow jet airliners to use London Airport between 11 o'clock at night and 7 o'clock in the morning. The airlines are all run by very competent people, and the Air Corporations and independent corporations are all linked up. Surely, they can arrange their flights between 7 o'clock in the morning and 11 o'clock at night?

That would give them sixteen hours in which to use the airport. For two-thirds of the day, roughly, they could use the airport.

Is it really necessary for people to fly at night, unless in special circumstances? I feel certain that people would find flying by day much more interesting, and it would mean that the residential population in the areas affected by the noise problem could at least sleep in peace at night.

There must be more research to eliminate aircraft noise. The responsibility rests on aircraft manufacturers, airline operators, and the Minister. I quote a statement from Sir Miles Thomas, former Chairman of B.O.A.C., who said:

"My personal feeling is that we aircraft operators could well consider injecting a new factor into our forward aircraft specifications and refuse to buy machines that do not conform to strict noise limitation."

The aircraft manufacturers must concentrate on strict noise limitation.

Top technicians and scientists should endeavour to solve the problem. Let their research be not into greater speed —the planes are travelling at hundreds of miles an hour already—but into producing less noisy engines. The aircraft operators should also insist that all pilots observe height regulations both immediately after take-off and before landing, unless of course there are special circumstances.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington and myself admit that the present Minister of Aviation and the Parliamentary Secretary have taken an interest in this problem. I know that the Minister wants to solve it, but words alone will not bring about a solution. Money must be spent and research must be done, and the right hon. Gentleman must be tough with the aircraft manufacturers. The Minister should also endeavour to secure international cooperation, because this problem also involves the Americans, the French and the Russians and others.

An enormous amount of money is being spent in an effort to solve the problems of space travel. Why not attempt to solve first the problems affecting travel immediately above the earth's surface? Space travel no doubt will come about and man will reach the moon, but let us first have aircraft which will allow people to carry out the everyday tasks of life, to sleep peacefully at night and enable children to carry on with their education at school. It would be far better if top scientists concentrated first on these problems. I hope that the Minister will stop flights by jet aircraft between the hours of 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. until a solution of this noise problem is found. I hope that he will do all he can in his Department and in co-operation with aircraft manufacturers and British and other operators in bringing this about.

I wish to intervene only briefly in the debate to support much of what has been said by the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter). My constituency is affected by aircraft noise, though admittedly not as much as are Feltham, Hayes and Harlington, and Heston and Isleworth which abut on London Airport. Nevertheless, aircraft noise is a serious problem in my constituency, although we are fortunate enough to live quite a distance away from the Airport. A number of residents suffer quite seriously, particularly in the Grove Park and Chiswick Park wards. Indeed, they are not slow to tell me that the noise seems to get worse every year and that the hours during which it occurs are gradually being extended.

We all know that the nuisance is far worse in the summer months, and there is a domestic complication for the parents of young children who find it difficult enough to get their children to sleep during the light summer evenings without the aggravation of jets coming over at full boost. Hundreds of residents have their sleep disturbed by this noise. One of the first complaints I received after my election as a Member of this House last October was on aircraft noise, and from that time onwards there has been a steady stream of letters.

A letter which I received only yesterday pinpoints the problem for many people. Part of it reads:

"Very noisy aircraft frequently fly almost direct over this house after midnight and around six o'clock in the morning. Anyone who sleeps lightly is bound to be woken up. I personally find that I frequently only have about four hours sleep at night because of this."

Another letter which I gave to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and to which he was kind enough to make a comprehensive reply read:

"I pay heavy rates and rent in order to live in a reasonably nice locality and here everything is ruined by this noise."

What it must be like in the constituency of the hon. Member for Feltham I hardly dare think.

Earlier this Session I asked my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation to institute a noise test in my constituency. I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the reply received this morning, which assures me that the work is now in hand and that the results will be carefully considered. Nowadays we have a further complication for prospective house purchasers in the hazard of aircraft noise. If a man is wise he will find out when buying a house whether it is near an airport or the approach or take-off routes to it; and even whether those are as much as ten or 15 miles away. Property depreciates in value because of aircraft noise, just as it does when a main road is suddenly cut past its frontage. This nuisance of aircraft noise is a growing problem, as is shown by the number of Parliamentary Questions on the subject and the unconventional deputations which arrive on the Minister's own doorstep.

According to a Press report yesterday my right hon. Friend has given a warning to airlines and aircraft firms that they have reached the limit of noise that will be allowed on permitted airports. No planes will be allowed to fly here in future if they make more noise than the new big jets. But, the report adds, the engine manufacturers have told the Minister that present engines cannot be silenced much more, even though future engines will make less noise in proportion to their increased power.

I am sure that no one is silly enough to want a ban on or a serious curtailment of jet flying, because more and more it is becoming the medium of travel for the masses, but if there is sufficient official pressure and sufficient co-operation from the aircraft manufacturers and, above all, sufficient research, I am sure that it is not beyond the wit of today's scientists, with all their knowledge, to produce some form of engine silencer which at least could cut down the noise substantially. This subject must be tackled vigorously, and with a considerable degree of priority, if life in some parts of West Middlesex and West London is not eventually to become intolerable.

The first thing that I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation will recognise is that this problem is not just a minor constituency grievance and that after we have spoken and made our complaints we shall simply go away thinking that we have all done our duty. Night jet flying is literally a real nightmare for about 50,000 families living round London Airport, and of course a very serious nuisance to anything up to a million more people.

I must remind the Parliamentary Secretary and emphasise to the House that the 50,000 families are quite unprotected by the Minister's conditions for jet take-off, even if those conditions were always observed, which I sometimes think they are not. There are 50,000 families living within the control points beyond which noise is supposed to be reduced. I hope that this will be appreciated by the Minister.

I have had plotted the control points in relation to the main runways and their positions in relation to the residential communities within that area. They in fact form a pit or sort of Dante's Inferno; indeed, many of the residents would say that the poet never imagined torture such as they have to endure night after night.

I emphasise that, whatever the Minister's conditions relating to the control of noise, these people are certainly entirely unprotected from all disturbances made by jet aircraft. If we take the control points in relation to runway No. 1 east and west, we find that the control point distance from the start of the runway east is 2·6 miles and to the west 3·8 miles. There is thus six miles before the noise has to be reduced under the present Ministry conditions. Therefore, people living in Longford, Harmondsworth, Sipson, Harlington and Cranford Cross gets the full blast from the aircraft because they are living alongside the runway. On No. 5 runway to the east the control point is 3·5 miles away and to the west 4·2 miles. People living at Stanwell, East Bedfont, New Bedfont and Harmondsworth get the full blast before there is any question of protection from noise disturbance.

In addition, they also suffer when the aircraft use No. 6 or No. 2 runway and fly directly overhead. They are totally unprotected by the conditions which the Minister has laid down for taking-off conditions for jets. It is quite intolerable that these 50,000 families, apart from having their day spoiled, are prevented from having and are denied their peace and sleep at night. I do not think that we have the right to inflict that upon 50,000 families and hundreds of thousands of others who suffer very seriously from noise further away.

I believe the Parliamentary Secretary knows that this is not a frivolous protest, because he has been there to hear the jets taking off. I understand that he went there during daylight when people are fully awake and there are other noises about, which means that the noise from these jet aircraft is not quite such a shock. I invite him to spend the night in this Dante's Inferno and to experience being wakened by these intolerable noises.

The Daily Express sent a reporter on 25th May to London Airport. I am sure that the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr.D.Smith) will not mind my saying that I make due allowance for journalistic exuberance; but this is what the reporter wrote:

"At 1.15 in the morning a monster takes hold of my pyjama lapels, jerks me upright out of sweet dreams into nightmare, and throws me back in horror on my pillow. A night jet is taking off from London Airport."

The article goes on:

"By 7 a.m. there are seven cigarette stubs in the ashtray beside my bed and I have read 243 pages of 'The Thousand and One Nights', which my host has thoughtfully placed there for my entertainment. In all, I suppose, I get three-and-a-half hours' sleep."

That is not really an exaggerated picture. If one lives near the airport no doubt one gets a little less shock on being awakened. I know from my own experience at night and what people have told me, that their children are regularly awakened every night by this noise and, once awake, it is extremely difficult to get them to go to sleep again, and by then probably another disturbance occurs.

How serious this may be from a medical point of view, I do not think we know. There has been a tendency to pooh-pooh it. Dr. Wigley made some observations reported by the Medical Officer of Health for Middlesex to a meeting of the Standing Airport Consultative Committee in which he said that he had had the opportunity of being present when the noise level on the very worst spots round London Airport was read on an occasion last summer when readings between 110 and 120 decibels were recorded. He states:

"I am assured on good authority that noise levels of this intensity will cause permanent deafness but, of course, only a few people are subjected to noise of this volume and that for very short intervals."

I am not sure about this last qualification, but we are at the threshold of something that can have direct and must have some indirect physical medical results if this noise goes on for a long time.

There has been a tendency on behalf of some interests to create a different kind of public attitude and different standards to this nuisance than we normally apply in connection with other noises and disturbances. For many years now there have been certain sections of railway lines where whistles may not be sounded, near hospitals and other places at night. The police have powers to take action against motor vehicles and motor cycles that are noisy. There was a successful prosecution at Southend against the rider of a motor cycle which had exceeded 93 decibels, which is considerably less than much jet noise. Though decibel measurement does not reveal the whole intensity of the quality of the noise which is experienced from jets.

I hope that the House will stiffen its attitude to any relaxation of public standards of decent conduct in this matter, because that would seem to me to be subjecting these unfortunate people to a permanent condition of living which no Member of this House would tolerate and which I do not believe is needed on the facts of air travel. What can be done? First, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to be far less secretive about this problem. There is a grave failure in public relations between London Airport and the local residents' associations and, to some extent, between the Ministry and the public.

I think that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary are sympathetic to the problem. It would be very much better if they told the public all the full facts instead of our having to dig this information out. The South Harlington Residents' Association asked London Airport the number of emergency and standby landings. The information was refused. I had to put down a Parliamentary Question. This revealed that the number was not unduly alarming. It is far better for people to know at once the extent of the problem. Secretiveness creates the worst impression, and it is quite unnecessary. There was no need for Members of Parliament to take up time in putting down unnecessary Questions. This kind of information is freely available in many other airports throughout the world.

