Commons Sitting of 27 March 1946

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Mr. Horabin discharged from the Committee of Selection; Lieut.-Colonel Byers added.—[Mr. Mathers.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  CYPRUS

    Government
    Mr. Solleyasked the Secretary of State; for the Colonies what steps he proposes to take to give the people of Cyprus a voice in the government of their country.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. georģe Hall): I have nothing to add to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. georģe Thomas) on 10th October last.
    Mr. Solley: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there is considerable dismay in Cyprus because of the lack of a positive and constructive policy in respect of the democratisation of the Colony? Could he say anything further to satisfy the aspirations of the Cypriots?
    Mr. Hall: If my hon. Friend will look at the reply he will see that progress is being made on this subject.

    Trials (Procedure)
    Mr. Solleyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Cypriots are denied the right of trial by jury; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this situation.
    Mr. georģe Hall: I am aware that there is no provision of trial by jury in Cyprus. Cases of importance are tried by three judges. I do not know of any general wish in Cyprus for a change in this pro-
    346
    cedure, but I am making inquiry of the Governor.
    Mr. Solley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that members of the Pan-Cyprian Trade Unions Committee were tried by three judges appointed by the Colonial Office and not by their countrymen? Would he not think it proper to give the right of trial by their own countrymen to these men?
    Mr. Hall: I think the Cypriots should know what they want themselves. We have heard nothing from them or any complaint as to the system of government, but I am making inquiries.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Cypriots know what they want and have been demanding it for a long time — a democratic regime in Cyprus?

    Trade Unionists' Imprisonment
    Mr. Solleyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has reconsidered the case of the imprisonment of the 18 members of the Pan-Cyprian Trades Union Committee; and whether he has any statement to make thereon.
    Mr. georģe Hall: I regret that I have not yet had time to reconsider this case in the light of my right hon. Friend's recent observations in the House. I will communicate with him on the matter as soon as possible.
    Mr. Solley: Would my right hon. Friend expedite his inquiry into the matter, if at all possible, since these 18 leaders of the trade union and Labour movement in Cyprus are languishing in jail? While I realise that my right hon. Friend is extremely busy, I would nevertheless ask him to bear in mind—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—that there are many people in this country who have sympathy with the trade union movement in Cyprus.
    Mr. Speaker: There must be a limit to the length of supplementary questions.

  AFRICAN COLONIES

    Labour Advisers (Northern Rhodesia)
    Mr. Errollasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when did his labour adviser last visit Northern Rhodesia; and whether, in view of the labour difficulties

    347
    prevailing in that country, arrangements will be made for him to visit it again in the near future.
    Mr. georģe Hall: Major Orde-Browne last visited Northern Rhodesia in 1938. It is not contemplated that he should visit the territory in the immediate future. The Northern Rhodesia Government at present have the benefit of the advice of a very experienced officer of the Ministry of Labour, temporarily seconded as Industrial Adviser.
    Mr. Erroll: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision in view of the very strong feeling that exists among all sections of opinion in Rhodesia?
    Mr. Hall: I think we have taken steps which are much more satisfactory, and that is to get a well experienced labour adviser appointed, who will be stationed in Northern Rhodesia.

    Cocoa Industry
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he proposes to issue in the form of a White Paper another statement of policy on West African cocoa.
    Mr. georģe Hall: Yes, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras (Dr. Jeger) on 6th March, to which I have nothing to add.

    Trade Unions (Nigeria)
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the announcement of the Governor of Nigeria at the 23rd Session of the Legislative Council that the composition of many trade unions in Nigeria had been upon a faulty basis, he will arrange for assistance to be given to the workers in Nigeria towards the reconstitution of the trade unions upon a proper basis.
    Mr. georģe Hall: Yes, Sir. Two men with wide trade union experience in this country have just been selected for appointment as additional labour officers in Nigeria.
    Mr. Turton: Does the Minister agree that the trade unions want reconstituting? Is he satisfied with a system where in some trade unions in West Africa employers are presidents of unions?
    Mr. Hall: We are hoping for an improvement.

    Tanganyika (British Subjects, Status)
    Squadron-Leader Donnerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the alarm among existing British settlers in Tanganyika and the misgivings of prospective settlers, he will give a guarantee that, as a result of the proposed transfer to the Trusteeship Council, no British citizens or future British immigrants into Tanganyika or their children or grandchildren will be deprived of their rights as British subjects without their consent.
    Mr. georģe Hall: Yes, Sir. The placing of Tanganyika under Trusteeship would not in any way affect, either now or in the future, the status of British subjects resident in the territory, which is preserved by the provisions of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914.
    Squadron-Leader Donner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the removal of uncertainty in this respect will be widely welcomed?

    Nigerian Cloth (Exports)
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the prohibition of exports to the Gold Coast and Sierra Leone of local woven Nigerian cloth is still being continued notwithstanding the cessation of hostilities; and whether he will consider the early removal of this trade restriction.
    Mr. georģe Hall: This prohibition was introduced to conserve supplies of cotton textiles in Nigeria, the bulk of which are imported. So long as the present acute world shortage continues, I see no prospect of the Government of Nigeria being able to raise it.
    Mr. Turton: Would the right hon. Gentleman say why he prohibits local native cloth and yet allows the export of Ad ire cloth made from imported shirting, thereby helping big business in Nigeria and harming the native producer?
    Mr. Hall: I did not know of that, but I will make inquiries.

    Bananas
    Mr. Glossopasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the prospects of importing bananas from West Africa.
    Mr. georģe Hall: The only region in British West Africa at present producing bananas for export on a commercial scale

    349
    is the British Cameroons. One shipload of 70,000 stems is due at the end of this month but devastation by a recent severe tornado has made the prospects of further immediate consignments very doubtful.

    Workmen's Compensation
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether workmen's compensation laws are in force in all East African Colonies; and if he is satisfied with the operation of these laws.
    Mr. georģe Hall: There is such legislation in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia. In Kenya, Uganda, and Tanganyika legislation is being prepared. Meanwhile, by agreement with employers, claims are paid on lines laid down in model legislation. A Bill has been prepared in Zanzibar and its scope is under discussion with the Resident. As regards the second part of the Question, I am arranging for my Labour Advisory Committee to make a new study of the matter.
    Mr. Hynd: In studying that matter, will my right hon. Friend have regard to the recent Report on this subject?
    Mr. Hall: Yes, Sir.

    Employment of Children
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, if he will prohibit the employment of children under 14 years of age in East Africa and cancel all war-time measures which may have weakened the provisions of the existing law in this respect.
    Mr. georģe Hall: Minimum ages for the employment of children and young persons were laid down in the recommendation on minimum standards of social policy in dependent territories adopted at the International Labour Conference in Philadelphia in 1944, which was published in the Report Cmd. 6547. Reports from all Colonial Governors are due by the end of this month showing what steps are being taken to give full effect to that recommendation including, of course, the removal of 'all wartime modifications of the existing law in this respect.

    Industrial Development (Tanganyika)
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what plan he has for replacing Germans by British ex-Servicemen in Tanganyika, in
    350
    particular in agriculture, mining and industry.
    Mr. georģe Hall: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to Germans employed in these industries before the war, as at present few, if any, are so employed. The Tanganyika Government is giving attention to the possibilities of industrial development, in encouraging mining development and arranging for further mineral surveys. It is also examining possibilities of limited non-native settlement where land is not required for African occupation. The claims of British ex-Servicemen to take part in such developments will be given every consideration.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some 5,000 Germans were employed in supervisory capacities of various sorts at the outbreak of war, and were put away at that time? Will he consider the possibility of employing some of the 10,000 officers and other ex-Servicemen in this country who are unemployed?
    Mr. Hall: Certainly their claims will be considered, but, as I said in my reply, there are very few Germans, if any, engaged in industry in Tanganyika at the present time.

    Land Settlement
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Secrestary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider issuing White Papers on the lines of Kenya Paper, No. 8, of 1945, on land utilisation and settlement policy for other African territories.
    Mr. georģe Hall: The paper referred to was issued by the Kenya Government. The problems of land policy in Africa vary from territory to territory and the hon. Member may be assured that the Governments will publish details of their policy as and when it is considered desirable to do so.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider, at the same time, making a further survey into the question of soil erosion, which is doing much damage in Africa?
    Mr. Hall: That matter is constantly before us.
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many ex-Servicemen and others have applied, since August, 1945, for land on which to

    351
    settle in Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika and Northern Rhodesia, respectively; and how many of these have been accepted for each territory.
    Mr. georģe Hall: I am asking the Governors of Kenya, Tanganyika and Northern Rhodesia to supply the information which the hon. Members requires. I will communicate it to him as soon as I receive it. No scheme of European settlement is contemplated in Uganda.
    Lieut.-Colonel Mackeson: In view of the large number of unemployed officers in this country, would the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing from time to time statistics of the numbers for whom his Department has found employment?
    Mr. Hall: That is really not a matter for me, but I will certainly be prepared to give the House the information which is sent by the Governors of the various Colonies.

    Nigerian Palm Oil Industry
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is prepared to consider plans for the running of the Nigerian palm oil industry on a co-operative basis as the only method by which the Nigerian industry can preserve its democratic nature while competing effectively with plantation methods of production elsewhere.
    Mr. georģe Hall: I am anxious to see as full a development as possible of the Co-operative movement in Nigeria. I should welcome an extension of the cooperative practice in the palm oil and palm kernel industry. The Nigerian Government are considering what additional steps they can take to further the efficiency of the industry.
    Mr. Skinnard: Would my right hon. Friend consider inviting the co-operation of the Co-operative movement in this country in this matter?
    Mr. Hall: As I have replied to a previous supplementary question, we arc in constant touch with the Co-operative movement in connection with this matter.
    Sir Frank Sanderson: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is in the interests both of Nigeria and of this country that palm kernels should be shipped here, where there is a demand both for the meal and for the oil extracted therefrom?

    Housing
    Mr. Baldwinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of the report by his labour advise I that he found the best African housing conditions in British tropical Africa to be in the principal town of the highlands of Kenya, he will advise the governors of adjoining British territories that their experts in native housing should visit Nairobi and Nakuru and consult with the municipalities there.
    Mr. georģe Hall: In response to my request, I have received photographs and blue-prints of housing in the Kenya Highlands. The Kenya Government are also preparing a brochure and I have asked for copies to distribute to the Colonies likely to be interested. I will, however, bring the hon. Member's suggestion to the notice of the Governors to whom he refers.

    Africans (Administrative Posts)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Africans are now serving in administrative posts in West African colonies.
    Mr. georģe Hall: If my hon. Friend is referring to the higher posts of administrative officer in the political administration, the answer is 12. If he is referring to superior posts in other Departments involving some degree of administrative responsibility, the number is, of course, very much greater. In Nigeria alone the number is 97.
    Mr. Sorensen: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether this is an increase on last year's figures, and could he say the percentage of these posts filled by the Africans compared with the total number of posts?
    Mr. Hall: It is an increase, but I cannot give the percentage without notice.
    Mr. Sorensen: Will the Minister find out?
    Mr. Hall: I will.

    Labour Departments
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to reorganise labour departments in East African colonies as recommended in the Orde Browne Report; and whether British trade union advisers are to be sent to Kenya and Tanganyika.
    Mr. georģe Hall: The Departments are already being reorganised and expanded on the lines recommended in the report and the European staff provided for in the 1946 Estimates will be nearly double that provided for in 1945. Men with wide British trade union experience are now being selected for appointment as labour officers in Kenya and Tanganyika.
    Mr. Sorensen: Could the right hon. Gentleman say how many are being sent and when they are likely to be sent?
    Mr. Hall: Two are to be appointed to Kenya and one to Tanganyika. We are hoping they will soon be appointed.

    Uganda Civil Service
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what plans exist for the reorganisation of the lower grades of the Uganda Civil Service.
    Mr. georģe Hall: The Governor has arranged for a review of salaries and conditions of the local Civil Service and will submit his proposals as soon as the report, which is nearing completion, is ready.
    Mr. Sorensen: In view of the disquieting attitude that prevails in this service, could the whole matter be expedited so as to give satisfaction or, at least, encouragement?
    Mr. Hall: We are expecting the report and we will see whether we can expedite it

    Labour Exchanges
    Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Foxasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state the number and location of labour exchanges for Africans that have been set up in each of the African colonies; and whether he has any plans for their further extension in the near future.
    Mr. georģe Hall: Permanent labour exchanges for Africans have been set up in Nigeria, Gold Coast, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Tanganyika Territory. Experimental exchanges were started in the principal towns of Northern Rhodesia some time ago. These facilities will be extended in the light of experience.
    Sir G. Fox: Can the Minister state in the OFFICIAL REPORT what are the exact number?
    Mr. Hall: I will send that information to my hon. and gallant Friend.

    Youth Organisation
    Sir G. Foxasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in accordance with the spirit of paragraph 65 of the White Paper on Mass Education in African Society, he will arrange for more official and financial encouragement to be given by education departments in African Colonies to a rapid extension of the African boy scout and girl guide movement by organising regional training centres under a whole-time European instructor for intensive training of African scout leaders drawn from rural as well as urban centres, and for the closest possible cooperation in this matter with the scout movement leaders in this country.
    Mr. georģe Hall: Youth organisations, including the boy scout and girl guide movements, among other social welfare activities, have recently been commended to Colonial Governments in a Colonial Office memorandum. The hon. Member will, however, appreciate that it is for Colonial Governments themselves to consider the forms of youth organisation most suitable to individual territories and the method of financing them, whether wholly from local funds, or from other sources.

  COLONIAL EMPIRE

    Food Production
    Squadron-Leader Donnerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the immense overall food needs of the world, he will give an assurance that the fullest possible investigations are in hand, of will be initiated, for the long-term development of soyabean culture in potentially suitable soil; and whether these possibilities will be explored in relation to the nutritive deficiencies of diet in the smaller colonial depensdencies.
    Mr. georģe Hall: Yes, Sir. Every effort is being made to increase the production of foodstuffs in colonial territories, and special attention is being given to those foods, including soya beans, which are nutritionally most desirable.

    Fishing Industry
    Squadron-Leader Donnerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is intended to carry out a general survey to inquire: into the possible extension of the fishing industry, and of the ancillary industries of drying, canning and the extraction of special products

    355
    such as liver oils and glue; and if he will give an assurance that the possibilities in this connection associated with the smaller island dependencies will be considered seriatim.
    Mr. georģe Hall: Yes, Sir. Surveys of the fisheries of all the West Indian Colonies and also of St. Helena have already been completed by experts, and the local fishing industries, including the preservation of fish and the use of byproducts, are now being developed in accordance with their recommendations. The fisheries of ail the maritime colonies and the East African lakes will be investigated as soon as the necessary staff is available; preparatory work is already going on in East and West Africa, Hong Kong and Mauritius.
    Squadron-Leader Donner: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the needs of some of the smaller Pacific islands?
    Mr. Hall: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Scollan: Would my right hon. Friend also impress on the Minister of Food the necessity of doing something of the same sort at home?

    Newspapers (Libel Action Damages)
    Mr. Glossopasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in what Colonies newspapers are required to provide a bond or some guarantee to ensure that persons who successfully institute proceedings for libel against them are in the position to recover damages awarded by the court.
    Mr. georģe Hall: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate a detailed statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    Territories in which legislation provides for the execution by the publisher of a newspaper of a bond conditioned that he shall pay any damages or costs awarded in a libel action:
    Bahamas, British Guiana, British Honduras, Cyprus, Gambia, Hong Kong, Leeward Islands, Nigeria, North Borneo, Palestine, Seychelles, Tanganyika Territory, Trinidad, Uganda, and Windward Islands (St. Lucia, St. Vincent).

    Housing
    Mr. Baldwinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the erection
    356
    of prefabricated houses is being considered in colonies where the housing shortage is acute.
    Mr. georģe Hall: Yes, Sir. I have already supplied information on recent methods of prefabricated housing to a number of Colonial Governments which have been considering the possibilities of employing such methods.
    Mr. Baldwin: Could the Minister say whether precasting in concrete on the site has been considered for the erection of these houses?
    Mr. Hall: I did not quite catch the question.
    Mr. Baldwin: Have the Ministry considered precasting on the site in the Colonies?
    Mr. Hall: They are giving consideration to every aspect of this question.

    Agriculture (Use of Tractors)
    Mr. Baldwinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether experiments have been made in any colony with two-wheeled tractors with which ploughing might be carried out, either on a communal basis, or by native contractors working for a group of farmers; and if not, whether the possibility will be examined.
    Mr. georģe Hall: Tractors, of which some are two wheeled, are being used for ploughing in a number of Colonial territories. Their employment in native agriculture is being encouraged where practicable.

