MINISTRY OF WORKS (Hansard, 6 March 1947)

§ Viscount Hinchingbrooke (Dorset, Southern)
I understand that this sum of £3,994,000 is for broadcasting. As, presumably, a proportion of the money will be devoted to television, I would like to know whether the Minister responsible can confirm the newspaper report that television services will be resumed in the course of the next few days.

§ Mr. C. S. Taylor (Eastbourne)
I would like to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that those engaged in television services are adequately paid—[An HON. MEMBER: "Too much"]—or are paid too much. But from accounts given to me, it appears that a number of the artists engaged on television services are paid inadequately. Therefore, before we vote this sum to the B.B.C., which, I imagine, includes money for television services, I would like to have an assurance from the Minister who replies that artists in the television services will be paid a reason able sum.

§ Mr. Joynson-Hicks (Chichester)
I should be glad if the Minister would give some further information in regard to Category C. Does that really mean that, out of the sum which has been asked for, £1,024,000 is required solely for the ser vices rendered by the British Broadcasting Corporation to Government Departments? It seems to me an inordinately large amount for any service rendered to a Government Department, and I think the House would appreciate an explanation.

§ Mr. Maclay (Montrose Burghs)
Can the Assistant Postmaster-General give any assurance that the B.B.C. services will in future reach the East of Scotland? At the moment, neither programme can be 791 heard there. This question has been raised at intervals in this House over the last few years, and I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will give the matter of reception in Angus and other parts of Scotland some study, to see if an improvement can be made at the earliest possible moment.

§ Mr. John Lewis (Bolton)
I would like to ask the Assistant Postmaster-General if he could make any statement regarding the television services. At the moment, they are cut off, but I understand that artists and others are attending every day and are being paid. Since the television service uses much less than the equivalent amount of power necessary for broadcasting I hope the Government will make a statement indicating when this service will be restarted.

§ Sir Waldron Smithers (Orpington)
In view of the fact that, owing to the gross mismanagement of the Government, broadcasting services have had to be cur tailed, I would ask whether the cost of the licences will be reduced. I do not expect an answer tonight, but will the Assistant Postmaster-General consider this, and let me know?

§ Sir William Darling (Edinburgh, South)
My remarks will be of much the same character as those of my hon. Friend who has just spoken. I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Sub-head "British Broadcasting Corporation (Grant for the Home and Television Services)," where is shown a revised Estimate for £2,970,000 marked by an asterisk. It refers to the fact that of this expenditure, £39,000 is attributable to Northern Ireland, and since the Assistant Post master-General has been so accurate and precise about the sub-division in this respect, I think it would not be improper to ask what is the sub-division for Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland has, as is well known, no responsibility for the Post Office. That is the responsibility of a United Kingdom Minister, and in these circumstances, we have the right to inquire why the people of Scotland have not this consideration. The Scots are most assiduous business people—

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner)
I think that goes without saying, but the question does not arise on this Estimate.

§ Sir W. Darling
I had not finished my sentence, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
But the hon. Gentleman was out of Order in what he said.

§ Sir W. Darling
With all respect, Sir, you did not allow me to finish my sentence. In fact, I had only reached the subject, and had not even touched the verb. But I always keenly regret being out of Order and I would merely press my claim for Scotland in this matter, and express the hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will give the information for which I have asked.

§ Mr. Harold Davies (Leek)
I rise to draw the Assistant Postmaster-General's attention to the sum of £2,970,000 in this Estimate in relation to research and broadcasts for schools. I think more money should be used for research with a view to making better use of radio for listeners in schools. Therefore, I would like to have, if possible, in this, or some further Estimate, a larger allocation for broadcasts for schools.

§ Mr. Hugh Fraser (Stone)
Following the speeches of the hon. Members for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling? and Montrose (Mr. Maclay), I would like to raise two points. There are several parts of the B.B.C. programmes to which I do not wish to listen. One is the programme for schools, and the other, the programmes for Scotland. I would like to ask the Assistant Postmaster-General how much of this money is being spent in experimentation with frequency modulation, which would make it possible for both sets of broadcasting in this country to go out at the same moment.

§ Mr. McAllister (Rutherglen)
I would like to ask the Assistant Postmaster-General if any consideration is being given in these Estimates to the establishment of television services in Scotland.

§ The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Burke)
With regard to the television programmes, I cannot tell the House at the moment when these programmes will start again. The House knows that the Third Programme, the Television Programme, and the Light and Home programmes, were reduced to save power. When the House expressed a desire that the Third Programme should be restored, 793 and I think rightly so, the B.B.C. agreed and very promptly restored it. But they are not yet in a position to restore the Television Programme. They are anxious to do so, and as soon as the situation improves I am certain that they will do so. With regard to the payment of artists, the B.B.C. itself is responsible for its own payments to the artists. This question of payment of artists was raised some time ago in the House, and I gave an assurance that the B.B.C. was overhauling the payment of engineers, and so on. But the payments which it makes to artists in particular programmes is a chatter for the B.B.C. itself.

