I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The Bill, as hon. and right hon. Members know, is founded on the Resolutions which were discussed last week for a very considerable time and in very great detail. I do not think that it is necessary for me, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, to cover all that ground again today. The facts are well known. The Bill gives the increases set out in the Schedule, and there is available to all who wish to study the matter the Report of the Select Committee. I think, therefore, I can best serve the purpose of the debate by saying a few words on matters of detail which appear in the Bill, and to which, I think, the attention of the House should specifically be drawn.
The first point arises out of the third paragraph of the Preamble to the Bill. The opening phrase of the paragraph on the second page is:
… forasmuch as it is happily to be expected that Your Majesty's reign will last for many years, …
That is a pleasant echo of the words:
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us.
The remainder of that paragraph applies to certain new supplementary provisions with which I want to deal shortly.
In paragraph 17 of the Select Committee's Report on the Civil List, we draw attention to one particular respect in which this Civil List and its proposals will represent a departure—and perhaps a departure of real substance from all the precedents. Perhaps I may be allowed to put it shortly in this way. Hitherto there has always been a kind of compensating relationship between Class I of the Civil List, that is, the Privy Purse, and Classes II and III, which are the salaries and expenses of the Household.
What has happened in the past has been that if Classes II and III, that is, the salaries and expenses of the Household, have shown a deficit in any particular year, as, in fact, they did—those who wish to see it will find it in the Appendix to the Select Committee's Report—during the last six years of the last reign it was the practice for that deficit to be made good from Class I, that is, from the Sovereign's own Privy Purse; and conversely, if Classes II and III have shown a saving, as they did in the first nine years of the last reign, that saving was passed automatically to the Privy Purse to be disposed of at the Sovereign's discretion.
As I say, both happened in the last reign. There were deficits on the one and savings on the other. Those savings arose out of not spending the full total of Classes II and III, and they have in the past proved to be a very convenient way by which the Sovereign could make some provision for those members of his family, particularly the grandchildren, for whom Parliament had not made specific provision because, among other reasons, all the future cannot be foreseen.
It is that precedent which this Civil List alters. We are saying—and this is referred to in the Preamble—that, given the uncertainties of what we all trust will be a very long and happy reign, it is no longer reasonable to expect the Privy Purse to make good the deficits which may arise, as they have done in recent years, on Classes II and III of the Civil List. Therefore, we propose in the Bill, as will be seen in the Schedule, to include in the Civil List itself a margin for contingencies. That is described in the Schedule as Class V, Supplementary provision.
But we are saying something more than that. We are saying that if the Privy Purse has not to make good the deficits, if it should be insulated from the effects of these deficits, then it should no longer also receive the savings. It cuts both ways, if I may use a colloquial phrase. Therefore, any saving that may occur on Classes II or III or, indeed, any savings on the contingencies margin itself should not automatically go to the Privy Purse but should be transferred to the Royal Trustees to be applied by them to meet any deficits in a manner which I will explain.
The result of all this is that it is quite possible that at the end of the reign, as the result of this arrangement, the Trustees may find themselves holding considerable sums of money. The question, therefore, is: What is to be done with these accumulated sums, should there be any? Clearly, that is not a question which we here today ought to attempt to answer. I think that the Select Committee was quite right when, in its Report, it said that this must be left for Parliament to decide.
Paragraph 17 of the Report says that the question is for:
… Parliament to decide as part of the arrangements connected with the Civil List provision for the next reign in the light of all the circumstances of the time.
It follows from what I have said that what money the Royal Trustees would then be holding would, in effect, be money which, if we had followed previous precedents, would have passed to Class I, and, therefore, Class I would have been available to the Sovereign as a means of providing for other members of the Royal Family, particularly her grandchildren. Although we are not, in Tact, following that precedent, for what I think are good and sufficient reasons, it will be for Parliament at the beginning of the next reign, when it comes to consider the Civil List for that monarch, to consider very carefully the disposition of the moneys then held by the Royal Trustees.
I thought it was worth saying that, in order that it might be on the record of Parliament as being what is today the intention of Her Majesty's Government in putting forward these provisions, which have the full support of the Select Committee.
As to the Bill itself, I do not think I need trouble to refer to any of the first eight Clauses, because they merely put into greater detail and into legislative form the Resolutions which we have already discussed. They deal with the various financial provisions of the Civil List itself. Clause 8 is the normal charging provision.
No, Sir. If the hon. Gentleman had read the Bill, he would have seen that there is no mention of that.
Clauses 10 to 14 are purely technical Clauses, though I should like just to refer to Clause 13 (1), which has been drafted to give effect to the Amendment, which I proposed to the Resolution and which was unanimously agreed to by the Committee, raising the annual possible increase of Civil List pensions to £5,000.
That leaves Clause 9, and this is the only one which I think I need explain in any detail, because it is the one which enshrines the new precedent to which I have already referred. We have taken very careful thought as to how best to do it. I will run through it shortly. Subsection (1, b) deals with the supplementary provision—that is, the new Class V of the Civil List—and provides that those who are traditionally the Royal Trustees—they are described in Clause 10; they are the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day and the Keeper of the Privy Purse—shall be responsible for making the necessary arrangements for dealing with that fund.
But I imagine that, following upon the recommendations of the Select Committee and the views which were reported in paragraph 15, the first task of the Royal Trustees would be to arrange to make available to Her Majesty that element of the contingencies fund, which we said might well be up to an annual limit of £25,000, to be placed at her disposal to able her at her discretion to contribute towards the unavoidable expenses of members of the Royal Family for whom no financial provision is otherwise made.
It might help to clarify the position if I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman now. There does not appear to be any reference in Clause 9 to the £25,000. Will the right hon. Gentleman say under what authority Her Majesty is to have free discretion to use that as she wishes?
The Trustees have discretion for making the arrangements, and I think that it is as a result of their passing it over to her that it does not require legislative provision. If I am wrong in that, this is only the opening speech of the debate and my right hon. Friend can give the answer when he winds up the debate. My understanding was that it was within the discretion of the Trustees as a result of their being empowered to make necessary arrangements for dealing with the fund.
After that, it will be the duty of the Trustees to apply the balance of the margin so far as it is necessary—that is to say, the £70,000 out of the £95,000—to any deficits which arise on Classes Il and III. We make it quite clear in the subsection that the deficit is only a deficit on audited expenditure. The Trustees cannot receive the protection of Class V unless the audit reveals that there was a deficit.
Subsection (1, b) also provides that, in so far as the contingencies margin is not needed for the purpose which I have described—that is, not needed for making up the deficit—then it shall be handed over to the keeping of the Trustees to be accumulated by them to meet deficits in subsequent years.
If the general estimate which the Select Committee made with regard to these problems is more or less correct in this present year of grace, I think that we could expect that in the earlier years the greater part of the £70,000 of the supplementary provision would be saved and handed over to the Trustees for accumulation in that way. That was the point which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) made in the debate the other day when he said that the £70,000 is simply a margin and that, therefore, the true figure of the Civil List for this year is not £475,000 but £405,000. I am very much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for establishing the point so clearly.
Clause 9 (2) provides that if, instead of the contingencies margin having to be used in any year to cover a deficit on those two classes, Classes II and III show a saving, then that saving will not, as under the precedent of the previous Civil List, go to the Privy Purse, but will also go to the Royal Trustees to be added to their accumulated funds. That is putting into terms the arrangements which were outlined in the Preamble.
Clause 9 (3) looks to the possible eventuality in a later period—one cannot, of course, foresee how everything will work out—that in any one year a deficit on Classes II and III, the salaries and the Household expenses, could not be met by the contingencies fund and that, after that had been used up, there was still a deficit on the annual expenditure. Clause 3 looks to that eventuality if it should ever occur. The Trustees would then have to make good the deficit in that year from their accumulated funds.
I do not think it was quite clear and I am glad that my hon. Friend interrupted me, because I want to make this clear beyond peradventure.
The point is that, under subsections (2) and (3), if there is a deficit and if the contingency fund is not big enough to close that deficit, then recourse must be had to the accumulated funds. Subsection (4) is for the convenience of the administrative Trustees and enables them to make advances for subsequent adjustment. Subsection (5) is a normal paragraph which allows the Treasury to vire as between Classes II and III.
Subsection (6) mainly provides, as I have already pointed out, that any moneys which the Trustees hold at the end of the reign shall be dealt with as Parliament may hereafter determine. That, of course, is to be read in the light of what I said earlier in my speech, and that is that Parliament may have to decide to what extent and by what means provision should be made for members of the Royal Family at that time for whom provision had not been made during the reign, and for whom Her Majesty would be debarred from making provision owing to the fact that the Privy Purse in the past had sources of accumulations for that purpose.
I hope that is clear to hon. Members. It is rather a complicated and forbidding-looking Clause, but I am quite satisfied that it carries out the general intentions of the Select Committee, as I understood them, being a member of it, and I hope, therefore, that it will be agreeable to the House as a whole, though again I would point out that it is a complete break with precedent.
The Bill, therefore, does nothing more than give effect to the Resolutions, which have already been fully debated, in language which is, I hope, as clear and simple as a complicated matter of this kind permits. I trust that the dispositions which this Bill makes for the Sovereign and other members of the Royal Family with whom it deals are fully in keeping both with the dignity of the Crown and with its constitutional relationship with this House. It is in that confident belief that I commend the Bill to the House.
I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House, whilst desirous of making adequate provision for the maintenance of the Royal Household and the dignity of the Crown, cannot assent to the Second Reading of a Civil List Bill which contains no proposal for a review, from time to time, by a Select Committee of this House, of the appropriate level of expenditure for this purpose, and of its allocation as between the personal expenditure of the Royal Family and the cost of purely State ceremonial and activities.
I shall deal with the points which the Lord Privy Seal covered, particularly in regard to Clause 9, a little later in my speech. I rise to move this Amendment on the understanding, after consultation with you, Mr. Speaker, that the moving of the Amendment will not narrow the debate in any way, and that any right hon. or hon. Member in any part of the House will be free to make what we term a Second Reading speech.
In speaking this afternoon I shall endeavour to be short and to avoid needless repetition. The right hon. Gentleman said that we discussed this matter very fully last week, and I do not wish to do more than recapitulate the main reasons why we have put down our Amendment, why we want this further investigation, and why we think a 10-year term is a reasonable term. I wish to add two points of personal explanation and to ask the Minister for a clarification of two points in the Bill.
We on this side of the House agreed that the monarchy should be run in such a way that it is run efficiently and properly and in keeping with tradition, but the reasons we think that a Committee of this House should make further investigations are the same as we endeavoured to outline both in the Select Committee and in the discussion last week in the House.
They are, first because everybody recognises, and we all hope, that the reign is going to be both a long and a happy one. When I say "a happy one," I hope that it means a peaceful one as well. Nobody knows how things will change. Nobody has the slightest idea what is going to happen in another 50 years, and we think it appropriate that after the Select Committee of this House has examined the matter, perhaps not in a cursory manner but in rather a short time, we should go further and have a review in view of the very long period that will elapse before a further examination takes place.
The second main reason was very ably put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) last week, and it is this. It is all very well to say that we can trust the monarchy to do what is right. Nobody disputes that for a moment, but anybody who has had anything to do with this sort of thing knows perfectly well that there are difficulties. It is true that in matters of this kind Her Majesty might well be relieved of some of the burden, which she might hesitate herself to suggest, and it is unfair that it should he left to her to have to decide.