  SARAWAK (PROPOSED CESSION)
  Mr. Teelinģasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) if he has any further statement to make with regard to the negotiations with the Rajah of Sarawak;
  (2) if he will give an assurance that no final decision will be taken on the future of Sarawak before this House has been given an opportunity to discuss it.
  Mr. georģe Hall: Arrangements are being made for the Rajah to leave this country for Sarawak by air on 5th April. On arrival His Highness will take over the administration of that territory from the military authorities. In agreement with the Rajah, I am also arranging for

  357
  my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams) and the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) to visit Sarawak for the purpose of confirming by independent inquiry that the Rajah's proposal for the cession of the territory to His Majesty is broadly acceptable to the native communities.
  The House will appreciate that in the circumstances this inquiry must necessarily be of an informal nature. If the Members are satisfied as to the acceptability of the proposal, there would seem to be no reason for delaying the submission to the Sarawak Councils of the legislation authorising cession. Facilities for a Debate are not a matter for me but should be referred through the usual channels.
  Mr. Teelinģ: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will not allow a matter of such importance as this to be finally decided without a report by the two Members who go there not only being sent back to this House, but brought back, for further discussion?
  Mr. Hall: The question of a discussion is not for me to decide. That matter can very easily be raised through the usual channels.
  Mr. Oliver Stanley: In view of the fact that the Under-Secretary gave an unconditional pledge that before the future of Malaya was decided the House would have an opportunity of discussing it, would not the right hon. Gentleman do the same about Sarawak?
  Mr. Hall: No, Sir. Under-Secretaries can take greater risks than Ministers can.
  Mr. Stokes: While not objecting to the Members being sent, may I ask whether there is not some responsible representative of the Government there who could make a report?
  Mr. Hall: My two hon. Friends are being sent out at the desire of the House.
  Mr. Stanley: Would the right hon. Gentleman recommend to the Prime Minister that if Under-Secretaries are to take greater risks they should also receive greater salaries?
  Squadron-Leader Donner: Would the right hon. Gentleman provide air transport to Sarawak for the Tuan Muda and the Rajah Muda, if he is so requested?
  Mr. Hall: There is a Question on the Order Paper dealing with that matter.
  Mr. Teelinģasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has considered the request from the Tuan Muda and the Rajah Muda of Sarawak to visit Sarawak in connection with the negotiations which are about to take place; and whether the necessary travelling facilities will be provided for them.
  Mr. georģe Hall: I have not so far had an actual request, but the Tuan Muda referred to the question of his visiting Sarawak in recent correspondence with me. I intimated to him that I consider this to be a matter for the Rajah to decide, since any visit would take place when the Rajah will have resumed his administration in Sarawak.
  Mr. Teelinģ: In view of the fact that we all know that the Rajah of Sarawak is keen on annexation and that his heir and large numbers of people in Sarawak are far from keen, am I to understand that the Colonial Office is not going to give an opportunity for the Rajah's heir and his family to discuss this matter with the people in Sarawak who are on his side?
  Mr. Hall: I am sure the House will appreciate that Sarawak is not British territory. The Rajah is the supreme ruler and it is a matter for him. It is not a question of transport. It is a question whether any person should visit Sarawak, and it is entirely one for the Rajah to decide.
  Mr. Stanley: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government are considering whether to accept the Rajah's offer to sell Sarawak for £1,000,000, surely they are entitled to insist on the Rajah giving any facilities they think right, in order that they may determine what is the feeling of the people of Sarawak. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that, in order to add to the knowledge of this House as to what the people of Sarawak think, the Rajah Muda or the Tuan Muda should go, surely he is entitled, is he not, to ask the Rajah to give these facilities?
  Mr. Hall: I would like to state emphatically that the Rajah is not selling Sarawak for £1,000,000. What the Rajah is asking is that £1,000,000 of £2,750,000 of the Sarawak State funds) which really are his funds, should be set aside as a trust fund, and only the income from the £1,000,000 will be used. After the beneficiaries who will receive the income from

  359
  the £1,000,000 have died, the £1,000,000 will revert to Sarawak, so really there is no sale of Sarawak for £1,000,000. With regard to the visit, really I must leave that matter for the Rajah to decide. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why? '] Because he is the ruler of the territory, whether we like it or not. [An HON. MEMBER: "Have not the people some rights? "1 As a matter of fact, the House has agreed and indeed, the Rajah, upon representation from myself, has agreed, that two Members, one from the Government side and one from the Opposition, shall go out to Sarawak to see whether people on the spot desire or do not desire that cession shall take place.
  Mr. Thomas Reid: Might I ask my right hon. Friend if he will raise any objection to the Rajah Muda going to Sarawak in case the Rajah is willing to let him go?
  Hon. Members: Answer.
  Mr. Hall: I did not quite catch the question.
  Mr. Reid: Will my right hon. Friend state that he has no objection to the Rajah Muda going out to Sarawak, in case the Rajah allows him to go?
  Mr. Hall: I certainly have no personal objection and, indeed, I do not intend interfering in this matter.
  Mr. Skinnard: Will the Minister inform the House whether there is any functionary or personage called the Rajah Muda at present, as the title is entirely derived from the Rajah, and the last person holding the office was demoted from that office in September by an Act of State by the Rajah?
  Mr. Hall: That is so, Sir.
  Mr. Teelinģ: As the members of the Malayan Union, which I believe have considerable standing and numbers in Sarawak, have already said they want the Raja Muda to go out there, will that also be considered?
  Mr. Hall: The standing and numbers of the Malayan Union arc not such as the hon. Member suggested. The total membership of the Malayan Union, as far as my information goes, is fewer than 2,500.

  MAURITIUS (CO-OPERATIVE MOVEMENT)
  Mr. Glossopasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being
  360
  taken to revive the co-operative movement in Mauritius, in view of the bad state into which the movement has fallen; and, in particular, from what source will officers with a working knowledge of cooperative societies be recruited to reorganise it.
  Mr. georģe Hall: In February, 1945, Mr. W. K. H. Campbell, a former Joint Registrar of Co-operative Credit Societies, Ceylon, visited Mauritius to investigate the co-operative movement there. A comprehensive Co-operative Societies' Ordinance was enacted in Mauritius in October last. I am giving attention to the training and appointment of co-operative officers and am asking the Governor to report generally on other action taken on Mr. Campbell's recommendations and to deal specially with the matter mentioned in the second part of the Question.
  Mr. James Hudson: Has my right hon. Friend any means of consulting with the Cooperative movement in this country in the matter of the advice he might give in Mauritius or elsewhere in matters of this sort?
  Mr. Hall: Consultations have already taken place with the Cooperative movement on that matter.

  WILD FAUNA, SOUTHERN RHODESIA (PROTECTION)
  Colonel Wheatleyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of the slaughter of wild fauna now taking place in Southern Rhodesia, he will consider calling an international conference under the Protocol of 8th November, 1933, to the Convention for the Protection of Fauna and Flora, to examine the working of the convention and to see if improvements might be made to it.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Dominions (Mr. Parker): I have been asked to reply. The question of the destruction of wild fauna in Southern Rhodesia is entirely a matter for the Southern Rhodesia Government. The hon. and gallant Member's suggestion for calling a further international conference will be kept in mind, but I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject at present.
  Colonel Wheatley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that great suffering is caused to countless numbers of wild animals by this debateable method of trying to eliminate sleeping sickness?
  Mr. Parker: That is a matter into which the Southern Rhodesian Government are going.

  TRINIDAD

    Excess Profits Tax
    Mr. William Williamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Government of Trinidad has abolished the Excess Profits Tax, although the Budget shows a substantial deficit.
    Mr. georģe Hall: There was strong feeling in Trinidad against the continuance of this tax in local conditions. While it is true that the Budget shows a small deficit, I am confident that the Legislature is fully alive to this and will give its attention to alternative sources of revenue.
    Mr. Williams: On whose part was there this strong feeling on this matter—the employers or the ordinary people in the island?
    Mr. Hall: It was generally felt and represented to us through the Legislature that this tax should cease.
    Mr. W. J. Brown: May we hope, and can the Colonial Secretary give, us any hope, that the home Government will shortly follow this praiseworthy example?

    Leprosy
    Mr. W. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Medical Superintendent of the Leprosy Settlement has estimated that Trinidad should be free from leprosy in 15 to 20 years provided that continuous and efficient survey of the disease is undertaken; and if he is satisfied that the Government of Trinidad have adequate plans to achieve this result.
    Mr. georģe Hall: I have not seen the statement referred to. I will ask the Governor for a report.

  JAMAICA (PASSAGES TO UNITED KINGDOM)
  Commander Nobleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that there is dissatisfaction in Jamaica over the small number of passages to this country available to the general public and also over the handling of the priority for such passages as are available; and what steps are being taken to remedy this.
  Mr. georģe Hall: Jamaica, like other Colonial territories, is suffering from the general shortage of passenger shipping, and I am advised that there is no prospect of substantial relief until the present demands on shipping space for demobilisation can be eased. I have received no complaints about the working of the priority system in Jamaica, but I will make inquiries from the Governor in the matter.
  Commander Noble: If I send the right hon. Gentleman a copy of information on this subject, which I have already sent to the Ministry of War Transport, will he-consider it?
  Mr. Hall: Certainly, Sir.
  Mr. Glossop: Will the right hon. Gentleman take this matter up with the Minister of War Transport, as it is only by getting citizens of Jamaica to this country that we can increase our exports to Jamaica?
  Mr. Hall: The Minister of War Transport and I are in constant touch on this matter. I fully appreciate the seriousness of it.

  YUGOSLAVIA (BRITISH PROPERTIES)
  Captain Bullockasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what British properties in Yugoslavia have been taken over by the State; and what compensation has been paid for them.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): No British properties in Yugoslavia have been nationalised. Indeed, the Yugoslav Government have announced their intention of returning foreign properties to their owners, and an Anglo-Yugoslav Mixed Commission is shortly to be set up in Belgrade for the purpose of settling this question in so far as British properties are concerned. The question of compensation has not, therefore, arisen.
  Mr. Gammans: Are there any difficulties over transfer of currency?
  Mr. Bevin: That does not arise in the Question.

  SIAM (FOOD EXPORTS)
  Mr. Cuthbertasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will consider offering the Government of Siam

  363
  credits or such other commercial advantages as will induce them to make available for export the largest possible amount of cereals, especially rice, with a view to relieving, by these means, the shortages in India and Burma.
  Mr. Bevin: His Majesty's Government are fully aware of the importance of encouraging the maximum export of rice from Siam. We have been advised that the most effective means of obtaining increased exports is the early delivery to Siam of certain classes of consumer goods. Siam is in a position to pay for such goods, and His Majesty's Government have taken steps, in cooperation with the Dominion Governments and the Government of India, to ensure their early delivery to Siam.

  POLISH ARMED FORCES (GOVERNMENT POLICY)
  Captain Bullockasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any organisation will be set up to keep in touch with, and watch over, the interests of those Poles who may return to Poland on the advice of His Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Bevin: I have made plain in my statement on this subject in the House on 20th March the determination of His Majesty's Government to deal justly by these men and to continue, when they go back, to use our influence in favour of the strict fulfilment of the Yalta and Potsdam decisions relating to Poland. I also explained in my statement that His Majesty's Government had received information from the Polish Provisional Government about the conditions under which members of the Polish Armed Forces under British Command will return to Poland. In these circumstances, I do not think that the establishment of a special organisation is called for.
  Captain Bullock: Does the Foreign Secretary realise that many people in this country would feel a peculiar and uneasy responsibility for these men for many years to come?
  Professor Savory: May I ask the Foreign Secretary if, under the very Words of the Potsdam Agreement, we are entitled to expect that all Poles returning are given exactly the same personal and property rights as all other Poles?
  Mr. Bevin: Yes, but I cannot anticipate another Government's defalcation in advance. If I have been given these assurances, I must give them all opportunity to carry them out.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: While I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, may I ask if he does not understand that there is some uneasiness in this country that the Foreign Secretary and the Government in this country have underwritten the future prospects of these men?
  Mr. Bevin: I do not think there is any misapprehension at all. I think there are other honest men in the world as well as ourselves.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is the Foreign Secretary satisfied that this Provisional Government will carry out the conditions which the right hon. Gentleman put before them when these men return to Poland, because they are rather concerned about it and say they are not authorised by the Warsaw Government?
  Mr. Bevin: I am never satisfied before my breakfast, but I am afterwards.

  GREECE

    British Forces
    Mr. Cocksasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give an assurance that it is the intention of the Government to withdraw the British Forces from Greece immediately after the coming election, whatever the result of that election may be.
    Mr. Bevin: I am most anxious to get British troops out of Greece, and they will be withdrawn as soon after the elections as conditions allow. But there are certain conditions that must be fulfilled. The House may, however, be assured that they will be withdrawn at the earliest possible date.
    Mr. Cocks: Will the Minister bear in mind that there is a good deal of feeling that British troops should not again be involved in civil strife in Greece, should such strife follow the election?
    Mr. Bevin: I can only hope that all the parties in Greece will exercise the ballot and not the bullet.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: Is the Minister aware of the case in which, when one devil came out of a man, seven other devils went into him, and has he applied his

    365
    mind to the possibility of that kind of thing?
    Mr. Bevin: I never understood that that happened to my hon. Friend.

    Elections
    Mr. Cocksasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals have been made by the Greek Government to revise the electoral registers; which of these proposals have been refused ratification by the Regent; and whether His Majesty's Government have been consulted in the matter.
    Mr. Bevin: The Greek Government drafted a law last January which, provided for an extension of the period for registration, for a complete revision of the electoral lists so far compiled, and for a further period after this scrutiny for the hearing of complaints and objections. The Regent declined to ratify this law on the ground that it would have made inevitable a postponement of the elections beyond 31st March. His Majesty's Government were not consulted in the matter.
    All my information suggests that no major revision of the electoral lists is required. The lists were open for registration until 10th February, and there has been ample time and opportunity for checking the lists and investigating complaints. The Allied Mission of Observers are now carrying out a final scrutiny of the lists and any irregularities which they discover are being brought to the attention of the Greek authorities.
    Mr. Cocks: Do I understand that the Regent refused ratification on his own, without any advice from the British Government?
    Mr. Bevin: Certainly, Sir.
    Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Is it not the case that in most countries in Europe there is no electoral list, and that only one form of candidate is allowed?

    Release of Prisoners
    Mr. Cocksasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has yet received a report from the Legal Commission sent to Greece, and in particular, if it shows how many Greek prisoners have been released under the law for the de-congestion of the prisons, of 10th December, 1945; and how many still remain incarcerated out of the 16,826 in gaol on 23rd August, 1945.
    Mr. Bevin: The report of the Legal Mission is now being communicated to the Greek Government, and I will arrange for its publication as soon as they have had time to consider it. The Report gives the text of the law for the decongestion of prisons which was passed on 21st December, 1945, but it does not give the figures of releases since it was completed before the law took effect. The latest available figures show that 3,501 persons had been released under the provisions of the law up to 14th March. The Report does not state how many of the men in prison on 23rd August, 1945, are still detained, and I have no information on this point.

  ROYAL NAVY

    H.M. Dockyards (Staffs)
    Mr. Medlandasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of naval officers employed in His Majesty's dockyards on civilian work and supervising dockyard workmen; the annual cost of these officers; the number of employees employed in all dockyards in clerical and non-productive work; the number of clerical and supervisory grades in 1936; and the number of clergy employed in His Majesty's dockyards and their cost per year.
    The Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugģdale): As the reply contains a number of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the Reply:
    There are 71 naval officers employed on supervisory duties and the cost is approximately £72,000 a year. According to the latest information, 2,879 employees were engaged on clerical and 4,091 on nonproductive work in the dockyards. The number of clerical grades employed in 1936 was 1,208, the corresponding figure-for supervisory grades being 746. The number of clergy who include the dockyard staff in their ministration is six and the estimated cost of this service is £4,240 per year. All the figures quoted in this answer are in respect of the home dockyards only.
    Mr. Medlandasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that it is impossible for civilians employed in the engineering departments to rise above the rank of senior foreman, all higher ranks being held by naval officers; and will he take steps to democratise this branch, so

    367
    that apprentices to engineering in the dockyards have the same opportunities as those in the shipbuilding and electrical branches.
    Mr. Dugģdale: It is not, in fact, impossible for civilians employed in the engineering departments of the dockyard to rise above the rank of senior foreman. Certain higher posts are already available to them at the Admiralty, namely, those of examiner of dockyard work and engineer assistant, and the possibility of providing further avenues of promotion is receiving consideration in connection with postwar organisation plans.
    Mr. Medland: Is my hon. Friend aware that he has been misinformed in this information, and that it is quite impossible for a dockyard apprentice to become an engineering officer at the docks? Will he look into the matter further?
    Mr. Dugģdale: I cannot admit that I have been misinformed. In any case, I have said that the matter is receiving consideration in connection with postwar organisation.

    Personal Case
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the gratuity of £79 7s. 6d. due to Leading Stoker Robinson, on his demobilisation on 17th December last will be paid, as it- is urgently required, and full particulars of which have been sent him.
    Mr. Dugģdale: A Post Office Savings Bank Book credited with the amount due was despatched to Mr. Robinson Windsor on 19th March, 1946.

    War Gratuities
    Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchisonasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when it is proposed to pay war gratuities to ratings who were granted indefinite release for industrial purposes.
    Mr. Dugģdale: Payment of war gratuities to ratings who were granted indefinite release is now being made.

    H.M.S. "Glorious " (Loss)
    Mr. Stokesasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will now make arrangements for a full inquiry into circumstances of the sinking of H.M.S. "Glorious," which resulted in the loss of 1,000 lives.
    Mr. Dugģdale: No, Sir. A board of inquiry was held at the time to investigate the loss of H.M.S. "Glorious," and it would be neither practical nor profitable to convene a fresh board so long after the event.
    Mr. Stokes: If the Admiralty will not publish the facts, may I ask whether or not it is true that half the proper escort for this vessel was taken away, and that the instructions were so given that neither the Officer Commanding the Home Fleet nor the Officer Commanding Coastal Command was aware of the movement of the ship, in consequence of which it was "knocking about" in the Arctic Ocean with an insufficient escort?
    Mr. Medland: Before my hon. Friend answers that question, will he tell us why the escort was taken away and who ordered it to be taken away?
    Mr. Dugģdale: In answer to the first question, I did not say I was unwilling to give the information. I said I was unwilling for the board of inquiry to be reconvened. I am willing, if the hon. Member presses for it, to give directions for a report on this incident to be compiled, based upon information obtained at the time, together with any other information which may have become available since.
    Mr. Stokes: Will my hon. Friend say why the ship was not under proper escort, and where it was?
    Mr. Dugģdale: That will all come out in the information which I have promised.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is it not correct that naval boards of inquiry are confidential?
    Mr. Dugģdale: Yes, Sir, but it is quite possible for a report based on the facts, such as I have described, to be compiled and published.

  AGRICULTURE (KNACKERMAN'S RELEASE)
  Sir John Mellorasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the hon. Member for the Sutton Coldfield division wrote on 25th February to the Ministry of Agriculture about the release of a knackerman; that his letter was passed to the Ministry of Food, thence to the Ministry of Supply and thence to the Board of Trade; that no Department has yet accepted any responsibility in this

  369
  matter; and whether, to prevent further delay, he will direct the War Office to release this knackerman.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Yes, Sir. I regret that there has been some delay in replying to the hon. Member. The House will be aware that there has-recently been a considerable transfer of responsibilities between Departments, and it is perhaps understandable that there should have been some doubt about a borderline case of this kind. The hon. Member will by now have had a letter from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. In reply to the last part of the Question, the release of men ahead of their turn must depend on Service requirements. But I have asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War to look into the case and see whether compassionate release would be justified.

  SOAP RATIONING
  Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Food whether he will now decontrol soap.
  The Minister of Food (Sir Benjamin Smith): There is, I am sorry to say, no prospect of my being able to bring the soap rationing scheme to an end at an early date.
  Mr. Peter Freeman: Would my right hon. Friend consider whether, in the meantime, he will provide extra supplies for the poor harassed housewife in her spring cleaning problems?
  Sir B. Smith: It is quite impossible for me to give anything out of the very short supplies in the country today.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Imported Fruit (Hawkers' Allocations)
    Mrs. Ayrton Gouldasked the Minister of Food how many licensed vendors of imported fruit there are in the borough of Westminster; what proportion of them are hawkers; and what is the allocation of citrus fruits to these hawkers.
    Sir B. Smith: There are 207 licensed retailers of imported fruit in the borough of Westminster, and of these, 46 are hawkers. The hawkers' share of the citrus fruits distributed in that borough is one-eighth.
    Mrs. Gould: May I ask the Minister how it is that, if there is a very small allocation to the hawkers, there are a dozen within a square mile of Covent Garden and Leicester Square who are able to fill their barrows and replenish them again and again when they get empty?
    Sir B. Smith: All I can say is that, of oranges, the hawkers have received 21,440 lbs., of lemons, 4,020 lbs., grapefruit, 4,690 lbs—a total of 30,150 lbs.
    Mr. Keeling: May I ask the Minister whether the description of the ancient city of Westminster, both in the Question and in the answer, as a borough is part of the new attack on the traditions of Westminster?
    Sir B. Smith: I hasten to apologise.
    Mr. Cobb: Would it not be more correct to describe Westminster as a rotten borough?
    Mrs. Gould: Will the Minister say during what period, and for how long, were the allocations which he has mentioned?
    Sir B. Smith: I cannot give them offhand, but I will let the hon. Lady know.