§ Mr. C. S. Taylor
I was raising the question of the payment of permanent staff, announcers and so on. I have a sister-in-law who is interested in this.

§ Mr. Burke
I am sure the B.B.C. will take particular care about the hon. Member's sister-in-law. I was asked what is the payment with regard to services for Government Departments. This is, of course, for broadcasting overseas, and it is done at the instigation of the Colonial Office, the India Office and the Foreign Office. They give the B.B.C. the kind of programme which they wish the B.B.C. to broadcast, and the B.B.C. are responsible for the actual broadcasting of the programme. But the Estimates are vetted and looked over by the Government Departments which get the services from the B.B.C.

§ Sir W. Smithers
Is it the case that the B.B.C. broadcasts at the orders of a Government Department?

§ Mr. Burke
The B.B.C. gets advice from the Departments as to the kind of broad casts and the most suitable times for over seas broadcasts, and the B.B.C. itself does the broadcasting.

§ Sir W. Smithers
That is why they are so Left Wing.

§ Mr. Burke
Several speakers asked about reception, particularly in Scotland. It is true that there are parts of the country where reception, particularly of the Third Programme, is not as good as we should like it to be. That difficulty, as the House knows, arises because we were not able to use the 514 metre wavelength at the power we originally intended to use. That wavelength is shared by another 794 country and we had to reduce power. The B.B.C. are endeavouring to get over that difficulty by considering the use of other transmitters in various parts of the country but all this takes time. They are, however, very anxious to get on with the job and they are doing as much as they can.

§ Mr. Maclay
Is the Minister aware that this difficulty does not apply only to the Third Programme? I am sure that any hon. Member who has been in Angus knows that it applies to all services.

§ Mr. Burke
I am afraid that is true. It is not always the fault of the B.B.C. that there is poor reception. In certain areas, particularly in overcrowded areas, people cannot put up the kind of aerial which they need, and in some cases the sets are not good enough to receive the programmes well.

§ Mr. Burke
Reference has been made to broadcasts in schools. I have always thought that the school broadcast was particularly good. I have no doubt the B.B.C. will take note of the suggestion made but the question of programmes is, as I have repeatedly said, entirely a matter for the B.B.C. The House has decided over and over again that the B.B.C. must itself be responsible for its programmes. I cannot possibly answer for the programmes of the B.B.C.

§ Sir W. Smithers
On a point of Order. I asked the Minister a very specific question and he has not answered it.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The fact that a Minister has not answered, or may riot wish to answer, is not a point of Order.

§ Mr. Hollis (Devizes)
There is one question I would like the Minister to answer. He said just now that the House had expressed a desire that the Third Programme should be reintroduced and that the B.B.C. complied. He also said, in general, that the B.B.C. is responsible for programmes and not the Government. In a Debate in this House the other day he told us it was at the command of the Government that the Third Programme was suppressed rather than by the B.B.C. itself. I should like it made clear whether after the previous Debate in the House, it was the B.B.C. themselves who made 795 representations to the Government that the Government's action had been in defiance of public opinion and the opinion of this House, and whether the Third Programme, therefore, was restored at the request of the B.B.C., rather than by any action of the Government. However that may be, this particular item in the programme was suppressed, not by the B.B.C. but by the Government.

§ Mr. Burke
I think I can answer that question now. The position is quite simple. There is a Committee reviewing the situation with regard to the coal crisis. They reviewed the amount of saving the B.B.C. had been able to get, by reducing these programmes and cutting down the Third Programme. It was decided by that committee that the B.B.C. should be allowed to re-start the Third Programme because the amount of saving was not very great.

§ Mr. McAllister
Could the hon. Gentleman answer my question in regard to television in Scotland?

§ Colonel Gomme-Duncan (Perth and Kinross, Perth)
I should, for a few moments, like to refer to what my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) said. Will a great deal, or some portion, of this sum come from Scottish sources? Has further consideration been given to the setting up of a board of governors for Scotland to look into that side of the B.B.C. organisation? It is quite impossible for Scotland to get proper representation unless they have their own board of governors. Since this matter was last raised, has this question been further considered by the Government? It is no good just appointing one Scotsman to the board in London, because he is a first-class chap and a good chartered accountant. We want some consideration from the artistic side as well as the business side. Has anything been done on this question, which has been raised time and time again on this side of the House?