Another example was the occasion when the Minister announced that he had given permission, under certain circumstances, for the Comet 4 to fly at night. It was said that it would be limited to one or two flights at night. The residents said that this was nonsense as they were disturbed more often than that. After prolonged probing the reason was the flights which had been delayed coming in and taking off. Again, we had to put down a series of Questions. Why could not the facts have been given at first? We found that in a period of fifty days there were some forty-four delayed flights in and some thirty-three out. That is an average of almost two a day, in addition to the permanent flights. That may not be a very large number, but if people had known exactly what was the position, or what it was likely to be, they would have been more prepared and could feel greater confidence in the information which is given.

I want to say one thing about the noise tests. My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham has referred to a confidential letter from the Minister, giving some data. He was good enough to show me that letter, which I understand is no breach of confidence. I think the letter was a very superficial one. It does not give any details as to how tests were made. It does not say whether there was a head wind or what was the general weather conditions. Further, all the tests appear to have been made from one runway. It appears to have been assumed that the data compiled from the check point or points for one runway could be applied to all the other runways on the aerodrome, but I do not believe they can. It is not right to lead Members of Parliament up the garden, as I believe my hon. Friend was fed up the garden on this occasion.

Why cannot we have the full facts? I have here a 20-page report, prepared by the noise consultants—Bolt, Beranek and Newman—to the Port of New York Authority. It is Report No. 683, Job No. 20,214, and it refers to the takeoff noise characteristics of the Boeing 707–320 jet airliners. It is dated January, 1960. This report was given to all the residents' associations in the vicinity, of which there are 24 and can be freely bought by everyone. It contains details of weather conditions, the runways used, noise characteristics, tests made with different engines, or aircraft operating at different levels of thrust. Why do we hush such matters up? Why does this sort of material have to be put in a confidential letter, which is misleading because it gives the most superficial information? We, as Members of Parliament, are not being treated with the consideration we deserve, and I am certain that the public is not. The hon. Member has not been long in office, but I beg him and the Minister to adopt a different attitude to Members of Parliament and the public.

Finally, there is the extraordinary question of the published timetables. We were told that the Minister had given permission only for jet airliners operated by B.E.A., but pages 34 and 40 of the B.E.A. timetables, starting from June, announce night flights by Swiss airlines and Swedish airlines. They are in print. It is no good the Minister saying that he does not edit the timetable. I do not suggest that he knew about this, but the timetable gives the impression that what we are told in this House is just so much window dressing, and that the decision has already been made. I do not believe that it has been made, but I shall find it difficult to convince my constituents about that when they see the printed timetables. It was a disgraceful incident.

The Minister should be frank about the way in which noise statistics are discussed. Either the Minister does not understand the position, or he is being misled. We were told, and we have told our constituents, that conditions for operating jet airliners were such that they would be no noisier than the noisiest of composite piston-engined aircraft. That may be true if the noise statistics are given in decibels. The noise of a jet airliner is about 90 decibels, but decibels do not convey any idea of the quality of the noise, because they leave out the question of vibration.

I can give a simple illustration. If I move a slate pencil in a certain way across a slate I can produce a noise which is so excruciating that everybody has to cover up his ears. That noise, measured in decibels, would be almost negligible, but the degree of annoyance measured in noys would be quite high. Using noys to compare jet aircraft with piston-engined aircraft one gets a very different picture. It is not true to say that they are no noisier.

I have had a comparison made between jet aircraft and piston-engined aircraft, in terms of both decibels and noys. There is not much difference between the two when measured in decibels, but if measured in noys it can be said, roughly speaking, that at every level, whether in flight, coming down, or in terms of thrust by the engine, the jet aircraft is twice as loud in noys. Therefore the Ministry is not being frank with the public when it pretends that jet aircraft are no noisier.

What do we want the Minister to do? First of all, we want him to be quite firm in stating that there will be no extension of jet flights between the hours of 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. I hope that he will not subscribe to the view put forward by the News Chronicle not very long ago, that if London Airport is to continue as a major air terminal the Government will have to override complaints about noise. I do not believe that the Government need do that.

In the first place we cannot sacrifice the 50,000 families to whom I have referred, and I do not see why we should sacrifice the other 750,000. Secondly I do not believe that the international repercussions will be nearly so great as is suggested. The Port of New York refuses to allow jet airlines to take off between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. over any built-up area, Oslo will not allow jets in at all. I am not saying that we can go as far as that. We must be prepared to sacrifice the day, but I do not see why we should make the sacrifice at night.

It has been said that if we insist upon a ban other countries will reciprocate. I do not believe that that will be so. I have referred to Oslo. The Zurich Residents' Association is pressing its Government not to have jet flights at night, and many other international airports are imposing similar conditions. I can see no reason why we should not come to some international agreement on the matter. If we sell the pass Vienna and every other city will follow suit automatically.

When air travel is so speedy it cannot make much difference if we sacrifice a few hours of the night when jets may not take off. It is not as if passengers will miss a tide, or arrive a month late in Australia. It makes only a few hours' difference, and it means that 50,000 families will get their normal rest. We have no right to inflict this kind of gross interference upon people's lives and their right to peaceful nights.

This is not a storm in a teacup, and if the Ministry weakens the inhabitants of Harlington, Feltham, Heston and Isle-worth and Brentford and Chiswick will be marching down Whitehall because public indignation in this matter is not a passing phase but something which is deeply felt by many hundreds of thousands of people.

I want to support what has been said by the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington). I want to make one more appeal to the Minister on the subject of using coastal strips, at any rate for night-flying jet aircraft. A month or two ago, I put down a Question to the Minister on this subject and I got the very curt answer, "No, Sir", meaning that the Minister would not even consider the matter. I hope that I can revive the suggestion, and that the Minister will not put it entirely out of his mind.

I would have thought that if everything said by the hon. Member for Feltham and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is right—as I know it is—the problem would be regarded as desperately acute. If it is necessary to have night flights by jet aircraft it is up to the Government to make some arrangements which do not mean an intolerable disturbance to thousands upon thousands of families living in many boroughs and urban districts around the airport. We are coming to the part of the year when I shall begin to get letters by the dozen, because people cannot sleep on hot nights with their windows open, when aircraft are making a fearful noise—and there is a great deal of noise at night caused by late flights of aircraft.

If other airlines are given permission to make these flights, life will become intolerable even in Heston and Isleworth, which is a mile or two further from London Airport than is Feltham, or Hayes and Harlington. Residents in Brentford and Chiswick will have the same trouble.

I ask the Minister once again to consider if it is possible to use a coastal strip for the use of jet aircraft at night. He has said "No" once. I ask him once again to consider it, because if he will do so I am certain that it will bring a great deal of amelioration, at any rate to people who live in my constituency.

I am very glad that the hon. Members for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) and Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) have raised this subject. My right hon. Friend and I appreciate that, as the hon. Members stated, it is not a matter which concerns merely their own constituents. It concerns many people living within a fairly wide radius of London Airport.

I can say to the hon. Member for Feltham that I was at Surbiton watching the tennis tournament all the afternoon, and I did not notice that jet aircraft. However, I do not for that reason dispute much of the truth of what he told the House. This short but useful debate will help us to clarify the position. I welcome the opportunity of assuring the House that my right hon. Friend and myself are acutely aware of the difficulties and annoyance which many people have to face, especially at night.

All hon. Members must recognise that aircraft noise, at any rate in the present state of knowledge, cannot be eliminated. What we are trying to do is to ensure that it is kept within tolerable limits, both by encouraging research efforts to reduce noise at source—I agree with the hon. Member for Feltham that that is, in the last resort, the only satisfactory solution—and, meanwhile, by devising procedure for the operation of aircraft. The limitations which we impose on noise at night, as I hope to explain, are very much more stringent than those imposed by day.

Before dealing specifically with night flying, I hope that the House will bear with me if I say something about our general policy in order to put night operations into their proper perspective. It has been the consistent aim of the Government to ensure, as far as possible, that the noise of jet-propelled aircraft is no more disturbing than that of the heavier piston-engined aircraft over the main built-up areas. I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington about the people who live very close to the boundaries of London Airport. Subjective tests were made before jet aircraft were allowed to operate into London Airport. They showed that the requirement would be met in the main built-up areas by day if the sound pressure level did not exceed about 97 decibels, as compared with about 105 decibels for piston-engined aircraft.

In fixing that differential, we were fully aware that sound pressure level, as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington pointed out, does not by itself take into account the varying degrees of annoyance to the human ear caused by aircraft of different types. As the hon. Member said, this is related to a combination of air pressure and frequency, although some ears are, in any event, more sensitive to sound than others.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington asked me to deal particularly with the measurement of noise, which is the basis from which all the statistics and the consideration of them must start. We have not felt hitherto that any of the other standards proposed, apart from the decibel, was sufficiently well established to justify the official adoption of an alternative unit of measurement, though by maintaining the differential we had it in mind. However, during the past year a great deal more operational experience has been gained and more scientific research carried out, particularly by the National Gas Turbine Establishment and by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. I hope that this may to some extent please the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, because as a result I can inform the House that it has been decided to adopt "perceived noise" expressed in decibels, or PNdb's, as the most suitable unit at present available, for the relative assessment of annoyance caused by aircraft of different types.

We accordingly introduced on 1st June a revised limitation of 110 perceived noise decibels measured in the main built-up areas under the take-off paths at London Airport to which operators of jet aircraft will be required to adhere by day. This limitation is broadly equivalent to a sound pressure level of 97 decibels.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington said that he would prefer these measurements to be in noys. That is the same measurement as the preceived noise decibel. The only difference is mathematical. Noy is arithmetical. The perceived noise decibel is logarithmic, as is the decibel measurement to which we are now accustomed. In future, anyone who wishes to do so will be able to translate the measurements of perceived noise decibels into noys, if he is so minded. I hope that will encourage the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington to feel that we are not trying to be secretive about these matters.

Why not state it in noys?

There is a danger, if we produce large numbers pf twenty-page reports and masses of statistics, that it would be more misleading. The New York authority has decided to cease the publication of its regular statistics, on the ground that they are merely repetitive. They can also be misleading sometimes.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington cannot complain if from time to time we think it right to give information to hon. Members which we cannot give to every member of the public who writes and asks for it. The House is the proper channel of information. We cannot be accused of treating hon. Members in a cavalier fashion if we say that it is very often right that statistics and statements should be made in the House, rather than in answer to correspondence.

The difficulty with all these statistics is that there is an inevitable margin of error. Random turbulance in the air may cause a scatter of measurement of plus or minus one or two decibels. Engine noise at source will vary by one or two decibels. The weather has an effect ߞwhether it is a blue sky or whether there is a great deal of cloud off which the noise will be reflected. Equally, as the hon. Member for Feltham said, it makes a difference whether one is out of doors or indoors and whether the window is open or shut.