    Regional Officers (Married Women)
    Lieut.-Colonel Price-Whiteasked the Minister of Food what consideration has been given to overhauling the present temporary staff in the regional offices and at headquarters with a view to eliminating, as far as is practicable, those married women and others who were taken on during the wartime labour shortage and who have no real need of the employment, and thus making additional posts available for ex-Service men and women who have no resources or support of any kind.
    Sir B. Smith: In the present shortage of manpower, it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to retain as many married women as possible as temporary civil servants. A certain number of women are, however, leaving the Ministry of their own accord and being replaced by ex-Service men and women.
    Lieut.-Colonel Price-While: Would the Minister give the House an assurance that these replacements will be consistent with qualifications, and that special priority will be given to disabled ex-Servicemen?
    Sir B. Smith: Naturally, Sir.
    Mr. W. J. Brown: Would not this problem be automatically and very rapidly resolved if the Government were to withdraw the Essential Work Order from public servants?

    Biscuit Production
    Mr. Tiffanyasked, the Minister of Food to what extent there is to be a reduction of biscuit production; and when this reduction is scheduled to begin.
    Sir B. Smith: No decision has yet been reached in regard to the future level of biscuit production, which is dependent upon the availability of raw materials.
    Mr. Tiffany: Is the Minister aware that the trade paper, "The Grocer," insists that such a reduction is imminent in May and that the source of its information is well authenticated, and will he investigate such a source?
    Sir B. Smith: I seem to remember so many things being prophesied about what I propose to do in my Department.

    Ice Cream (Sugar Permits)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Food on what principle ice cream businesses are granted licences for sugar;
    why such a licence was refused to Mr. S. C. McIntosh, an ex-Serviceman of Aberdeen, of whom the Minister has had notice in writing; how many similar licences were granted recently to foreigners and ex-internees in Aberdeen; and if he will sec that the principle is applied fairly and inquire into the case of Mr. S. C. McIntosh.
    Sir B. Smith: With regard to the first part of the Question, sugar is in short supply and this makes it necessary to continue the wartime practice of limiting allocations of sugar for the manufacture of foods to persons with a prewar usage. Exceptions are only made to this rule in the case of disabled ex-Servicemen unable to follow their prewar occupation. With regard to the second part of the Question, a permit for sugar was not granted to Mr. S. C. McIntosh because he is not disabled and was not making ice cream before the war. With regard to the third part of the Question, all the traders to whom sugar permits have been granted since July, 1945, are British subjects and none of them is an ex-internee. The answer to the last part of the Question is
    372
    " Yes, Sir," but I have already inquired fully into the case of Mr. S. C. McIntosh.

    Retail Licensinģ
    Mr. Thomas Macphersonasked the Minister of Food if he is now prepared to revoke the Licensinģ order for fish shops with a view to a better and more adequate distribution of fish supplies.
    Sir B. Smith: I am at present consulting the various interests concerned, including those relating to fish, with regard to the future of the retail Licensinģ system.

    Service Rations
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Food whether Service rations have now been reconsidered; and whether there are still any items in the rations of messed Servicewomen which are larger than those issued to miners
    Sir B. Smith: I have nothing at present to add to the answers given to the hon. Member on 27th February and 6th March. The matter is still under consideration with the Service Departments.

    Greenģrocery Licences (Imported Fruit)
    Mr. Cooper-Keyasked the Minister of Food whether licences to open green grocery shops will be made in future automatically to include permission to deal in imported fruit.
    Commander Nobleasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of' the hardship caused to greengrocers unable to obtain a licence to sell imported fruit, tomatoes, etc.; and whether he will now consider dispensing with a separate licence for the sale of these goods.
    Sir B. Smith: Retail licences granted to greengrocers do not prohibit the sale of imported produce and tomatoes and no separate licence is required for the sale of these goods. Such licences do not, however, carry with them automatically an entitlement to allocation and while supplies are so much below the prewar level, it is desirable, in order to secure economy in distribution, to maintain the present system of restricting allocations generally to prewar traders in imported produce.
    Sir Waldron Smithers: Is the Minister aware that returning ex-Servicemen who open up greengrocers' shops cannot make them pay unless they get an allocation of imported fruits?
    Sir B. Smith: That is up to them when they make their application. The conditions are laid down.

    Tomatoes (Distribution Costs)
    Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the Imported Tomatoes Order, 1945, allows to first-hand salesmen and wholesalers, profits of is. 4d. and 2s. per package, respectively; that many firms will receive both profits amounting to a total of 3s. 4d., for a function which, prior to the war, they willingly performed for 6d.; and if he will explain the reason for these charges.
    Sir B. Smith: I am aware that it is possible for some firms to receive both margins, but instances in which this can occur are exceptional and would be permissible only in those cases where the firm performs both functions. I have no evidence that before the war both services would have been performed for as low a gross charge as 6d. In any case, all expenses have increased and the turnover is much lower. I have fixed the margins experimentally for this trade, which is only just being revived, and I shall review them in the light of experience.
    Mr. Collins: Can my right hon. Friend clarify the position whereby an importer can sell direct to a wholesaler under the Order and say what margin of profit is allowed to the wholesaler?
    Sir B. Smith: I should like to have notice of that Question.
    Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: May I ask the Minister whether, in addition to the matters raised on that point, he is aware that wholesalers are offering prices for Canary tomatoes far in excess of the price he has agreed with the trade, to the further detriment of the public?
    Sir B. Smith: I continually hear such statements, but, surely, whilst these prices may be asked, the public, knowing the right prices, should not pay them. I cannot possibly put a policeman or an enforcement officer at the elbow of every salesman in the country.
    Mr. Cobb: As a reduction in distribution costs is a vital national necessity, will the Minister keep this matter under careful and continual review?
    Sir B. Smith: I said that in the last paragraph of my answer.
    Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Food if he will state the reason for the change in the definition of First-hand Sale, from that given in the Imported Tomatoes Order, 1941 (S.R. & O., 489), to that in the Order of 1945 (S.R. & O., 1325).
    Sir B. Smith: The 1941 Imported Tomato Order was made before my predecessor decided that he should define and regulate the channels of distribution of all commodities by the introduction of the Restriction on Dealings Order. In the 1945 Order the definition of firsthand sale was made to conform with the principles laid down in the Restriction on Dealings Order.
    Mr. Collins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the definition in the 1941 Order was in accordance with trade practice and that the definition in the 1945 Order is not —
    Sir B. Smith: I should not be at all surprised at that.
    Mr. Collins: —and that it has the effect of creating a new class of middleman and costing the consumer 2d. a pound more, and will he look into it?
    Sir B. Smith: I am not aware that it costs the consumer 2d. a pound more. The price I have fixed for these tomatoes conforms with all previous prices.

    Condemned Fish
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Food how much fish has been used for other purposes than food since 1st February, 1946; who is responsible for this waste; and if he will remove all restrictions to allow fish to be distributed and sold through the normal trade channels.
    Sir B. Smith: From 3rd February to 16th March, 1946, out of fresh fish landings of 109,400 tons, 409 tons or 0.37 per cent. were condemned at the principal ports and markets and lost as human food. About 86 per cent. of this quantity was condemned on landing at the ports, and the rest, mainly consisting of unpopular varieties, at inland markets. The loss of an insignificant proportion of what is landed is inevitable and no one is responsible. Fish has never ceased to be distributed through normal trade channels, and the small degree of distribution control which I still maintain is essential for the protection of the small trader and for fair distribution at times of relative shortage.
    Sir W. Smithers: Why is it necessary to have control at all? It may be necessary to ration shortages, but why should the Minister ration abundance?
    Sir B. Smith: Fish is not rationed, and never has been.
    Sir W. Smithers: The Minister has often said that he retains a degree of control.

    Requisitioned Premises (Rats)
    Sir G. Foxasked the Minister of Food what action is being taken against the authority in charge of the British Restaurant at 87 Eaton Square, London, S.W.I, a property requisitioned by the local authority, for not reporting to the rodent officer a serious ship rat infestation; and what steps his department is taking to see that such residential property is properly inspected and cared for.
    Sir B. Smith: I have had inspection made at No. 87, Eaton Square of the three floors used as a restaurant, and am assured that there is no evidence supporting the suggestion of serious ship rat infestation; the first part of the Question, therefore, does not arise. I provide for inspection and necessary action in premises under my control. The question of inspection and care of other requisitioned property is one for the Department immediately concerned.
    Sir G. Fox: Is the Minister aware that that answer is only the usual half truth, that the whole of this house was requisitioned for the British Restaurant and that the top two floors are completely rat infested? Is his Department following the practice of continental restaurants in keeping rat farms to supplement dishes, and will he give an assurance that this policy will not be adopted here as rations get less and less?

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Shirts
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that ex-Servicemen are having difficulty in the North of England in purchasing shirts on leaving the Service; and if he will make efforts to remedy this shortage.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): I have no information that the position is more difficult in the North of England than in other parts of the country, but supplies of shirts to retail shops should improve
    376
    as the production of civilian outfits for demobilised men declines from its present high level. Every effort is being made to increase the output of cotton cloth, and arrangements have been made to use for shirts any surplus Government cloths which are suitable for the purpose.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the Minister aware that shops in Cheshire are promised an allocation of only two dozen shirts each for three months, and is he aware that men leaving the Services are given one shirt each? How does he propose to clothe these men suitably for finding jobs?
    Mr. Belcher: We propose to do everything in our power to increase the supply of cloth for shirt making. We have already allocated large quantities of surplus cloth and we shall continue to do so. However, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman can provide me with evidence of desperate shortage in any part of the country, I will be glad to look into it.

    Tuberculosis Patients (Supplementary Coupons)
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will reconsider the arrangement by which a patient suffering from tuberculosis has to obtain a utility furniture form UF9/1A from the Board of Trade for necessary supplementary bedding and clothing when entering a hospital which can only be obtained on a doctor's certificate; that long periods often elapse before receipt of the coupons and dockets so that being by then in hospital it is impossible to obtain satisfactory articles; and will he reconsider the desirability of issuing a small supply of such coupons to local authorities as is done in the case of expectant mothers.
    Mr. Belcher: So far as I am aware, patients entering hospital are provided with bedding by the hospital authorities. If extra clothng is needed, coupons are issued on the basis of an application by the patient concerned. If my hon. Friend has in mind any cases of serious delay, I should be glad to go into these if he will send me particulars.

    Subsidised Industries (Government Control)
    Mr. Fairhurstasked the President of the Board of Trade, where basic industries are subsidised, or likely to be subsidised, under the provisions of Local

    377
    Government Act, 1929, and where large sums of money have been, or may be, advanced for the benefit of such industries, if he will take steps to secure the Government having some voice in controlling the sale of such subsidised industries.
    Mr. Belcher: I am not clear to what industries my hon. Friend is referring. If he will let me have fuller particulars of what he has in mind, I will try to give him an answer.

    South Wales (Industrial Position)
    Mr. Mortasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has considered a communication from the Swansea Labour Association with reference to the future of the South Wales industrial position; and if he is prepared to make a statement.
    Mr. Belcher: Yes, Sir; but it is not practicable to deal with the general industrial situation in South Wales within the limits of a reply to a Question. I will, however, ask the Wales Regional Board to send a detailed reply to the Association's letter, and will send a copy of the reply to my hon. Friend.

  GERMANY (FORMER CONCENTRATION CAMPS)
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the former Nazi concentration camps at Sachsenhausen and Buchenwald have been closed.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr John Hynd): These two camps arc in the American zone of occupation. Inquiries are being made, and I will communicate with the hon. Member.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE (RESERVE COMMAND)
  The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
  83. Mr. georģe WARD,—To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he has any statement to make regarding the re-establishment of Reserve Command; and whether he will now make a further statement regarding the Auxiliary Air Force and the R.A.F. Reserves.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Strachey): Mr. Speaker, with your
  378
  permission, and that of the House, I will make a statement in reply to this Question:.
  Reserve Command of the Royal Air Force will be re-established in the immediate future. Its primary function will be to maintain and train adequate reserves of flying and ground personnel. To that end it will recruit to the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve; foster the creation and development of the Auxiliary Air Force; assume responsibility for the Air Training Corps, and, in co-operation with the university authorities, re-create the University Air Squadrons. Group headquarters of Reserve Command will be set up: they will coincide geographically with Army Commands. These Group headquarters will, in turn, set up town centres and will provide training facilities. Public announcements will then be made inviting officers and men released from the Royal Air Force to join the Volunteer Reserve or the auxiliary units. The Territorial Army and Air Force Association will be the main recruiting agency.
  The Auxiliary Air Force. The 20 Auxiliary Squadrons which existed before the war will be re-created on their old territorial basis. Commanding Officers are now being appointed. Most of these units will be day and night fighter squadrons and, when fully trained, they will form part of the First Line Air Defences of this country. But several light bomber auxiliary squadrons will also be formed. In addition, some non-flying auxiliary units will be formed, probably in such spheres as Operational Control and Radar work.
  The University Air Squadrons. Discussions have been opened with the university authorities to determine at which universities it will be possible to maintain University Air Squadrons.
  A.T.C. For the present, we propose to maintain the A.T.C. at a strength of 75,000. From a corps of this size we should be able to accept all cadets of a satisfactory standard into the air forces; but it must be realised that not all can become aircrew. We shall keep the A.T.C. authorities informed as to the proportion of their cadets who can become aircrew, and the proportions which we can take in the different groups of tradesmen. This will enable A.T.C. Squadrons to plan their

  379
  initial training in such a way that their cadets will find the right openings before them.
  We are thus proceeding to the immediate creation of a framework within which the Volunteer Reserve, the Auxiliary Squadrons, the University Squadrons and the Air Training Corps will find their permanent place in the postwar Royal Air Force. We attach the utmost importance to these non-regular forces, and it may well be that in the future it will be desirable, and possible, to develop them to a much greater degree than before the war. Such development will take time, however, and I must warn the House that we shall not immediately be in a position to give intending recruits to the non-regular forces the same facilities as those that existed before the war. But the main thing is to get a firm basis laid down now. The re-establishment of Reserve Command provides this basis, and we confidently appeal to all those who have the interests of the Royal Air Force at heart to help us, in one way or another, in the rebuilding of our non-regular forces.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the Auxiliary Air Force Reserve to be re-formed so that officers and men, when they have finished their training, and after their five years, can continue to fly at least 20 hours each year?
  Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. I have no doubt that will be a feature of the scheme.
  Sir Wavell Wakefield: Is it intended that the Air Training Corps shall give preparatory training for those who desire to join the Royal Navy or the Army for air work, in the same way that such preparatory training was given during the war years? The Under-Secretary mentioned only preparatory training for the Royal Air Force and its reserves.
  Mr. Strachey: That is perhaps the more immediate concern of my hon. and right hon. Friends. As far as we are concerned, I think I may say we should be very agreeable to any such arrangement.
  Sir Ronald Ross: May I ask the Under-Secretary whether one or more of these Auxiliary Squadrons will be stationed in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Strachey: I would ask for notice of that question. However, if they are on the same geographical basis as before the war, that would be so.
  Wingģ-Commander Millinģton: I do not want to press the Under-Secretary, but can he tell us the sort of time which will elapse before the establishment of these Group headquarters? A tremendous number of demobilised
  ex-aircrews are very anxious to get back into a voluntary organisation of this character.
  Mr. Strachey: We realise the great urgency of this, and naturally, in our own interests, we are most anxious to go ahead. With the authority to establish the Command, I see no reason for delay in the establishment of Group headquarters. It will take a little time but we shall press on as fast as we possibly can.
  Wingģ-Commander Hulbert: Can the Under-Secretary say whether the Auxiliary balloon squadrons are to be re-formed?
  Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. I shall require notice of that question.
  Mr. Bossom: Will the Under-Secretary encourage ex-officers of the Royal Air Force to become instructors for the Air Training Corps, because there is difficulty today in getting officers to instruct in the Air Corps?
  Mr. Strachey: I did mention that fact in my speech on the Estimates. We are extremely keen that we should be helped by ex-officers; not only by ex-officers, because we value very much in the Air Training Corps the help of people who have not served in the Royal Air Force.
  Mr. Tolley: Will the Under-Secretary make a public statement to the effect that, in future at any rate, the Air Training Corps will get sympathetic consideration?
  Mr. Strachey: I think it as had a great deal in the past. This announcement shows that we do regard it as the main source of recruitment for the Royal Air Force.
  Mr. Scollan: Will the same prohibitive qualifications as those which applied before the war regarding fees for entry into the Air Force, especially with regard to those acting as pilots, continue to apply?
  Mr. Strachey: I think we can say right away, that any such disabilities and disqualifications have been abolished. We know that at Cranwell College, for example, fees are to be abolished in future.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put,
" That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting,
from the provisions of;he Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison."]
The House divided: Ayes, 276; Noes, 131.

Division No. 104.]

AYES.

[3.25 p.m.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

McGovern, J.

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Edwards, John (Blackburn)

Mack, J. D.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Alpass, J. H.

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

McKinlay, A. S.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Attewell, H. C

Ewart, R.

McLeavy, F.

Austin, H. L.

Fairhurst, F.

MacMillan, M. K.

Ayles, W. H.

Farthing, W. J.

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Bacon, Miss A.

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Mallalieu, J. P W.

Baird, Capt. J.

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Mann, Mrs. J.

Balfour, A.

Gaitskell, H. T. N.

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

Barstow, P. G

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Bartlett, V.

georģe, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Mathers, G.

Battley, J. R

Gibson, C. W.

Mayhew, C. P

Bechervaise, A. E

Gilzean, A.

Medland, H. M

Belcher, J. W.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Bellenger, F. J

Gooch, E. G.

Millinģton, Wing-Comdr. E. R

Benson, G.

Gordon-Walker, P. C.

Monslow, w.

Berry, H.

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Moody, A S.

Beswick, Flt,-Lieut. F.

Grenfell, D. R

Morley, R.

Bing, Capt. G. H. C.

Grey, C. F.

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Binns, J.