Thirdly, our opinion is that times have changed, even in this House, I was listening the other day to a speech by Lord Samuel, in which it was said that top hats were absolutely the thing in this House not so very long ago. Today they merely look rather ridiculous, though it is pleasant to see them on the tops of the heads of those hon. Gentlemen who choose to wear them. In my researches in this matter, I have studied what was said in previous debates. Of course, times have changed.
If anybody would like to study what I might call a racy effort, I would refer them to the speech made by my late lamented friend, Mr. Jack Jones, on the Civil List Bill, 1937. I do not propose to quote it because it is not entirely appropriate for me to do so, having regard to my celibate position. But there it is. Times do change, and we think, therefore, that we should be given an opportunity of considering the possibility of change and of making sure that such provision as is made is in keeping with the times.
The fourth reason is that we feel—and I speak with a little knowledge of these things as a former Minister of Works—that there might well be further transfers to Departmental Votes so as to reduce the Civil List altogether. I refer particularly to the upkeep of the Palaces, Royal Mews, etc. I recollect that my friend Mr. Jack Jones, on that famous occasion, referred to the fact that we were paying £300 to the man to look after the King's swans. My friend asked why we could not let the swans look after themselves. I do not know how much of that sort of thing continues, but it is another reason why there should be a close investigation.
The fifth reason for asking for this committee of examination is that the whole procedure might well be simplified and made what we call more democratic. Some of my hon. Friends on this side have criticised the garden parties. Many of us have been to them. I am always sorry for the Queen, but let us admit that there is a great deal of snobbery about them. One of the things which certainly could be done, were there such a committee, would be to consider whether on these occasions access might very well be greatly broadened. There are many people who would like access of that nature to Her Majesty, and I cannot see why it should not be possible. I do not suppose that it will be unless the House of Commons tries to tackle the matter and do something about it. I will not go into details, but there are all sorts of ways in which one might try to tackle it without having any desire to interfere with the pleasure of the young ladies attending those functions.
There is gross misunderstanding about how this money is spent. Some people think that this Civil List of £475,000 is given to the Queen herself. We all know that that is not so, but the position is grossly misunderstood in the public Press. I would advise hon. Members not to take too much notice of what was said during the weekend. One paper announced that a bottle of whisky was put aside every night for the monarch, that Jenkins or somebody else went off with it in the morning, that the members of the staff dropped in and had a meal at the palaces when they liked, and that the total of staff of all types at Windsor and at Buckingham Palace added up to more than twice the number told to the Select Committee. That sort of thing is absolute nonsense, and should not be put about, because it only misleads the public. I hope nobody will take any notice of it at all.
There is a story told about Queen Victoria and port wine, and probably the story about the whisky stems from it. When she was a girl she was ordered a glass of port wine each night and a bottle of port was put on the royal table for this glass. That went on from 1838, when it was ordered, until somewhere about 1859. It is doubtful whether Her Majesty ever took it after she was about 20 years of age. Probably the bottle of whisky nonsense comes from that story. This is another reason why it is important that matters should be investigated so that we might be completely satisfied that there is no nonsense of that kind.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me for interrupting him, but does he seriously suggest that nobody should take any notice, even if it were not quite true, of a story about the placing of a whole bottle of whisky every night for the use of one person? Does he expect me to take no notice? It is a matter which ought to be taken quite seriously in a debate of this sort.
My hon. Friend mistakes me. I never suggested that no notice should be taken of it. I was suggesting that we cannot take notice of it if the whisky is not there. It is an untrue story. I quite understand my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for temperance, and up to a point I agree with him, so long as it does not apply to me. That is true of many things in this life. All I can say is that when I was Minister of Works I investigated this matter when I was discovering some of the things for which I was supposed to be responsible. The story is without foundation. The most extravagant stories get about and they get wide publicity. It is most unfair to the Royal Family.
The second point is that the present Civil List should not be borne for more than 10 years. It is a reasonable suggestion, and I cannot understand why reasonable Members on the Government side of the House do not agree with it. I have said already that times change and that this arrangement ought to be reviewed every 10 years, which, after all, is a long time. I have only been in this House for 14 years and I have had a couple of reviews, if not three. It seems to have come out all right. Such a system of reviews admits of the maximum of flexibility. There might be considerable economic changes in the course of the next 50 years.
We all talk about a 50-year reign. We all hope that Her Majesty will reign at least as long as Queen Victoria, but that will be a long time, and the House of Commons should be free to look again at these arrangements if it wants to do so. Why should we bind ourselves for the whole of one very long reign? We should avoid too great a rigidity in this matter. We should preserve for ourselves an opportunity of looking at it again if we want to do so.
Thirdly, our Amendment holds out the possibility of a re-examination of many of the points regarded as important by a not unsubstantial minority of Members on this side of the House. Presumably all of us stand for the preservation of the rights of minorities, whilst not necessarily accepting their points of view. Why should this minority not have its views taken into consideration? Quite possibly the minority is right. The arrangement for a 10-yearly review will give them confidence that if there is anything wrong it will be revised.
Fourthly, a 10-yearly review would reassure people that, as time elapsed, no barnacles would gather on the bottom of the boat. I am satisfied from what I have done so far, and from what I have looked at, that there are not very many barnacles. I can honestly say that, so far as I know, there are none, but there always are stories about barnacles, which grow very quickly once they get a hold, or so my nautical friends tell me. Unless we satisfy ourselves on this matter, some of the irregularities which happened in the past may happen again. A 10-yearly review would make sure that the bottom of the old boat got scraped and that there were no barnacles. [Interruption.] I do not say that in a disrespectful way. I am sure that hon. Members will understand what I mean.
Fifthly, this plan makes possible revision in other directions. I do not know what is going to happen if prices rise. Presumably Her Majesty will have to go through the distasteful function of coming to the House of Commons and asking for more. Equally, prices may drop. We have been assured by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that prices are going rapidly down, but I do not know whether that is going to work out right or not. I hope so. For a long period no one will know what will happen. The proposed periodic review would give automatic readjustment.
The Select Committee admittedly did not have time to go into every detail. How could they, especially on this very important question of lightening the burden on the Queen? That is all related to what can and what cannot be dispensed with. The idea of the majority of the Committee apparently was that Her Majesty will say what shall be cut away. We take a different view. We think that it would be easier for Her Majesty if we could say what could be dispensed with without embarrassment to herself and with a lightening of her load.
I would add my support to the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South on the importance of so arranging things that the Queen really gets a holiday. I well believe that a Select Committee might help to do that, with the co-operation of the Royal Household. Those of us who have had to occupy positions of responsibility, even for a short time, know what an absolute pest official papers can be. [Interruption.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that this has nothing to do with the Bill. I am speaking to our Amendment, and am explaining why we want a periodic review and why we would like a 10-year review. I cannot think that what I am saying is out of order, although it might not be of interest to the right hon. Gentleman. I was saying that I can sympathise with Her Majesty about this non-stop pestilence of despatch boxes and the like.
Some of us do not stay in office very long, but the Queen goes on for ever. If this is to be a long reign, she is not going to be able to get real relief. That is not a situation that ought to be tolerated. Something ought to be done about it.
I come to one point of personal explanation about Princess Margaret. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in the attitude which he took in the Select Committee that Princess Margaret should be made quite independent and free to marry whomsoever she likes. I perfectly appreciate the point of view of those who fear that after making provision she may marry a foreigner. I hope she does not do that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] There are lots of eligible bachelors here.
I am obliged to my hon. Friend for interrupting. I think it is now perfectly clear that I have suffered the martyrdom of bachelorhood for many years. There is no doubt about it. I agree with my right hon. Friend that Princess Margaret ought to be free to marry whomsoever she chooses, and that it ought not to depend upon her having to marry the richest man. Our annual taxation is such that, omitting a few rather exceptional persons, there is practically nobody here who has enough to run her—if that is the right phrase. Be that as it may, I support my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—
I do not think I had better go on with that point. It may become rather personal.
Now may I turn to the Bill for a moment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not accept that anything I have said has been irrelevant; some of it may have been unnecessary. I want a little more clarification from the Chancellor, when he winds up the debate, on Clause 9 (1 b). It is idle to say that we said in the Select Committee that £25,000 of the Class V vote of £95,000 should be at the disposal of Her Majesty for certain operations. When pressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South just now, the Leader of the House said that no doubt the trustees would give the necessary authority as to how that money is to be disposed of.
It is not clear in the Bill, but in fact, can a statutory body do anything which this House does not specifically authorise them to do? Will not that be the difficulty, that they have no discretion and that there is no clarification in this Clause as to how that money is to be dealt with? We doubt very much whether the Bill as drafted will cover the intentions of the Committee. However, I do not want to labour the point, and if the Chancellor will answer it when he speaks or will deal with it on a later stage, that will satisfy me.
My second point relates to Clause 9 (2), which says, not that the Treasury shall direct
that out of the appropriations to those classes an amount equal to the excess be transferred,
but that it may direct. The Leader of the House, when speaking earlier, used words which seemed to indicate that the Treasury "shall." Which does it mean— "may" or "shall"?
It means both? Well, we should like to have some clarification later. I want to say, in conclusion, that we on this side want the job done properly. We want to ensure that there is not only the utmost economy today, but that the Royal Household shall continue to be run with the utmost economy. Do not make any mistake. People in the country have the wrong impression. They feel that all this money goes to the Queen. They do not realise that 85 per cent. or 90 per cent. of it is used in carrying out the functions of State. The more often that is said, and the more clearly it is understood, while at the same time ensuring that there are no barnacles gathering, the better from the point of view of everybody.
There is no criticism on this side personally of the Royal Family, whom we all respect and, if I may say so, love in the true sense—not in the sloppy, sentimental manner of some people. We shall divide against the Bill on its Second Reading only because we think it is utterly unreasonable that the two proposals we made should not have been accepted and incorporated in the Bill.
I propose, in one respect, at any rate, to follow the excellent example of the two right hon. Gentlemen who have preceded me, and that is to be very brief indeed. Having said that, I have the greatest difficulty in following the speech just made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). He is always vigorous, always attractive and, as a rule, he is logical. But on this occasion I have never known anything quite so illogical as the speech to which we have just listened from the right hon. Gentleman.
His last words, speaking not only on his own behalf but on behalf of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House, were that he had no criticism to make of the Royal Family or of the way in which the money agreed to by this House in Committee is being spent at present. Then he said that there had recently been a close investigation into that expenditure, to which he himself had been a party. We all remember with pleasure the part he took in the ceremony with which we opened this new Chamber. Without doubt he likes ceremonial and pageantry, and quite rightly. It is necessary that we should have some better form than we usually go through so that we can enjoy life a little more. He himself has always expressed that view and carried it out.
I cannot understand that, but I will come to it. According to this Amendment the Opposition are desirous
of making adequate provision for the maintenance of the Royal Household and the dignity of the Crown.
Quite rightly, and not merely because of the traditions and customs that have to be maintained but because of the part that the Crown and the Royal Family have to play not only in this country but throughout the Commonwealth and Empire. It must be remembered that today the Queen is not merely Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland but of
every one of the Commonwealth countries and of the Empire as well, and that it is essential in the view of everybody that the dignity which goes with the Crown must be maintained adequately and properly.