That is why we feel that it is important to maintain as far as possible a degree of flexibilty. We do not want to fix upper statistical limits of noise, particularly at night, which will become the normal standard of achievement. For example, short-haul aircraft can do appreciably better than long-haul aircraft, and we shall expect them to do so. The real aim must be to ensure that, where one company achieves a better performance with similar aircraft in comparable conditions, other companies measure up to that standard. There may well be a great deal in what the hon. Member for Feltham said about future aircraft. Companies may be expected to purchase and use those aircraft which do not cause the maximum disturbance to people living in the vicinity of airports.

As regards night flying, the House will appreciate that there never has been a complete ban on night operations by jet aircraft at London Airport. Although until recently no jet aircraft were scheduled to operate between 11 o'clock at night and 7 o'clock in the morning, delayed aircraft have been permitted to land at any time and, in certain circumstances, to take off.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington referred to the Answers given to Questions tabled by himself and his hon. Friend the Member for Feltham. Those Answers showed that only 11 of the 44 take-offs referred to took place after midnight. We must accept that some delays are inevitable, because of weather or mechanical faults.

The real safeguard for the public is that it is obviously in the company's interest, if it can, to keep to its schedules. Delayed departures are, however, subject to a greater degree of control. Permission for delayed departures up to midnight is granted only to those airlines which have shown that their aircraft can achieve a high compliance with our noise arrangements by day. There are, in fact, large numbers of companies which are not cleared for take-off between 11 p.m. and midnight. For departures after midnight, the airlines must demonstrate by noise tests that the delayed services can be operated at noise levels significantly below those by day. The best way of explaining the effect of this limitation would be to say that, apart from scheduled operations, only two companies have permission to take off after midnight.

In regard to scheduled operations, we have now permitted a number of short-haul jet services to be scheduled at night, and here my right hon. Friend has insisted on noise tests on receiving an application by an airline for permission to operate jet services at night. I do not think that it is fair to say that these noise tests, which my right hon. Friend explained to the House the other day, are in any way inadequate. They are carried out by day at representative all-up weights, with measuring points, in the open air, and that is a fair basis on which to determine whether it is reasonable to give permission. These services are not, and will not be, allowed to proceed until we are satisfied that they comply with these noise tests.

Where B.E.A. is concerned, the tests showed ߞand this has been stated in the Houseߞthat the average pressure level of the Comet 4B was 90 decibels, a figure which is exceeded by several of the piston-engined aircraft which regularly operate at night. These are figures achieved by weight penalties and other methods which, in answer to the hon. Member for Feltham will have to be maintained in the future. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that B.E.A. has complied with the figures which we have laid down in the services which it has undertaken so far.

Now I come to the applications by the Scandinavian Airlines and Swissair, who both recently asked for permission to schedule a number of Caravelle services at night. Both airlines intend to use Caravelles with Rolls-Royce Avon Mark 527 engines, fitted with noise suppressors. Here again, as my right hon. Friend told the House recently, noise tests were a precondition to consideration of the applications. There was certainly no decision at the time when the timetables were published. Companies publish timetables at their own risk, and they are sometimes disappointed. That has been the case with the Scottish Sunday services, and while I think that some Scottish Members were disappointed, the pass has not, in fact, been sold.

Both Scandinavian Airlines and Swissair have shown that they can keep their noise down to a level comparable with that achieved by B.E.A. with its Comet 4Bs. I should inform the House that my right hon. Friend has now granted permission for these services to proceed. This will involve ten take-offs and ten landings a week, seven by Swissair and three by S.A.S.

Was the noise test carried out for these two airlines?

Yes. That is the point I am making. I have said that these airlines have shown that they can, by the noise tests on which my right hon. Friend has insisted as a pre-condition of considering their applications, keep noise to a level comparable with that achieved by B.E.A. with Comet 4Bs.

I appreciate the difficulty that arises in determining the number of frequencies, because, as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington pointed out, we have to take into account delayed aircraft, and this is a variable factor. At a rough estimate, the figure of ten take-offs at night should not be very wide of the mark. I would not wish to mislead the House, however, into thinking that there will not be any increase. It would be unrealistic to place a complete ban on these operations after 11 p.m., and I am also bound to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) that I do not think that it is a practicable proposition to try to operate these night operations, or any operations, on coastal strips.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington referred to the position at other airports. Of course, these flights have been permitted in a large number of other airports, including Amsterdam, Brussels, Cologne, Copenhagen, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Madrid, Moscow, Nice, Rome, Vienna and Zurich. In the case of Oslo and Stockholm, which he said were closed to jet operation at night, alternative airports are available and are used under unrestricted terms. New York is perhaps particularly fortunate in that there are two runways which enable take-offs to be made over Jamaica Bay and avoid built-up areas.

All I can do is to assure the House that my right hon. Friend and I will continue to insist that the aircraft weight is so arranged that, in conjunction with the best possible operational procedures, the noise levels in the main built-up areas under the take-off paths are significantly less than they are by day. We shall continue to require noise tests in order to satisfy ourselves of this. It may also be of interest to the House to know that we are working on plans for the extension of monitoring, which was a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick. We do check the heights of the aircraft to see that there is compliance with this procedure, and we shall continue to do so, and will try to extend as far as possible this monitoring and checking. We are not unaware of the disturbance which may be caused during phases of an aircraft's flight other than immediately after the take-off.

The real difficulty here is that procedures cannot easily be adapted to reduce noise at every stage. That is the difficulty which faces the 50,000 families, to whom the hon. Gentleman referred. I do not know what is the precise number affected, but, quite obviously, those who live round the boundaries of the airport are going to be disturbed by aircraft noise of all kinds by day and night almost as much by conventional as by jet aircraft.

Our only long-term solution is the abatement of noise at the source, and it was with that primary aim in view that my right hon. Friend held what I think will be regarded as an important meeting on Wednesday last, at which the leading members of the aircraft and aero-engine manufacturing firms and of our own and foreign airlines were present. My right hon. Friend took that opportunity to stress the annoyance which was being caused and the disturbance to which hon. Members have referred. He made it perfectly clear that it was there, and that it was incumbent on all concerned to make a combined effort to tackle this problem, and, that where noise limitations were laid down, they must be adhered to.

I think that the response was encouraging. While recognising, as we must, that airlines will have to operate the types of aircraft that now exist, my right hon. Friend stressed—and this perhaps will be the answer to the hon. Member for Feltham—that they and the aircraft manufacturers would have to give increased attention to the limitation of noise when deciding the specifications for future types. In this connection, the aero-engine manufacturers explained the steps which they are taking to reduce the ratio of noise to power in their current designs. This research should enable the manufacturer of the faster, larger, and heavier aircraft, which we must accept for the future, to take place within the existing limits of noise. In the case of smaller jets, we should do better than merely maintain the position as it is today.

I can say that, as the result of the very great efforts of the aircraft and aero-engine manufacturers, pre-flight studies of the DH121 show that it will be appreciably quieter than the Comet 4B. This is an example of the sort of thing that is taking place. Of course, we should recognise that this noise suppression involves penalties in the form of the weight and the economic operation of the aircraft, but I can assure the House that this is being accepted as necessary in the public interest.

In conclusion, it is only fair to emphasise that the airline companies are doing their best to comply with the operational procedures and make them more effective. The House can be sure that we are all determined to do everything we can to limit and to mitigate the effects of aircraft noise to the fullest extent possible in practical terms and consistent with the operation and continued development of one of the world's major international airports.

Will the hon. Gentleman let hon. Members have full details of the tests made in connection with the Caravelle? The information will be very useful. Will he also take it from me that perceived noise level decibels are not the same as noys?

Perhaps I can write to the hon. Gentleman on both those points and give a fuller explanation.

I welcome the opportunity that you have given me, Mr. Speaker, to raise this very important subject concerning the need for greater recognition and use of the Kite mark and of British Standards Institution standards, especially with regard to consumer goods. Before I come to the main point of this subject, I should like to mention that paragraphs 43 and 46 of the Interim Report of the Committee on Consumer Protection state that it is of some importance that consideration should be given to the possibility of one Minister being designated to cope with the wide variety of consumer interests and to co-ordinate them. I must make it clear that I am not in favour of a vast consumer Ministry, to which without doubt Parkinson's Law would apply and which would be run in typical Civil Service fashion and would not be of ultimate benefit to the consumer.

In considering the wide variety of consumer problems and interests which affect us today, we must remember, against the background which I wish to discuss, the need for greater recognition of the Kite mark and British Standards Institution standards. There are many subjects with which the consumer is concerned but in which he has very little say. For some years, hon. Members have raised in the House various points affecting consumers, and there is a trend today which shows that people are becoming more determined that they shall receive their fair and just reward. They want to know more about the manufacturing process of the end products which they buy and ways in which they can receive good value and a fair return for their money.

For some years we in this House argued about whether weights and measures should be put on various packages. One firm—I believe that it was Messrs. Thomas Hedley and Co. Ltd.—now pack-weight its many packages of soap powders and detergents. Whether this is to be extended and what has been the value of it is nobody's business. One can go from one Ministry to another and perhaps eventually find someone who may let us know whether this is the sort of worth while thing that we want.

What about the numbers of concerns awaiting attention under the Restrictive Practices Act? As at 1st January there were still 1,455 registered agreements, and a great number of these contain register-able restrictions not yet dealt with by the courts. I want to draw attention to one or two of them. This only shows how important is the matter. There are several instances of retail traders not being concerned with whether or not a restrictive practice is correct because they know it will never get before the courts because of the long delay. Let me give one example where it is impossible to pass on to the consumer the benefit which there ought to be because the big three companies in zip fasteners are keeping so many of their concerns to themselves and are demanding that everyone who buys for the retail market shall buy only from them. One company, the Seenozip Company, informs me that it could pass on to the consumer a great deal by way of reductions in cost if it could only break into the market.

What about the flammability of textiles? A committee was set up which for some years considered this matter and went on considering the problem of getting agreements while the children and old people went on burning. This was disgraceful. Some firms like Proban went doggedly on trying to provide an answer and making materials reasonably safe in all reasonable circumstances. We have at long last achieved the standard, but it has not yet been applied in its widest sense. The British Standards Institution managed to get a standard put forward. How can we get it applied?

Must we have another tragedy like that which occurred at Ware? Which Minister is responsible for this sort of thing? Is it the Home Secretary or the Board of Trade? With whom should responsibility lie? Oil heating stoves are a typical example. It took a series of horrible accidents to arouse action. The standards applying to oil heaters needed review before these accidents occurred. There had been no tests for draughts which proved to be the cause of so many of the accidents. There had not been a chance to review the standard, and that is to do with the question of money. Here we come to the crux of the matter—the need for greater recognition of the Kite mark. I cannot ask today for more money. In answer to a Parliamentary Question of mine on 17th May, I was told that £10,000 is given towards the cost of the work of the British Standards Institution for the domestic consumer. This is a pitiable and lamentably low sum. Of course, industry must help, and there are subscriptions from the association of the Consumer Advisory Council, but at this time, when a great deal of stress is laid on the need for understanding of values in the country, it seems very paltry that the Government should tie themselves to such a small sum.