Grierson, E.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)

Blackburn, A. R.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Mori, D. L.

Blenkinsop, Capt. A

Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.

Murray, J. D.

Blyton, W. R.

Gunter, Capt. R. J.

Nally, W.

Boardman, H

Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)

Naylor, T. E.

Bottomley, A. G.

Hale, Leslie

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Hardy, E. A.

Noel-Buxton, Lady

Brook, D (Halifax)

Harris, H. Wilson

Oldfield, W. H.

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Hastings, Dr. Somervilte

Pargiter, G. A.

Brown, georģe (Belper)

Haworth, J.

Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.

Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Herbison, Miss M.

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Burden, T. W.

Hewilson, Capt. M.

Pearson, A.

Burke, W. A.

Holman, P.

Peart, Capt. T F.

Byers, Lt.-Col. F.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Perrins, W.

Callaghan, James

Horabin, T. L.

Piratin, P.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Hoy, J.

Popplewell, E.

Chamberlain, R. A.

Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Champion, A. J.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Price, M. P.

Clitherow, Dr. R

Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

Pritt, D. N

Cluse, W. S

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Proctor, W. T.

Cobb, F. A

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Pursey, Cmdr. H

Cocks, F. S.

Irving, W. J.

Ranger, J.

Collindridge, F.

Janner, B

Rankin, J

Collins, V. J.

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Roes-Williams, D. R.

Colman, Miss G. M.

Jeger, Dr. S. W (St Pancras, S.E.)

Reid, T (Swindon)

Comyns, Dr. L.

John, W.

Rhodes, H.

Cook, T. F.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Richards, R.

Cocper, Wing-Comdr. G

Jones, D. T (Hartlepools)

Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. Emrys (Merioneth)

Corlett, Dr. J.

Keenan, W.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Cove, W. G.

Key, C. W.

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A

King, E. M.

Rogers, G H. R

Daggar, G.

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E

Royle, C.

Daines, P.

Kinley, J.

Sargood, R-

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Kirby, B V.

Scollan, T.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Kirkwood, D.

Segal, Sq.-Ldr. S.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Lang, G.

Shacklelon, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Layers, S.

Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

Deer, G.

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Leslie, J. R.

Skeffington, A. M.

Diamond, J.

Levy, B. W.

Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

Dobbie, W.

Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

Skinnard, F. W.

Dodds, N. N.

Lipson, D. L.

Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir B. (Rotherhithe)

Douglas, F. C. R

Logan, D. G.

Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

Driberg, T. E. N

Longden, F.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Dugģdale, J (W. Bromwich)

Lyne, A. W.

Snow, Capt. J. W.

Dye, S.

McAdam, W.

Sorensen, R. W.

Edelman, M.

McEntee, V. La T.

Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough. E.)

McGhee, H. G

Sparks, J. A

Stamford, W

Tiffany, S.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

Steele, T.

Timmons, J.

Wilkes, Maj. L.

Stephen, C.

Titterington, M. F.

Wilkins, W. A.

Stokes, R. R.

Tolley, L.

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Strachey, J.

Usborne, Henry

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Stubbs, A. E.

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Williams, D. J (Neath)

Summerskill, Dr. Edith

Vianl, S. P.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Swingler, Capt. S.

Walkden, E.

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Symonds, Maj. A. L.

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Willis, E.

Taylor, R. J, (Morpeth)

Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Warbey, W. N.

Wilson, J. H.

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

Watkins, T. E.

Wise, Major F. J.

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Watson, W. M.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Thomas, georģe (Cardiff)

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

Wells, P. L (Faversham)

Thorneycroft, H.

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Thurlie, E.

White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)

Captain Michael Stewart and Mr. Simmons

NOES

Aitken, Hon. Max

Hogg, Hon. Q.

Pickthorn, K.

Baldwin, A. E.

Hollis, M. C.

Price-White, Lt.-Col. D

Barlow, Sir J.

Hope, Lord J.

Ramsay, Maj. S.

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

Rayner, Brig. R.

Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel

Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Boles, Lt.-Col. D C. (Wells)

Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W-)

Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

Bossom, A. C

Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)

Bower, N

Jarvis, Sir J.

Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Keeling, E. H.

Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

Kerr, Sir J. Graham

Ropner, Col. L

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H

Ross, Sir R.

Bullock, Capt. M

Lambert, Hon. G.

Sanderson, Sir F.

Butcher, H. W.

Lancaster, Col. C. G

Savory, Prof. D. L.

Carson, E.

Langford-Holt, J.

Scott, Lord W.

Challen, C.

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Channon, H.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Smithers, Sir W.

Churchill, Rt. Hon W. S

Linstead, H. N.

Snadden, W. M.

Cole, T. L.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Spearman, A. C. M.

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Low, Brig. A. R. W.

Spence, Maj, H. R.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Lucas, Major Sir J.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Cuthbert, W. N.

McCallum, Maj. D.

Strauss, H. G. (Com. Eng. Univ'sities)

Digby, Maj. S. W.

Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (1. Cot Wight)

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.

Studholme, H. G.

Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Sutcliffe, H.

Drayson, Capt. G. B.

Maclay. Hon. J. S.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Duthie, W. S.

MacLeod, Capt. J.

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'ton, S.)

Eccles, D. M.

Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

Teelinģ, William

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Erroll, F. J.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.

Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

Marples, A. E.

Turton, R. H.

Fletcher, W. (B ry)

Marsden, Capt. A.

Wakefield, Sir W. W

Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Walker-Smith, D.

Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)

Medlicott, Brig. F.

Ward, Hon. G. R.

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

Mellor, Sir J.

Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

Gammans, L. D.

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

Gates, Maj. E. E.

Morris-Jones, Sir H.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Glossop, C. W. H.

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Glyn, Sir R.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

York, C.

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G

Nicholson, G.

Young, Sir A. S L. (Partick)

Grimston, R. V.

Noble, Comdr A. H P.

Hare, Lieut.-Col. Hn. J. H. (W'db'ge)

Nutting, Anthony

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Mr, Drewe and Commander Agnew

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Question put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ACQUISITION OF LAND (AUTHORISATION PROCEDURE) BILL
Order for Consideration (as amended in the Standing Committee), read.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
" That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of the new Clauses and the Amendments in Schedule 1, page 12, lines 23, 25 and 48, page 13, line 6 and page 16, line 27 standing on the Notice
384
Paper in the name of Mr. Bevan and the Amendments in Clause 6, page 7, line 47 and page 9, lines 4 and 15 and the new Schedule standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Westwood."—[Mr. Key.]
3.35 p.m.
Mr. Turton (Thirsk and Malton): I rise to oppose this Motion on a point of principle. It appears to me that this procedure which is being initiated by the Government is a waste of the time of the House. May I explain why I make that statement? When the House last had

385
this Bill before it, it was remitted to a Standing Committee to be examined there; to that Standing Committee were appointed the Minister of Health, the Minister of Town and Country Planning, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, and under the Order of the House the' Solicitor-General and the Lord Advocate were entitled to attend. During the nine days we were in Committee the Minister of Health and the Minister of Town and Country Planning never once attended. Let me say at once that the Parliamentary Secretary, although deserted by his colleagues, did nobly in attempting to deal with the points raised, but he also was without legal advice. The Solicitor-General flitted in and out on occasions, giving legal decisions on his first flit which, on his second flit, he had to say were wrong.
Mr. Leslie Hale: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member in Order in discussing what happened upstairs?
Mr. Speaker: On this Question one must confine oneself to the Amendments which are before the House. A general review of all the proceedings of the Committee upstairs would be going too far.
Mr. Turton: With great respect, Sir, I submit that under Standing Order 40, I am allowed to give a brief explanation of why I oppose this Motion for recommittal, and one of my reasons is the behaviour of the Government in Committee upstairs, so that I should be allowed briefly to refer to it. Erskine May—page 415—says that I am allowed to refer on the Report stage to what happened in Committee, when the Chairman of the Committee has reported to the House.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is quite right. On a limited recommittal he is entitled to make a case. On an unlimited recommittal, he is not allowed to make other than a short statement.
Mr. Turton: I am much obliged. Let me turn to the details of these three main new Clauses. Hon. Members know that i never deal with Scottish points about which I know nothing, so I leave out the two Scottish Amendments and confine myself to the English Amendments, about which I do know something. The first new Clause we are asked to deal with concerns inquiries. It happens that in
386
Committee I raised this point myself, in support of an Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison). The Lord Advocate, the only legal adviser whom the poor Parliamentary Secretary could summon, rejected the idea of amending the Local Government Act of 1933, as the Government are doing now, and said that in his view of the English law it was quite unnecessary. The matter went to a Division and we were defeated by 16 votes to six.
The second new Clause deals with rights of way. On this point the Parliamentary Secretary had to give a legal opinion, and he declared that in Clause 2 the Government had no intention of affecting public rights of way at all. We were not quite satisfied with the legal opinion of the Parliamentary Secretary, much as we appreciated his ability, and we asked the Lord Advocate to give an opinion. He said that he was unable to give any answer to a question on English law. The Solicitor-General being otherwise engaged, the matter was left in that unsatisfactory state, although it was suggested that on the Report stage we might have more legal assistance. The third Amendment deals with the National Trust. That was the very Amendment that I moved myself in Committee. We went to a Division and were defeated by 13 votes to eight, and the Government refused to help us. I suggest that this is a very frivolous way of dealing with a Committee. The Minister of Health, who, I am sorry to see, is not in his place today—I had hoped he would be here— did make an allusion to what was happening in Committee, and he said that a certain number of frivolous Amendments had been moved. He may have regarded them as frivolous then, but now he has to come to the House and move the very Amendments which he described as frivolous at an earlier stage, and against which he ordered his colleagues to vote in Committee. For these reasons, and in the hope that we can get business conducted more expeditiously in the future, I oppose this Motion.
Mr. Charles Williams: I also oppose this Motion. It is very difficult, if, having sent Bills upstairs to Standing Committee, we then have to recommit them to a Committee of the Whole House. We have not had a word

387
of explanation either from the right hon. Gentleman in whose name the Motion was put down or from the hon. Gentleman who is supporting him. There is a new Clause which, obviously, should have been dealt with in the Standing Committee. If Standing Committees are of any use, and if they are not being overloaded with work, it is their duty to consider such matters as these. Here we have a series of Amendments, some of them of considerable importance, apart from this new Clause, and finally a whole new Schedule presented by the Scottish Office. I see the Lord Advocate here, but I see here no other representative of the Scottish Office.—[HON. MEMBERS: "There is."]—I am glad to see there is one here at last. The hon. Gentleman may be able to give very excellent reasons for that new Schedule, but when I rose to speak there was no sign of him. The Government are now laying upon the House an extra burden of work which should have been done upstairs in the ordinary way by the Committee. Apparently there was some misfortune there because either the Ministers or the Standing Committees are being overloaded. The result is we now have what might almost be called—indeed, this may come to pass on some occasion—a whole new Bill to deal with on recommittal and Report.
I certainly protest very strongly against the treatment of the House on this occasion. There is no good whatever in sending Bills to Standing Committees if we have to recommit them on a wholesale scale in this way. When we have to do a thing of this kind I think it is the duty of the Leader of the House to be present here and to explain why the House should be put to such inconvenience. He should be here and should pay attention to the ordinary courtesies to the House. If there is a Division on it, I shall certainly vote against this Motion. If the Bill has to be recommitted at all. it should, if possible— I repeat, if possible—be sent back to the Standing Committee. Members of the Government on Standing Committees should be told quite clearly by the House to do their job properly, and not to inconvenience the House like this.
3.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Key): I suppose this is a typical example of Conservative
388
gratitude. In the Committee upstairs two or three points were raised. One was the question of the bearing of expenses for inquiries under this Bill. I said then that I felt that the Bill was satisfactory, as far as that provision was concerned; but that I would undertake to look into the matter before the Report stage, and that, if I felt it necessary, I would take the necessary steps on Report to meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Also with regard to the stopping up of public paths, I said the provision in the Bill, in my opinion, did not apply to public footpaths; but that if I felt it necessary I would make the necessary provisions on Report to meet the case that had been put forward. Again, with regard to the National Trust, I gave the same undertaking. Between Committee and Report stage, consultations have gone on with the National Trust on what we should put into this Bill to make safe the position of the National Trust. In carrying out these undertakings, I am supposed to have done something wrong. It seems an extraordinary business that that should be the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I can only say what I said upstairs, that this is another example of the effort to fritter away time quite unnecessarily.
Mr. J. S C. Reid: We cannot allow that to pass. The hon. Gentleman does not appear to realise that the gravamen of the charge against him is twofold. First, he knew weeks in advance that these matters were to be raised, but, owing, no doubt, to his Department being overworked, he did not prepare his stuff before the Committee stage. He ought to have had these Amendments ready for the Committee stage, and ought not to have had to put them off upstairs and to put them off here again now through not having his work up to date. That is the first point. I really do not think the hon. Gentleman should talk about gratitude—
Mr. Key: No, I do not think I should.
Mr. Reid: These Amendments are not being made, I presume, and not being accepted on this side, as concessions to our party, or to the Opposition. They are, presumably, put down in the public interest as improvements in the Bill. I am willing to accept gratitude for having assisted the hon. Gentleman to improve his Bill, but the fact that Amendments are

389
put down on the Paper does not indicate that he is giving us presents of some sort. It shows rather that he has accepted our view that, in the public interest, these Amendments are necessary.
Ordered:
" That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of the new Clauses and the Amendments in Schedule 1, page 12, lines 23, 25 and 48, page 13, line 6 and page 16, line 27 standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Bevan and the Amendments in Clause 6, page 7, line 47 and page 9, lines 4 and 15 and the new Schedule standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Westwood."
Bill immediately considered in Committee.

ACQUISITION OF LAND (AUTHORISATION PROCEDURE) BILL

  Major MILNER in the Chair
  CLAUSE 6.—(Provisions as to Scotland)
  3.48 p.m.
  The Lord Advocate (Mr. G. R. Thomson): I beg to move, in page 7, line 47, at the end, to insert:
  " (8) Subsection (2) of the section of this Act relating to provisions as to inquiries shall not apply and the provisions of the Fifth Schedule to this Act shall have effect with regard to a public local inquiry held in pursuance of this Act.
  (9) Section five of this Act shall have effect as if for the definitions of ' held inalienably ' and ' National Trust,' there were substituted the following definitions—
  ' held inalienably,' in relation to land belonging to the National Trust for Scotland, means that the land is inalienable under Section twenty-two of the Order confirmed by the National Trust for Scotland Order Confirmation Act, 1935:
  ' National Trust for Scotland ' means the National Trust for Scotland for Places o) Historic Interest or Natural Beauty incorporated by the said Order."
  This Bill in dealing with the question of inquiries incorporated certain provisions relating to Scotland, by reference to English Acts. It was suggested by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. Reid) that this was an un desirable course, and I am grateful to him for drawing attention to the point. His suggestion was that there should be reference instead to a Scottish Act. However, I thought it well to go further, and to deal with the matter by setting out in this Statute, for the convenience of all Scottish lawyers, a definite code dealing with inquiries. It is with that view that this Amendment is being made in the Scottish application Clause. It involves an addi-
  390
  tional Schedule, to which we shall come later, in which this code is set out. The addition of the new Subsection (9) is merely a drafting change, substituting definitions of "National Trust" and "held inalienably" in relation to the National Trust for Scotland for the definitions applying to England and Wales.
  Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I agree that this is a definite improvement. I do not think it matters very much whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman adopts this method or the method which I suggested. There will be something more to be said on the Schedule, but, I agree that this is an improvement.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 9, line 4, to leave out from "in," to the end of line 5, and to insert:
  " the Section of this Act relating to provisions as to inquiries as read with Subsection (8) of this Section."
  This Amendment, and the following Amendment, are drafting and are consequential on the introduction of the new Subsection which I have just described.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In line 15, leave out Subsection (15).—[The Lord Advocate.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to inquiries.)
  (1) For the purposes of the execution of his powers and duties under this Act, a Minister may cause to be- held such public local inquiries as are directed by tiffs Act and such other public local inquiries as he may think fit.
  (2) Subsections (7) and (3) of Section two hundred and ninety of the Local Government Act, 1933 (which relate to the giving of evidence on inquiries) and in relation to a proposed acquisition of land by a local authority, or to the proposed extinction of a right of way over land acquired or proposed to be acquired by a local authority, Subsections (4) and (5) of that Section (which relate to the defraying of costs of inquiries) shall apply to a public local inquiry held in pursuance of this Act as they apply to the inquiries mentioned in Subsection (1) of the said Section two hundred and ninety, but with the substitution for references to a department of references to a Minister.—[Mr. Key.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

  391
  This new Clause arises out of an undertaking I gave in Committee, when we were considering the conduct of the inquiries which are necessary under this Bill. Inquiries must arise in the case of objections by owners, lessees and occupiers of land. I stated that in cases where there was serious objection by other interested people, the Minister of Health would hold inquiries. Doubt, however, was expressed with regard to the ability of other confirming authorities to hold inquiries at their own option, and I undertook that the matter should be looked into, and that if it was found there were other confirming authorities who had not the power, steps would be taken to secure that the power was provided for them. That is the purpose of the first part of the Clause. The Clause gives all the confirming authorities the power to hold inquiries, when objections have been raised not only on the part of owners, lessees and occupiers, but of all other interested parties as well. A second point was in regard to expenses of inquiries which arose where the acquiring authority was not the local authority. It was considered unfair that the expenses of such an inquiry should be placed on the local authorities, as is undoubtedly the case under the 1933 Act. Therefore, in the new Clause, we make definite provision, where the acquiring authority is a Minister of the Crown, when the public inquiry arises through his instigation, he shall bear his own costs.
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: I agree that this Clause should be added to the Bill, and that the explanation of its origin is correct. There arc, however, one or two small points I should like to raise in order to make sure that I understand what is intended. In the first place, the Clause mentions only public inquiries. A hearing has been found to be a convenient method of disposing of small differences of opinion, when the area of difference is not of a very wide scope. It is often found expeditious and just to bring the parties together, around a table, with an independent person at the head, in an atmosphere less formal and less protracted than is sometimes the case with a public inquiry. The matter can be satisfactorily decided in that way. I do not know whether it is necessary to have words in the Clause authorising the holding of a hearing, and I should like an answer on
  392
  that point. I should also like to know how far these new confirming and acquiring authorities will make use of the hearing procedure in a proper case. The Clause 2 procedure, abolishes the hearing and the inquiry, and gives a man whose land is taken, no chance to speak up for himself, and I ask the Minister to tell us whether he will in a proper case under that procedure cause an inquiry to be held. That would do a great deal to assuage, if not entirely remove our objections to the Bill.
  4.0 p.m.
  Mr. Turton: The Parliamentary Secretary is now doing, although not completely, what I asked him to do in Committee. I gather that he is later proposing to leave out paragraph 20 of the First Schedule. Therefore, there will be no reference, except in this new Clause, to the Local Government Act of 1933. If there is an inquiry initiated not by a local authority, there will be no connection with Subsections (4) and (5) of Section 290 of the Local Government Act, 1933. That, presumably, will mean there will be no provision for the awarding of costs to either party. It would be helpful if we could have in this Clause something to enable a Department' to pay the costs of the successful applicant or opponent, where it was just to do so. The Parliamentary Secretary will recollect that, at an earlier stage, I suggested he should use the hearing method adopted in the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act. In that Act it is laid down that for the purposes of the Local Government Act, 1936, Section 290 (5) the Minister shall be deemed to be a party to the inquiry, and costs may be awarded, to be paid to, or by him, accordingly.
  That does not appear to be possible under the proposed new Clause. It was felt that under the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act that was a fair condition. If a man wins his point in an inquiry, and if a Department has put him to considerable expense, it is only right that he should not have to bear the heavy costs—because they will be heavy at these public inquiries—without getting any award from the Department responsible. There seems to be this gap in the Minister's proposed new Clause, and I think that it would have been better if he had accepted the Amendment, moved in Committee by the right hon. Member for