§ Brigadier Prior-Palmer (Worthing)
Has the Assistant Postmaster-General had any representations in relation to television with regard to the compulsory placing of suppressors on motor cars? Does not he realise that motor cars without suppressors can completely neutralise the effect of reception of television sets. and that for an 796 extra few shillings on the initial cost of a motor car that could be eliminated completely?

§ Mr. William Teeling (Brighton)
On page 31 of the Supplementary Estimates we find: In view of the expiry on 31st December, 1946, of the Corporation's Charter, the original Estimate made provision for the nine months ending 31st December only. Further provision is required for the quarter ending 31st March, 1947. then under Subhead C: British Broadcasting Corporation (Grant In Aid For The Overseas Service …) for that three months, £1,024,000. That is the period in which there has been this tremendous cut in fuel, and in which broadcasting has been cut very considerably. Can the Assistant Postmaster-General—if he will listen to me for one minute—tell me why it is we have £1,024,000 for the period of three months in which, as far as one can see, we have had practically no broadcasting at all to the Colonies? If there has been broad casting to the Colonies, why has that been allowed to go on when there has been a cut here? Can he tell us exactly what is the position, and why this sum remains unaltered, in view of the cuts in the last few months?

§ Mr. John Foster (Northwich)
The Assistant Postmaster-General was asked about frequency modulation, but did not answer the question. It is a question which is of some interest to hon. Members. The specific question is: What experiments are going on in connection with frequency modulation, and what is its future in this country?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Hon. Members are entitled to speak only once, except with the leave of the House.

§ Mr. Burke
Perhaps, with the leave of the House, I might reply to the question about frequency modulation. The B.B.C. are experimenting with that, and I under stand that at the present time they have put out a contract for a transmitter for frequency modulation. I cannot promise that anything will be done early, because it will take some considerable time to get it set up. I was asked about television in Scotland. The first station that will be open for television outside London will be Birmingham, of course—

§ Sir W. Smithers
Why "of course"?

§ Colonel Gomme-Duncan
Why not Scotland?

§ Mr. Burke
Because Birmingham happens to be on the way to Scotland.

§ Mr. Assheton (City of London)
What about Lancashire?

§ Mr. Burke
It is also on the way to Lancashire, which comes later. As to the amount of money for services overseas, this Supplementary Estimate is really an Estimate for the three months that were not covered because the Charter ended at the end of last year. It is the Estimate that is necessary for all the services during the three months from January to the beginning of April. It is the amount of money necessary to provide these services. It was not then, of course, seen there would be cuts in the services. But the voice of this country is being carried abroad, and services are being given to the Colonies and Dominions overseas all the time, although they are being given at reduced power.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The hon. Member has already spoken twice.

§ Mr. Maclay
On a point of Order. The Assistant Postmaster-General said some thing about a part of Scotland that, I am quite certain, he did not mean. Is there no way in which I can ask him a question, so that he can make the matter clear, and so that publicity can be given to his explanation?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
That is not a point of Order.

§ Sir John Mellor (Sutton Coldfield)
I want to ask the Minister to give an explanation of the last paragraph in the details of this Supplementary Estimate. It is there stated: The authority of Parliament is sought by means of this Estimate for an ex gratia payment of £1:6,650 to the Company. Apparently, the Government agreed to pay this amount to the North-Eastern 798 Electric Supply Company Limited to relieve the Durham Rural District Council from a liability. The explanation reads: A settlement by agreement was reached whereby the North-Eastern Electric Supply Company Limited would abandon the project— that was for an electrical power station— and would be reimbursed in respect of abortive expenditure incurred in connection with the application for a planning permission. What I want to ask is, why this is described in the last paragraph as an ex gratia payment. It seems to have been a contractual obligation.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Fred Marshall)
The reason why this is termed an ex gratia payment is, that there is no statutory authority for expenditure of this nature in existing legislation. The authority of Parliament is accordingly sought by means of this Supplementary Estimate for the expenditure. The amount was incurred, of course, during the last Government's tenure. We have looked over the Estimates, and we find there is nothing in the Estimates that is excessive. That is the cost of the inquiry, and we, therefore, come to Parliament for authority to pay the money.

§ Sir J. Mellor
If there was no statutory authority, was not the settlement by agreement referred to in the details ultra vires?

§ Mr. Marshall
I do not want to make a long explanation. I think everyone will agree with the object, which was to save the amenity of Durham Cathedral. A formal refusal by the Minister would, of course, have brought into operation the compensation provision in the Fourth Schedule of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, which the Law Officer of the Crown advised had retrospective effect. This would have placed on the rural authority liability to pay compensation to the company without any assistance from the Exchequer. As the preservation of the amenity of Durham Cathedral was a national matter, the late Minister took the responsibility of relieving the Rural District Council of the expense, and my feeling is that he did a very good job.