I know that the Government give £160,000 annually to the general resources of the British Standards Institution and industry subscribes as well, but there must be other means of enlivening industry to spend more money through this medium. I believe that one of the best ways to enliven industry would be by the Government offering support to a much greater extent.

If quality standards are to be successful, the Kite mark or its equivalent must be 100 per cent. worth while. The B.S.I., in its leaflet entitled "Mark and Meaning", makes a very interesting point. It states:

"Many organisations have submitted evidence to the Molony Committee on consumer protection. Some have pubished their views. One interesting point emerges. There is a very wide9pread feeling that these marks need controlling"

I agree with this 100 per cent. If we are to have quality marks that are worth anything at all, they really must be quality marks. They must not merely be marks which are handed out in haphazard fashion which give the buyer an unwarranted feeling of security. If the Kite mark and the standard on which it is based are to be worth anything, they must be revised regularly and kept up to date. They must change with the changing pattern of life, and this in itself is a very large task. I know that this will cost money, but if they are to be worth anything they will have to be kept up to date.

What about the Kite mark itself? I do not know whether manufacturers are afraid of it because of its miserable look. L looks to me rather like a sad, tired heart at the end of Valentine's Day which has not been taken up by anyone, I thoroughly dislike it in its present form, but I approve of what it stands for. I would not have been spending part of what might have been a pleasant afternoon passed far away from Westminster if I did not feel that this subject was of major importance. Whoever designed this Kite mark must have designed it in a very easy-going way and with no idea of the need for making an impact on the general public. I cannot understand how it has come to be accepted in its present form as the quality seal which, without doubt, it is. Somehow or other, we must find a designer and encourage him to produce a really worth-while design.

Older people look back to the days of the Utility mark as a standard. The Utility mark during the war was essential, and it was a very good thing. Incidentially, it is worth noting that the Utility mark was based on information drawn from branded goods firms who fixed retail prices and standards and were able to provide a basis on which to fix that particular standard. But people like myself, who can remember the Utility standard, do not want to he tied to that kind of standard today. We want our minds fixed on something which has snob value and top value, and not something which is merely a mark which says, "This is not as low as it might be"

The first thing which should be done is to produce a Kite mark or some other kind of mark which really puts across to the public what it is and why it is. The present mark is dreary and dull. It has no impact and it does not carry a proper guarantee or make the public fully understand what it means. Once such a design has been passed—and I hope it will not take the many months which it has taken to get the inflammability standard fixed—we shall be faced with the necessity to let the public know all about it. It will be no good sitting back and hoping that the public will understand.

The public are being gulled by guarantees of all sorts—good, bad and otherwise. How are the public to know? Have the Government any idea of the standard of testing on which these unofficial labels and seals are issued? Do the Government accept any responsibility in the matter? We have a wide variety of these standards and seals. I am not talking about manufacturers' individual guarantees; I am talking about those guarantees offered by bodies which do not make any testing process known to the public and give no idea to the public of the basis from which their standards are drawn. This is a subject which will become increasingly important as time goes on.

I am here today because I am nervous for the public. I am wondering about the public who accept these guarantees and seals which are issued for lack of a really first-class British Standards seal capable of being understood, recognised and taken up completely by the manufacturers. Those who believe when they buy an article that a certain label gives them security are in many cases left completely in the air. They buy something bearing a large label which means no more than the paper on which it is written. Such labels look impressive. Some are, no doubt, satisfactory and I do not intend to draw comparisons between one and another. I am here today to draw attention to the need for having a basic quality seal sponsored by the British Standards Institution and thoroughly recognised and worth while —something which the public can accept and from which the public can expect reasonable security.

If one looks at a number of consumer goods in a big store one sees the "Good Housekeeping" seal on them. It looks absolutely wonderful, but I do not know what are the methods of testing. I do not know the background. But I am certain that in many cases people buy an article with this seal on it because it looks good and not because there is a guarantee of security. As members of the public, we can only guess. We are living in a country where our standard of living is high and where our goods must be of high quality. We are waiting for a lead, which has got to come from somewhere, whether from the Minister, or perhaps from the Molony Committee when it has finished looking into this matter.

It appears to me that we are still in a muddle between individual manufacturers' guarantees, these different seals and labels, and the B.S.I. standard which is based on the only satisfactory and fully-known method of testing available in the country. The British Standards Institution label can be found on only a small range of consumer goods and it will take a long time before we get it on a large range of goods. But it is a fair and honest mark. The B.S.I. has its own standards and methods of testing and draws its samples from articles available on the market. It has a properly conducted method of testing, and it has got to be better known and understood.

Here we come to the reason why the public do not demand it more. The chicken and egg theory has been applied to many things, and it can surely be applied to this subject. Manufacturers say, "We can sell this article anywhere in the world. We do not require a British Standards Institution label at all. We are not interested in the Kite mark." The public say, "We do not know what it means. All we know is that we see a wonderful guarantee on the article and it makes us feel that this item is worth while, and we therefore buy it." It may be a worthwhile guarantee; on the other hand, it may not.

How are we to get the public to demand a standard which will give them protection and security? How are we to make the manufacturers realise that the public require this standard? I think that we should introduce a system of graded Kite marks. A number of high-quality manufacturers in the country do not feel that the Kite mark is of a sufficiently high standard for them to use. Certainly the Kite mark provides a satisfactory basis on which all good manufacturers should work, but if I were a high-quality manufacturer I suppose I would not feel interested. It would not have for me any snob value and it would not have a selling point.

Therefore, I believe that graded Kite marks would be a good idea. We should have the basic Kite mark—something below which no manufacturer should be allowed to produce—and moving from that we should proceed to various levels from "Z" up to "A" quality."A" quality should be an absolute hallmark of the acme of production in this country, and should be given to only a very few highly-finished first-class products, and these would be highly competitive. That is the way the standard will have the meaning which it was intended to have when first it was produced.

Today we have seen how the Restrictive Practices Court has removed agreements among carpet manufacturers as not being substantially in the public interest. A system for grading carpets is now being discussed and will soon be made public by the British Standards Institution. This grading brings in another angle, and I draw to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary the rising interest throughout this country in this sort of thing Grading will be much more interesting than a mere basic label. Graded standards and a graded Kite mark will be very important if we are to make the quality of this country's output of manufacturing goods as high as it should be. The public does not yet know the value of the British Standards Institution's standards.

Of course, there are discriminating women who belong to various worthwhile bodies, like the business and professional women's organisations, women's institutes, townswomen's guilds, and so on. Most of those organisations in their own particular groups take in one or other of the two magazines which are available to them at present Shoppers Guide and Which? They carefully study those magazines to see how they can become discriminating buyers and discriminating supporters of good quality. But they are not the vast majority of consumers and we must always try to think of the people who do not look beyond the ordinary rough finished article, and who, if the finished label is big and catches the eye, are more easily caught by it.

Here we have the problem of salesmen. In the last few months, I have undertaken a rather interesting survey. I went round a large number of stores in and around London looking at a variety of bedding. In every store I went to I was told—and I cannot remember all the different names of the bedding manufacturers—that this was "so and so" and "such and such", who were first-class manufacturers and who guaranteed the article for so long. I have no doubt that each guarantee put out in good faith, but when I studied it, I could not find the Kite mark.

In each case, I asked the salesmen about it and without exception they looked blank and said, "Kite mark?".I said that I meant the British Standards Institution Kite mark. I said that I understood that a particular bedding was up to that standard and carried the Kite mark. On several occasions we found it attached somewhere around the bed, but it was not used as a selling point. It was not an important point and the salesmen had not the least idea about it. Apparently, none of the branded manufacturers has very much interest in it. Here, again, there appears to be an important case for grading, because if a manufacturer feels that his own guarantee on his own label is better than the Kite mark he will not bother to use the Kite mark and yet, if we are to bring standards up to what we require, the use of the Kite mark will have to be something in which everybody joins.

In those cases the Kite mark had not made any impact whatsoever on the salesmen and, apparently, the public did not ask for it. The big stores could do a great deal in this matter by stocking Kite branded goods and encouraging their salesmen to use the Kite mark as a selling point, themselves understanding and expecting the high quality Kite mark on everything they use.

It is interesting to note that local authorities throughout the country are rather laggard in this matter. I attended a furniture trade fair in Cologne this year and I was intrigued to find from the Czechoslovakian and Yugoslavian furniture manufacturers that their biggest buyers were the British. A great deal of the furniture which they made was sold to local authorities—highbacked chairs and so on of a cheap quality. It is a great pity that local authorities do not insist that all the furniture they buy, for whatever purpose, should have the British Standard Institution label and measure up to that standard, whether it is bought at home or abroad then being a matter for them.

It is interesting that the United States Air Force has done that very thing. All furniture bought for United States Forces in this country has to measure up to B.S.I. standards, and that is helping us to maintain those standards. Our own Royal Air Force has yet to take a lead in this matter, but I cannot see that it would cost it large sums of money more than it spends now on these items. However, it would get something in return —a satisfactory standard for all furnishing in quarters, institutions and so on. We have a long way to go to start the idea of quality standards, but they must be standards of quality supported by the public and the public authorities.

The value of these standards must follow opinion. Today there is a mass of outlandish display advertising through the Press or television, pushed on to anybody likely to spend anything. In the Press and on I.T.V. there is high pressure salesmanship at very high cost, which must eventually be borne by the consumer's product. Whether through television or through the enormous and expensive advertisements throughout the newspapers, the pressure is to buy and to buy literally anything.

In many cases it is the manufacturers with the most money to spend who can do the most advertising. That is fairly obvious, that it is not always the manufacturer who does the most advertising who is the most satisfactory person in the end for supplying the item to the consumer. What is a man who is making a satisfactory object but unable to compete with that tremendous weight of advertising and sales pressure to do? The one redress he has is to provide goods of a quality standard and to put that standard quality on them, but the public is not yet aware of the fact that very often those who advertise least produce the better items for the purpose in question. We have a great deal of informing to do, because it is only against a known standards, such as the British Standards Institution produces, and a label such as the Kite mark, which carried a proper guarantee, that we will be able to get anywhere in the vast and vexed problem.