  393
  Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison), which made this quite clear. I hope that the Minister will consider putting this matter right on Report, otherwise I think there is a loophole in this new Clause.
  Mr. Key: I am advised that it is not necessary to make a provision with regard to the hearings. The powers for holding a hearing lie with the confirming authority at present. It seems to me that such hearings, where they are acceptable to the parties concerned, are preferable to the holding of public inquiries, and I am certain that Departments will prefer that method of procedure and will use it in cases where it is possible for them to do so.
  This new Clause definitely gives power to the confirming authority to hold public inquiries under the Clause 2 procedure, and in cases where the objections raised were such as to make that course advisable, an inquiry would be held. Subsections 4 and 5 of the Local Government Act, 1936, with regard to the defraying of expenses, are definitely included in the Clause, and are applied to the holding of public inquiries under this Bill both in Clause 1 and Clause 2 procedure. I feel that, after full consideration, we have come to the best arrangement we can for the holding of an inquiry and the meeting of the costs and expenses of the people involved, particularly since the Minister himself is directly concerned and is responsible for bearing his expenses.
  Mr. Turton: What the new Clause says is that Subsections (2) and (3) of Section 290 shall apply, and in relation to the proposed acquisition of land by a local authority, or to the proposed exemption of a right of way over land proposed to be acquired by a local authority, Subsections (4) and (5) of that Section shall apply. Surely Subsections (4) and (5) will not apply to any inquiry, except those specifically referred to in that Section.
  Mr. Key: It means that where an inquiry results from the initiative of the confirming authority, the Minister being concerned, he is responsible for bearing the cost of the inquiry.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
  NEW CLAUSE.— (Power to extinguish certain public rights of way over land acquired.)
  (1) Subject to the provision of this Section, where land is acquired, or proposed to be acquired,—

  (a) in pursuance of a compulsory purchase order made under Section one of this Act or an authorisation given under Section two thereof, or

  (b) by agreement for a purpose, and by an authority, such that the compulsory acquisition of the land could be authorised by such an order or authorisation as aforesaid,

  >and there subsists over any part of the land a public right of way, not being a right enjoyable by vehicular traffic, then if the Minister of Town and Country Planning (hereinafter in this Section referred to as "the Minister ") is satisfied that a suitable alternative right of way has been or will be provided, or that the provision thereof is not required, he may by order extinguish the right of way as from such time as may be specified in the order, not being earlier than—

  (i) the making of the order,

  (ii) if in the exercise of any power conferred by this Act or by the agreement to acquire the land the acquiring authority enters on the land before the acquisition thereof is completed, the date on which the authority enters on the land,

  (iii) if the acquiring authority does not enter on the land in the exercise of any such power as aforesaid, the date on which the acquisition of the land is completed:

  Provided that where a right of way is extinquished under this Subsection at a date before the acquisition of the land in question is completed, then if at any time thereafter it appears to the Minister that the proposal to acquire the land has been abandoned, he shall by order direct that the right shall revive, without prejudice, however, to the making of a new order extinguishing the right.
  (2) The Minister shall cause a notice stating the effect of any order that he proposes to make under this Section extinguishing a right of way, and specifying the time (not being less than twenty-one days from the publication of the notice) within which, and the manner in which, objections to the proposal may be made, to be published in such manner as appears to him to be requisite, and in any case where the acquiring authority is not the local planning authority (that is to say, the council specified in Subsection (1) of Section two of the Town and Country Planning Act, r932) for the area in which the land is situated shall serve a like notice on the said local planning authority.
  (3) If any objection to the proposal is duly made and is not withdrawn, the Minister shall, before making the order, cause a public local inquiry to be held.
  (4) No order shall be made under Subsection (1) of this Section extinguishing a right of way over land on, over or under which there is any apparatus belonging to statutory undertakers unless the undertakers consent to the

  395
  making of the order, and any such consent may be given subject to the condition that there are included in the order such provisions for the protection of the undertakers as they may reasonably require.
  The consent of statutory undertakers to any such order shall not be unreasonably refused, and any question arising under this Subsection whether any requirement or refusal is reasonable shall be determined by the appropriate Minister.
  (5) The foregoing provisions of this Section shall not apply in any case where Section twenty-three of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944 (which relates to the extinction of public rights of way over land acquired or appropriated for the purposes of Part I of that Act) applies.
  (6) Except as provided by the foregoing provisions of this Section or by the said Section twenty-three, nothing in this Act shall be taken to authorise the extinction of any public right of way.—[Mr. Key.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  This Clause refers to a difficulty which arises in the general development of areas acquired, when there is a public footpath or a bridle way across the piece of land, the extinction of the rights over which are really necessary, in order to get adequate and proper development of the site. The only method that exists at present for the extinction of these rights of way, is to spend a considerable amount of time in going to quarter sessions to get a closing order in accordance with the procedure of the Highways Act of 1835. That is a long and cumbrous procedure. Many local authorities have brought this matter before the Ministry of Health, and have urged that steps should be taken to see that a more expeditious method of doing this is adopted. In the case of the Housing Act, 1936, and the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, these rights of way can be dealt with by Ministerial Order, after due publicity and, if necessary, a public inquiry. But these powers relate only to activities under the Housing Act, 1936, and the Town and Country Planning Act. They are not available for new housing land to which so much of this Bill will refer. I want to point out that the new Clause deals only with public paths and bridle ways. It does not deal with public rights of way where vehicular traffic is concerned. We feel that such rights of way could only be dealt with adequately by legislation which amends the Highways Act of 1835,
  396
  and a provision of that sort is not considered appropriate to this Bill.
  As regards redevelopment and reconstruction areas, Section 46 of the Housing Act, 1936, and the appropriate Section of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, make it possible to deal with these rights of way, and we feel that in this we have done what is necessary to give the local authorities power to deal adequately with the closing or diversion of public rights of way for this purpose. In this connection, I would draw attention to Subsection (6) of the Clause, because it deals with a point raised in Committee upstairs. Here we are making it definitely certain that there can be no extinction of rights of way unless the procedure laid down in this Clause is followed. So there is a real protection in that case with regard to the matters which were raised.
  Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: When this matter was considered in Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary was at that time, unfortunately, unaware of the normal procedure of stopping up a highway under the Act of 1895. I then pressed this matter upon his notice. I am glad to think that in that small respect, at any rate, I have contributed to the improvement of this Bill. The procedure set out in this Clause seems to me to be reasonable and fair. I do not think that it can be argued that public rights of way, much as one might like it, can be sacrosanct and inviolate, because, if land is to be cleared for certain purposes, public rights of way on occasions must be stopped up. The specific matter to which I would draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary is the matter of objections, which are provided for in Subsection (2) of the Clause. That Subsection states:
  " The Minister shall cause a notice stating the effect of any order that he proposes to make under this section extinguishing a right of way, and specifying the time (not being less than twenty-one days from the publication of the notice) within which, and the manner in which, objections to the proposal may be made, to be published in such manner as appears to him to be requisite."
  I think the Committee are entitled to an explanation on this question of objection in regard to the stopping up of these public rights of way, because, of course, the position is not entirely analogous to the ordinary position of serving a notice on the owner and occupier of land. A

  397
  public right of way, by its definition, is a matter which concerns the whole community, and I want to be assured by the Parliamentary Secretary that it will be within the competence of any person, local or otherwise, to enter objections under this Clause and that the words:
  " within which," and the manner in which, objections to the proposal may be made,"
  will not be used by the Minister to limit the scope of any objections under this procedure. As I see it, there would be ordinarily, two possible sets of persons or bodies who might wish to make objections under this Clause. First, there will be the local objectors who normally use the right of way in the locality. They should, naturally, have the right to make objections. Secondly, it is possible that an amenity society such as the Society for the Preservation of Commons and Footpaths, which is a part of the wider organisation of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, might, as a matter of principle, wish to make objection to the stopping up of footpaths in any part of the country. I should like to have an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that the power given to him in this Clause, as to the specified manner in which objections may be made, will not be used to shut out, say, amenity societies, from entering objections in regard to the localities anywhere in the country. Speaking for myself, I think if the Minister can satisfy us on those points this Clause as drafted is as fairly and reasonably practical as it can be for the purposes which it is desired to meet.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower (Penrith and Cockermouth): This matter of giving notice arose on the Trunk Roads Bill when the question was mentioned of shutting up trunk roads. In Committee this was debated at some length. The hon. Member who raised this matter drew our attention to the words:
  " at appears to him to be requisite."
  Is there any reason why the Minister should not have a notice fixed near the bridle path or footpath which is going to be taken over? That would reach the eye of the public far quicker than any other method, and I would ask him to consider it.
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. Turton: I differ from the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith), because it strikes me that this Clause is
  398
  most unfortunate. The Minister gave an undertaking in Committee that he was not going to extinguish rights of way under this Bill. In Committee the hon. and gallant Member for Henley (Sir G. Fox) said the Minister was attempting to abolish rights of way, and the Parliamentary Secretary gave an assurance that there was no intention of doing so. Now he comes before us, with an effort to abolish rights of way under a procedure that gives objectors less time than they were ever given before in the history of the closure of rights of way. It may be that the method we all use of going to quarter sessions is too long, in these circumstances, but the Socialist Government of 1930 established a procedure whereby there was publication in the newspapers, following which there was to be a six months' wait, while objections could be made. That is in Section 13 of the Housing Act of 1930.
  What is the Minister doing in this new Clause? He is saying that he can give notice in whatever manner appears to him to be requisite and within 21 days. We tried to raise this upstairs in Committee and did not meet with a great deal of success. I ask that when the Minister is proposing to close public footpaths, on the retention of which the inhabitants of the locality feel extremely strongly, he should give them the same protection as they had in the past. Let us go back to the 1930 Act. I should be quite satisfied if the Minister retained in this new Clause the six weeks of the 1930 Act and if it were also specified by regulation or otherwise, that there should be proper publication. We do not want rights of way even although they may not be rights of way for vehicular traffic, closed in any hole and corner manner. There should be publication in the local newspapers so that everybody affected will know about it. In this new Clause notice will be given in the way the Minister of Health thinks requisite, but I gather that it is not the Minister of Health alone who will be involved. Other Departments affected by this Bill will have their own method of closing roads and public footpaths. I think the Minister here is stepping into what will prove a hornet's nest. I feel he does not want to rob the people of their ancient public rights of way. They have been protected by the 1930 Act, which lays down that there must be proper advertisement before anybody can

  399
  infringe the public rights. Under the proposed Clause the Minister can close a right of way, giving the people only 21 days' notice in which to object, such notice being given in a manner which appears to him to be requisite. We do regard that as a hole and corner method.
  The Solicitor-General (Major Sir Frank Soskice): I am sorry to see the strong disagreement that exists among hon. Members opposite, and I sympathise with the two hon. Gentlemen who do not seem to be in accord. We on this side prefer to deal with the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith). The procedure set up in this Clause for closing roads is appropriate to present-day circumstances, and the question raised by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) is a very different one. As I read it, there is no doubt that under this proposed new Clause the Minister has only a limited power with regard to the prescribed method of making an objection. The new Clause does not empower him to exclude any particular person as a possible objector. At the same time if there is any doubt, the Parliamentary Secretary-authorises me to say that amenity societies will certainly have full consideration in any objection which they may raise in respect of a particular right of way.
  Then the point was made that it was wrong that the method of publication should be left to the discretion of the Minister. I ask hon. Members to consider the actual circumstances. You may be closing a small footpath, about which few people except those who live in the immediate vicinity know anything, or you may be closing a right of way which is much more used, and much better known to the local inhabitants. It is right, I think, that there should be some discretion left to the Minister to say, with regard to that right of way, "Is the best way to bring notice of closing to those concerned to put up a notice at each end of the path, or to publish it in the newspapers, or would it be useless to publish it in the newspapers? If it should be published what are the appropriate papers? Should it be newspapers circulating in the vicinity, or should it be in newspapers with a much wider circulation? "I submit that the Minister must have discretion to enable him to decide upon such publication as
  400
  will most adequately bring the matter to the notice of the people concerned.
  For that reason the new Clause is drafted in such a way as. to give the Minister discretion. It would be unfortunate if his hands were tied. Supposing the notice had to be published in d national newspaper, and the people who lived in the immediate vicinity of the right of way, and who used it, did not normally read that paper. That is a very real consideration which has to be borne in mind. That is why we thought it better to leave the Minister with discretion. I can, however, give this further assurance, that the Minister will be very careful, in dealing with the question, to see that all concerned are apprised of the fact that the question of stopping the right of way has arisen. The Minister, will, as all Ministers do in the present Government, exercise his discretion wisely for securing effectually the purpose for which that discretion has been vested in him.
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: In dealing with rights of way, the Committee is dealing with a subject which arouses great feeling in the country. These rights of passage over other people's land, which are enjoyed by the public, are among our treasured possessions, and it is necessary that we should see exactly what we are doing. I cannot take the view that it is necessary sometimes to stop a right of way. It is clear that if you intend to dedicate land for a certain purpose the use of the land for that purpose might be quite incompatible with the continued existence of a free right of passage over it. I am glad, therefore, that the Government have listened to what we had to say in Committee upstairs, and have brought forward this Clause. At the same time, I am not convinced by what the Solicitor-General said, that we cannot have a little more explicit direction to the Minister as to what conditions of notice he has to impose. The hon. and learned Gentleman properly used the argument that rights of way vary in size and importance, that their locality varies, and that the sort of notice which might be good for a small one might not be applicable to a large one. But it is precisely the small rights of way that we have to look after because, from one cause or another, they are tending to diminish.

  401
  I should have thought that the proper course was to lay down a minimum standard of notice to be applicable in all circumstances. In the First Schedule a form of notice is set out. For example, you have to publish the notice twice in the local newspaper, and thus give the local inhabitants some idea of what is projected with regard to the right of way. I hope that it may be found possible, while not unduly shackling the discretion of the Minister, to ensure that there will at least be a certain minimum of notice. I, personally, welcome Subsection (3). which provides that if a proposal is objected to, and the objection is not withdrawn, the Minister, before making an order, shall cause a public local inquiry to be held. I think that is an important safeguard, and I rejoice in the fact that the obligation is mandatory on the Minister, and not left to Departmental discretion. I think we should accept the Clause, but I hope the Government will look again at this question of notice, and will see whether they cannot provide a basis on which we can act in future.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
  FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Procedure for authorising compulsory purchases.)
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 12, line 23, after "undertaking," to insert:
  "of of land belonging to the National Trust which is held by the Trust inalienably."
  This Amendment arises out of the discussion we had in Committee about safeguarding the position of land belonging to the National Trust, and held by the Trust inalienably. I must frankly say that I was not happy about the outcome of that discussion, and we have, therefore, given further consideration to this matter. We feel that as Parliament has entrusted the National Trust, as a responsible body, with power to hold certain lands. Parliament has obviously regarded the Trust as being a body at least as important as local authorities and statutory undertakers. That being so, we thought it would be best to apply to the Trust safeguards of the same sort as those which apply to local authorities and statutory undertakers in regard to land. In those cases, if, after the confirming
  402
  authority has given its decision, the local authority or statutory undertaker still object, then the land can only be taken as a result of special Parliamentary procedure. What is being done by this Amendment, and the three Government Amendments which follow it, is to apply to the National Trust the same sort of protection of special Parliamentary procedure as it applies to local authorities and statutory undertakers.
  Mr. Keeling: Perhaps I may be allowed, on behalf of the National Trust, to thank the Government for accepting the strong views which were expressed upstairs. It may be of interest to hon. Members to know that not all land held by the National Trust is held inalienably. The only land which they hold inalienably is land which, because of its special beauty or interest, was either declared inalienable by the original National Trust Act, 1907, or has subsequently, from time to time, been declared inalienable by the Council of the Trust.
  Mr. Turton: I would like to voice my gratitude to the Minister for moving this Amendment, and for adopting the words of an Amendment which I moved upstairs. One of the questions we had to consider was whether land belonging to the National Trust should be subjected to special Parliamentary procedure or not, and, if so, whether it was to be at the discretion of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. We argued in Committee that it was wrong that the National Trust should be put under that Ministry and that this had never been the case before. This is no reflection on the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, but it would be something quite new in the procedure of the National Trust. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having advanced the interest of the National Trust both in the Committee upstairs and here today.
  4.30 p.m.
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: I should like to add my word of thanks for the manner in which this matter has been dealt with by the Parliamentary Secretary. We attached a great deal of importance to this in Standing Committee and it is a happy conclusion that the Minister's name should appear with mine and those of my right hon. Friends to this Amendment. It is a very rare occurrence, and I hope the

  403
  result to the public may be advantageous. The Committee should know that the practical point of this, is that people should be encouraged to give land of especial value to the National Trust. They are so encouraged if they know that the land can be held inalienably by the Trust, but they are inclined to be discouraged, if they think that, after they have handed it over, it can be taken away from the Trust at any time for any purpose. By accepting this Amendment the hon. Gentleman has done good work not only for the Trust, but for the cause which the Trust exists to further—namely, to preserve places of peculiar beauty and historical interest to the nation.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made:
  In page 12, line 25, at end, insert:
  " or the National Trust, as the case may be. "
  In line 48, leave out from "of," to "any," in page 13, line 1.
  In page 13, line 6, leave out:
  " land held inalienably by the National Trust or."
  In page 16, line 27, leave out paragraph 20.—[Mr. Key.]
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  NEW SCHEDULE.—(Public Local Inquiries in Scotland.)
  1. The Minister shall appoint a person to hold the inquiry and to report thereon to him.
  2. The person appointed to hold the inquiry shall notify any person who has lodged, and has not withdrawn, objections in relation to any matter in question at the inquiry, and shall publish in such newspaper or newspapers as the Minister may direct a notice, of the time when and the place where the inquiry is to be held.
  3. The person appointed to hold the inquiry may, on the motion of any party thereto or of his own motion, serve a notice in writing on any person requiring him to attend at the time and place set forth in the notice to give evidence or to produce any books or documents in his custody or under his control which relate to any matter in question at the inquiry:
  Provided that—

  (i) no person shall be required in obedience to such a notice to attend at any place which is more than ten miles from the place where he resides unless the necessary expenses are paid or tendered to him; and

  (ii) nothing in this Subsection shall empower the person appointed to hold the inquiry to require any person to produce any book or document or to answer any
  404
  question which he would be entitled, on the ground of privilege or confidentiality, to refuse to produce or to answer if the inquiry were a proceeding in a court of law.