§ Mr. C. Williams
I am not in any way objecting to this Supplementary Vote. I feel sure there is no one in this country 799 who would not welcome the fact that we are able, in these circumstances, to preserve the amenity of Durham Cathedral. As far as this side of the House is concerned, we wish to preserve anything that is beautiful and attractive. I know that it does not appeal to the plutocrats opposite, but, on the other hand, I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Government are able to find an ex gratia payment to preserve a very valuable amenity at a time of terrific financial pressure. I am emphasising that for one reason. I believe there will be other cases in the West Country, and I shall use this as a precedent. I welcome the precedent, and I thank the Government for it.

§ Mr. Osbert Peake (Leeds, North)
I beg to move, to reduce the vote by the sum of £100.
I do so because, on the Committee stage of this Supplementary Estimate, we could get on one important matter no satisfactory answer—in fact, no answer at all —from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power. The Supplementary Estimate for £420,000 contains a Subhead H: Expenses in connection with the nationalisation of the coal industry, and the first item under Subhead H is: Expenses in connection with the determination under Section 10 of the Coal Nationalisation Act of the aggregate amount of compensation to be made in respect of the coal industry value of interests transferred to the National Coal Board. This sum of £50,000 represents the legal expenses of a tribunal which sat for a period of time in the summer of 1946, under the chairmanship of Lord Greene. That tribunal sat in camera, and its proceedings were not made public. There were, however, a number of eminent counsel engaged. I have ascertained that the tribunal sat on 30 days between 17th June and 30th July, 1946. This sum of £50,000 seems a fairly substantial one to be spent upon counsels' fees in a case which lasted 30 days. 800 I have managed to ascertain the names of the counsel engaged. Although I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to furnish me with these names on the Committee stage, he was unable to do so. I was surprised at that for this reason. On one of the preceding. Supplementary Estimates, the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock), in a very short speech lasting about three-quarters of a minute, asked for particulars of the counsel's fees at the Nuremberg Trial.

§ Mrs. Braddock (Liverpool, Exchange)
I gave notice.

§ Mr. Peake
The learned and courteous Solicitor General hurried into the Committee, apologised for the fact that he had not been there when the hon. Lady asked for the information, and proceeded to read out a tremendous list of fees and names and this and that, so that the Committee felt the whole thing was a put-up job and that it had all been laid on. I therefore asked, when we came to the question of this tribunal, that we should be told the names of the counsel and the fees which they had received; and to my horror and surprise the Parliamentary Secretary did not say, as he well might have said: "I am afraid I have not these particulars here, but I will certainly obtain them and publish them in the OFFICIAL REPORT at an early date, or send them to the right hon. Gentleman." Nothing of the sort. I will read his answer to the House, it was so good: The £50,000 is in respect of the expenses of the arbitration tribunal. This is an estimate of the amount what we shall have to pay this year. It seems very surprising that by the end of the financial year 1946–47 they could not arrive at the total cost of a tribunal which concluded its sittings on 30th July, 1946. Therefore, it appears that this £50,000 is only part of the expense of this tribunal, and that there is to be a further sum voted in the forth coming year. When I interrupted and asked whether the Parliamentary Secretary, before he passed from that point, was not going to tell the Committee the names of the counsel engaged, or the amount received in fees, as was done on the previous night by the Solicitor-General in dealing with the 801 Nuremberg trial, I received this answer: The names were published in the Press at the time. Why ask me for this information? Furthermore, there was nothing secret about it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February, 1947; Vol. 433, c. 1346–7.] That is the full extent of the answer he gave. If hon. Members of this House putting Questions to Ministers, at Question time let us say, are to be met by the Minister saying "Why ask me for this information?" to what a pretty pass this House will be brought. The House is entitled to obtain from the Minister in charge some information on a matter of this kind, particularly when the. Solicitor-General had hastened to divulge all the names and all the fees of all the counsel engaged at the Nuremberg trial. I have ascertained privately who were the counsel engaged in this case. There were six learned gentlemen instructed by the Solicitor to the Ministry of Fuel and Power. I am not complaining about that. Perhaps they needed six, but they were instructed by the Solicitor to the Ministry and you would imagine that the Ministry, who had marked these gentle men's brief fees, would have some information as to the figure which was to be paid them. Therefore I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not say "I will procure this information." He might have said "It is not in the public interest to disclose this information" or he might have said, I suppose, "I am afraid I do not know, but something can be done about it on the Report stage." Let me tell the House who the counsel were. In the lead there was the Attorney-General. He was assisted by Sir Hubert Holds-worth, K.C., Mr. G. L. Henderson, K.C., Mr. H. O. Danckwerts, and Mr. Carey Evans. And that is the lot. There were, in fact, five. I got one too many. There were six on the other side. I should like to know what fees were marked on the briefs of these gentlemen, as a matter of pure curiosity. We are not moved by any political motives such as immediately inspired the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool when she put her question because when she got her answer she said: I thank the Solicitor-General for the in formation, of which I will make the very fullest political use at every opportunity."— [OFFICAL REPORT, 18th February, 1947. Vol. 433. c. 1099.] 802 Now we on this side of the House are not moved by any such uncharitable motives.