Here I come to the British Standards Institution itself. Although it is doing a very good job, there is no doubt that in many ways it needs livening up. There are still a number of manufacturers in the country, and many members of the public, who, although they may know about the British Standards Institution through the organisations to which they belong, and know the value of the Kite mark, still look upon the B.S.I. as a rather fussy, fuddy-duddy old-fashioned adjunct to some part of the Civil Service.

The British Standards Institution has the reputation of being slightly pompous and stuffy and rather refined in everything it does. It must go out to sell the Kite mark to the public as something worthwhile. First of all, the Kite mark must be worthwhile, and then it must be seen to be worthwhile and must be recognised as such by the public. The B.S.I. has much to do, and it must be more aggressive in doing it. This is no job for the Civil Service approach. This is a job for a vigorous and forward-looking group of men and women who are prepared to put their story across and, in their story, to show the solidity of the background on which it is built.

We must have a new Kite mark, whether under that name or not I do not know, but it must not be the poor, wishy-washy, miserable thing which it is at the moment. It must catch the public eye and attract the public. It must give the public a basic security on which all good manufacturing in this country should be built. We must make this a mark which looks worth while as well as being worth while.

I believe that in the end the public will agitate for this. They will certainly do so if they know that it is worth while. Some manufacturers as yet do not see the importance of investment in this sort of development for their own security and satisfaction, as well as for the security and satisfaction of the customers whom, I believe, the majority of manufacturers in this country wish to serve very well.

There has been a lot of "lone wolfing", and many manufacturers saying, "I can find my own outlets. Why should I worry?" We must show that a manufacturer can have a standard, while recognising that this does not abolish his own individualistic characteristics as a manufacturer and salesman. It is a standard which simply gives the public a basis upon which a manufacturer's own type of output can be built, ensuring that his firm rests on a sound foundation which is fully recognised throughout the country.

I am sure that more recognition of the Kite mark will have to be given soon. Indeed, there has been better recognition of it abroad than here. Many items which are exported are sold abroad only on the understanding that they carry this Kite mark and measure up to the standards laid down for those items by the British Standards Institution.

We must get out of the lordly attitude of the past. This is certainly a professional job, to be done by a professional body but, as we have found in all trade negotiations, there must be a frank, friendly and helpful approach. This can be no institutional approach. Indeed, the word "institution" intends to put people off. This must be a practical, business, go-ahead campaign if we are to have a first-class result and a Kite mark of quality recognised throughout the country.

Often it is possible to co-ordinate the Kite mark with the manufacturer's own mark. This arose in the case of the Oil Heater Manufacturers Association; its mark was co-ordinated with the Kite mark, and now all heaters must be made to standards laid down by the British Standards Institution. We can point out that this works without removing the individual characteristic of the association or company concerned.

This mark is a protection against poor quality goods. When manufacturers recognise this more fully they will use the mark more fully. I think that they will then agree that as the B.S.I. carry out tests and publish its results in, for example, the Shoppers' Guide, for it is very much better that these goods should be tested, complaints made and weaknesses in the items made known, than that they should be sold abroad, or even in this country, and then have consumers complain about quality after the damage has been done.

We can see the advantage of this standard in motor-car safety belts. The standard for these belts has not yet been published but four firms are already making them to the new B.S.I. standard and a fifth is on the way. I believe that as soon as standards have been published and a certain stage has been reached, manufacturers will get together and have open days to show all they can do in these lines. This also means factory inspection by the B.S.I. before the Kite mark is given. This will make sure that when people buy a safety belt they will know that it will give them the protection which they require. The same thing happened about safety helmets. There were unsatisfactory and dangerous safety helmets, but a British standard was introduced and applied to all helmets made.

These standards give a guarantee against the manufacture of low-quality goods in this country. I believe that there should be a minimum standard for anything made in this country and that we cannot afford poor quality, whether the article costs 6d. or £600. There should be a queue of manufacturers waiting to have their products tested. Particularly in consumer goods, to which I am drawing attention, in every industry manufacturers who have not yet reached the stage of joining the queue for their goods to be tested should be told about the importance of this. They will not come forward until they see something in it for themselves, and throughout the country too many do not yet see any advantage for themselves in the Kite mark. We must prove to them the importance of ensuring that, whether they are good or not so good, they manufacture at least not to below the level of the standard; and they can manufacture to as much above the standard as they wish.

The publicity has been very poor. It is strange to note that the B.B.C. and I.T.V. prefer to show programmes about Cowboy Joe and angry young men and sexy plays than to put across some commonsense to the public. Much more of this could be done by them, and they should provide more programmes which allow the public to see what they ought to have rather than, as in so many cases, allowing the public to see what in my opinion they ought not to see, particularly the younger generation.

I should like to see more discussions in schools in the final year. We hear a great deal about what young people must learn, read and be taught in school in their final year, but some understanding of how to buy as well as how to budget is becoming a necessity for them when they go out into the highly competitive world of today. We could do more in putting this aspect across to the younger generation and impressing upon them the idea that they should not accept something which does not measure up to a recognisable standard. Many more of our women's organisations should know more about this. I have mentioned some of them who do, but it is a somewhat dreary subject and the Kite mark does not arouse any excitement that it is worth while. Nothing in the publicity which is put across gives the public more than a solid and rather stodgy idea of what the Kite mark means.

The Shoppers Guide has been well worth while and is a great advantage if people want to know what measures up to the standard they want and what is most suitable for the job in hand. As yet, however, it is limited in publication and it is nothing like as popular or as widely distributed as it would be if, first, more money was available and, secondly, the public knew more about it.

Standards are readily available, although not nearly widely enough known, for items ranging from children's wooden cots to eustachian catheters. We must develop a wider sale of the Shoppers Guide and we must recognise that certain compulsory standards are essential, particularly when safety is concerned. I am all against having a vast range of compulsory standards, because in the past we have been clever enough to produce compulsory standards only when they were absolutely essential. We have not been clever, however, when we have produced them far too late. I should like to see an extension by popular demand, except when safety is specifically in question, and then a compulsory standard is necessary.

We need to inform the public more of the value of the standard of the Kite mark and to make certain that it is worth informing people about, is easily recognisable, and is something for which manufacturers will scramble. We have now reached the point of no return in the whole idea of consumer standards. We can go on and be very successful, we can make the country worth-while standard conscious, or we can simply say that we do not care about the consumer and the vast range of unspecified and, in many cases, rather irresponsible standards available to the public will be allowed to range the country and nobody will know where they are. I thank you for the opportunity of raising this subject, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I assure you that the time allotted to me has been very welcome indeed.

To use a conventional phrase, I am sure that the whole House, and particularly the Opposition, will welcome the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin). It was about consumers, and anything to do with consumers should be of intense interest to Members of Parliament. Although we hear a lot about workers and about employees, all people are consumers. Anybody who brings forward a learned discourse on how to help consumers to buy properly earns a great debt of gratitude from the House.

If I might digress for a moment, I am delighted to see my hon. Friend so handsomely contradict that malicious saying of Dr. Johnson, who said, I believe, that a woman speaking was like a dog walking on his hind legs; it did not do it very well, and the marvel was that it did it at all. I am delighted to find that old rascal being so contradicted by my hon. Friend's speech.

I do not pretend to know all that there is to know about the Kite mark, but what is clear from my hon. Friend's speech is that for some reason it is an uphill fight. I can well imagine that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who is to reply to this debate, may well wonder what we can do in view of rather the difficulties that this good idea has met.

First, what about the manufacturers? If what my hon. Friend has said is true, the Kite mark is sensible and wise and it could be productive, and yet manufacturers are not tumbling over to get it. I doubt whether merely more advertisements on I.T.V. would make them queue up to adopt the mark, or, indeed, whether anything said here would induce them to do so, because commercial reasons are not making it popular to them.

One thing that occurs to me concerning the manufacturers' side is that if too many labels are attached to a bedstead nobody quite knows what label signifies what and the good will that a firm wants to build up it wants for itself. It does not want to build up good will for the Kite organisation, but wants it for itself. I remember as a young man, when I was concerned with trade marks in Lancashire, the terrific battles we had concerning them and how essential it was that in West Africa cloth stamped with a tiger meant that it was made by a certain manufacturer and woven by certain mills in Lancashire. Everybody was wanting his name to be known for good material and good workmanship. The marks were extremely valuable. Enormous sums were spent fighting to maintain them and not to get confusion. Therefore, marks on merchandise can have, and are generally thought to have, an enormous value.

It does not help for a manufacturer to confuse the mark. It is not much good having a lion leaping about over a wall and then a kite stuck on the corner, so that nobody quite knows that the mark is associated with the goods. One of the difficulties about the trademark is that a good firm wants to establish its own good name and does not want to share it with anybody else or to get it lost.

We talk about the standards that were introduced during the more restrictive days when we had minimum standards, and that is the danger. I can well understand the Kite mark being compulsory, as my hon. Friend said, on certain safety devices. It means that they are up to a minimum standard. People think, however, that if they are obtaining an article which represents a minimum standard, that is another way of saying that it is a low-quality and not a high-quality article. Take the example of having the Kite mark on safety helmets for motor cyclists or on stoves or appliances of that nature. Everybody takes it to mean that the article qualifies and is reliable. If, then, the Kite mark is put on expensive furniture, people say, "That is queer. I thought it was a good type of furniture, but I see that it is just minimum". There are, therefore, great difficulties in propaganda. I have every reason to believe that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is an expert in propaganda. He has been trained in it. Even his propaganda, however, will have great difficulty in overcoming the reluctance of the manufacturers.

The other thing that worries me—and I say this quite frankly because I like the idea of helping the consumer to be protected—is that he can only be pro- tected in the things which he cannot possibly leave to his own judgment. There are some things which the man in the street cannot form an opinion about, for they are too scientific and too complicated. In those cases he must either take the word of the firm or ask his friends.

I know that many people pay attention to the Good Housekeeping certificate for domestic appliances, and that can have some use in a limited field. But I find it difficult to believe that it could be spread very far, because people, rightly or wrongly, trust their own judgment on many ranges of goods. Very often people foolishly buy shoddy articles, but by and large they trust their own judgment. If they do not do so in buying such articles as a refrigerator or a gas stove, they ask their friends and take a kind of census of opinion. I do not think that a mark on such goods in most cases has a very great effect.

We must not overplay protection of the consumer. We are supposed to be an educated democracy. People should be told how to buy, but one should not do that by telling them not to examine an article itself but to examine its label, and that if a certain label is affixed, then the article is all right. The minimum standard label does not state that the article is, for instances, the best refrigerator. It may stop one buying a bad bargain but it will not necessarily get one a good bargain. People go for a good bargain and not necessarily for a minimum standard.