  4. The person appointed to hold the inquiry may administer oaths and examine witnesses on oath and may accept, in lieu of evidence on oath by any person, a statement in writing by that person.
  5. Any person who refuses or wilfully neglects to attend in obedience to a notice under paragraph 3 of this Schedule or to give evidence or who wilfully alters, suppresses, conceals, destroys, or refuses to produce, any book or document which he may be required to produce by any such notice shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months.
  6. Where the inquiry arises out of a proposed acquisition of land by a local authority or the proposed extinction of a right of way over land acquired or proposed to be acquired by a local authority—

  (a) the expenses incurred by the Minister in relation to the inquiry (including such reasonable sum as the Minister may determine for the services of the person appointed to hold the inquiry) shall be paid by such of the parties to the inquiry in such proportions as the Minister may order; and

  (b) the Minister may make orders as to the expenses incurred by the parties to the inquiry and as to the parties by whom such expenses shall be paid.

  7. Any order by the Minister under paragraph 6 of this Schedule may be enforced in like manner as a recorded decree arbitral.
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, "That the Schedule be read a Second time."
  The purpose of this Schedule, to which I referred in moving an earlier Amendment, is to lay down a code for the procedure of public local inquiries in Scotland.
  Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Schedule, in line 36', to leave out subparagraph (a).
  The position, as the Lord Advocate said earlier, is that last year—I think for the first time in Scotland—a general code for public inquiries was framed in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1945. Before that date there had been different arrangements in different types of inquiry, and indeed we had on certain occasions to pray in aid certain English provisions. This code, however, was deliberately framed by a Coalition Government—and by the Coalition Members of the Scottish

  405
  Office headed by Mr. Thomas Johnston— with everyone's consent as a model- for the future. It left out Sub-paragraph (a) to which I have referred, but otherwise the Schedule which now appears in the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, is an identical copy of last year's code. The provision which we seek to leave out is one under which the Minister can—and indeed must—saddle those who appear at the inquiry with the Minister's expenses. We took the view last year that that was not a proper thing to do for a number of reasons, and Parliament agreed, because so far as my recollection serves, nobody questioned Section 50 of the Town and Country Planning Act, either on the Second Reading or on the Committee stage. At the time the present Secretary of State was, of course, Under-Secretary of State at the Scottish Office.
  The reasons which were and are in my mind on this matter are, in the first place, that a number of persons who appear at these inquiries are small people and the Committee will know that there are a number of very small local authorities in Scotland. There is at least one Royal Burgh in Scotland with fewer than 300 inhabitants, and it is not right that a body of that character should be under liability to pay the expenses of the Minister if it chooses to bring forward the views of its ratepayers at an inquiry.
  Mr. Kirkwood: May I ask the right hon. and learned Member the name of the Royal Burgh he has mentioned?
  Mr. Reid: I think it is New Galloway— perhaps the right hon. Gentleman may be able to bear me out—which has a population of less than 300, and I believe there are one or two in Fife which are not much bigger. Accordingly it is important that these small authorities should not fail to put forward a case because they fear they may have to pay a sum for the expense of the inquiry which will put several pence on their rates. In the same way private individuals may be performing a public service by coming forward and putting the views and facts within their knowledge. Surely, if the Minister is to have an inquiry it is in the public interest that every source of public information should be tapped at that inquiry and that people should not be discouraged from appearing because of the
  406
  fear that they will have to pay the Minister's expenses. If a person raises a case in court the parties do not have to pay the judge's salary. It is quite true that they have to pay court fees which many people think are too large, but the small man will no longer have even to pay the court fees if proposals made by a Committee appointed by the last Government go through. The whole trend of opinion in recent times has been against calling upon the parties to pay the judge's salary. If this is right for a case in court surely it is equally so for a case before the Minister's arbiter or appointee at an inquiry. I cannot think of any reason or justification for saddling persons who come to an inquiry with the Minister's expenses. For that reason the law in Scotland was changed last year, and, we thought, changed for good in both senses of those words. I ask the Lord Advocate, "Why this retrogade step?" The only thing he said upstairs in Committee was that England had not yet seen the light and that it was necessary for Scotland to come back into line with England.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Does this mean that Scotland has to be brought down to the level of England?
  Mr. Reid: That is precisely what it means and my Amendment is intended to preserve for Scotland a concession which was allowed, presumably by the Treasury, on behalf of our colleagues. That concession is being given away by the Scottish Office now for no better reason than that England has not been sufficiently wide awake in the past to get the same concession. I was very surprised that the Lord Advocate should have put that forward, above all things, as a justification of his view. I have understood for some time that the view of the Socialist Party in Scotland is that Scottish affairs have not in the past received adequate independent consideration. I do not agree with that view. I think it was true 15 or 20 years ago, but I do not think it has been true recently. One of the first things which Scottish Socialist Members of this Government, holding that view, do, is to bring up the old argument that anything which is good enough for England is good enough for Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] That is what the right hon. Gentleman told us in Committee. Is this a question

  407
  of orders from the Lord Privy Seal, who was good enough to tell us in the Debate on the Address that Scotland had been too generously treated in the past? Is that the origin of the Government's attitude?
  Mr. Kirkwood: He was trying to be funny.
  Mr. Reid: He was not very funny to some of us. I have seen a good deal since then to indicate that the view of the Lord Privy Seal is the preponderant view in this Government, and that Scottish interests are being neglected. This is an instance. I should be interested to hear any justification of the merits of this change which has been introduced. It was not put forward in Committee. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has had some afterthoughts, and in order to give him an opportunity of airing those afterthoughts, I shall not add anything further at the moment.
  Mr. McKie: I strongly support the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C Reid) with regard to the very small local authorities in Scotland. My right hon. and learned Friend alluded to the fact that I have the honour to represent the smallest Ancient and Royal Burgh in Scotland, New Galloway, whose charter goes back to Charles I. It is a relevant illustration of the danger which my right hon. and learned Friend sees in this Subsection that, some years ago, this small local authority endeavoured to promote legislation to have its burgh charter taken away, because it found the expense and difficulty of carrying on such a small community so great. It was not even able to raise the necessary sum of about £2,000, if my memory serves me rightly, to have that carried out. I am glad that it was not carried out, because I am glad to see the Ancient and Royal Burgh of New Galloway carrying on. That illustration, however, serves to show the position in which small local authorities, of which there are very many in Scotland, will be placed if this Subsection is retained in this Schedule relating to the acquisition of land by local authorities in Scotland. Why should they be called upon to pay the expenses of the inquiry conducted by the Minister? As my right hon and learned Friend pointed out, parties to a
  408
  lawsuit in court are not required to pay the expenses of the judge
  Mr. McAdam: While, they may not be called upon to pay the expenses of the judge, they are called upon to pay the expenses of the solicitors representing them.
  445 P.m.
  Mr. McKie: That scarcely meets the argument I was endeavouring to put forward, and which my right hon. and learned Friend put forward so cogently. These small local authorities will be faced with a very difficult, awkward, and perhaps serious situation with regard to meeting these costs. Why should there be this retrograde step by the Socialist Government, which is departing from the principle laid down in the Town and Country Planning Act of last year by the Coalition Government, in which the present Secretary of State for Scotland served. as Under-Secretary of State? I hope there will be some attempt at an explanation of that point by the Lord Advocate. Paragraph (6) of the Schedule states that these expenses are to be met, where the inquiry arises out of a proposed acquisition of land by a local authority or the proposed extinction of a right of way over land acquired or proposed to be acquired by a local authority. These local authorities will be called upon, if this Subsection is retained, to finance the costs of the person holding the inquiry in connection with one of the most delicate questions— a fact to which my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) alluded on a previous Amendment—in Scotland and in England, namely, the termination of ancient rights of way which the public have used it may be for two or three centuries. Wherever these inquiries take place, I hope they will be conducted in very great detail, and that many witnesses will be heard, and it is easy to see how the costs will mount up. I am glad to see that in paragraph (3), sub-paragraph (i), it is stated that:
  " No person shall be required in obedience to such a notice to attend at any place which is more than ten miles from the place where he resides unless the necessary expenses are paid or tendered to him."
  That is a most excellent provision. Why not carry on in the same good way, and say that the local authorities also shall

  409
  not be required to be out of pocket owing to the holding of these most necessary inquiries? I hope the Lord Advocate will give us some very good reason why it is necessary to take what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hill-head has so aptly described as a retrograde step. Twice today we have seen this Socialist Government acting in a manner which, I should have thought, was directly contrary to the best interests of those whom they always tell us they are sent to the House especially to protect. While my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead was speaking, I thought I heard the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) expressing agreement with him, and I very much hope that the hon. Member will follow me and impress upon his Government the necessity for seeing that these small local authorities shall be left in the good position in which the Coalition Government thought they had placed them last year and which we thought and hoped would last for all time.
  Mr. Charles Williams: I shall not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) in his effort to try to get a speech from the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). Of all the cooing doves which the Government Whips have produced to coo for the Government Front Bench, there is none that coos more than does the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs. I really got up to say that I am afraid that my right hon. Friend who proposed this Amendment has placed me in a difficulty. I would wish to vote for his Amendment, but if I do so, as he clearly pointed out, I am in difficulties with my constituents, and I must justify my position because my constituents follow these things rather closely. I would not like to give a vote one way or the other in the event of a Division taking place, unless I gave some reason to justify myself in doing so. My right hon. and learned Friend pointed out very clearly, and I think he has the sympathy of the Committee, that inquiries of this "kind may be very expensive to the local authorities, and a very unfair expenditure may be laid on a private individual. These inquiries are at the order of the Government and are not necessarily in the interests of the local authorities. These inquiries may be forced on the local authority and on the
  410
  private individual, and a burden is imposed on them.
  My right hon. and learned Friend pointed out that apparently that position would not have been imposed if only something had been carried into effect by some wicked Tories in the last Parliament with regard to a form of payment. That is no doubt correct, but what is the real position? If this is paid by the State, we English people have to pay our share instead of it all being paid by Scotsmen. That is a little hard on us. It may be hard, but some things are hard and some things are just. Here I come down on the side of my hon. and learned Friend. It may be true that the Scots have got away with this. It may be true that the late Secretary of State for Scotland, who, I believe, is very near to the Tory Party in many ways, and his Tory supporters, got away with something for Scotland as good Tories always do so much better than other parties. As far as this is concerned, it is no good unless there is a real sense of justice, and I do think that the case has been made out first of all to get this done in Scotland, in the interests of the Scottish people. When it is we shall have a splendid illustration of why it should be done in England. On that basis, I am perfectly justified in voting for the Amendment for the very simple reason that it is only fair and just to Scottish people. There is nothing we English delight in more than trying to see that the Scots have more than we have, because they are not as businesslike in their outlook as ordinary English people are. That may be so or it may not be so.
  There is another side I would like to put to the Committee. I quite realise that very few sections of the community are getting justice under this Government. It always seems to me to be a little bit hard, that when you condemn a man to death, you should charge the rope to his executors. That is exactly what the Government are going to do. They are going to belabour unfortunate local authorities and individuals who have an inquiry, and by doing so, they are laying an unnecessary burden on them. I hope that the Government will support the Amendment to eliminate this part of the Bill, which would be just in every way, and I also hope some of the Government Back Benchers may, from the English point of view, say they hope that the Scots will gain this concession

  411
  so that we may have it in England in due course.
  The Lord Advocate: I am almost tempted to agree to this Amendment on the idea that the English people would be paying for something which we are to get. However, I do not think I should take that selfish view. When one looks at the history of the matter, it is true to say that an Act was passed last year which contains provisions of this kind, but without the particular provision we are discussing at this moment. That was an innovation—the only Act of its kind in Scotland. There have been numerous Acts in which a clause of this kind stands —all the earlier Local Government Acts, the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935, the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945, the Hydro-Electric Development Act, 1943, and the Water Bill which is in process of passing into an Act at the present time. There is any amount of precedent for the course which we are following in this Bill, and there is only one contrary precedent and that is a very poor reason for making this innovation. It must be remembered that this Bill is of the nature of a codifying Bill—to codify what is the established and expressed practice in Scotland. I cannot help noticing that there has been a certain amount of patriotic fervour from hon. Members opposite. There has also been the talk one hears so much of now, this cry to look after the interests of the small people. These are familiar shouts now from right hon. Members opposite, but at the back of this solicitude for the small man and this patriotic fervour lies the point that they want to protect the pockets of the landowners.
  Mr. McKie: Really.
  The Lord Advocate: In my submission there is no reason at all why, if people get involved in an inquiry and make objections, they should not take the ordinary risks of taking objections and pay for those objections if they are wrong. That will make them cautious, and caution is a good thing, particularly among the Scots. Furthermore, there seems no reason at all why there should be any distinction drawn between the two countries in this matter. The principle seems to be sound and it is equally applicable to both.
  Commander Galbraith: I am extraordinarily disappointed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman and what he has just said to us. I have always looked upon him as being one of these progressive people, and I do not know that I can think that any more, particularly if he is going to continue on the lines which he took in his reply just now. Let us for a moment consider what kind of a Scottish Office it was that put through this innovation, which he calls it, in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1945.
  The Chairman (Major Milner): The constitution of the Scottish Office would not appear to be relevant.
  5.0 p.m.
  Commander Galbraith: But, surely, I am allowed to say that Mr. Thomas Johnston was there, that the present Secretary of State was there and that the right hon. and learned Member for Hill-head (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) was there? There cannot be any objection to my reminding the Committee that these were the persons who were responsible for the Government's policy in Scotland when this innovation, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman called it, was brought into being. They are persons who are very progressive in their outlook and it was, therefore, a very progressive step they took when they introduced this new Clause into the Bill of 1945, and which is now being removed so far as this Bill h concerned by sub-paragraph (a), which we would like to have deleted. I think it is a most amazing turnround on the part of the present Government, and I can only think that it has come about because the Scottish Office at the present moment is overburdened; that in the rush of things, the gentleman who was responsible for drafting this forgot that Scotland had obtained a new procedure and, in the excitement of the moment, went back to the old one.
  This is going to affect small people far more than big people, and there let me ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who talked about our patriotism and working up a nationalistic spirit and so on, and that what we really wanted to do was to protect the pocket of the landlord—has he inspected the pocket of a landowner, as he calls him, recently? He will not find anything like as much in

  413
  it as in the pockets of many other sections of the community; in fact, there is a large hole in it, so that there is nothing left at all. As a matter of fact, this is a protection to small people.
  Let me say why I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a reactionary. Is it not the right of people to have an opportunity to come and state their case and not be intimidated by the chance of heavy costs arising against them? I think it is a right, and it should be. I am very much surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not seen his way to accept this very reasonable Amendment.
  Mr. Charles Williams: I, too, was amazed at the speech of the Lord Advocate, though I have been expecting this kind of speech for a long time. He made it plain that there was only one reason for resisting this Amendment, the matter
  of precedent. In other words, he was saying quite clearly that this is a most completely reactionary Government, who have no intention of moving with the times, and if they can only find a precedent for oppressing people, they will use it. I wish to emphasise that very strongly, because I think that on an occasion like this, when there is an Amendment in the interests of the ordinary people of this country and the local authorities, and the Government blandly quote worn out precedents of this sort when they have a far better precedent for doing the right thing, some Tory should get up and point out how reactionary and backsliding they are.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Schedule."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 258; Noes, 135.

  Division No. 105.]

  AYES.

  [5.5 p.m

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R

  Adamson, Mrs. J L.

  Cove, W. G.

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A

  Hardy, E. A.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Daggar, G.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Alpass, J. H.

  Daines, P.

  Haworth, J.

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Attewell, H. C

  Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Austin, H. L.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Ayles, W. H.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Hobson, C. R.

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

  Deer, G.

  Holman, P.

  Bacon, Miss A.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Balfour, A.

  Diamond, J.

  House, G.

  Barstow, P. G.

  Dobbie, W.

  Hoy, J.

  Barton, C.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

  Battley, J. R.

  Douglas, F. C. R

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Berry, H.

  Dugģdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.>

  Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F

  Dumpleton, C- W

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Binns, J.

  Dye, S.

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Blenkinsop, Capt. A

  Edelman, M.

  Irving, W. J.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Boardman, H.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  John, W.

  Boflemley, A. G.

  Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Bowen, R.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Keenan, W.

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Ewart, R.

  Key, C. W.

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)

  Fairhurst, F.

  King, E. M.

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Farthing, W. J.

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Kinley, J.

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Gaitskell, H. T. N.

  Kirby, B. V

  Brown, georģe (Belper)

  georģe, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Kirkwood, D

  Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

  Gibbins, J.

  Lang, G.

  Burden, T. W.

  Gilzean, A.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Byers, Lt.-Col. F.

  Glanville. J. E. (Consett)

  Leslie, J. R.

  Callaghan, James

  Gooch, E G.

  Levy, B. W.

  Chamberlain, R. A.

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Champion, A. J.

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Lipson, D L.

  Chater, D.

  Grenfell, D. R

  Logan, D. G

  Chetwynd, Capt. G. R

  Grey, C. F.

  Longden, F.

  Clitherow, Dr R

  Grierson, E.

  Lyne, A. W.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  McAdam, W.

  Cobb, F. A

  Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Cocks, F S.

  Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Collins, V. J.

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Colman, Miss G. M

  Gunter, Capt. R. J.

  McKinlay, A. S.

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Cook, T. F.

  Hale, Leslie

  McLeavy, F.

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

  Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

  MacMillan, M. K.

  Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)

  Mainwaririg, W. H.

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Rankin, J.

  Thurtle, E

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Rees-Williams, D. R.

  Tiffany, S.

  Manning, Mrs. L. (E'pping)

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Timmons, J.

  Marshall, F. (Brightside)

  Rhodes, H.

  Titterington, M. F.

  Mathers, G.

  Richards, R

  Tolley, L.

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

  Medland, H. M.