What is being said at present, however, is that, although we have had an adequate investigation into the expenditure, there is to be from time to time a new inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that it should be every 10 years. I do not know where he gets that, except that it was mentioned during the Committee stage. The Amendment says that from time to time all this has to be gone through again—
…a review, from time to time, by a Select Committee of this House, of the appropriate level of expenditure for this purpose, and of its allocation as between the personal expenditure of the Royal Family and the cost of purely State ceremonial and activities.
If it is necessary for such a review to be undertaken, one can be perfectly certain that the Government of the day and the House at the time will make that review. I cannot understand the purpose of this Amendment. No House can bind its successors. It is no use our saying, "You shall have a review from time to time," or "You shall have a review in 10 years' time." The next Parliament that meets, perhaps even next year, can alter that. If it is necessary to have a review, one can be certain that it will be made.
May I take an instance from one part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman? Supposing, perchance, a disaster occurred in our economic position. Apparently the right hon. Gentleman envisages that there shall be no change in what we have decided in Committee should be the expenditure until the time for the review comes. In that case, what is to happen in the meantime? [An HON. MEMBER: "What happened in 1931?"] If it had been necessary to have a review at that time, this House was quite capable of making it. If anything does go wrong, this House or any hon. Member of it can ask for an inquiry and we can then go into the whole matter. What has really been proposed by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends is that we should have a kind of quinquennial valuation of the work done by the Royal Family.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is really not being just to us. What we have provided for—by agreement if you like—in the Bill is a contingency fund which will accumulate and which will be dealt with. There is no necessity to accuse us of wanting to make the Queen go short. We do not want to do that at all.
May I end by referring to the last thing which the right hon. Gentleman said? He said, "We want to make proper provision. It is being made in this Bill, but we intend to divide the House tonight." If the right hon. Gentleman's party succeed in the Division this Bill would become a nullity and no provision whatever would be made. I cannot imagine anything more illogical, and that is why I began by saying that I had never heard such an illogical speech made by anybody, and certainly not by the right hon. Gentleman.
I am sure that everyone appreciated the completely fair and objective way in which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House moved the Second Reading of this Bill. I am also sure that no one could object to the good-tempered and amusing way in which the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) moved his reasoned Amendment. I recall some of the observations made during other Civil List discussions by the late Mr. Jack Jones, and in recalling them it seems to me rather amazing that he was not promptly ruled out of order.
Regarding what the right hon. Member for Ipswich said about modifying some of the procedure of the monarchy, I should have thought that in our time we would rather want to bring as many citizens as possible into contact with the monarchy, and that, far from modifying such occasions as the Royal Garden Party, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, we would want to bring a wider range of our people to such functions.
Surely the hon. Gentleman could not have listened to what I said. What I was trying to say was that we should open the door wider and have a much greater variety, and, if necessary, more people.
Surely if we were to open the door wider that would not modify expenditure. What we have to do, I think, is to extract from the sum of £475,000 which we are being asked to vote the maximum economy, while allowing the monarchy to discharge all its functions. I have no doubt that some provision could be made by Parliament in order to provide Her Majesty the Queen with a holiday from some of the great duties which she is called upon to perform. In the Report of the Select Committee on the Civil List, the hope is expressed that in future, instead of the long, elaborate journeys of other years when Royal visits were paid to the countries of the Commonwealth and to the Colonies, the King's Flight should be used on such occasions.
I detected in the speech of the right hon. Member for Ipswich the possibility that we should attempt to drive the monarchy almost into the position where all its functions would be taken away from it and its expenses transferred to Votes. It was almost what was said by an hon. Member during the Committee stage last week when the opinion was expressed that members of the monarchy should be treated rather like highly paid civil servants. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had that in mind in moving his Amendment, but at any rate that was the view expressed last week by at least one hon. Member opposite.
In stating some of the modifications he would like to see brought about in the expenses of the Royal household, I rather suspect that the right hon. Gentleman was implying that we might ultimately drive too much of those expenses on to the Votes which come before this House. Surely it is in the interest of the country that the Royal Household should remain a Royal Household, and that there should be that sense of personality and leadership vested in it.
Ours is a great Royal House, and we should remember that the monarchy in this country is the last great surviving monarchy spread over years of world history. Therefore, I should have thought that our mood ought to be not to attempt to cut down and to modify, but to preserve the monarchy and to extract from the Royal Household a future even greater than its past.
In a parallel direction, I think one of the saddest things when travelling through our countryside is to see all too often on the estate office door of a large mansion the symbol of the limited liability cornpany—Keddleston Estates Limited, Chatsworth Estates Limited—
I think I had better leave that point.
In dealing with Clause 9, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was at pains to explain to us that on the supplementary provision of £95,000 which appears in the Schedule a necessary diversion of £25,000 will be made which will leave the sum of £70,000 for contingency account. I should like my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, when he replies, to say whether, if there is a surplus in the contingency margin of £70,000 a year, and if, say, at the end of six years there is a surplus of £420,000, the Royal Trustees could direct that money to be used, thus practically covering the whole of this vote of £475,000 in any particular year.
It seems to me that we are not voting the sum actually named in this Bill. In the supplementary provision, £25,000 is taken away and placed at the direction of Her Majesty. That leaves a sum of £70,000 which it is hoped might be transferred to the coffers of the Royal Trustees named in the Bill. It would appear, therefore, that in four, five or six years' time quite a substantial sum of money will be in the hands of the Royal Trustees. If, unlike most of our fears and prophecies at the present time, surpluses could be obtained by wise economy and good management in the Royal Household, the saving might be added to the figures I have already given.
I am sure that the right hon. Member for Ipswich would be the first to agree that the national manifestation of loyalty which surrounds the Throne today has never been stronger. It is not a calculated or an exaggerated loyalty. It seems to spring almost effortlessly, quite naturally, from the mood of the people. It would be a most happy proceeding today on the part of this House if, at the beginning of a reign such as this one, it were to allow the Bill to reach the Statute Book without any single revision being recorded against any of its particulars.
The hon. Member for Withington (Sir R. Cary) seemed to follow rather easily into what seems now to be becoming a habit: to use the speech of the hon. Member for Silvertown, as I think Mr. Jack Jones was at that time, as a standard in a debate of this character. It would not be uninstructive to the hon. Member and to the House if, perhaps, we went a little further back and remembered the time when his own party were carrying cheeseparing to a fine art in their attack upon the Civil List in the time of Queen Victoria, when she tried to make provision for her husband. I think that on all sides of the House we are now all agreed that we want to make adequate and, I would go so far as to say, generous provision for the members of the Royal Family; and on this side of the House we yield to nobody in that.
It is not often in this House that we have the opportunity to discuss the position of the monarchy among our institutions, and it is fitting that very shortly we should, therefore, give expression to the feelings that we have about it. Personally, I am quite satisfied that the very great majority of the people are in favour of having a monarchy—that is putting it absolutely coldly. I go further and I say that they believe that the monarchy has, in the last 50 years, time and time again proved itself, both in peace and war, as a most useful institution to them and one which they like. I say, in addition, that our people are convinced that the members of the Royal Family have set a standard of devotion and of service which, though it may be equalled, could scarcely be surpassed in any part of the world. I am, therefore, not at all in favour of any cheeseparing.
As for expenses, or any falling below the standard of generosity with regard to the actual money which the Royal Family may have to spend or, so to speak, to dispose of by themselves, I believe that the labourer is worthy of his hire. That is not less so just because sometimes people do not believe that the sort of work that the labourer does is real work.
Many people do not believe that a Member of Parliament's work, or even a Cabinet Minister's work, is real work. I remember the case of a Home Secretary, known as "Jix," who, speaking to Lancashire cotton girls, told them that he worked 14 hours a day. He was greeted with raucous shouts from them. "Yours is not work," they said.
They worked then, and they work now. But there is no excuse for anybody in this House, where to an infinitely smaller degree we too live in the public gaze, saying that that sort of work cannot be, and is not, extremely exacting.
The sums with which we are dealing in the Bill are very large sums indeed. The trouble is that very few people know—I doubt whether anybody outside the Cabinet or outside the Select Committee knows—how much of these sums which we nominally assign to His or Her Royal Highness this or that, can, in fact, be disposed of by that Royal person. That is, perhaps, a great mistake.
I suspect that by far the greater part of the money which is given to a particular person by the Civil List is disposed of, not by that person at all, but by officials on, so to speak, expenses of the job. Therefore, to describe such money as wages is a fantastic perversion of the truth. It is really money which is expended for purposes of the State by officials, though nominally given by us to a particular individual.
It is a pity that the sums which are for the private disposition of some of these people are not stated quite specifically. I say this not because I wish to pry into their private affairs or because I think that Parliament ought to do so, but because I wish to protect them from uninformed, although often quite well-meaning, criticism.
The average man, I think, simply does not realise that when x pounds is voted to His Royal Highness y, y does not have that money to do entirely as he likes with and to spend on his own. Yet on the face of the Bill, the average person could be pardoned for believing that that is precisely what happens. That is a very great pity.
I have said that I think most of the money which we give to the Royal Family is, in fact, spent upon State expenses, or expenses of functions of State of which we approve. That is very nearly true, although there are, of course, people who disagree with this or that detail. Now is the time for them to say so, with perfect right and propriety, and without any sense of criticism of the individual members of the Royal Family. The two things are quite distinct. It seems to me that it is both our right and our duty, if we feel that any item of expenditure ought to be changed, that it should be said so now in this House.
I would add that people should be specific. If something is wrong in the expenditure, let them be specific as to what it is and how it could be remedied. Certain suggestions have been made, among them that Holyroodhouse and Buckingham Palace should be turned into flats. I feel that that is a case of muddled thinking, and, possibly, also of headline-seeking thinking.
If my hon. and learned Friend lived near Holyrood Palace, where thousands of people are living in shocking slum conditions, he would not talk about the desirability of not improving the housing conditions. If anyone wants to find out whether there is a demand for accommodation, let him advertise and see the long list of people who would volunteer to come.
I can well understand people who live in shocking conditions, whether near Holyrood or elsewhere, thinking that it might be very nice if they were housed in these places. What I find more difficult to understand is that anybody who should be able to appreciate the real facts of the case should lend his authority to encouraging them to think that that would be possible or desirable. I say this for two reasons, which I put forward in all sincerity.
First, these places would be most uneconomic to turn into flats or anything else. I believe that the amount of money which would be spent, even on new materials, in doing such a thing would be far greater than if those materials were used on building new flats ab initio. Secondly, we also must have regard to posterity. I feel that it would be most improper for us to destroy what are, in effect, museum pieces and to deprive future generations of the pleasure of seeing them. Those two reasons, I think, are a complete answer to what my hon. Friend has said. We all feel sympathy with those who have not adequate housing and we will do everything we can in this House to see that the position is remedied, but not along those lines.
I am very much in favour of increased simplicity, wherever it can be found possible, in the Royal ceremonial. It was suggested, far more sensibly, that Buckingham Palace should be only used for ceremonial occasions and that the unfortunate inmates should be housed elsewhere in more suitable, intimate houses. That is a way in which possible advance might be made. I have been very much attracted by the thought of the Queen of Denmark being able to go out into the parks pram pushing and into the streets of Copenhagen. I do not believe that it is because our people are less well mannered that that sort of thing cannot happen here, but because the "old hand" over royalty has for far too long segregated them far too much from the ordinary people. That is why that sort of thing could not happen here without too great a stir. Still, there is a new reign and, perhaps, new breezes will sweep through the Royal Palaces.