Perhaps all this is depressing for my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West, but my object is to get her to direct her campaigns to the real obstacles. On the whole, the idea of a popular mark guaranteeing minimum standards has great attractions, but the uphill fight which she is having shows that there are commercial difficulties which may be insurmountable, and which make it necessary to cut down her campaign to apply, for instance, to safety goods. These could have a minimum qualification, such as a guarantee that electric light bulbs would not break in pieces when switched on, and stoves would not blow up when lit. These are things of potential danger and could have a mark, but I am not convinced that, apart from safety devices, a better service generally could be obtained. I shall not detain the House any longer, for it is anxious to get away for its well earned vacation. I will conclude and promise not again to weary the House with any long address from me.

This is far from being the first occasion on which the Kite mark has entered our debates, and I shall be surprised if it is the last. That is an indication of the interest which is taken in the mark as a protection for the consuming public—and rightly so, for the well being of the consumer is something which is very properly the concern of Members on both sides of the House. I must comment, however, after all the noise we have had from the party opposite about the need for a Ministry of Consumer Protection and the way in which it talks about this at election times, that the fact that there is not a single representative on the benches opposite now is a sad commentary on its real interest in the consumer.

My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin) made certain observations about weights and measures and registered agreements under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act into which it is not appropriate for me to go today. Nor do I wish to go into the matter of tests for inflammability of textiles, which we debated on Monday. I do, however, take up one controversial point which arose when she said that those who advertise least produce the best standards. That may be so in a limited field, but it is not true of the economy overall. I should not like anyone to be under any misapprehension that I share the hon. Lady's views about advertising. I think it performs a most valuable function.

What I wanted to make clear was that it was not always necessarily the manufacturers who advertise who produced the best goods, and that there were many others who produced as good or better who did not advertise.

What my hon. Friend is saying is that those people should advertise more, not the others less, and I agree. The Kite mark represents a serious, sustained, and, in my own personal view, wholly praiseworthy attempt to help the consuming public. I think we all agree that the Kite mark has a good deal to commend it.

It is based upon British Standards which have been voluntarily arrived at after the most careful consideration by those concerned. The standards are—the British Standards Institution stoutly contends and as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) has said—not just minimum standards or a common denominator but good pass marks indicative of a good honest product. Anyone who bothers to inquire can find out just what they cover and what they do not cover, and where the Kite mark is used the consumer and the retailer have an assurance that an independent and impartial body has taken all the necessary steps to verify that this particular product deserves a good pass mark.

As my hon. Friend has said, the Kite mark is a safeguard against shoddy goods, and is a check on extravagant claims. It guarantees that spot checks are continually being made. The Kite mark is not a once-and-for-all award, but it does guarantee that there is an underlying standard and method of supervision freely open to anyone who inquires.

We have heard today from the hon. Lady the disappointment that British Standards are not more widely used. I suggest that we should not allow ourselves to forget that there are instances of widespread use and acceptance of the Kite mark. It is used on the great majority of electric blankets made in this country, and many manufacturers of these blankets are glad to include the mark in their own advertisements. It is widely used on electric light bulbs, on furniture, on bedding, and on pressure cookers, and there are other goods in connection with which it has made useful progress. It has played a part in these fields and is accepted not only by small manufacturers but by large ones also whose names and brands are nationally advertised and nationally known. Let us remember that, even if it is not used as widely as its supporters would wish, there are these significant fields in which many manufacturers welcome it, some retailers insist upon it, and many consumers derive real benefit from it.

But there are, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East said, two schools of thought about the value of the Kite mark. I have enumerated some of the advantages, but there are those who feel that it really is the lowest common denominator, that it is not a standard of excellence. Manufacturers often explain their unwillingness to seek a Kite mark licence, or to use a Kite mark, with the argument that their own brand names, vigorously promoted and jealously guarded, are the consumers' best protection. I must confess that there is a good deal in this argument. Or they argue that the use of the Kite mark on a product of appreciably better standard than the British Standard will suggest to the customer that it is not really better than all the others and not worth the extra price even though the Kite mark is added. That was the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East. Certainly, some manufacturers hold strongly to such opinions, and in many cases they are among the leaders, producing first-class merchandise well suited to meet consumer demands.

Another difficulty is that it is not always easy to produce an agreed British Standard on which the award of the Kite mark can be based. There are cases in which the consumer organisations would dearly have liked such a Standard established but in which the manufacturers do not think it practicable to produce one. This may be because there are variations beyond their control, in the basic materials which they use; perhaps because quality depends on intangible craftsmanship and know-how; perhaps because no consistent and satisfactory tests can be devised to verify compliance with a standard.

My hon. Friend suggested that one of the things to do would be to have a graded Kite mark. Certainly, I should be glad if the B.S.I. would consider this idea, if, indeed, it has not already done so. But without anticipating any conclusions it might come to on the subject, I would think that it is one of those ideas which are not quite so easy to carry out in practice as one would like them to be.

What I fear might happen if there is no clear distinction in the Kite mark between the better and the ordinary grade is that the public would have no means of knowing which was which. If the ordinary grades were distinguishable by the public from the better grades, and that after all would be the essence of such arrangements, then very few—indeed I would say no—manufacturers would want to proclaim that their perfectly respectable produce was merely of the ordinary grade. But, possibly, there is a way to get over these difficulties and I am sure that B.S.I. will continue to examine them. The point that we want to stick to here is that the B.S.I. Kite mark is a good pass, and I want to emphasise the word "good".

I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be all to the good if the Kite mark were more widely known and recognised. The approach which I believe the British Standards Institution now regards as most promising is to make the Kite mark and its merits so well known to members of the public that they will increasingly demand in the shops that they be supplied only with Kite marked goods. Under such pressure, the argument runs, the retailer will press in turn until the manufacturer recognises that use of the Kite mark has a positive sales value to him. I confess that this seems to me an eminently sensible and practical approach to the problem, and I know that the British Standards Institution has already done a great deal in this direction.

I recall that an excellent display was staged in Regent Street last summer. The Institution has arranged numerous others in large stores and has been encouraged by the Co-operative Wholesale Society to participate in the Society's well-attended exhibitions at various places throughout the country. The efforts of the Consumer Advisory Council and of the Women's Advisory Committee, through their lectures and conferences, may be less spectacular but no less fruitful, and the daily Press has shown increasing interest with references to the Kite mark, both in news items and in special articles. The Press has shown a more forward-looking policy in this respect than have radio and television.

All this must surely have the progressive effect which the Consumer Advisory Council and the Institution desire. I am sure that they would like to do more and progress faster and I would be the last to wish to obstruct them. But as I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West today—and she was very guarded in what she said—she was hinting that the Government might do more to encourage and assist such efforts. I can assure the House that the Government recognise the value of the work which the B.S.I. is doing.

The Board of Trade makes an annual grant-in-aid to the Institution, which in more recent times has been supplemented by a sum specifically for its work on behalf of the domestic consumer. Our grants are in no way sought or given for the execution of specific projects. The Institution is rightly jealous of its independent status. It depends on the Government for less than one-third of its total income. It has always been understood that, having made known to us its broad plans and financial estimates, the Institution is at complete liberty to apply its total income as it thinks fit.

For the present financial year we are giving the Institution a general grant of £160,000, as my hon. Friend mentioned, and a special grant of £10,000 in support of its work for the domestic consumer. The former sum is greater by £10,000 than any previous grant to B.S.I. The latter is maintained at last year's level. It is, of course, true that there are always, many projects of importance clamouring for attention, and that what is desirable has to be related to what is practicable. But this is a problem which we all face in our lives. How the Institution will decide to allocate its resources this year I do not know, but since its grants from public funds are greater than ever before it certainly seems reasona0ble to suppose that publicity for the Kite mark can be maintained at or above the useful level of last year's activity.

On the question of special assistance for publicity, let me say at the outset that the Board of Trade has had no request from the Institution for a special grant for the specific purpose of publicising the Kite mark. But, even sup- posing that such an idea were advanced for serious consideration, I frankly confess that I do not see what could reasonably be done about it at the present time. This issue of the Kite mark is not self-contained. It is part of the whole question of consumer protection which the Molony Committee has under review. I believe that it would be out of the question to take action on one aspect of the problem without the Committee's advice, and equally out of the question to expect the Committee to give advice on that one aspect in advance of its overall judgment. I do not know which horse the Committee on Consumer Protection will back, but I do know that, having invited the advice of as competent a body as one can find, it is the height of folly to invest large sums of the taxpayers' money in advance of that advice.

It has also been suggested that the Government should make the requirement of the British Standard compulsory. This, again, is within the province of the Molony Committee. I would have the gravest doubts in suggesting in advance, even if it were in order this afternoon, the possibility of legislation on these lines. If such a suggestion were made, it would doubtless prove controversial, and I can well see that strong opinions would be held on both sides as to whether compulsory standards were or were not required.

I now come to the suggestion that there are a number of British Standards which are, in the light of today's knowledge, obsolete. The hon. Lady mentioned particularly oil heaters in this regard. I think that her general contention may very well be true, though we ought not to exaggerate the magnitude of this problem. What we have to remember here, I think, is that a British standard incorporated in a Kite mark can be regarded only as a "good pass". With improvements in practice and in our knowledge of how to make and use things and the evolution of new methods of testing things, the standard of the "good pass" can be, and should be, raised.

No doubt the technical committees of B.S.I. are already exceedingly busy in devising standards for things at present not subject to standards, and it may therefore be necessary for the public at large, and I would add, such organs of B.S.I. as the Consumer Advisory Council and the Women's Advisory Committee to bring to the notice of those concerned in B.S.I. the need for bringing some particular standard up to date.

The hon. Lady mentioned the popularity of other seals of approval, such as the Good Housekeeping seal, and the Lux Washing Bureau, and I have noted what she said on the relative popularity of the Kite mark and of other seals of approval. I would ask her, and the House, however, to excuse me from commenting on this point, because it would be difficult to do so without becoming involved in a matter which is, I understand, at present the subject of litigation. Therefore, I do not propose to say any words on that.

In conclusion, I should like to congratulate the B.S.I. on the work it has already done on consumer standards. It is not working alone in this field and I do not wish to attempt the invidious task of assessing the relative merits of its work and that of its colleagues. For the reasons I have given, we must await the Molony Committee's Report before we can decide on any changes in Government policy.

In the meantime, there is much that the Institution and manufacturers can do to further this useful work, and I wish them every success. I am sure that the whole House will join with me in thanking the hon. Lady for raising this very important subject on the Adjournment today. Equally, I should like to say to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East that, if his remarks about this being the last time he will address this House are true, this is a sad day for us all. We have enjoyed his speeches. He has enlightened our debates, brought great powers of oratory and great common sense and wisdom to them, and I, for one, shall miss his voice in the future.