  Robens, A.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. Emrys (Merioneth)

  Usborne, Henry

  Mitchison, Maj. G. R

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Vernon, Maj. W. F

  Monslow, W.

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Viant, S. P.

  Montague, F

  Rogers, G. H. R

  Walker, G. H.

  Moody, A. S.

  Royle, C.

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Sargood, R.

  Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Morley, R.

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Segal, Sq.-Ldr. S.

  Watson, W. M.

  Mort, D. L

  Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

  Moyle, A.

  Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

  Weitzman, D.

  Murray, J. D.

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Nally, W.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Wells, W T. (Walsall)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Skeffington-Lodge, T C

  White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Whiteley, Rt Hon. W

  Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

  Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

  Wigg, Col. G. E

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Wilkes, Maj. L.

  Noel-Baker, Capt. F E. (Brentford)

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Soskice, Maj Sir F.

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Stamford, W

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Paget, R. T.

  Steele, T.

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.

  Stephen, C

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Strachey, J.

  Willis, E.

  Peart, Capt. T. F.

  Strauss, G. R.

  Wills, Mrs. E. A

  Perrins, W.

  Swingler, Capt, S.

  Wise, Major F J

  Piratin, P.

  Symonds, Maj. A. L.

  Woods, G. S.

  Platts-Mills, J. F. F

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Popplewell, E.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Younger Hon Kenneth

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Thomas, georģe (Cardiff)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Proctor, W. T

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

  Ranger, J.

  Thorneycroft, H

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES. Mr. Pearson and Captain Bin

  NOES.

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Glossop, C. W. H.

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Aitken, Hon. Max

  Glyn, Sir R.

  Morris-Jones, Sir H.

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

  Astor, Hon. M.

  Grimston R. V.

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Hare, Lieut.-Col. Hn. J. H. (W'db'ge)

  Nicholson, G.

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Harvey, Air-Comdie. A. V.

  Noble, Comdr. A. H P.

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Nutting, Anthony

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Hogg, Hon. Q.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon Sir H.

  Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel

  Hollis, M. C.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

  Hope, Lord J.

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Bower, N.

  Howard, Hon. A.

  Pickthorn, K.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J

  Price-White, Lt.-Col. D

  Butcher, H. W.

  Hurd, A

  Raikes, H. V.

  Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Carson, E.

  Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Challen, C.

  Jeffreys, General Sir G.

  Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

  Channon, H.

  Jennings, R.

  Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col G

  Keeling, E. H.

  Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

  Cole, T. L.

  Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Cooper-Key. E M.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Sanderson, Sir F

  Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Savory, Prof. D. L

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K

  Scott, Lord W.

  Crowder, Capt. J. F E

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Smithers, Sir W

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Lloyd, Maj, Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Snadden, W. M.

  Davidson Viscountess

  Low, Brig. A. R. W

  Spence, H. R.

  De la Bere, R.

  Lucas, Major Sir J.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

  Digby, Maj. S. W.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  MacAndrew, Col. Sir C

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M,

  Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Strauss, H. G. (Cem. Eng. Univ'sities)

  Drayson, Capt. G. B.

  Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J.

  Drewe, C.

  Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Dugģdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Duthie, W. S.

  Maclay, Hon. J. S.

  Teelinģ, William

  Eccles, D. M.

  Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  MacLeod, Capt. J.

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Erroll, F. J.

  Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

  Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.

  Fletcher, W. (Bury)

  Maitland. Comdr. J. W.

  Turton, R. H.

  Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Vane, W. M. T.

  Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)

  Marples, A. E.

  Wakefield, Sir W. W

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Walker-Smith, D.

  Gammans, L. D.

  Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

  Ward, Hon. G. R.

  Gates, Maj. E. E.

  Medlicott, Brig. F

  Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

  416

  417

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
  Mr. Studholme and Major Conant.

  White, J. B. (Canterbury)

  York, C.

  Williams C. (Torquay)

  Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)

  Proposed Schedule added to the Bill.
  Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.
  NEW CLAUSE.—(Accommodation of displaced persons.)
  No person residing on land acquired under this Act shall be displaced unless alternative accommodation on reasonable terms has been offered to him.— [Mr. W. S. Morrison.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The proposed new Clause is an attempt to secure that, if the Measure is put into operation, persons who are displaced from their homes and businesses shall have something done for them to find reasonable accommodation. There is nothing new in the idea. In Section 137 of the Housing Act, 1936, local authorities are required to make arrangements for the housing and accommodation of people displaced from their dwellings by the operation of that Statute. In the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, which I have reason to remember, Section 30 lays down that if a planning authority is engaged in redeveloping its area, it must, before turning people from places which it has acquired, take steps to provide them with reasonable accommodation.
  The proposed new Clause merely asks that the Bill shall confirm those two precedents, so recent and so fresh, and that steps should be taken now to make sure that we do not, in attempting to remove one difficulty, create a great number of hardships by people being left without anywhere to go. I am surprised that no steps have been taken to include a provision of that sort in the Bill already. There is no party matter about this. It is a matter of common interest to us all. We hope that Acts we pass in this House do good, but we should take pains to see that they do no avoidable harm. In these days of very scarce accommodation everyone knows how difficult it is for people to get a roof over their heads. This is not a time to relax provisions that we have found of value in those recent Statutes, or to say that land can be acquired, without
  418
  any care being taken to see that people are properly placed.
  I am bound to admit, in all fairness, that the proposed new Clause was put down before I was aware of the Government's intention to bring forward a very welcome Amendment to Clause 2 exempting dwellinghouses from that harsh, arbitrary and bureaucratic method of procedure. To that extent the case for the proposed new Clause is weakened. The purpose I had in mind was to prevent people from being suddenly turned out by that rapid, ruthless procedure. They can still be displaced under Clause 1. This matter was raised at some length in the Committee upstairs when the Parliamentary Secretary, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, said that their Departments would see that displaced people were rehoused.
  Why cannot we have something of this sort in the Bill before we part with it, to make sure that these people are looked after? We are all familiar in this House, in Debates on other matters, with the great problem of displaced persons in Europe and how difficult they are to deal with. I am only asking here to have a little care shown for displaced British persons, displaced not by the operations of war, but by the actions of the Government and of local authorities under the Government. I hope the House will give sympathetic consideration to the object we have in view, and add the Clause to the Bill.
  The Solicitor-General: We on this side of the House considered most carefully the arguments advanced on this matter in Committee, and the result of our deliberations was that we thought it right and proper to compromise, so as to exclude all dwellinghouses, even if temporarily left unoccupied, from the provisions of Clause 2 of the Bill, although not from the provisions of Clause 1. I would remind hon. Members that this Bill is really an enabling Bill. It standardises the procedure in acquiring property. It does not create a new right to acquire property, but standardises procedure when another Act, which I may refer to as the parent Act, has created that power. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester. (Mr. W. S. Morrison) instanced two Acts each of which is specifically excluded from

  419
  the operation of this Bill. Nevertheless, they are analogous as parent Acts. They are Acts which create the power to acquire land for specific purposes. If Parliament desires that any particular power should not be exercised except on condition that alternative accommodation has been found by the authority desiring to exercise the power, the proper place for that condition to be found is in the parent Act—the Act which creates the power to acquire the land—not in this general Bill, which simply standardises procedure when the power has already been created by the parent Act.
  The right hon. Member for Cirencester as I say called attention to two Acts which provided that the power should not be exercised unless alternative accommodation was provided. There are in operation a number of Acts in which there is no such power, Acts which create a power to acquire land without the corresponding condition. We have both sorts of Acts which have been in force for many years. Both sorts have been tried and found to deal adequately with the purposes for which they were passed. I ask the House to say, in these circumstances, that it would be unduly hampering Parliament, which, after all, passes different Acts to deal with different purposes, sometimes more urgent and sometimes less urgent purposes, if in this general Bill we made it a sine qua non that alternative accommodation should be provided. It would be undesirable, irrespective of the justice of the case, in the particular set of circumstances to be dealt with. In spite of that, we have so far been inconsistent with that view in that we have provided that the speedy procedure laid down by Clause 2, shall not, in any circumstances, be exercised in relation to the exclusion mentioned in a later Amendment. We say that the speedy procedure should not be exercised in relation to dwellinghouses defined in the Amendment which the House will, no doubt, discuss later on.
  I ask the House to take the view that having very anxiously considered this point, we have arrived at a compromise of the alternative points of view expressed on both sides of the Committee. We have excluded the dwellinghouses from Clause 2, but we felt that in regard to Clause 1 the less speedy procedure for acquiring land should not in this Bill be subject to the condition. If it should exist
  420
  in any particular set of circumstances, it should be found in the parent Bill.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I think the hon and learned Gentleman has sought to make a reasonable reply to the new Clause put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison). I am not a lawyer, nor was I on the Committee which dealt with this Bill, but I am interested in this matter. As this land is to be acquired under this Bill, should not some reference be made drawing the attention of those who are to use the Bill to the provisions of the major Bill? I think it rather a pity that such a rigid machinery Bill as this should be introduced without some reference to the social consequences. I am sure the Solicitor-General would be the first to admit that it would be very deplorable if authorities concerned became so enthusiastic in their schemes in using the powers given under this Bill, that they forgot that they had to provide houses for the people displaced. I want authorities to get out of the habit of working all these things out on paper, and not asking themselves what will happen in actual practice to the people affected. They should ask themselves what is going to happen to the displaced persons in the meanwhile, and what provision should be made for them. For that reason, I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester has done a useful service in bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I join with him in saying that I appreciate very much the valuable Amendment as to the exclusion from the speedy procedure of people who occupy homes. I think that goes some way to meeting objections. At the same time, I regret that there is no reference in the Bill drawing the attention of those who are to use it, to the question of displaced persons.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I feel a considerable degree of disappointment at the speech of the Solicitor-General, a disappointment which I think will be shared on this side, and possibly in all parts of the House. It is a great pity that the Solicitor-General has been unable to go the whole hog in this matter, and agree to this Clause, as well as putting down the Amendment which exempts dwelling houses from the speedy procedure of Clause 2. Listening carefully to the

  421
  Solicitor - General's observations, it occurred to me that though persuasive as always, they perhaps lacked something of the lucidity and authority with which he is accustomed to address this House. Does not his argument amount to this: that because this is an enabling Bill it would be improper to add a Clause which, in his view, would be more fittingly found in the parent Acts? It might well be that in applying the law it would be more convenient if this were to be found in each of the parent Acts to which the procedure of Clause 1 of this Bill applies. But since that is not in those parent Acts, surely, if the principle is right it should be embodied in this Bill. Though it might be a little inconvenient, or even unusual, I do not think the Solicitor-General would go so far as to say that it was in any way impossible, either legally or constitutionally.
  He says that this Clause is unnecessary, because many of these parent Acts, as he describes them, have been in force for a number of years, and have, in his view, worked quite well without any such provision as this. But it. is just in those words "for a number of years" that the weakness of his case is fully exposed, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison) prayed in aid some recent Statutes which were passed by Parliament to suit the conditions of today, and the conditions of today are those of marked and indeed tragic housing shortage. There is no evidence, from the returns so far produced by the Ministry of Health; that that shortage is to be in any way abated. Therefore, we now have the position that if a statutory obligation to

  Division No. 106.]

  AYES.

  [5.35 p.m.

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Crotthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

  georģe, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'kt)

  Aitken, Hon. Max

  Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.

  Glyn, Sir R.

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Gomme-Dunoan, Col. A. G

  Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Grimston, R. V.

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

  De la Bére, R.

  Hare, Lieut.-Col. Hn. J. H. (W'db'ge)

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Digby, Maj. S. W.

  Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Beamish, Mai. T. V. H.

  Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)

  Hogg, Hon. Q.

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Drayion, Capt. G. B

  Hollit, M. C.

  Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel

  Drewe, C.

  Howard, Hon. A.

  Boles, Lt.-Col. D C. (Wells)

  Dugģdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

  Duthie, W. S.

  Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.

  Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

  Eccles, D. M.

  Hurd, A.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Butoher, H. W.

  Erroll, F. J.

  Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

  Carson, E.

  Fletcher, W. (Bury)

  Jeffreys, General Sir G

  Challen, C.

  Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.

  Jennings, R.

  Cole, T. L.

  Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)

  Keeling, E. H.

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T D

  Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H

  Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

  Gammans, L. D.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

  Gates, Maj. E. E.

  Langford-Holt, J.

  find other housing accommodation is not imposed, it is extremely unlikely that these unhappy displaced persons will be able to find alternative accommodation for themselves. That is where our present situation differs from the situation which existed when these earlier parent Acts, to which the Solicitor-General referred, applied. If the conditions which apply today had applied then, we may safely assume that this House would have seen to it that some such provision as this was embodied in those Acts. But because the position has now changed we must put into this enabling Bill a provision to cover the present situation.
  The Solicitor-General has been tempted to treat this matter a little too much as a technicality. It is quite clear that this principle is now necessary, and it is equally clear that there is no legal, constitutional or administrative difficulty in importing the words of this Clause into this Bill. In these circumstances, I am sure that those who have at heart the interests of the unfortunate people who may be displaced under the Clause 1 procedure of this Bill, will support us on this side of the House in inserting this Clause into the Bill. I am sure it is right, and so far we have heard nothing from the other side of the House which throws any doubt upon either the desirability or possibility of the inclusion of this Clause, which has been moved so eloquently and lucidly by my right hon. Friend.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The House divided: Ayes, Noes, 264.

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Nutting, Anthony

  Strauss, H. G. (Com. Eng. Univ'sities

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Orr-Ewing, l. L.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J

  Low, Brig. A. R. W.

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O

  Studholme, H. G.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O

  Pickthorn, K.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  MacAndrew, Col. Sir C

  Pitman, l. J.

  Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'ton, S.

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Teelinģ, William

  Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (l. of Wight)

  Price-White, Lt.-Col. D

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.

  Raikes, H. V.

  Thorneycroft, G- E. P.

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Maclay, Hon. J. S.

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Thorp, Lt.-Col R. A. F.

  Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)

  Reed, Sir S (Aylesbury)

  Turton, R. H.

  MacLeod, Capt. J.

  Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

  Vane, W. M. T.

  Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

  Renton, D

  Wakefield, Sir W. W

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

  Walker-Smith, D

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Ward, Hon. G. R.

  Marples, A. E.

  Sanderson, Sir F.

  Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Savory, Prof. D. L

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

  Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

  Smithers, Sir W.

  White, J. B. (Canterbury)

  Medlicott, Brig. F.

  Snadden, W. M.

  Williams, G. (Torquay)

  Mellor, Sir J

  Spearman, A.C.M

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Morrison, Rt. Hon W. S. (Cirencester)

  Spence, H. R.

  York, C.

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  Stanley, Rt Hon O.

  Nicholson, G.

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Sir Arthur Young and

  Major Conant.

  NOES

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Key, C. W.

  Adamson, Mrs. J. L.

  Diamond, J

  King, E. M.

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Dobbie, W

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. F

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Dodds, N. N."

  Kinley, J.

  Alpass, J. H.

  Douglas, F. C. R

  Kirby, B. V.

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Driberg, T. E. N

  Kirkwood, D

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Dumpleton, C. W

  Lang, G.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Durbin, E. F M.

  Lavers, S.

  Austin, H. L

  Dye, S.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Ayles, W. H.

  Edelman, M.

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Becwellty)

  Leslie, J. R.

  Bacon, Miss A

  Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

  Levy, B. W.

  Balfour, A.

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Barstow, P. G

  Evans, S N. (Wednesbury)

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Barton, C.

  Ewart, R.

  Logan, D. G

  Battley, J. R

  Fairhurst, F.

  Longden, F.

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Farthing, W. J.

  Lyne, A W.

  Berry, H.

  Gaitskell, H. T. N

  McAdam, W.

  Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F

  Gallacher, W.

  McEntee, V. La T

  Blenkinsop, Capt. A

  georģe, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Gibbins. J.

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Boardman, H.

  Cilzean, A.

  McKinlay, A. S.

  Bottomley, A. G.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consott)

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

  Gooch, E G

  McLeavy, F.

  Bowen, R.

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  MacMillan. M. K.

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)

  Greenwood, A. W- J. (Heywood)

  Mann, Mrs. J

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Grenfell, D. R

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Grey, C. F.

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Brown, georģe (Belper)

  Grierson, E.

  Marshall, F. (Brightside)

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Mathers, G.

  Bruce, Maj. D. W. T

  Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Burden, T. W.

  Gruffydd, Prof. W. J

  Medland, H. M.

  Byers, Lt.-Col. F.

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden

  Middleton, Mrs L.

  Callaghan, James

  Gunter, Capt. R. J.

  Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

  Champion, A. J

  Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)

  Monslow, W

  Chater, D.

  Hale, Leslie

  Montague, F.

  Chetwynd, Capt. G R

  Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

  Moody, A. S.

  Clitherow, Dr. R

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Morgan, Dr. H B

  Cluse, W. S.

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Morley, R.

  Cobb, F. A

  Hardy, E. A

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Cocks, F S

  Haworth, J.

  Mort, D. L.

  Collindridge, F.

  Herbison, Miss M

  Moyle, A

  Collins, V. J

  Hobson, C. R

  Murray, J. D

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  Holman, P.

  Nally, W.

  Cook, T. F.

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

  Hoy, J.

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)

  Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

  Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Cove, W. R.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A

  Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

  O'Brien, T.

  Daggar,

  Hutchinson, H L. (Rusholme)

  Oldfield, W. H

  Daines, P.

  Irving, W. J.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Paget, R. T.

  Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

  John, W.

  Palmer, A. M. F

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Parker, J.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T

  Deer, G.

  Keenan, W

  Paton, Mrs F (Rushcliffe)

  424

  425

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Skeffington, A. M.,

  Walker, G. H.

  Pearson, A.

  Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Peart, Capt. T. F.

  Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

  Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Perrins, W.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Platts-Mills, J. F. F

  Snow, Capt. J. W

  Watson, W. M.

  Popplewell, E.

  Solley, L. J

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C)

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

  Weitzman, D.

  Pritt, D. N.

  Stamford, W

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Steele, T.

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Pursey, Cmdr. H

  Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

  White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)

  Ranger, J.

  Stokes, R. R

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Rankin, J.

  Strauss, G. R.

  Wigg, Col. G. E

  Rees-Williams, D. R.

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Wilcock, Group-Capt. C A. B

  Reaves, J.

  Swingler, Capt. S

  Wilkes, Maj L

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Symonds, Maj. A. L.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Rhodes, H.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Richards, R.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Willey,O. G. (Cleveland)

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  Thomas, I.O. (Wrekin)

  Williams. D. J. (Neath)

  Robens, A.

  Thomas, georģe (Cardiff)

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. Emrys (Merioneth)

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Thorneycroft, H.

  Willis, E.

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Thurtle, E.

  Wills, Mrs. E. A

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Tiffany, S.