This is the sort of occasion when such a thing could happen, but I do not think that we in this House ought to dictate as to the precise methods in which change should come about. Rather we should be content to express here our view that the people of this country sympathise to the fullest extent with any attempt which can possibly be made to simplify the irksome mesh of unnecessary ceremonial while leaving all that is colourful and still useful in its place and, while attempting to bring the Royal Family more into contact with ordinary life, to allow them to lead a life of their own.
Just who is responsible for the state of affairs which prevents rather greater freedom and naturalness on the part of royalty, it is hard for any of us to say. I can only say, for my part, that if such persons could be pensioned off, quietly and kindly, I should regard an increase in the Civil List for that purpose, temporarily, as public money well spent in view of the benefits which would doubtless come from it. I am very anxious indeed that these people should not be allowed to dim the feelings of loyalty and affection, which I think the average person in this country has for the Crown, by reason of obstinate clinging to outmoded routine and custom.
I find it very hard to believe that there could be any monetary reward which would adequately compensate the members of the Royal Family for the ceaseless toil and sacrifice of ordinary liberties which are entailed in the status of royalty. I can only hope that our present members of the Royal Family find some satisfaction in the feeling of a job well done and also in the knowledge of the very widespread approval which meets their own way of carrying out their public duties to their people.
I am very pleased to be able to follow the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu), with whose speech—the greater part of it—all of us on this side of the House feel the very strongest agreement. I wish to deal quite shortly with the suggestion from the Front Bench opposite, in their Amendment, that there should be provision for a review of this expenditure at statutory intervals.
I read with very great interest the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) last Wednesday. He put his case, as he always does in this House, in a very fair and reasonable manner. I would always very carefully consider any argument he put forward. But, whereas I think he proved rather conclusively that if the Queen has a long reign it may be necessary at a later date to make some future provisions, I do not think he proved the case he was trying to prove, namely, that this Civil List should be reviewed at statutory intervals.
Last Wednesday this House showed beyond all question that the moral authority of the Crown is something which absolutely transcends party views in this House. That is indeed a very happy state of affairs. I am not sure that we in this country always realise how fortunate we are that that is so. If I may give one example, I think one of the happiest examples of the moral authority of the Crown can be seen if we compare the proceedings of a Royal Commission in this country with similar proceedings in other parts of the world, like the Committee of Investigation into un-American Activities.
I believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was absolutely right in the very fine speech he made in winding up the debate last Wednesday. I make bold to say that that speech will be considered in the future as one of the finest handlings of this theme which could be imagined. He said:
it really would be contrary to the best interests of our own relationship with that constitutional monarchy if we were to demand too frequent reviews, especially in matters of money."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1952; Vol. 503, c. 1425.]
If we were to insist that the Civil List should be reviewed at statutory intervals there would be a serious danger at some future date of the Crown becoming involved in party politics. May I remind the House that it would be very much easier to involve the Crown in party politics at some future date than to get it out again if it had so fallen? I believe it would be a great error to suggest that there should be an automatic review of the Civil List at statutory intervals by a Select Committee of this House.
There is a second point which I would like the House to consider. The right hon. Gentleman talked about ill-informed comments about the Royal Family. I believe one of the strongest arguments against having an automatic review of the Civil List at statutory intervals is that we would have a flood of ill-informed comments at statutory intervals as well. I cannot think that it would be a good idea to have the sort of questionnaire sent out last weekend by the "Sunday Pictorial" appearing every 10 years in this country. Nothing could be worse than for the people of this country to become too Civil List-conscious. We would get a flood of ill-informed comment and gossip every time there was a review.
I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) once saying in this House, I think very wisely, that the only tolerable form of Government is that which is taken for granted. I suggest that it is a good thing that we in this country are able to take the moral authority of the Crown for granted and that it would not be conducive to that if we were to reconsider these sums every 10 years with all the ill-informed comment and gossip which would result.
In that case, it is a curious thing that my own constituents, who, I think, represent a fairly average cross section, have not written a single letter to me on the matter.
In conclusion, I would remind the House of some words spoken earlier by a great Prime Minister of this country. Two years ago I had the privilege of editing two speeches by Disraeli for the Press. In one of those speeches he used these words:
The wisdom of your forefathers placed the prize of supreme power without the sphere of human passions. Whatever the struggle of parties, whatever the strife of factions, whatever the excitement and exaltation of the public mind, there has always been something in this country round which all classes and parties could rally, representing the majesty of the law, the administration of justice, and involving at the same time, the security for every man's right and the fountain of honour.
I believe that those words are as true today as when they were uttered almost exactly 80 years ago. For that reason I honestly believe the Amendment to be mistaken and I hope that the House will resist it.
The hon. Member has just been saying that he thinks an inquiry every so often would lead to a flood of ill-informed criticism. Is it not a fact that when there is an accident or anything else there is at once an inquiry to establish the facts, and would not this inquiry establish the facts and so still uninformed criticism?
No, the point I was getting at was that whenever a committee of this kind sits—and I do not believe the facts alter so much from decade to decade—there is at once an incitement to the Press to write articles on every single aspect of the matter. Many of these articles are very ill-informed.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, South said in his speech that there was nothing wrong in discussing the affairs of the Royal Family. I quite agree. But if there is one subject which the ordinary member of the public is incompetent to discuss it is the management of the Royal Household. We, the ordinary Members of this House and the public, have very little knowledge indeed on which to base discussion of the management of the Royal Household.
I think I agree with the last words of the hon. Member for Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), when he spoke of the inability of Members of this House and the general public to discuss the general affairs of Royalty. [An HON. MEMBER: "He did not say that."] The assumption was that the general public was so ill-equipped with the knowledge that was necessary to arrive at conclusions that it was doubtful whether any effective discussion could take place.
As I say, I tend to agree with that view because—I will be quite honest with the House and myself—I do not know very much about Royalty beyond what the Press tells me from time to time. The whole thing is a mystery so far as I am concerned, although it is erected into a very pleasant mystery, and I am prepared to believe the best that the Press tries to tell me about Royalty.
I am very glad to have had exploded, as my right hon. Friend exploded today, one of the bombs, and not merely one of them but all the 365 of them, that a foolish newspaper appears to have invented, when he said that there was no daily bottle of whisky at the disposal of Royalty, as a foolish newspaper had been saying. Some hon. Members may think that my interest in the matter will therefore end. As a mater of fact, it only now begins.
I was very disappointed to read that story to which my right hon. Friend referred, because I remember—and this I knew was not altogether an unfounded story about Royalty—that in the reign of George V a remarkable testimony was paid by Royalty to the things about which I am very serious. I had hoped that what George V did during the First World War might have been tried again. I am not at all sure whether it may not have been tried again at a later date by other members of the Royal Family.
Therefore, I am certainly not appearing today in the guise of a critic of the Royal Family. I repeat that I know very little about the realities of their lives. I am intervening in the debate only because I am one of the victims of the situation which we create in order to deal with the problems that the Royal Family present. I say that because, as I reminded the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was making the concluding speech in last week's debate, we are engaged, according to the first few lines of this Bill, in disposing of revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall.
We are disposing of them in such a way that during the minority of His Royal Highness the Duke of Cornwall a part of the revenues of the Duchy shall be paid in relief of the charge for Her Majesty's Civil List. I enter into the discussion of that point as a practical person. As I told the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day, I am one of the tenants of the Duchy of Cornwall. I talk to the other tenants of the Duchy, and there is a general impression amongst us that the Royal Family make very good landlords in the Duchy of Cornwall, that indeed, on the whole, those of us who are tenants of the Duchy do a great deal better than we would do if we were tenants of certain private interests in London which I know very well. A good example is being set there of which we have every reason to be proud and thankful.
I know too, however, that in the sort of effort which is being made in this Bill to make the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall meet the needs of Royalty things will be done of the kind that I know have been done in the past, as, for example, when a few years ago His Majesty the late King indicated that he would forgo £100,000 of his private revenues in order to enable us to meet the difficulties which the House then had to meet with regard to matters of this sort. Many of us who lived in the Duchy of Cornwall believed that in order to enable that £100,000 to be forgone for that purpose, there was a good deal of neglect of the tenants in the Duchy of Cornwall.
I have read it, and after reading it I do not share the view of the hon. Member. I am of the opinion still, in spite of his intervention, that in an effort to make up for this money in other ways there was, through the indirect connection between all these things which come into the Civil List, neglect of the property during the period when the financial struggle was embarked upon in order to meet the situation which was then created.
I should like, therefore, to know quite clearly what the result will be for the tenants of the Duchy of Cornwall of the arrangements here being made. Other tenants have expressed their concern about the matter. I believe that if it were left to the personalities of Royalty to decide these issues, the tenants would get the same sort of superior treatment as I believe they have generally enjoyed under wise management when there has been any personal influence brought to bear on these matters.
I leave that question to make one or two comments on other points that have emerged in this discussion. Everyone participating in this debate, as in the debate last week, seems to be agreed that the money which we spend on Royalty is specially justified because of the belief of the whole country in pageantry, and that the whole of our people are looking for such expenditure even in bad times like these, when we must tell everybody to forgo any increase in his wages. It seems to be agreed that, for the sake of the pageantry we get out of it, we should be willing to agree, on an occasion of this sort, to the sums which are included in the Civil List. That is at all events an argument that I have heard advanced.
I know that there is truth in that argument. I know that, if there were not a Royal Family, our people would be inventing kings and queens or something similar in order to meet their desire for a show. Who of us in the House who goes down in June and July to take part with our constituents in local rallies does not come across regularly, as I did last Saturday, the young ladies who are declared to be the "queens" of this town or that district, and who are worshipped by the assembled multitude in exactly the same way, though in a smaller degree perhaps, as Royalty is worshipped on the greater occasions?
Finding that there is this longing of the people for a show, and that it can be satisfied by the provision of a certain amount of pageantry concentrated in the personality of the monarch—and although I am unwilling to waste money, because I consider it to be a waste of money in the situation that faces us—I know that large bodies of my constituents expect this provision regarding Royalty to be continued, but I do not believe that that covers the desires of the majority of the citizens of this country.
When it comes to the question referred to with great indefiniteness by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu), the question of the expenditure by the people who surround Royalty and who carry out the functions of pageantry to which we attach so much importance, I am quite certain that, as has been said during these debates, 80 to 90 per cent. of the money that is paid in the Civil List goes to the expenditure of private persons and families who regard themselves as necessary for the pageantry of the State, and I do not believe that we get good value for that money.
I think there are people all over the show—and I use the word "show" advisedly—who are living in houses in pleasant places, with special titles accorded to them, appointing staffs of their own and administering to their own private purposes, whom we could very well do without, and whom Royalty could very well do without, even from the point of view of the purpose of pageantry, to which we are all prepared to agree.
I think there is a necessity to examine this matter carefully from time to time—and this is where I find a reason for supporting wholeheartedly the proposal for the 10-yearly revision of the moneys that are paid—and that there ought to be a much closer examination than any that appears to have been given by the Select Committee to the extent to which moneys provided by Parliament for the purposes of the pageantry and the functions of the State go into the pockets of those who produce hardly anything themselves. It is the unsatisfactory character of that sort of expenditure, to which also "Reynolds Newspaper" referred last weekend, to which I think it is worth while drawing attention.