I am most grateful to have the opportunity of raising this question of payments to holders of the Military Medal, but I am rather sorry that it so happens that this subject comes as the last debate on the very last day before the Whitsun Recess. This is not a prelude to an apology to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for cutting short his Whitsun Recess, because I know that, contrary to the belief of the general public, junior Ministers are the hardest-worked people in the world and do not get a holiday anyway. What I am really sorry about is that many hon. Members who signed a Motion about this question and who were anxious to support me today are not able to do so.

In making my own plea for these old soldiers of the First World War, who earned the Military Medal, I should like to say that as a matter of principle I believe that the grant of any monetary award to people who have won a decoration for gallantry is absolutely wrong.

Nevertheless, it has been started, and as it exists all we can do is to see that such monetary awards are given on a basis of justice. The thin end of the wedge was driven in a long time ago, when an award of £10 a year was given to all holders of the Victoria Cross. Even in those early days there was an anomaly, because the award was given only to people who had won it when serving as private or non-commissioned officers. That did not matter at the time, because a very wide gulf existed, financially, economically and socially, between officers and men, but the anomaly grew as time went on.

First of all, the award of £10 was increased to £19 14s. 3d. by various pensions increase awards. Later on, a special grant of £75 for hardship was given, although a very strict needs or means test had to be satisfied before it was given. Much later—in fact, only in July of last year—all the previous awards were washed out, and, instead, one annual payment of £100 was granted to all holders of the Victoria Cross, irrespective of their ranks, or of when they earned it, or of what their means were. That is the point I emphasise; at least the award was put on a sensible basis, namely, that it must be absolutely equal for everybody. The same thing applies in the case of the Distinguished Conduct Medal. There the award of £20 in cash is given to all holders, irrespective of their means, or of when they earned it.

But in the case of the Military Medal the basis is different. I should like to give a brief history of the matter. In 1944, or towards the end of the last war, a general review was undertaken by the Government on the question of the payment of monetary awards to people who had won decorations, and it was decided for the first time that there should be this cash payment of £20 to all people who had won the Military Medal, except that those who had won it when serving a long-service engagement, or had been discharged with a disability pension—in other words, those entitled to a permanent pension—would get 6d, a day extra on their pension instead of the £20 cash award.

The Government, in their very great unwisdom, decided that this award was to be limited to those people who had won the Military Medal after 2nd September, 1939. This debate is on an entirely non-political basis, but I hope that the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton)—whom I am very glad to see has come here this afternoon to support me—will not mind if I say that I consider that the decision of the Government then was even more foolish and more unjust than the decision of the Labour Government in 1951 to raise the retirement pension for some but not all retirement pensioners.

When the Labour Government did that they did at least discriminate in favour of those people most in need. The increase in pension went to the existing pensioners and was denied to those who came of pensionable age after the regulation came into force. But in the case of the Military Medal the reverse was the practice. The people most in need—the older ones—were denied the money. It was given to the young people.

What was £20 to a young man, aged about 30 and demobilised in 1945 or 1946, who almost certainly fell straight into a good job when he left the Service?

He might have earned that sum in a single week. If he had suffered injury due to the war he would get 6d. a day on his pension, which is 3s. 6d. a week or £9 2s. 6d. a year. That would not be much to him, but it would make a great difference to some of the old people. No holders of the Military Medal won in the First World War can now be under 60, and this sum could mean quite a bit to them. It could mean the difference between their having a holiday or not having one.

What is the reason for this injustice and the Government's refusal to rectify it? In a letter to me dated 18th January and in answer to a Question on 17th February, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said that the reasons were both financial and practical. On the financial side, my hon. Friend pointed out that, whereas in the first World War there were no less than 116,000 winners of the Military Medal, in the Second World War there were only 17,000. He went on to say that if the cash grant were to be extended to those who won it in the First World War the cost would be several million pounds.

I should like to know how my hon. Friend arrived at that figure. The Oxford Dictionary gives this definition of "several": "A few; more than two, but not many". Therefore, the very lowest amount the Parliamentary Secretary could mean by "several" was £3 million. If the amount of the award£20—is multiplied by 116,000—the number of people who won the Military Medal in the First World War—the figure of £2,320,000 is arrived at as an absolute maximum for the cost.

We know that in practice the cost would amount to much less than that, because many holders have died, many' of them have no heirs, or their heirs are untraceable, and a number of holders would also be untraceable. In any case, is £2 million, if it is as much as that, too much for us to give when a question of what I maintain is plain justice is involved?

I should like to quote from a letter I received from an old-age pensioner over 70 who won the Military Medal in the First World War. He said: "Fancy quibbling about this small gratuity when we allow all these people from other countries, from west and from east, to come over here and start drawing the dole straight away". Those were not the actual words. If I were to quote them I should most certainly be out of order as I should be using un-Parliamentary language, but that is what my correspondent meant. It is a very difficult accusation to answer. It is certainly impossible to answer it to the satisfaction of the writer.

Having dealt with the financial objection, I come now to the practical objection. In his letter to me, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said this:

"Apart from the size of the payment which would amount to several million pounds, the administrative difficulties of making the awards applicable to all holders of the Military Medal would be enormous. Our records of present holders of the medal dating from the First World War are very scanty and we would also have to resolve the general question of paying awards into the estates of those who have died since 1918."

I do not feel that I can accept those reasons, or perhaps I should say excuses. Are the administrative difficulties really so enormous? Would our civil servants have to burn all that amount of midnight oil to establish these facts? If by any chance my hon. Friend has the information available now, I should be grateful if he would answer these questions. Are not all these awards noted in the Regimental Records Office? They should be easily obtainable. In any case, why should not the onus of claiming the award be on the claimant? Would it not be possible for us to send postcards round to Post Offices which claimants could be given to send in, just as was done in the case of application for War Service Medals for the Second World War?

I should like now to deal with one other objection which one often hears as having been a possible one which counted with the Government but which, very naturally, my hon. Friend would not like to mention. It is suggested that the Military Medal was more cheaply earned in the First World War than in the Second.

The figures are quoted as proof of that, namely, that 116,000 won it in the First World War and only 17,000 in the second. I hope very much that my hon. Friend will say very definitely today that the Government were in no sense influenced by that fact.

I should like to thank my hon. and gallant Friend for giving way, because this is such an important point. The Government had no such consideration whatever, and cast no reflection on those holders of the Military Medal who won it in the First World War.

I am most grateful for that assurance. Perhaps I could develop that point a little more, because I am quite sure that there are many people—indeed, I know it to be the case from the letters I have received—who have that suspicion in their minds.

Anybody who has been in the Services knows, of course, that decorations are sometimes earned more easily by some people than they are by others. That is inevitable, but although there were so many more Military Medals earned in the First World War than in the second, we have to remember that far more men in the Army were serving in the front line for a much longer period in the first war than in the second. As anybody knows, some Military Medals in the first war were earned much more cheaply than those earned in the second, and vice versa. We cannot generalise on the subject. A lot of people will be extremely glad of the assurance which my hon. Friend has given the House that the Government were in no way influenced by this argument at all.

In that connection, I had a letter not long ago from one of my own constituents—Mr. J. T. Ball, aged 73, of 53, Windermere Road, Nottingham, who wrote:

"Surely, one won on the Somme or in the three Battles of Ypres or in front of Bourlon Wood compares with one won in the last war? Ye gods, when I think of that mud in the 1914 war—"

When we compare the winners in the one war with the winners in the other, I should like to remind the House of the case of Mr. Jack Foy, of Glasgow. He won the Military Medal and bar in the First World War, that is to say, he won it twice. He has still got bits of shrapnel in his back and arms from the First World War. He is now getting deaf, his eyes are failing and he is 65 years old. He is a typical example, one of those people who are worse off than those who won their medal in the Second World War.

I therefore ask my hon. Friend not to deny justice and equality to these old soldiers. I ask him to agree that they should be given what I think is their full entitlement; that is to say, complete equality with the winners of the medal in the Second World War. I ask that they should have their pensions increased by 6d. a day—those who are entitled to it; that is to say, those drawing service or disability pensions—and that it should be backdated to the actual time when the pension was awarded. That would involve some £200 or £300 in each case, but there would not be very many of them. They are a very small proportion of the number who have won the Military Medal.

While I admit that I do not really expect that last request to be granted, I do ask very strongly that that £20 gratuity should be given to all and to the dependants of those who have died. If it is finally decided that if we do that the country will go bankrupt, and half the Civil Service and the people in the Army Records Office will die of overwork, then I say, "All right, forget about those old soldiers who won the Military Medal and have since died, and give it to the ones still alive". There will not be so very many of them; they are dying off very fast. I received a letter not long ago from the secretary of the Merseyside branch of the Military Medallists' Association. He gave figures—they can only be estimates—to the effect that about 87,000 of the 116,000 holders were still living and that 29,000 were dead. I cannot think how he could have possibly arrived at that estimate. I should say that there is not a chance that there is anything like that number living.

In proof of that I want to quote the figures relating to the V.C.s' Association. There were 633 V.C.s awarded in the First World War. There are 203 holders still alive. I think that that figure is fairly accurate. Less than one-third of those who won the V.C. in the First World War are alive. They are now dying at the rate of about 14 per annum, and naturally that rate will rise very steeply in the future. If we were to put Military Medallists on the same basis—and I think that that would be a reasonable thing to do—we would find that the number still living of those who won the medal in the First World War would at any rate be well under 40,000 and therefore the maximum payment involved would be about £800,000.

With other hon. Members, I made this plea to my hon. Friend in supplementary questions on 17th February, and asked whether the award could be given if it were restricted to those still alive who had won the medal in the First World War. I asked my hon. Friend whether he did not agree that to do this

"would mean an enormous reduction in administrative work and in cost"

My hon. Friend agreed with this, but went on to say:

"Quite apart from administration, the cost would still be very great. Secondly, payment to the next of kin of those who have died was permitted in the regulations in 1945 and it would not be fair to pay it in some cases and not in others."

That was followed by a supplementary question by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King). He said very much the same thing. He asked:

"While it might not be possible to go the whole length of giving the award to the next of kin and so on, could not the hon. Gentleman perform a simple act of justice if he gave the award to surviving holders?

My hon. Friend replied:

"No, it would not be just, in so far as some next of kin would receive it and some would not".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1960; Vol. 617, c. 1285.]