§ Mrs. Braddock
Why not say you are not quite so honest about it?

§ Mr. Peake
So far as I know, these gentlemen, except the Attorney-General, are not politically minded people, and as regards the Attorney-General I rather assume that he will not qualify for any payment out of this sum of £50,000 which has been voted in a Supplementary Estimate.

§ The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross)
indicated assent.

Mr. Peakc
If I understand the position correctly the Attorney-General is no longer on piece-work.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Does that question arise here?

§ Mr. Peake
It is exactly what I am seeking to ascertain. [HON. MEMBERS: "Now we know."] There is no catch in this. The leading counsel was, as I understand it, the Attorney-General. It is true that, so far as I can find out, he did not put in a single appearance throughout the whole of the tribunal's proceedings and he is no longer rewarded on piece-work. He gets an annual salary and therefore I assume that none of the money voted here will go to the Attorney-General. I am seeking this information because I think we ought to be told. I think we are entitled to have it. There is no political motive of any sort in my inquiry, but I would like to know whether. as a matter of technique, the Attorney-General's briefs are still marked with a fee just in order to enable all the other fees to be calculated.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The general question does not arise here. The question of what fee was marked may arise.

§ Mr. Peake
Then I should like to put the specific question whether the Attorney-General's fees are marked. Although he does not receive any fee, except in that way, of course, according to the customs of the Bar, it would then be possible to calculate the fees of the other counsel.

§ Mr. Pritt (Hammersmith, North)
The custom of the Bar whereby the other 803 fees are proportionate to those of the leader, has now ceased in respect of all fees.

§ Mr. Peake
We shall, in due course, hear what these fees were, but, until we do, the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman is not a very valid one. I ask this question because the learned Solicitor-General, in giving particulars of the Nuremberg trial, said that the balance of the amount of £90,000 was made up of an estimated figure of £4,000, which would include fees of the Attorney-General. It may well be that, up to a certain date, the Attorney-General was rewarded by fees, and that, thereafter, he went on to a fixed salary basis, but I should like to be told whether that is the case or not. I think we must have this information from the Parliamentary Secretary, because, otherwise, the House and the public will assume that these particulars of counsel's names and fees are only given by Ministers on the Front Bench, when they think the disclosure can do some harm to their political opponents.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell)
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman was dissatisfied with my earlier reply. He did not, of course, give me notice then that he was going to raise these matters. I agree that my reply was a trifle brusque at times, and I apologise to him for that, but I am now going to satisfy him to the fullest possible extent on the questions which he asked. The hearing before the tribunal lasted 31 days—from 17th June to 30th July. As regards the members of the tribunal themselves, the only fee paid was to Sir Harold Howitt, and he is, I think, to be paid 2,500 guineas. The other two, Lord Greene and Lord Justice Cohen, were serving in an official capacity. In regard to the fees of counsel on the Government side, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General naturally heads the list, but he, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite pointed out, did not, in fact, receive anything from fees, but his brief was marked formally £317 4s.

§ Captain Crookshank
The right hon and learned Gentleman never turned up.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
He gave excellent advice behind the scenes. The next name is that 804 of Sir Hubert Holdsworth, and his brier was marked 2,000 guineas and 30 guineas daily refresher. The next name is that of Mr. G. L. Henderson, K.C., and his brief is marked 1,333 guineas and also 30 guineas daily refresher. Mr. H. O. Danckwerts' brief was marked 889 guineas, with 20 guineas daily refresher, and the same sum was paid to Mr. Carey Evans. I explained on the Committee stage that the Government had agreed to meet reasonable expenses of the Mining Association, the other party to the arbitration, and I must hasten to add that the £50,000 for which we are asking here includes provision for payment to them, because it will be observed by those who are quick at addition that the amounts to be paid to the Crown counsel in this matter are far below the fifty-thousand guinea level.
I am in a somewhat difficult position here because, although I know precisely how much the Mining Association paid their counsel, the Government have not agreed to pay the whole of that amount. They have agreed to pay what they consider to be reasonable costs. It so happens that, in their view, the amounts actually paid appear to be unreasonable. I will, however, say that the figures are far in excess of what was paid to counsel on the Government side. It would, I think, be improper for me to go further than that, because part of the fees for counsel may not be paid by the Government. Until we know precisely how much public money is involved, I think it would be unwise to say anything more. The only other point I need mention is that certain other costs, amounting to some £1,500, were actually incurred in connection with research and other expenses. I hope that I have been able to give the right hon. Gentleman the information for which he asked, and that he is now satisfied.