I do not know how far the stories told in the newspapers about Royalty are to be believed at all, and I do not know whether the story in "Reynolds Newspaper" that a real effort is being made, certainly by one of the members of the Royal Family, to rid Royalty of the burden and the unpleasantness which that sort of thing involves, is true or not. I hope the story is true. I hope it really is the case that—so runs the story—the Duke of Edinburgh, under the Queen's leadership, is really getting down, to the examination of all those hangers-on who bring no credit to the Royal Family, who add no lustre to the State, and whose pageantry, so far as most of us are concerned, is utterly wasteful.
I hope that an attempt is being made to revise this expenditure, and very considerably to limit it. I am certain of that, if the story told by "Reynolds Newspaper" is true, the Duke of Edinburgh will add another reason to those which I agree have already been provided by that young man—who seems to me to be a very pleasant young man, as far as I can make out—for the generosity of treatment which this House has been willing to accord to him in the life which he must now lead as the Consort of the Queen.
May I interrupt my hon. Friend? If that story is correct, it includes the closing of Balmoral, and I am quite certain that the people north of the "tartan curtain" would very greatly deplore the closing of Balmoral.
The hon. Lady must draw from the newspapers, as we all have to do, such amount of truth as she thinks resides in these stories. I was not trying to show that there was truth in the whole story or in part of the story I was reciting. I am not dealing with Balmoral, or with my hon. Friend's proposals about Buckingham Palace and the flats. Indeed. I never saw very much in that proposition. [Interruption.] Well, let me say something further about that.
I do not see why Buckingham Palace should not be kept for the real purpose of pageantry, in which I agree the whole nation believes. I think that the State Apartments, the pictures and the pleasant residential places overlooking the gardens could very well be reserved, as they are now reserved, for the purposes of Royalty; but I am certain that if the whole of the plan of Buckingham Palace were examined by some committee—and this applies equally to the Palace of Westminster—we should find "dug in" in this corner and that corner this petty official and that petty official with claims which could not be substantiated.
We should find all over Buckingham Palace that part of it could very well be transferred to the real uses of the State or to some Government offices, whose staff would probably get out of their premises and make them free for the flats that my hon. Friend wants to have.
I am always impressed with the evidence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) because I know how carefully he looked at the matter himself, and that he knows what is going on. If he tells me that, I am impressed, and I say that I shall have to revise this view.
I form my views, as hon. Members form their views, as best I can from the estimate that I give to the validity of the stories in the newspapers. I am only saying that, while I am not departing from the general voicing of a desire that the country's wish for the proper maintenance of the Royal Family should now be carried out, I am well aware, without the help of the newspapers, from everything I see for myself about the disposal of the Royal properties that there is a great area in which a considerable saving could be effected. Nobody would benefit more from that saving than the Royal Family themselves.
Whether they agree to embark upon the full-scale inquiry that is necessary is, of course, a matter for them to decide; but this House, which is making this enormous grant at a time of great financial stringency, should have taken its responsibilities far more seriously and insisted, through the Select Committee, on a much closer examination of the problem to which I have referred.
I am not now worried at the anxieties of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) has put the matter briefly but conclusively. I was impressed during the sittings of the Select Committee by the enormous care taken by the Palace officials in compiling the list of the sums of money required. It has been said that there was a little cheese-paring by Members of my party many years ago. Frankly, I felt that the officials had done a lot of cheese-paring in the estimates submitted to the Committee.
As a Member sitting on the Committee for the first time, I was amazed at the amount of effort which the Royal Family themselves had put into cutting down expenses. It was reported by us on page 5 of the Report that it would be in accordance with the constitutional practice for the Queen to send another Gracious Message if there should be changes which necessitated a review. For that reason, I should not like the Amendment to be carried. Do we really want what amounts to a Royal means test every 10 years? I should deprecate that.
It has been suggested during the debate that the garden parties might be cut down or widened to include more people. I was impressed last Thursday at the wide choice of people who attended the garden party. The guests came from all sections within our shores and from the Commonwealth and Empire. I do not mind if the garden parties are enlarged. I should be glad if more people could attend them. It would give them an opportunity to meet the Royal Family at closer range and to appreciate, probably to an even greater degree, the affection which we have for them.
It is not often remembered how much good our Royal Family do in other ways besides merely producing affection. For instance, the garden party last Thursday created a tremendous amount of trade and gave employment to many people. That is an aspect of many of these ceremonies which is forgotten. They have other uses in addition to their pageantry. Pageantry produces trade and employment.
I sincerely hope that the Amendment will not be carried. Our Royal Family occupy an important office. They are respected all over the world. For that reason, I should hate their office to be reduced in status in any shape or form.
I support the Amendment for a reason which has not been discussed much in this House. We are treating the Royal Family far too much as a British Royal Family rather than as a Royal Family which is in charge of the whole of the Empire and the majority of the Commonwealth. Within the next 10 years, or within any space of 10 years, the responsibilities and the duties of the Royal Family may so radically change that from time to time there will have to be a revision and a renewal of our ideas about their duties.
Today, we journey at a much greater speed. Before the end of this decade it may well be that we shall reach Australia in less time than it took to go to Scotland at the beginning of the century. Within the last six months of her reign Queen Victoria went to Balmoral in thé last month of 1900. She was then 82 years of age. She died the oldest member of any British Royal Family which we have had, yet at the age of 82 she went to Scotland.
I have heard of the amount of extra work which would be imposed and of the extra duties which would fall on to their shoulders, but I see no reason why the Royal Family should not make regular visits not only to the Dominions but to the other parts of the Empire as well—not spasmodic visits but regular visits as a part of their duties and responsibilities. King George V was crowned in India as well as in London. In those days they recognised the importance of the monarchy within the Empire.
I think that we should accentuate that importance and do all we can to bind together the Empire and the Commonwealth by using the monarchy in this way as a binding-link. This country of Britain alone cannot survive without the Commonwealth and the Empire. The 51 million people in Britain have no future without the Empire and the Commonwealth. Unless something is done to bind us altogether we shall find ourselves within a short time—a matter of decades—in the utmost misery. Therefore, we must make full use of the monarchy in this respect.
Take the case of Africa alone. These new self-governing Colonies may, within a couple of decades, be so advanced as to influence the whole of Africa. We may see rising there a great African Empire following the example of these two new self-governing Colonies, if they give the right example and if they make progress and develop. What could be more fitting than regular visits from the Monarch to that part of the world?
A couple of weeks ago I was entertained by four South Africans. They were not entirely English-speaking South Africans, they were Afrikaans-speaking South Africans; that is to say, they were of Boer extraction. They told me of the tremendous impression made in South Africa when the late King and his Queen went there on a visit. It changed the whole of the sympathies of the population in that part of the world. I think a regular visit to South Africa by the Royal couple might do a great deal to heal what is now a scar in the relationship between the Afrikaans-speaking part of that Dominion and the non-Afrikaans speaking part of it. These regular visits of the Monarch would do a great deal to bring South Africa back to the position of eminence in which we used to think of her when she was under the leadership of the late Field Marshal Smuts and a very formidable column of the Commonwealth.
Therefore, we must go into this question of a periodical revision—and I think that every decade is a good period—to see exactly what use should be made of the monarchy. It may very well be that in the next decade, if the monarchy is used to its full extent, the Commonwealth may possibly contribute towards the upkeep of the monarchy; that they would think it part of their duty, their honour and their privilege to contribute towards the upkeep of the monarchy. That would make a difference to this country in its contribution in that respect. I hope that the members of the Commonwealth will take their full share in this part of the financial situation of the Royal house.
Let us remember that today it is not purely a British monarchy, it is an Imperial monarchy over the whole Empire and the Commonwealth and it should be considered as such. As many hon. Members have said, never in the history of this country have we been so united. Never have we been such a happy people as we are today. The people today are a happy people. When we read the history of the time of Queen Victoria, as we are so often invited to do—
—and see the condition of the Lancashire textile workers in the days of Queen Victoria we find that there is not much comparison with conditions today. The first Elizabeth sent her sailors out to found what was to be this tremendous estate, and it may well be that in the reign of the second Elizabeth we shall see the consolidation of this estate, and that we shall develop as one huge people spread throughout the world, not as a British monarchy but as an Imperial monarchy of the British Empire and Commonwealth.
The hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) has reminded the House that it is not often that we have an opportunity of discussing the monarchy, and in a short time, from the obscurity of these back benches, I wish to express two hopes which are very widely held in this country. The second one arises quite naturally from the speech of the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick) and I would like to follow the line he has taken.
That the first of these hopes is widely held is evidenced by the speeches made in this House last Wednesday in the Committee of Supply, and by the pleas recently made by the Federation of Women's Institutes that the nation as a whole should endeavour not to overwork our beloved young Queen, remembering that she has her duties also as a wife and mother; and by the "Lancet," declaring, one must assume, on behalf of the medical profession, that the health and vitality of the Queen must be protected from Her Majesty's hereditary sense of duty.
I believe that it would be a very happy augury if, at the outset of this most hopeful reign, there were to arise a nationwide recognition that the accession to the Throne of a young Queen and a mother necessarily involved—unless her health and her family responsibilities are to suffer, which none of us would want to happen—a new interpretation of the duties of the Sovereignty. That interpretation will impose on all of us restraint in our demands upon Royalty and will require on the part of those closest to the Throne excessive care, particulary at the outset of this reign, not to create precedents which will lead to greater demands upon the time and health of Her Majesty than she ought to be required to make.
That leads me to the second point, and to the speech of the hon. Member for Loughborough. Instead of accepting as inevitable the necessity for Her Majesty to undertake a heavy time-table of official visits in this country, I think we should remember constantly that our Sovereign Lady, Queen Elizabeth, is not only Queen of this Realm, but, as the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) has reminded the House, and, as is stated in the Accession Proclamation, is Queen of her other realms and territories and head of the Commonwealth.
It is greatly to be hoped that the postponed visit to Ceylon, Australia and New Zealand will take place at an early date. Not only that, but that it will be found possible in the future for Her Majesty and her Consort to make, at leisure, extensive Commonwealth tours of which the itineraries and programmes have been so arranged as to provide adequate opportunities for rest and recreation. I believe that this would be immensely facilitated if the idea could be accepted and adopted that Her Majesty goes into residence, perhaps for a period of months, in one or other of the great self-governing Dominions across the seas. It is an idea which I think would be greatly preferable to the rushed and exhausting tours of many Royal journeys in the past.
In those sad weeks which followed the demise of the late King I ventured to try to express some of these thoughts in a letter which was published in one of the organs of the Press, and I received a great correspondence, as so often happens when one writes a letter to the newspapers. As a result of that I was brought into touch with someone whom I had not met before and who does not know that I intend to mention his name in the House this afternoon. It was Brigadier T. W. Boyce, who provided me with a copy of a paper which he had written containing an idea new to me and which seemed to me to have great attraction.
He suggested that some of the great self-governing Dominions might think it appropriate, perhaps as a Coronation gift to Her Majesty, to make the offer of a Royal residence so that in some of the great self-governing Dominions the Queen would have a home of her own to which she might go from time to time and where she might obtain refreshment and rest and change as well as fulfil an important part of the duty of sovereignty.
I was not aware of that, but, of course, it would have an important bearing on the matter. The gift of a Royal residence is not an integral part of the idea of periodic residence in the great self-governing Dominions, but I suggest that if the idea were accepted there would be in time, and I come to another idea mentioned by the hon. Member for Loughborough, the possibility of a local Civil List to defray some part of the Royal expense during residence overseas.