Surely on reflection my hon. Friend will not persist in this view. He is apparently admitting that justice demands that all the holders of the Military Medal who won it in the First World War should get this gratuity, but because we cannot afford to give justice to everybody then we cannot give it to anybody. Alternatively or in addition, it seems to me that he is suggesting that, because it is too much trouble and the Government Departments concerned just cannot be bothered to trace the holders now dead or to check on their next of kin, he will not give it to the survivors.

It seems to me that that is exactly on a parallel with the man who owes his butcher £25 and when the butcher asks, "What about settling this account", says, "I agree that I owe the money and that it ought to be paid, and I should like to pay you. What is more, I have the money to pay you, but, unfortunately, I owe my greengrocer £25 also and I have not the money to pay both of you. Obviously it would be a most shocking injustice if I were to pay only one of you" I do not think that that idea of justice is tenable.

I am not expecting my hon. Friend to give any definite answer to me today saying that he will do as I have asked, although I would be delighted if he did, but I am going to ask him this in all seriousness: in view of what has been said and what will be said in this debate today, will he look at this matter again and think it over, and then see whether he cannot come back to the House at some later date and give some somewhat more heartening news to these old soldiers to wham we all owe so much?

So far as I have been able to ascertain, no epoch-making pronouncement of Government policy has been made today, but the Under-Secretary of State for War has an opportunity of remedying that omission if he will concede the justice of the case which, if I may say so, has been very well made out by the hon. and gallant Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux).

The first point upon which we must agree—and this is confirmed by the intervention of the Under-Secretary of State —is that the Military Medal has always been awarded for bravery in the field. That is a consideration that ought to be borne in mind. Without any disrespect to other decorations which are awarded for valuable service, these other decorations are not awarded for bravery in the field.

As to the figures quoted by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I think he is on fairly safe ground. I should imagine that the cost of making a £20 grant to all living holders of the Military Medal gained in the First World War would not be anywhere near £1 million. I do not want to add to the complications of the War Office or to create administrative difficulties. I know that it is a measure of rough justice that only those who survive, and not the next of kin of those who have passed away, would get this £20 if the argument were sustained. I know there might be difficulties in the various record offices to extract from the records details of the holders of the Military Medal.

But let me put it to the Under-Secretary in this way. Let us assume that the Government agree to make this £20 grant. In those circumstances, all those who consider themselves entitled to it will be asked to put in their claims. It has been done in connection with other medals that have been given by the War Office. In that way, apart from verifying that the claim is accurate, no administrative difficulties would arise at all. The Military Medal has the name and details of the holder engraved on the edge, so that a man can either produce the medal itself, or his discharge papers, which would indicate that he was awarded the medal on a certain day. In any event, it would be quite easy to verify the details put forward in connection with any claim.

I am sure it is not reasonable to argue that, because a previous Government came to a certain decision, that decision must remain until it becomes necessary to alter the decision by reason of the fact that all these people for whom we are pleading are dead. They are all either old-age pensioners or getting very near pensionable age. If my suggestion were adopted, administrative difficulties need not arise.

I recall an occasion not long ago when the present Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer and I suggested that something should be done for the holders of the Victoria Cross. I suggested during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill that the holders of the Victoria Cross should be exempt from Income Tax. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer knew that it was not in accordance with precedent, but he made that concession and I do not think that anybody has begrudged it.

I ask the Under-Secretary to deal with this matter in a generous way. A good case has been made out. I know that this is a problem of dwindling significance. The longer we wait, the cheaper it will be to give this measure of justice for which we are pleading, but if the Government do it now this small handful of gallant and aged men will have every reason to be grateful.

I should like to thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux) and the hon. and gallant member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) who have put so well and so reasonably the case for the pre—1939 holders of the Military Medal. My hon. and gallant Friend holds one of the most distinguished war records in the House, and probably holds more decorations than any other hon. Member.

I would agree in general with him that no cash valuation can be put on gallantry or on the badge of courage. I admit, looking at the question of pecuniary rewards for gallantry, that the whole matter has this anomaly, but I think that my hon. and gallant Friend was not entirely aware of some of the possible anomalies which he could be creating if his request were granted. He doubtless is fully aware of the text of the decisions in 1945 when a number of military, naval and flying medals were given pecuniary rewards which previously did not exist. The Military Medal was not alone, of course. If my hon. and gallant Friend turns to column 1256 of HANSARD for February 1945, he will find that there are a number of other medals for which precisely the same sort of argument could be put forward.

So complicated are these matters, that in the course of his speech my hon. and gallant Friend at one time seemed to be indicating that there should be better retrospective treatment in the payment of 6d. a day for people taking part in the First World War than those taking part in the Second World War. If he reads the declaration of 1945, he will find that it is only after October, 1944, that these additions of 6d. per day are payable. We are, therefore, discussing a matter of considerable complexity. There are other matters besides finance which affect our giving a financial reward to those who gained the Military Medal before The ground we have covered this afternoon has been well dug over in the last fifteen years. All the arguments ably put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend have been discussed and answered many time before. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have corresponded with me on this question and I think that the position of the War Office should be made clear.

Perhaps I can rehearse something of the history of this award. The Military Medal was introduced in 1916, that is, two years after the commencement of hostilities. I have had the interesting experience of finding the very letter which Lord Kitchener wrote to His Majesty King George V in April, 1916. The Military Medal was to be awarded

"for individual or associated acts of bravery in the field".

Although at that time there were other awards which carried a monetary benefit, none was to be attached to the Military Medal. In the First World War, some 116,000 Military Medals were awarded.

After the 1939–45 war, a number of changes were made to pensions and gratuities connected with decorations earned on or after 3rd September, 1939. One of the changes brought in was to make the Military Medal carry with it the same benefits as accompanied the award of the Distinguished Conduct Medal, which had long carried a gratuity of £20 or an addition to pension of 6d. a day if the holder were granted a pension either for service or disablement arising from his Army Service. These changes were announced in the House by the then Prime Minister in February, 1945. It was then made clear that they applied only to medals won after 3rd September, 1939.

I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT for 27th February, 1945:

"In respect of all awards for service since 3rd September, 1939, the recipients will, if living, be eligible retrospectively for the new gratuities and will be eligible for the new pensions as from 1st October, 1944"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1945; Vol. 408, c. 1259–60.]

The reasons for the decision taken in 1945 to restrict the award of benefits to those who gained their Military Medals after the beginning of the Second World War were financial and practical and they are the reasons which have been defended by Governments of both political complexions since 1945.

As the right hon. Member for Easting (Mr. Shinwell), said when Secretary of State for War in 1949

"The Military Medal was given in both wars for individual and associated acts of bravery in the field. Awards for service since 3rd September, 1939, carry financial benefits, but awards for earlier service do not."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1949; Vol. 460, c. 221.]

Exactly the same argument was put forward by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), my predecessor as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for War in 1950, when he said:

"The various changes in the provisions for the grant of pensions and gratuities to the holders of gallantry decorations and medals which were made in 1945, and which included for the first time provision for pecuniary awards in respect of the Military Medal, were intended for application only in the case of decorations and medals earned since September, 1939. There was no intention of giving retrospective effect to the provision. Apart from other considerations, the cost of doing so would have been prohibitive."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1950; Vol. 480, c. 175.]

As my hon. and gallant Friend pointed out, the difference between the numbers is very great. About 116,000 Military Medals were awarded in the First World War and a mere 17,000 in the Second. I reiterate what I said a few minutes ago when I interrupted my hon. and gallant Friend. It is not a question of distinguishing between the gallantry or courage of those who served in the First and those who served in the Second World War. Indeed, as one who fought in the Second World War and who has read about the First World War, I am certain that the conditions under which our soldiers had to fight in 1914–18 must have been considerably more fearful than anything we had to experience in the last war. This is a question of the financial and administrative ability of the Government and their inability to take a retrospective step.

Before coming to the actual sums of money involved, I might even go so far as to say that it is not unlikely that, when the question of financial reward for Military Medal holders was considered at the end of the Second World War, if it had been thought that no difference could be drawn between the medallists of one war and those of an earlier war, there might well have been no financial reward at all.

I think that hon. Members will agree that there is, too, a world of difference between making an award retrospective to the beginning of a war just finishing and extending such restrospection to a previous war which had finished some twenty-seven years earlier or, as it would be today, to a war which finished forty-two years ago.

It is, of course, not possible to estimate exactly what would be the cost of making the Military Medal holders of the First World War eligible for the financial reward. The term I used was "several million pounds", and my hon. and gallant Friend said that "several" is any figure over two. I will not go into semantics with him—

I said, "A figure not less than three".

The figure put forward by the right hon. Member for Easington, when Minister of War, was about £2¼ million for the £20 bonus. In addition, of course, there is the very large capitalisation of the 6d. a day pension, which could run into a very large sum of money. It would certainly be some millions of pounds, for besides making payment to surviving First World War medallists, it would in all equity obviously be necessary to make payment to the estates of those who have since died. I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend would not suggest discrimination between those living and those who have died.

I was suggesting justice for some if it could not be for all.

Quite apart from the financial objections, the administrative difficulties involved in making these payments further retrospective are much larger than my hon. and gallant Friend suggests. The War Office certainly could not handle the work involved with its present organisation. There is no doubt that we should need a considerable extra body of staff to undertake the researches and checks involved. Perhaps I may point to a few of the difficulties.

In the first place, we no longer know the addresses of those who survived or of the next-of-kin in respect of those who have died. Except in the case of those who are drawing pensions, we should have to depend on applications. Even for the pensioners there is no short cut, and it would require checking through the whole list of medallists and examining whether each is or is not drawing a pension. Such an operation would involve not only the Army Pensions Office and the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance but also various member countries of the Commonwealth. In the case of those who had died there would be special difficulties, especially after the lapse in many cases of a considerable period of time.

These are considerable difficulties, apart from the general principle, which I must resist, of returning to the idea of a retrospective act. I have drawn attention, and do so yet again, to what has been said before in the House and to what has been written in many letters to hon. Members on both sides of the House. When the Prime Minister made his announcement in 1945 there was never any intention that these payments should go further back than 3rd September, 1939.

The financial and practical reasons which prompted that decision have been Aired and reiterated on numerous occasions and defended by Governments of both major political parties. Those reasons, I believe, are as valid today as they were fifteen years ago and, while in no way belittling the bravery of those who earned this medal in the First World War—and I am happy to have had the opportunity afforded to me by my hon. and gallant Friend to correct any false impression on this point—I cannot agree that it would be wise and proper to make any change in the conditions of this award.

Does not the hon. Member agree that many of the difficulties to which he referred would disappear if he limited the concession to making a £20 grant to all those surviving holders of the Military Medal who put in a claim for it?

I have dealt with that point already.