§ Mr. C. S. Taylor
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thought fit so soon to answer the points raised by my right hon. Friend, without waiting to see whether either hon. Members wished to raise points under this grant. I believe I am right in saying that he will now only be able to answer further points by leave of the House. I wish very briefly to raise one or two points under Subhead C, "Other Administrative Expenses." Additional provision is required for publicity. I would like to ask why the Ministry of Fuel and Power require publicity at the 805 present time. There used to be a time when there was some sort of competition between gas, represented by "Mr. Therm," and electricity, but I fail to see why there is any competition or any publicity necessary at the present time. Is the Ministry of Fuel and Power going to ask us not to consume electricity, gas and coal, or is it going to ask us to consume gas, electricity or coal? Which is it? I would like to know. I have here in front of me tonight an example of publicity by the Minister of Fuel and Power. I do not know whether this was paid for or not. I would like to know. It comes from the "Daily Express" of March, 1946. It is headed: The Best Maid is Electric, says Shinwell. The report goes on: Servants will be scarce, and electricity will be a substitute for servants, said Mr. Shinwell, Minister of Fuel and Power, in London yesterday. He said, 'If I were asked if I would choose electricity or a domestic servant. I would rather have electricity any time. Electricity cannot answer back, it cannot introduce a policeman into the kitchen and give him pie, and it does not take two or three nights a week off.' If that is a sample of the publicity for which we are asked to vote £20,000, then, I submit, the Minister of Fuel and Power should be denied that sum for publicity.

§ The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross)
I think that, in fairness to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, I should say something in regard to the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) thought fit to make, that there had been some sort of "put-up job" between my hon. and learned Friend and the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) in connection with the information that was given to the House about the fees paid to counsel at the Nuremberg trial. The facts were that the hon. and learned Solicitor-General—

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I do not think I can allow the right hon. and learned Attorney-General to refer to the Nuremberg trial. He may merely say that the facts stated were incorrect, but he cannot go into detail.

§ The Attorney-General
Of course, Sir, I must accept your Ruling, but the suggestion that it was a "put-up job" was made at that time, and there was also a 806 specific reference to my own fees in connection with the Nuremberg trials. I should have liked to speak, if I may, about the allegation of a "put-up job" and also about the reference to my fees, and, further, whether brief fees were marked in the case of Law Officers of the Crown—

Mr. De la Bère (Evesham)
What has this to do with fuel and power?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman must realise that I have only just come into the Chair and I cannot possibly answer that question.

Mr. De la Bère
On a point of Order. This is all nonsense. It has nothing to do with fuel and power at all. It is absolute nonsense.

§ The Attorney-General
May I, Sir, ask for your Ruling after I have informed you of the facts of the matter? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds, in raising a matter on the Supplementary Estimates for the Ministry of Fuel and Power, spoke about the payment of fees to counsel in an arbitration case in which that Ministry was concerned, and suggested that, during the consideration of a previous Supplementary Estimate, certain information was given to the House. That information was given by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General in regard to fees at the Nuremberg trial, and it was suggested that there had been a "put-up job" between the Solicitor-General and the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool in order to give rise to some political—

§ Mr. Peake
Quite frankly, I never made the slightest suggestion against the Solicitor-General.

§ Mrs. Braddock
Oh, yes, you did.

§ Mr. Peake
What I did, in fact, say was that it was a "put-up job" in that the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool had given notice beforehand to the learned Solicitor-General, for when he came into the House a full answer was given although he was not in the House when the question was asked. I did not suggest that there was anything wrong, but I suggested that it was a "put-up job" between the hon. Lady and the learned Solicitor-General.