The hon. Member expressed concern about Her Majesty's duty, particularly as a mother, and hoped that we would be all much more reasonable in our demands upon her. I am sure that we all feel like that about Her Majesty's position, but how does that hope square with the hon. Member's proposal that she should be in this Colony and the next, residing for months at a time? Will the hon. Member please try and clear the air a little?
I am greatly indebted to the hon. Lady for her question, because it enables me to develop this point very briefly.
I have asked a great many people about this and I think that one of worst features of Royal duty is what someone has called the daily moil of the scarlet boxes—the need to keep constantly abreast of current affairs by reading day after day the contents of the scarlet boxes wherever Her Majesty might be. I was interested when the Prime Minister suggested, last Wednesday, that it might be possible for Her Majesty to have some respite from these scarlet boxes, perhaps for a month in the year while on holiday.
If Her Majesty were in residence in Australia and Canada the distance alone would impose some limitation upon the amount of matter which would have to be digested daily. I would hope that residence abroad from time to time in the Colonies or Dominions would be of sufficient length to provide real rest and recreation, and I believe that that would be possible.
Before my hon. Friend goes on to his next subject, does he accept without question the statement made by the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) that a Gallup Poll was taken in Canada and that the result was against the Queen and Her Consort living or visiting there and having a place there? I have never heard of it and I am astonished at the information.
May I refer the hon. Member to the "News Chronicle" of two months ago when the details were given. The reason why I took so much interest in it was because I was advocating something similar. One response was, "We will have them here if Britain pays the expense." I suggest that the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Baxter) and the hon. Member for Angus, North and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) should study that report. It might cause them to adjust their ideas when they suggest that the Royal Family should go to other countries without first finding out whether those countries want them or not.
I shall look at the figures, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Baxter), who is an authority on Canada, will do also. The marvels of 20th century transport have made it possible for our Queen to visit distant outposts of the Empire with almost as little inconvenience and in almost as short time as it was possible for our grandparents' Queen to visit Balmoral and the Palace of Holyrood House.
Does the hon. Member realise what he is suggesting? Does he realise that these tours overseas are probably more exacting than staying at home? And one of the devilish things is that one gets there so quickly now.
I am giving way because I am afraid I am not making myself clear. I had suggested—and I hope that the House will bear this in mind—that the programmes and itineraries of Imperial visits overseas could be so arranged as to give adequate time for rest and recreation. I agree entirely about the speed of transport. That was recognised in the days of the late Mr. Mackenzie King, who said:
We may look forward to the day when the King and Queen may reside for part of the year in the capital of Canada.
Since the Statute of Westminster the nations of the Commonwealth and Empire have been animated in moments of crisis with exactly the same ideals and exactly the same unity of purpose as they displayed in August, 1914. War-time comradeship between hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of young men and women from all parts of the Empire has forged new ties of respect and understanding. Post-war stresses have increased the realisation of the inter-dependence of our unique union of independent nations.
It is clear that the reception accorded to the Heiress Presumptive on her visits to Canada and Kenya, the anticipation with which Ceylon, Australia and New Zealand had looked forward to the Royal visit, the most moving reaction throughout the Empire to the death of his late Majesty and to the accession of her present Majesty have shown how strong are the links which bind the nations of the Commonwealth to the Throne.
I have no doubt at all that Her Majesty's residence in her own home in her various realms would dispose of any suggestion that there might be—and sometimes suggestions are made on those lines—of the dominance of the Mother Country. At the same time, it would increase the feeling that the Royal Family, of which we are all so justifiably proud, belongs no less to Canberra and Ottawa than to London and Windsor.
I think we all share the opinions expressed by the hon. Member for Angus, North and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley)—opinions which were expressed in a very interesting letter recently to the "Daily Telegraph"—and I am quite sure that everybody agrees that everything possible should be done to relieve the Monarch of the harrassing and pressing day-to-day duties which the formalities and the conventions of the past have imposed upon the Monarch.
I believe that something should be done to ease the nightmare and burden of the red dispatch box. It is a custom that the Monarch must sign certain State papers. Lord Thurlow once told King George IV that it was useless for him to look at papers, for he could not understand them. I am quite sure that a large number of Acts of this Parliament and the complicated legislation of the 20th century with its Clauses and subsections, Finance Bills. National Assistance and all the elaborate verbiage, simply cannot be understood by anybody who has not had a very long and extensive legal training.
I believe our legislation could be made much more simple, and that includes this Bill which we are discussing. I think that the duties carried out by the Monarch in approving the legislation submitted by Parliament and giving the Royal Assent could very well be carried out by a certificate of the Speaker of the House. The whole elaborate formula which the Monarch has to follow in going through all these State papers should be dispensed with and the Monarchy should be regarded purely as a ceremonial function.
That completely proves my point that there is no necessity for the Monarch to deal with these matters at all and that the whole formality might be dispensed with. I am sure Her Majesty will be grateful to me, for I would give her a perpetual holiday from the duty of inspecting the various State papers.
I agree with the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), but not with some of his opinions which he expressed in support of it. For example, I fail to see why he has an objection to a Royal personage marrying a foreigner. Queen Victoria married a foreigner, and this objection to foreigners is surely a curious argument to come from the Opposition.
I did not say that I objected to her marrying a foreigner. I said that I hoped she would marry an Englishman and that there are lots of eligible bachelors here, as there are. I dealt with the fallacious argument that there were plenty of rich people left here, and said that we ought to make it possible for her to marry a poor Englishman and not go abroad just because there are lots of rich foreigners.
We must keep in the front of our minds the present economic situation. Only yesterday the Government were asking us to economise to the extent of £30,000. In that debate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) said that the House was in much the same position as a limited liability company which was on the rocks, and another hon. Member said that this was a bankrupt country and that this fact
should stand above all other considerations. In the same debate we had the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) telling us:
Unless we can save this country generally from the certain ruin which faces us unless we balance our economy, it will be idle to talk of water colours and armouries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1952; Vol. 503, c. 1857.]
We should surely keep in our minds these warnings from the Government benches about bankruptcy and ruin, but it is from these benches, and not from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that we are getting demands for economy and for very careful, meticulous consideration of our financial resources.
I did not agree with the statement by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich that there were so many stories about Royalty in the newspapers that there was a great deal of misunderstanding and that the people had the impression that these bills were larger than they really were. I suggest that there are barnacles on this particular boat and that there are a large number of officials whose duties should be inquired into and which was not done by the Select Committee.
The Committee could examine persons who came voluntarily, but there was not the remittal to the Committee which applies to the usual Select Committee whose duty is to examine accounts. They had not power to send for persons and call for papers. All they had to do was to examine the evidence of a small number of court functionaries whose particular concern was to keep their own jobs. If we had a real Select Committee empowered to call people—a Committee composed of people who were determined to find out exactly how much money was being spent, and how—we would have an entirely different report.
I want to make the same suggestion that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury made at the conclusion of yesterday's debate, when he referred to the Organisation and Methods Division of the Treasury whose duty was to examine the expenditure on museums and art galleries. I suggest that the O. and M. Division of the Treasury should turn their attention to the expenditure in the Civil List with the object of making very necessary economies. We should not disguise the fact that altogether the bill for Royalty in this country is a very formidable one. It is not confined to the Civil List Vote. There is on the Ministry of Works Vote a further bill for £411,000.
There are all kinds of items which are not included in this Civil List. There is the sum of £475,000 for the Queen's establishment. There is the sum of £30,000 extra for the Duke of Edinburgh. There is the sum of £411,000 for the Royal Parks, which is not considered on this particular Vote. There are the items in the previous Civil List—£70,000 for Queen Mary, a further £70,000 for the Queen Mother, and £35,000 for the Duke of Gloucester. I estimate that altogether there is a formidable bill of £1,091,000 for Royalty at the present time, which is a very big bill. When hon. Members talk about cheeseparing I would say that this is a very expensive cheese and it needs further examination.
Certain remarks have been made about the way the Press treats Royalty. Royalty has every reason to protest against the shameless sensationalism which floods the Press on every possible occasion. But it should be taken into account that in the Royal Household there is a quite well paid Press department, which uses its office on every possible occasion for unnecessarily boosting and vulgarising Royalty. I think that substantial economies could be effected if a Select Committee were to turn its attention to the Press department. Do we need a very well paid Press secretary? Do we need an assistant press secretary and four clerks, including another Press clerk?
I suggest that there is a tendency to overdo Royalty and to boost it on every possible occasion in a way which makes a large section of the people believe that Monarchy is being kept in existence not for the services which it renders but because it is an institution with a precedent, a tradition and a routine, which is fostered by the people who want tradition and routine because they believe that it symbolises the ownership of land and of privilege in a capitalist and landed society.
I believe that the views I am expressing are more prevalent than hon. Gentlemen opposite think. There are probably some people who would be horrified—as were the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) and the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer—at my casual suggestion, which I threw out just at a chance moment in the debate, that some of these Royal residences could be converted into flats. Though they might be very uncomfortable and antiquated, and some of the rooms might not have the latest modern conveniences, they would help to rehouse temporarily some of the thousands and thousands of married couples who will not have any houses for another 25 years if the present Government do not improve their building programme. That opinion is far more prevalent and accepted in the country outside than it is in this House.
I shall support the Amendment, and I hope that during the Committee stage we shall be able to impress upon the House the fact that we are standing for the British taxpayer against the profligates and spendthrifts, and that we want the whole question of these residences to be viewed in its proper perspective. If we do so I believe that we shall have a large volume of public opinion solidly behind us.
There has been a very remarkable change in the tone of this debate as compared with that which took place last week on the Report of the Select Committee. Those of us who criticised that Report were then told quite definitely and conclusively that we represented nobody but ourselves; that there was no volume of opinion for whom we were speaking and that we were merely the odd few out. This afternoon the opposite charge has been made. We have been accused of playing to the gallery. In other words, if we criticise the Civil List we are doing it for the sake of popularity. People who make charges of that kind are probably most insincere themselves and, being insincere, they accuse everybody else of being the same.
It is not a question of being anti-Royalty. It is not a question of having bitterness or animosity towards the Royal Family. But at the present time we are told that we face the most serious economic crisis that we have ever known, and it is a question whether, at a time when our people are being asked to make sacrifices, they should not be given a lead from the top and whether some cutting down in the expenditure entailed in this Bill might not well be undertaken without in any way impairing the opportunity of the Royal Family to live the useful and dignified lives that we all want them to live.
My right hon. Friend who proposed the Amendment on behalf of the Opposition asked us to disregard the newspaper reports and comments. He said that he hoped that nobody would give any consideration to the story of the bottle of whisky which was supposed to be put on the tray every night and, although it was never opened, disappeared and nobody knew where it went; but if a bottle of whisky did disappear every night it would mean that only 365 disappeared in the year. At £2 a bottle that would be just over £700, and yet I see that £6,502 was spent in the Royal cellar last year. I do not know whether that represents the amount of liquor consumed in the Royal Palaces or whether it includes wages and various other items, but I should like to know because it would appear that if the sum of £6,500 a year is being spent in the Royal cellars there is room for a little economy there.
If it is true that this country is in a terrible economic plight, it is very necessary that in the immediate months and years that lie ahead those who advise the Royal Family and arrange their tours should have some regard to what the people are feeling and thinking. When the late King—whom we all very much loved and respected—was going on a tour with the present Queen Mother it was decided that a ship had to be converted for them. The ship was the "Gothic," and tens of thousands of pounds were spent on putting a ship which was already a sailing mansion into what might be termed a Royal mansion. I met some of the men who were working on that ship, and I know what were their comments.