§ The Attorney-General
I do not know if one is to take that as an apology or 807 a withdrawal. [HON. MEMBERS: "Neither."] In any case, an apology ought obviously to be made. It was a most improper, misleading, and, I would say, unfortunate suggestion to have made, and one with which I am sure the right hon. and learned Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) would not wish to be associated. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Very well. If hon. Members opposite say that the right hon. and learned Gentle man the Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool would wish to be associated with the suggestion that the learned Solictor-General was party to a "put-up job," they are at perfect liberty to say so, and we will take notice of what they say. In the course of the observations which the right hon. Gentleman made, he made some inquiries into the fees which I myself have been paid in the -course of the Nuremberg trial, and in particular he asked whether my brief had been marked, drawing attention to the fact that in the Supplementary Estimate a figure not exceeding £4,000 had been allowed for, in respect of fees which might become pay able to me.

§ Mr. C. S. Taylor
Mr. Speaker, may 1 ask whether this is in Order on the Estimate?

§ Mr. Speaker
I understand that these matters have been raised, and therefore I thought the learned Attorney was entitled to answer them. After that I think they are out of Order.

§ The Attorney-General
The position was, and is, that the fees which are payable to the Law Officers and which now, under the existing practice, are set off against the salary paid to them, are in fact marked upon the briefs. In the case of the Nuremberg fees, the position was that, as the Chief Prosecutor who had all along the responsibility for the conduct of the trial, I was entitled to be paid the highest brief fee. I thought it wrong to accept such a fee, and my brief fee was 500 guineas.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller (Daventry)
I must say I am astonished at the learned Attorney-General thinking that there is anything in this to apologise for or with draw. The learned Attorney-General cannot have fresh in his mind the observations made by the hon. Lady the Member 808 for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) when she raised the question about fees.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. and learned Member could raise that matter on another Estimate, but not on this one.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. The learned Attorney-General has been allowed to discuss his brief fee at Nuremberg and to attack my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake).

§ Mr. Speaker
The whole thing was out of Order. I understood that the learned Attorney-General had been attacked, and therefore he was allowed to reply. After that, I said, no more discussion should take place on this matter.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
I, of course, bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but may I say most respectfully, that I wish you had had the opportunity of hearing the previous part of the Debate. There is one further point with which the learned Attorney-General has not, in his somewhat provocative observations, seen fit to deal. I think we on this side of the House are entitled to some observations upon it. He Jas referred to the practice of marking the Attorney-General's briefs. What particular purpose that served, for in stance on the coal arbitration, one does not know. I think I am right in saying that the learned Attorney-General was not present at any period during the hearing of that arbitration. If he did work on it preceding the tribunal, and had not to appear, does the normal rule apply that he returns his brief and gets no fee? What is the point of marking a fee on the brief if the learned Attorney-General does not attend?

§ Mr. Speaker
Am I to understand that this is part of the Supplementary Estimate? Would not this arise as part of the Minister's salary?

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
I understand that it is part of the Estimate, from what the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel submitted to us. He gave a detailed list, and we are grateful to him for the information, of the fees which were paid in respect of that arbitration.

§ Major Cecil Poole (Lichfield)
On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I 809 respectfully suggest that whereas the brief was marked £314 4s. in respect of this arbitration, actually no money was paid to the learned Attorney-General in this respect, and the amount of £317 4s. will be borne on the Estimates which cover the Attorney-General's salary.

§ Mr. Speaker
That is not really the point of Order I was speaking of. The marking of a brief seems to be a procedure which is not part of the Supplementary Estimate.

§ The Attorney-General
I can perhaps help in this matter by informing the hon. and learned Gentleman that I had no brief to appear at the arbitration at all. So that the point the hon. Member is seeking to make is a thoroughly bad one and does not arise. I was briefed to advise and I did in fact give a good deal of advice at various stages. My professional fees were 300-odd guineas. They are not paid to me but are set off against salary and the whole transaction was purely a book-keeping one.

Mr. Manninghtun-Buller
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention. If he had listened to the observations of the Parliamentary Secretary he would have heard the Parliamentary Secretary refer to his brief being £317 4s.

§ The Attorney-General
That was for advising before and during the arbitration.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
I understood it was a brief. If he got instructions to advise from time to time it perhaps is understandable that the Parliamentary Secretary would refer to that as a brief, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman may have a different interpretation. He has now made that matter plain. I do not desire to persist, but this is a matter which should have been made plain earlier.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member has already spoken. If he has not the leave of the House, if one hon. Member objects, he cannot speak.

Hon. Members
Object.