I do not believe that the late King or the present Queen Mother wanted that. I do not believe that the present Queen would want that. I am quite sure that the Royal Family would like to be treated as human beings instead of angels. But, of course, they are surrounded by a lot of people who have never changed, who are still living back in the centuries past and who do not realise that we are now a modern democracy and that the respect which the Queen and the Royal Family have today is a respect out of love and admiration and not out of fear of what the Royal Family might do, as was the case in days gone by.
It has been said today that this Civil List of £475,000 is misunderstood and that people do not understand how far the money has to go or the number of expenses and the types of expenditure which have to be made; but, of course, what people do understand is this—that constantly they are finding it more difficult to make ends meet, and that the ordinary people of this country, upon whom we shall have to depend more and more if we are to overcome the economic crisis, are finding it more and more difficult to make ends meet. When anyone talks in terms of thousands or tens of thousands of pounds, the ordinary people cannot understand why it is that they should have to sacrifice at a time when lavish and extravagant expenditure of this kind is being sanctioned.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) said, it does not stop at £475,000. There is the other £70,000 and £30,000 and £10,000, and, of course, additional money will be involved by the Bill with each child that is born to the present Queen. That is something which the ordinary people just cannot understand. They cannot understand why, when every baby comes along, it must mean another £10,000 and why, when the child eventually marries, it must be another £25,000. Those are astronomical figures to ordinary working people, and I do not believe the ordinary working people who may criticise them are in any way being disrespectful or disloyal to the Royal Family.
In conclusion, I do not believe, and nothing will ever convince me, that the Royal Family would lose anything of the love and affection which there is for them if we now decided that, because of the changed times in which we are living, it is necessary that the lives of the Royal Family should be brought more in keeping with those of the vast majority of the people over whom they reign. I think such a change would endear the Monarchy to the people.
The Monarchy disappeared in many countries largely because it was far removed from the lives of the people over whom it reigned. None of us would like that to happen here, and I do not think it can happen here; but I am certain it could never happen if, because of the change through the centuries, from being an autocracy in this country, from being a country in which class divisions were very pronounced, to a modern democracy with class divisions becoming less and less, we decided that it would be helpful and beneficial if there were a fundamental change in the lives of the Royal Family. For that reason I want to support the Amendment, which asks that there should be a review every 10 years.
I hope we can now bring this debate on Second Reading to a close. Afterwards, as some hon. Members have reminded us, there is the Committee and remaining stages of the Bill. We have already had a debate on the Resolutions, and many of the arguments today have followed the line of the argument put previously on the Resolutions. I shall therefore confine myself to answering some of the questions and points which have been raised by hon. Members on all sides of the House.
First of all, the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) moved the Amendment, which I understand is to be pressed to a Division. This is not dissimilar procedure from that which was adopted in 1936 and 1937, and although I personally regret that there should be a Division, I do not think opinion outside will regard it as unduly out of the way that an Amendment of this sort should be moved or that we should consider its contents in the spirit in which it was moved by the right hon. Gentleman. In moving the Amendment on behalf of his right hon. and hon. Friends, the right hon. Gentleman gave some reasons for it, and one of them appeared to be that he did not like barnacles. If I may say so, he appears to have barnacles on the brain or on whatever other part of the anatomy they best suit.
I could not help feeling that, as the right hon. Gentleman comes from a late Administration which was described by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as "lion-hearted limpets," he fully understands all about barnacles.
Coming more seriously to the description of barnacles, I suppose he means that there were economies which might have been made. Although he finds, as we all found in the Select Committee, that in recent times many major economies have been carried out, he wants to be sure that such economies will continue to be carried out and, in the words of the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough), that the monarchy is fully up to date and is in touch with the times and with our modern democracy. That, I feel certain, we all wish to see.
When the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), himself a tenant of the Duchy of Cornwall—and I am glad that he paid a tribute to good landlords—says that he feels, too, that savings might be made, I suggest that he and other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have not perhaps paid enough attention to paragraph 14 of the Report of the Select Committee, in which the Committee said:
Your Committee have satisfied themselves that substantial economies have been made in the administration of the Royal Household since the end of the war, that the best professional advice is obtained from time to time to ensure the most economical administration of the various Departments of the Household, and that adequate measures are in force to maintain a continuous review of Household expenditure.
Those words were included by the Select Committee, and I think they represented the views of all of us, whatever our different complexions may be on other things. In fact, rather remarkable economies have been undertaken, otherwise why is it, when the value of money has changed so much, that the cost of the Civil List has barely risen by comparison with previous reigns? Why is it that the Committee were satisfied?
The Committee found that not only in the catering department, but also in the internal administration of the Household, and also in such matters as the upkeep of the Household, the most expert advice had been brought in, not from among what some hon. Members describe as the "hangers-on," who always seem to get it in the neck in our debates, but from the most business-like and practical firms in catering, for instance. I do not wish to mention any names, but they are firms that are associated in the public mind with the most democratic and efficient forms of expenditure and provision. They were called in to see whether the Royal Household is being run in an economical way.
I can honestly say, and any hon. Member who sat on the Select Committee can say, that we were well satisfied that every economy which could reasonably be carried out has been carried out and that, in fact, there is an opportunity for that continuous review which the House would wish to see.
I leave this to mention for a moment the question of "hangers-on." It was raised by more than one hon. Member in the course of our debate, and the words themselves were used by the hon. Member for Ealing, North. There was an inference in the speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that the court functionaries were keeping the Monarchy in an old-fashioned mould when it might well move into modern times. All I should like to say about that is this, that when we had the evidence on the Select Committee it became quite clear to all of us—and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me—that one thing certain about the senior Court officials is that they have shown the utmost unselfishness in taking salaries far below what they could get in the outside world and in deliberately submitting themselves to those economies in view of the considerable deficit in the Civil List at the end of the preceding reign.
In fact, we found no fewer than 100 that was the figure quoted—including the very highest of the officials, who were, in fact, receiving rates quite unsuitable to the offices they were performing, even in comparison with Her Majesty's Civil Service, and it was partly due to that that a certain amount of money was added to the total of the Civil List, so that we can meet what, we thought were, thanks to the unselfishness of some of those persons, abuses of their very unselfishness. It is an entirely false picture, from what I have been able to assess in my study to fit myself for this debate, to suggest that there are hangers on of unlimited quantities in the Royal Household who drag Her Majesty or the Royal Household back, and do not allow them to accept the democratic procedure of modern times.
Therefore, what it comes to is this, that the main difference of opinion between that side of the House and the Government is on the procedure. I fully accept
what the right hon. Member for Ipswich has said, that he wishes the Monarchy to be efficient and properly run and in keeping with tradition. That echoes words used also by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell). We accept that as the general view, although we have had one or two exceptions to that. But there is the difference of procedure. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite suggest that there should be a review, and that this review shall be undertaken
by a Select Committee of this House, of the appropriate level of expenditure for this purpose, and of its allocation as between the personal expenditure of the Royal Family and the cost of purely State ceremonial and activities.
We say on this side of the House that we regard the Royal Household as a unit and entity of itself. We regard the question of the decision about ceremonial in the future, and the attempt to allocate expenditure in between the personal expenses of the members of the Royal Household and the official expenses of upkeep, as much best decided by the ruling Sovereign of the day, and, to use the words which were used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South, we think that there really would be a great danger, if we were to adopt the course suggested by hon. Members opposite, of bringing the Monarchy far too much into our ordinary political struggles and comments.
For example, the right hon. Gentleman himself said:
… the ceremonial, the colour, the pageantry, and so on … should be associated not with those who hold the political power for the time being but with the head of the State who is above the political battle."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1952; Vol. 503, c. 1412.]
All we are asking hon and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to do is to accept those words by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer and to keep all that above the political battle, and that is why we believe that the decisions of this Select Committee are correct, namely, that we should endeavour, with all the difficulties involved, to make provision for what may well be a long reign; and that we have deliberately allowed for by this contingencies margin; and we believe that these arrangements will be most suitable for dealing with problems that arise in the future.
Hon. Members raised questions about this contingencies margin or supplemen- tary class. One question was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Withington (Sir R. Cary), that if there is a surplus, what happens to the surplus? That was quite clearly set out in the Select Committee's Report, and is set out in the Bill, and the answer is that the surplus accumulates, and if there is a big surplus at the end of the reign it is for Parliament to decide what happens to that money at the end of the reign, and Parliament will be absolutely free. Meanwhile, the trustees can invest the money, and the House can feel, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South himself described, that, in fact, in that case the Civil List would not be more than £405,000 because the rest of the money would in fact be accumulating.
I may say in passing that I think that it is perfectly possible that some of this money will have to be used from the contingencies margin for deficits in the Civil List, because, judging from our examination, we find that, at the present moment, with the upkeep necessary, with all the expenses involved, it only just provides sufficient to keep the Royal Household on what we consider is the adequate and the dignified level. So it may well be necessary, without further wage increases or anything of that sort, that some of this money will have to be transferred to Classes II and III.
More than one hon. Member raised the question of the £25,000 which the Select Committee thought should be at the disposal of Her Majesty for use in the case of certain
unavoidable expenses of such members of the Royal Family for whom no financial provision is otherwise made.
The Select Committee went on to say that such expenditure
should be at the discretion of the sovereign.
We have been asked why that particular form of words should not be put into legal language. The answer, quite frankly, is that although we have at our command the most expert Parliamentary counsel in the world it is very difficult indeed to translate the whole of those words into purely legal language in a statute. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because so much is left at discretion. What we have done —and in this hon. Members need not be afraid that we are not fully safeguarding the position of Parliament—is to put this
sum under the discretion of the Trustees in Clause 9.
I come now to one of the points which was raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich. But perhaps he wishes to supplement it before I answer him?
What I wanted to make quite clear was that the Chancellor understands my point. It is this, that the Trustees are a statutory body who have no discretion, but may do only what they are directed to do by this House, and this Bill does not direct them. That was the point I endeavoured to make.
Yes, I was just coming to that. The Bill does, in fact, direct them. The Trustees are charged under Clause 9 with the duty of making arrangements for securing that, if in a year there is a deficit on the audited expenditure of Classes II and III, supplementary provision from Class V shall be available to make good the deficit, and that duty lies, therefore, upon them.
An hon. Member raised a certain point about the use of the word "may" in Clause 9 (2). The words are:
… the Treasury may direct that out of the appropriations to those classes an amount equal to the excess be transferred to the trustees, to be accumulated by them as aforesaid.
We think that it would be possible, if the House were to show any inclination, as, I think, the right hon. Gentleman has done, to put an Amendment down to alter that into "shall." We should not do it quite as simply as using the word "shall" in that place. We should leave out the words in page 5, line 4, "the Treasury may direct that," and insert "then," and in line 5 we should insert after the word "excess" the word "shall." That, I think, would meet the right hon. Gentleman's point. There was never intended to be any point of substance in that. It was following form. However, we should be ready to move those Amendments.
I revert to the general position of the Trustees. In the first place, as the Leader of the House has said, they will presumably arrange for Her Majesty to have available automatically that element of Class V up to the maximum, because, let hon. Members remember, it is not laid down that the maximum of £25,000, which was set aside for the Sovereign to use in the way I have already described, need be spent in a year.
After all—and the greater power covers the less, the greater power meaning that they have the power and the duty to make good the deficits on Classes II and III if they occur—the Trustees can make such arrangements as they judge best for making the Contingencies Margin available for the purpose for which Parliament has decided, namely, the making good of deficits in Classes II and III. They can make those arrangements in any way they think fit, and no doubt when the legislation is passed it will be the duty of the Trustees to make such arrangements as operate smoothly and efficiently to make good the audited deficits on Classes II and III. As they have power to make good the deficits from the contingencies margin available, so they have power to make good the £25,000 to Her Majesty for the purpose I have described.
I think the right hon. Gentleman is perhaps getting embroiled in the legalities of the situation, as I have been when studying it. The fact is that if Her Majesty spends that money it will be a deficit, presumably, on Class III. I am only talking in legal terms, and it is in these legal terms that we have considered the Bill. I have been through the same travail as the right hon. Gentleman. If Her Majesty spends money, which will, presumably, from my investigation, come out of Class III, it will then be made good by the Trustees by such arrangements as they think fit, but it is because of the nature of the wording that it has not been possible to put it more accurately or in more specific detail in the Bill than has already been suggested. I hope that answers the points put by the right hon. Gentleman. I feel sure that the provision of the House will make in this connection will be of the utmost satisfaction to Her Majesty.
We have now reached the time at which, I think, this Business was to be divided on and when we were to take other matters, so I will not delay the House any further. I will say only this. In this debate we have had some evidence of the attitude of friendliness towards the Royal Family, the attitude of deep respect for tradition combined with a certain healthy, and at times jovial, criticism, which I feel sure will be understood in the quarters towards which it is directed.
It is very natural in these days, as history has shown over the past generations, and even more so 130 or 140 years ago than today, that hon. Members should express their opinions; that they should contrast the expenditure which they see here with the modest lives of the people;
that they should consider the difficult economic times in which we live. But towering above all these considerations is our respect for what is probably our most precious traditional heritage, namely, the Royal House. If that Royal House is to continue and do service to the Commonwealth, as two or three hon. Members have desired in this debate, and to these islands, if it is to maintain its high tradition and march in step with modern democracy, then we feel that it should be well supported to keep up its traditions in the way we would wish.
|Division No. 209.]||AYES||[6.36 p.m.|
|Aitken, W T.||Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)||Holland-Martin, C. J.|
|Allan, R. A. (Paddinglon, S.)||Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)||Hollis, M. C.|
|Alport, C. J. M.||De la Bère, Sir Rupert||Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.|
|Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)||Deedes, W. F.||Horobin, I. M.|
|Amory, Healhcoat (Tiverton)||Digby, S. Wingheld||Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence|
|Arbuthnot, John||Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)|
|Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)||Donner, P. W.||Howard, Greville (St. Ives)|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)||Doughty, C. J. A.||Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.).|
|Aster, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)||Drayson, G. B.||Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.|
|Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)||Drewe, G.||Hurd, A. R.|
|Baker, P. A. O.||Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)||Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)|
|Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.||Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.||Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Duthie, W S.||Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.|
|Banks, Col. C.||Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M||Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)|
|Barber, Anthony||Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E||Jennings, R.|
|Barlow, Sir John||Erroll, F. J.||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)|
|Baxter, A. B.||Finlay, Graeme||Jones, A. (Hall Green)|
|Beach, Mai. Hicks||Fisher, Nigel||Kaberry, D.|
|Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)||Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.||Keeling, Sir Edward|
|Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)||Fletcher-Cooke, C.||Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)|
|Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)||Foster, John||Lambert, Hon. G.|
|Bennett, William (Woodside)||Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)||Lambton, Viscount|
|Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)||Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)||Lancaster, Col. C. G.|
|Birch, Nigel||Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell||Langford-Holt, J. A.|
|Bishop, F. P.||Gage, C. H.||Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.|
|Black, C. W.||Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)||Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)|
|Bossom, A. C.||Gammans, L. D.||Lindsay, Martin|
|Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.||Garner-Evans, E. H.||Linstead, H. N.|
|Braine, B. R.||George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd||Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)|
|Brailhwaile, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)||Godber, J. B.||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.|
|Brooman-White, R. C.||Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.||Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)|
|Browne, Jack (Govan)||Gough, C. F. H.||Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)|
|Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.||Gower, H. R.||Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)|
|Bullard, D. G.||Graham, Sir Fergus||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh|
|Burden, F. F. A.||Gridley, Sir Arnold||McAdden, S. J.|
|Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)||Grimond, J.||McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.|
|Carr, Robert (Mitcham)||Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)||Macdonald, Sir Peter (1. of Wight)|
|Cary, Sir Robert||Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)||McKie, J. H. (Galloway)|
|Channon, H.||Harden, J. R. E.||Maclay, Rt. Hon. John|
|Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)||Hare, Hon. J. H.||Maclean, Fitzroy|
|Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)||Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)||MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)|
|Cole, Norman||Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)||Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)|
|Colegate, W. A.||Harvie-Watt, Sir George||Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)|
|Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert||Hay John||Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)|
|Cooper-Key, E. M.||Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.||Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.|
|Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Heald, Sir Lionel||Markham, Major S. F.|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Heath, Edward||Marples, A. E.|
|Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.||Henderson, John (Cathcart)||Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)||Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)|
|Crouch, R. F.||Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)||Maude, Angus|
|Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Maudling, R.|
|Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)||Hirst, Geoffrey||Maydom, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.|
|Medlicott, Brig. F.||Renton, D. L. M.||Sutcliffe, H.|
|Mellor, Sir John||Roberts, Peter (Heeley)||Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)|
|Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas||Robertson, Sir David||Teeling, W.|
|Morrison, John (Salisbury)||Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)|
|Nabarro, G. D. N.||Roper, Sir Harold||Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)|
|Nicholls, Harmar||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard||Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)|
|Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)||Russell, R. S.||Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)|
|Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)||Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.||Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.|
|Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.||Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur||Touche, Sir Gordon|
|Nugent, G. R. H.||Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.||Turner, H. E. L.|
|Nutting, Anthony||Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas||Turton, R. H.|
|Oakshott, H. D.||Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)||Tweedsmuir, Lady|
|Odey, G. W.||Scott, R. Donald||Vaughan-Morgan, J. K|
|Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.||Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.||Vosper, D. F.|
|Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Shepherd, William||Wade, D. W.|
|Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)||Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Partridge, E.||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)||Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)|
|Peake, Rt. Hon. O.||Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)||Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)|
|Perkins, W. R. D.||Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)||Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)|
|Peto, Brig, C. H. M.||Soames, Capt. C.||Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.|
|Peyton, J. W. W.||Spearman, A. C. M.||Wellwood, W.|
|Piokthorn, K. W. M.||Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)||White, Baker (Canterbury)|
|Pitman, I. J.||Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard||Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)|
|Powell, J. Enoch||Stevens, G. P.||Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)|
|Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.||Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)||Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)|
|Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.||Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.||Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)|
|Profumo, J. D.||Storey, S.||Wills, G.|
|Raikes, H. V.||Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Rayner, Brig. R.||Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)|
|Redmayne, M.||Studholme, H. G.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Remnant, Hon. P.||Summers, G. S.||Mr. Butcher and Major Conant.|
|Acland, Sir Richard||Delargy, H. J.||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.|
|Adams, Richard||Dodds, N. N.||Janner, B.|
|Albu, A. H.||Driberg, T. E. N.||Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)||Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Edwards, John (Brighouse)||Jones, David (Hartlepool)|
|Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)||Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)||Jones, Jack (Rolherham)|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.||Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)||Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)||Keenan, W.|
|Baird, J.||Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)||Kenyon, C.|
|Balfour. A.||Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.|
|Belhnger, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Ewart, R.||King, Dr. H. M.|
|Bence, C. R.||Fernyhough, E.||Kinley, J.|
|Benn, Wedgwood||Field, W. J.||Lee, Frederick (Newton)|
|Benson, G.||Finch, H. J.||Lever, Harold (Cheetham)|
|Beswick, F.||Follick, M.||Lewis, Arthur|
|Bing, G. H. C.||Foot, M. M.||Lindgren, G. S.|
|Blackburn, F.||Forman, J. C.||Upton, Lt.-Col. M.|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Logan, D. G.|
|Blyton, W. R.||Freeman, John (Watford)||MacColl, J. E.|
|Boardman, H.||Freeman, Peter (Newport)||MeGhee, H. G.|
|Bowles, F. G.||Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.||McInnes, J.|
|Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth||Gibson, C. W.||McKay, John (Wallsend)|
|Brockway, A. F.||Glanville, James||McLeavy, F.|
|Brook, Dryden (Halifax)||Gooch, E. G.||MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)||Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)|
|Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)||Mallalieu, E L. (Brigg)|
|Burke, W. A.||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)|
|Burton, Miss F. E.||Grey, C. F.||Mann, Mrs. Jean|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)||Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||Manuel, A. C.|
|Callaghan, L. J.||Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.|
|Carmichael, J.||Griffiths, William (Exchange)||Mellish, R. J.|
|Castle, Mrs. B. A.||Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)||Mitchison, G. R|
|Champion, A. J.||Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||Monslow, W.|
|Chetwynd, G. R.||Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)||Moody, A. S.|
|Clunie, J.||Hamilton, W. W.||Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.|
|Cooks, F. S.||Hargreaves, A.||Morley, R.|
|Coldrick, W.||Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)||Moyle, A.|
|Collick, P. H.||Hastings, S.||Murray, J. D.|
|Cove, W. G.||Hayman, F. H.||Nally, W.|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)||Neal, Harold (Bolsover)|
|Crosland, C. A. R.||Holman, P.||Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P J.|
|Cullen, Mrs. A.||Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)||Oldfield, W. H.|
|Daines, P.||Houghton, Douglas||Oliver, G. H.|
|Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.||Hubbard, T. F.||Padley, W. E.|
|Darling, George (Hillsborough)||Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)||Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)|
|Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)||Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)|
|Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Pannell, Charles|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Pargiter, G. A.|
|de Freitas, Geoffrey||Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)||Paton, J.|
|Deer, G.||Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)||Pearson, A.|
|Peart, T. F.||Silverman, Julius (Erdington)||Turner-Samuels, M.|
|Plummer, Sir Leslie||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)||Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn|
|Poole, C. C.||Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)||Viant, S. P.|
|Porter, G.||Slater, J.||Wallace, H. W.|
|Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)||Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)|
|Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)||Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)||Weitzman, D.|
|Proctor, W. T.||Sorensen, R. W.||Wells, Perey (Faversham)|
|Pryde, D. J.||Sparks, J. A.||Wells, William (Walsall)|
|Pursey, Cmdr. H.||Steele, T.||West, O. G.|
|Rankin, John||Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.|
|Reeves, J.||Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Wigg, George|
|Reid, Thomas (Swindon)||Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.||Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.|
|Reid, William (Camlachie)||Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)||Williams, Ronald (Wigan)|
|Rhodes, H.||Stross, Dr. Barnett||Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)|
|Robens, Rt. Hon. A.||Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.||Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)|
|Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Swingler, S. T.||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)||Sylvester, G. O.||Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)|
|Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pansras, N.)||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)||Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)|
|Ross, William||Taylor, John (West Lothian)||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Royle, G.||Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)||Wyatt, W. L.|
|Schofield, S. (Barnsley)||Thomas, David (Aberdare)||Yates, V. F.|
|Shackleton, E. A. A.||Thomas, George (Cardiff)||Younger, Rt. Hon. K.|
|Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley||Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)|
|Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.||Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Short, E. W.||Thurtle, Ernest||Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Wilkins.|
|Shurmer, P. L. E.||Timmons, J.|
Bill read the Third time, and passed.