§ Viscount Hinchingbrooke (Dorset, Southern)
We now come to the Fund which is always shrouded in the greatest mystery, the Government Hospitality Fund. Who actually receives hospitality, how much money is paid out, and for what, are always obscure matters. It is useful to take a brief look at this Fund from time to time, and to ask questions about it. On this occasion we are fortunate in being presented in the Estimate with the explanation for this revised Estimate, an additional sum required of £25,000—which, incidentally, is one-third of the total expenditure of the Fund for the whole year. I should at least like confirmation of that, because I want to say something upon it later. This one-third is to be devoted to the forthcoming reception of a delegation on the occasion of a visit of members of the Supreme Soviet. I am highly gratified that we should be accorded a visit from high representatives of the Soviet Union, and I make no complaint whatever that they should be received, and that they should be entertained by His Majesty's Government. But I should like to know some details about it. For how long are they coming, and how many members shall we have the advantage of meeting and entertaining? I should also like to know whether the cost of their entertainment will be in excess of the cost of the entertainment accorded the other day to members of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, who came over here at the invitation of hon. Members opposite. We on this side of the House would have liked to have seen members of the Christian Democratic Party—

§ Mr. Speaker
The cost of entertaining the people to whom the noble Lord has just referred was not borne by the Government. Therefore, the noble Lord is out of Order in referring to it.

§ Viscount Hinchingbrooke
If that is your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and is a matter of fact, I make no further comment upon it. I must say, I had understood that it was otherwise. I should he grateful if we could be given the information for which I have asked. There 811 is one other point to which I should like to refer. At the conclusion of the Estimate are the words: Any balance of the sum issued which may remain unexpended at 31st March 1947 will not be liable to surrender to the Exchequer. If that means anything it means that year by year the amount in the Government Hospitality Fund may be increased. If it is increased and the balance is not drawn out and repaid to the Exchequer, what is the present capital value of the fund? It may be very substantial. Therefore, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give me that information, because it is altogether wrong that — [Interruption.] I am astonished at the levity of hon. Members opposite. For years past hon. Members opposite have made complaint about high entertainment, whether it be by Government—

§ Mr. Speaker
The Supplementary Estimate relates to a certain specific matter. Discussion of the whole subject of Government hospitality is not in Order on this Supplementary Estimate.

§ Viscount Hinchingbrooke
I have asked my questions. I think they are clear. I want to know how many members of the Supreme Soviet are coming here; how long they are likely to stay; and whether there is a large balance in the Fund, above the Estimate of £75,000 presented to the House.

§ The Minister of Works (Mr. Key)
The number of the visitors from the Supreme Soviet is difficult to say, because although the official visitors are, I think, of the number of 10, they will have to be accompanied by a number of others, particularly of interpreters, to assist them in their work. Their stay will be a month. The determination is that they shall be given as full an opportunity as possible of visiting all types of areas in this country, and of seeing all that can be provided for them in the period they are here. In connection with that visit, of course, there will be a great deal of travel that has to be paid for. The Estimate is, there fore, put down at this figure in order that we may be able to do real justice to the visit, which, I am sure, everybody in this country will be only too glad to see. As to the statement that is made with 812 regard to the unexpended amount of money not being surrendered to the Exchequer, all that that means is that the balance will be taken over into the next period of activities of this Department, and will be expended on hospitality in the succeeding year.

§ Mr. Assheton (City of London)
I am sure that everyone on both sides of the House will be glad that the noble Lord raised this interesting topic. We on this side of the House join with hon. Members on the other side of the House in welcoming this mission. We hope that they will be properly entertained. I was interested to Observe in a newspaper yesterday a statement in connection with the Foreign Secretary's visit to Moscow, a reference to cases of whisky and champagne. I hope reciprocal treatment will he arranged on this proposed visit. I have only one other observation to make, and that is, that I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Works will arrange that the rooms here, in which the visitors are entertained, are properly heated, because coming from a country like Russia, they are accustomed to proper indoor heating.

§ Mr. Spence (Aberdeen and Kincardine, Central)
I want to raise only a very small point, and I hope we shall have a reply to the question. What value is the Scottish taxpayer going to get for his money? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the visitors will come to Scotland? The right hon. Gentleman said that in the entertainment of the visitors from the Supreme Soviet they would be taken to see all types of areas in this country. Can we be assured that these visitors will come to Scotland, and see all types of Scottish life? I hope the Minister will give us a reply, and that the allocation will be on a proper basis between the two countries, and not on the allocation made the other day by the Lord Privy Seal when he referred to Scotsmen as only ten per cent. of the population.

§ Sir W. Smithers
I want to ask the Minister one question. If I heard him aright, he said that these gentlemen who are coming to this country will be given freedom of access to see all they want to see and visit any industry, and go anywhere they want to go. Will he do all in his power to ensure that when a mission 813 goes from this country, they will have the same freedom in Russia?

§ Colonel Wigg (Dudley)
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) referred to the Foreign Secretary's journey from Berlin and to stocks of champagne and whisky. One wonders whether, if the plane had been taking the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) and not the Foreign Secretary, one plane would have held all the whisky required.