  Wise, Major F. J

  Royle, C.

  Timmons, J.

  Woods, G. S.

  Sargood, R.

  Titterington, M. F.

  Yates, V. F.

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  Tolley, L.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Segal, Sq-Ldr. S.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

  Usborne, Henry

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Viant, S. P

  Mr. Joseph Henderson and Captain Bing.

  5.45 p.m.
  CLAUSE I.—(Procedure for compulsory purchase of land by local authorities, and by the Minister of War Transport for highway purposes.)
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, to leave out "War."
  This Amendment—like several Amendments which are to follow later—is necessary in anticipation of the impending dissolution of the Ministry of War Transport.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 2, line 17, to leave out from "Schedule,"' to the end of line 18.
  This is in anticipation of later Amendments which have to be moved because of the inclusion of the new Clauses with which we have been dealing, which make it necessary that some definition shall be transferred from the Schedule to the body of the Bill. We felt it was appropriate to bring all the definitions into the body of the Bill. That is what will happen as a result of this Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  CLAUSE 2.—(Temporary powers for speedy acquisition of land in urgent cases.)
  Mr. Turton: I peg to move, in page 2, line 44, at the end to insert:
  " (b) that the land is not growing a crop of cereals, potatoes or sugar-beet; and."
  426
  This harsh procedure under Clause 2, which will turn a man out of the land he occupies within the space of a few days, if not hours, requires certain safeguards. That, I think, is admitted by the Government, for in the Second Reading Debate the Minister of Town and Country Planning, whose absence we deplore today, said:
  "… I submit that there are adequate safeguards in the Bill against any irresponsible action. It is open to hon. Members opposite if they feel that additional safeguards are necessary, to put them forward on the Committee stage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1946; Vol. 418. c. 1206.]
  That was an invitation to us to see that those who are to be dispossessed by local authorities or Government Departments are adequately safeguarded. We attempted to do our best on the Committee stage, but since the Second Reading a completely new factor has come to light that was not even present to us during the nine days we were on the Committee stage. Owing to the mismanagement of certain of the colleagues of the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, we are faced with a very grave cereal shortage in the world, and especially in England. That is not entirely due to their mismanagement; it is also due to a certain latitude on their part in not taking precautions to see that we had the cereals either grown in this country or stored here. We are now definitely in a very difficult food situation.

  427
  That fact leads to this: Today, in my view, food in the stomach is more important than a roof over the head. Therefore, we have to see that, whatever action any local authority or any Government Department takes, we will not lose essential foods that the people of England require.
  In Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport announced that there would be cases in which he would want to widen the roads, and would have to take crops of growing wheat. I am afraid that what this House has to see to is that, however important trunk roads and however laudable the Ministry's desire to widen roads in places, he must be prevented from taking crops of growing wheat, because the people of this country require that wheat for their bread.
  I suggest, therefore, that the wording of this paragraph is necessary in view of the urgent food situation. I am leaving the wider aspects of agriculture, but we must have the position made clear that no local authority and no Government Department can take land that is in the process of producing food. It may well be that, when the crop is harvested, they will—if they can prove their case under the other safeguards—be able to take that land. It is unfortunate that Clause 2 is framed in this way as regards agricultural land. The House will recollect that a previous Parliament appointed a Committee to deal with the utilisation of land —what is now called the Scott Committee. The last Government gave this Committee its terms of reference, which were:
  " To consider the conditions which should govern building and other constructional development in country areas consistently with the maintenance of agriculture."
  That Report, which, no doubt, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have read, stresses that position, and points out that, in the past, local authorities and Government Departments have, in their haphazard efforts, cut into and across agriculture, and, therefore, diminished the potential food production of agriculture in Britain. I think that is generally accepted, and it seems to me wise, therefore, that, having had the benefit of the Scott Report, we should translate some of the recommendations of that report into a safeguard which we were invited to put in by the Minister of Town and Country Planning. I suggest that this is a method of intro-
  428
  ducing that safeguard so that, if land is growing crops of cereals or potatoes, it should not be seized.
  It may be that hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, or even on the other side, may think that we ought to extend the crops that ought to be protected today. I have limited the crops mentioned in the Amendment to those upon which the Minister of Agriculture has issued directions to his War Agricultural Executive Committees. It may be that the list should be widened, and, if it is suggested by the Government that it should be wider, I should be ready to accept an Amendment to widen the scope of the proposed paragraph (b). I have put in what I regard as the essential minimum, in view of the great food shortage at the present time. I hope that the point of the Amendment will be met by the Government, who have not handled this food situation very well up to now. I am not blaming the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, for he has not been responsible, but there has certainly been some change of policy and even mismanagement by the Ministry of Food, and I hope it will be remedied by this Amendment.
  Mr. York: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I would like to take the argument a stage further by showing what the effect of the Amendment would be upon the house building or factory building programme which the Government and the local authorities have in mind. In point of fact, we would stress the necessity, in the case of cereals, of withholding authorisation under the Clause until the beginning, or perhaps the middle of September. In regard to potatoes, no doubt, if the land were urgently required, the crop could be got off the land by the end of October at the latest, and, in regard to sugar beet, that crop could be got off the land by the end of October, or, perhaps the middle of November. Therefore, the effect of this Amendment will not greatly delay the projects which may be affected under this Clause. I am quite certain that if the Government are to accept this responsibility for seeing that all crops are grown which can be grown, there is no better "or surer way of doing it than by accepting the Amendment. We want to provide first that acquisition is expedient, and second that the land is not actually

  429
  growing wheat, potatoes or sugar beet, and that it is urgently necessary to acquire it. My hon. Friend has said that it may be necessary—in fact, we believe it is necessary—to provide food before providing houses. I would reinforce what he has said, and would urge upon the House that the situation is now so serious that we must concentrate upon food rather than upon houses, where there is a conflict on the use of land.
  A fact that we must all recognise is that the Ministry of Health is not a Ministry which is well known for its knowledge of, or its sympathy towards, the agricultural industry. In fact, yesterday, we had an indirect attack upon the industry from the Minister of Health. Taking that one stage further, if this Amendment were accepted, it would give an added pointer to the local authorities in making them aware that one of the primary uses of land is the growing of food. I feel that this Amendment may not go far enough. That is for the Government to decide, but I am certain that it is essential, for the next two or three years at least, that, when a local authority or other acquiring authority come to take possession of land, they should be certain, before they take it, that the crop which will be: done away with by their taking the land, is not one of the three crops which are of the greatest importance to this country at the present time.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. Key: Nobody on this side will deny the seriousness of the general food situation or the necessity for the continued development of British agriculture. I can say definitely that we will take every step to see that British agriculture does develop and that we shall not allow it to drift into the position into which many hon. Gentlemen opposite allowed it to drift in the days between the wars. We want to see that our powers of food production are definitely and positively increased. Therefore, no one responsible for confirming a compulsory purchase under this Bill would very lightly confirm an Order which dealt with land where crops were already growing.
  I want to point out that under Subsection (1, a), the matter has to be clear to the responsible Ministries before action is taken about it. The Minister of Agriculture will, therefore, have to give his consent or approval to a particular piece of
  430
  land being included in the confirming Order. It is an easy thing to say that no piece of land on which such crops were growing should be taken, but I want to point out that we have not merely to look at the crops which are growing at the present moment; we have also to give consideration to the increased crops that will be wanted later on. One of the things we have been pressed about—sometimes by hon. Gentlemen opposite—is that greater provision shall be made for the housing of the agricultural population. We have to get the necessary sites for these houses and it may be that the appropriate site in a particular locality is on": where a crop is already in existence. It may also be necessary, in order to get increased production in the years to come, to sacrifice the small amount involved on that particular land. Who would say that we would be wrong in doing that?
  Mr. York: Is not the hon. Gentleman arguing on the assumption that there is only one site in any given locality? Surely, there are plenty of sites in any normal village.
  Mr. Key: I am not arguing that there is only one site; I am arguing that the proper and appropriate site in a particular locality may be in that state. Surely, when we have had so much talk from hon. Gentlemen opposite about planning in some areas, we have to give consideration to planning in our agricultural as well as industrial areas. Therefore, it may be absolutely essential, for correct and proper planning in a given instance, for such land to be taken, but I can say quite definitely that that would only be done in exceptional circumstances. We cannot agree that it would be a correct thing to so modify this Bill as to say that in no circumstances can areas of land so occupied be taken for these purposes. Therefore, we resist this Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 3, line 11, to leave out from "the," to the end of the Subsection, and to insert "Minister of Town and Country Planning."
  The House is now dealing with Clause 2 of this Bill, which is the most novel and, as we think, the most objectionable feature of it. The characteristic of the Clause is that it permits the process of the acquisition of land to be inaugurated

  431
  by an authorisation given in writing by a confirming authority. Therefore, it is a very evident thing that the confirming authority which starts the whole process of authorisation is starting a process which is very important and which may, in a very short time, without public inquiry, result in the permanent change of the use of the land. Under the machinery of the Clause, the confirming authority may be the Minister. of Health, the Minister of Transport, if it is a road that is in question, or the President of the Board of Trade if it is a question of a factory. The consequences is that these three right hon. Gentlemen have this new weapon placed into their hands.
  On the mere ground of good administration and economy, I should have thought it was better, if he could be found, to get a single confirming authority so that there would be one authority to which all those wishing to employ this procedure could address themselves. It is a commonly heard complaint in the country today that people who are engaged in, say, an operation like building are bewildered by the number of different departments to whom they must apply for consents, licences, priorities and all the other documents which are the evil herbage of a time of comparative scarcity.
  On the ground of good administration and economy of the public's as well as the Government's time, one authority would be better than three. There is no difficulty in having the appropriate single authority in this case, and the one suggested by my Amendment is the Minister of Town and Country Planning. The Ministry of Town and Country Planning is a very new department. It has not been in existence for more than three years and it may be that, like every other new department, it has to find its place in the existing hierarchy of Government Department. It must be prepared to use its elbows if it is to get space in which to move, act and breathe. Departments are very inclined, if they have been discharging a particular function for some time, to cling jealously to its continued discharge and to resent the intrusion of some new department which has not 100 or 150 years of senility to its credit.
  432
  There is a very good reason why the Minister of Town and Country Planning should be the single confirming authority for whose existence I am seeking. He is charged with the responsibility for securing the best use of all land in the national interest. He is not, like the Minister of Transport, eager to get land for roads, or, like the Minister of Health, all agog to get land for houses, or, like the President of the Board of Trade, equally desirous of beautifying the landscape of our rural areas with brand new ferroconcrete factories. He has none of these limited objectives. His responsibility is to see that the land is used in the best way and he has, therefore, to be acquainted with the needs of the country for housing, transport and industry. Properly equipped, as he is, to take an all round view of the problem, I suggest to the House that he should be the single confirming authority for the purpose of setting this particular process of land acquisition in motion.
  I do not think there need be any departmental jealousy about this. After all, the Minister of Town and Country Planning has already been invoked by the Minister of Health for a particularly difficult, and sometimes distasteful, duty. One often finds that it is with these duties one is ready to part. The duty to which I refer is that of authorising the use of parks for temporary houses. Those temporary houses are the conjoint responsibility of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Works. It is upon the certificate of the Minister of Town and Country Planning alone that parks can be used for that purpose, and I think it is a very wholesome and salutary provision, because the Minister of Town and Country Flanning is in a position to know whether or not a site should be used for that purpose. I do not criticise it; in fact, I wish it could be extended. If we entrusted to the Minister of Town and Country Planning the duty of issuing the authorisation in writing, we would be entrusting that duty to a man whose responsibility it is to know the total demand for land in England for all the various purposes for which land may be used. Therefore, we would be getting the authorisation with a certain fund of knowledge behind it, and it would not be launched merely to secure one of the many objects for which land can be used. That is the real reason behind the Amendment.
  Mr. Gallaeher: Would the right hon. Gentleman excuse my interruption? He has said that the Minister of Town and Country Planning is the man who has the knowledge of all the land in England and the use to which it should be put. Would he support a proposition that all the land should be taken over and put at the disposal of the Minister of Town and Country Planning?
  Mr. Morrison: I hope the hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to be aware that I would give an emphatic denial to the suggestion that I should agree to such a totalitarian proposal. Before I was interrupted, I had pointed out that the Minister of Town and Country Planning was in a position to give a decision whether or not this procedure should be authorised from, ex hypothesi, a wider view than any of the three Departmental Ministers to whom the Bill, unamended, is entrusted. This is particularly important in this connection. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the particular feature of this Clause is that it disposes with the public inquiry or with the hearing. People are given a fortnight in which to send in written representations, and that is all they can do. I would be much happier if the authorisation of this speedy procedure were left in the hands of the three Ministers mentioned in the Bill, if I were sure that in case of objection there would be a public inquiry, because in that case the Minister would be armed with all the information which comes out at a public inquiry. Crediting, as I always do, Ministers of every party with the highest intentions, I have no doubt that the Minister of Transport, the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Health, with an inquiry and with all its facts behind them, would have been able to give what I would call a round decision on the matter, taking everything into account. In the absence of any such inquiry, however, I do not see how we are to avoid Ministers seeking to grab land for their own particular purposes without any knowledge of the repercussions it may have on the domain of other departments. Therefore, the characteristic of Clause 2 procedure being the abolition of the public inquiry, the authorisation procedure should be put in the hands of the Minister of Town and Country Planning, and thus secure some measure of coordinated examination of the problem.
  6.15. p.m.
  Mr. Key: I entirely disagree with the theory of administration which the right hon. Gentleman has just propounded. I believe it to be the correct and proper function of the appropriate ministry to see that the services for which that ministry is responsible are properly related to the needs of the community as a whole. I do not believe the location, for instance, of water undertakings in this country should be done by the Ministry of Town and Country Planning which is not responsible for the water services. I do not believe the Ministry of Town and Country Planning should be responsible for determining the question of roads, when we have a Ministry of Transport whose duty it is to deal with transport facilities. Therefore, I maintain that it is the proper function of the appropriate ministry to be the confirming authority. The orders that are confirmed should be made to conform to general planning principles and, therefore, before confirmation is given, the Minister of Town and Country Planning should be asked to give his clearance of the scheme that is to be approved. In this Clause we definitely make provision for that procedure. That is, before the confirming authority, confirms the purchase, it gets the approval of the appropriate Minister, whether it be the Minister of Town and Country Planning, the Minister of Agriculture and so on, and then, in view of the clearance that has been so given, it gives the confirmation. That seems to me to be a sound principle of administration, and one which would be much better followed than that which would result from the change proposed in this Amendment. We therefore resist the Amendment.
  Mr. Turton: I am surprised at the attitude taken by the Parliamentary Secretary, in view of the fact that during the Committee stage the chief initiator of this proposed Amendment was on his own side of the Committee. The hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Mr. Berry) said:
  " If the Parliamentary Secretary could arrange that the Minister o£ Town and Country Planning is the final arbiter I think it would meet the fears of many of us who value rural England and who value town and country planning."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 26th February, 1946; c I73.]
  I thought that was the first gleam of sense that had come from the Government

  435
  side during the Committee stage. I am sorry the hon. Member for West Woolwich has not supported this Amendment either by his presence or by his speech this afternoon, because surely this Amendment is what he asked for.
  I ask the Government to explain how they intend to work this business of the confirming authorities. I gather that at the present time, on the question of house building and the allocation of land for houses, the Minister of Health appoints the Minister of Town and Country Planning as the final arbiter. If I am wrong I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will interrupt me, but I have found that when land in my constituency is to be used for an aerodrome or for housing and I approach the Minister of Health or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, I am constantly told that the Minister of Town and Country Planning is the man who decides the question. When we already have that situation it seems to me to be the proper course to state in this Bill that that is the case. I fear that in this matter the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of War Transport is the" nigger in the wood pile." I believe it is he who wants to seize land for road widening purposes, whether the Minister of Town and Country Planning would agree or not. I believe that Clause 2, with its effects on trunk roads, will cause the greatest amount of inconvenience and disruption to the amenities in the countryside, and in other respects. I very much regret to see the interest which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport is taking in this Clause 2 procedure. I do not believe he ought to be in it at all. If he is in it, then I think we ought to have the curb of the Minister of Town and Country Planning, as the man who is going to plan the amenities of England.
  Earlier this afternoon I referred to the Report of the Scott Committee on land utilisation. What was their recommendation? It was, that the whole question of the use of land by Government Departments should be centralised under the Minister of Town and Country Planning. Here, when we try to follow the report of a committee which, I believe, has the acceptance of all Members on all sides of the House who care for the amenities of England, we are met with hostility from
  436
  the Parliamentary Secretary. I do hope this is not the last word from the Parliamentary Secretary and in view of the fact that the hon. Member for West Woolwich supports this Amendment, although not by his presence, I hope we may get a more favourable reply. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning is here. I hope he will give us his views on this Amendment and say whether he is in favour of it. [Laughter.]It is all very well for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health to laugh. I suppose he has the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning under such discipline, that the hon. Gentleman cannot rise in his place. Why cannot we have the views of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning on this? It is an extraordinary thing that, throughout the whole of the proceedings of this Bill after the Second Reading stage, no spokesman from the Ministry of Town and Country Planning has taken the least interest in it, until now. We are delighted to see the Parliamentary Secretary here, on the Report stage, and I think we are entitled to have a reply from him on this Amendment.
  Major Digby: I am somewhat concerned about the planning aspect of this Bill, and I am even more concerned after the words that have fallen from the Parliamentary Secretary. On the Second Reading of this Bill I raised the question of how far planning considerations were to be taken into account. I then received an assurance from the Minister of Town and Country Planning. I thought that he would amplify that, and explain in more detail how planning considerations were to be taken into account under this Clause 2 procedure. However, no such explanation was forthcoming in the Committee. Indeed, as has already been pointed out, the Minister of Town and Country Planning was conspicuously absent for the nine days on which that Committee sat. It does seem to me that the Minister of Town and Country Planning should be the person to give authorisation under this very speedy procedure. We are told that the whole point of this procedure is that it works so quickly. We know that only 14 days' notice are given to somebody whose property is to be taken over under this speedy procedure. Then it is referred to the acquiring

  437
  authority. Presumably, as the procedure is so speedy, that authority will make up its mind within about a week. That gives us three weeks. After notice has been served another seven days is given to the occupier in which to get out. That makes one month all together.
  I do not know what is the practice with most local planning authorities, the only conceivable people who can be consulted by the Minister of Town and Country Planning to see that planning considerations are properly taken into account. In the; case of the local planning authority to which I have belonged for a number of years, they meet only once a month. If that is the case, I do not see how it can be properly consulted in every case, unless
  special meetings are held to consider matters of this kind.
  Mr. Gallacher: That will not be difficult.
  Major Digby: I think we need some explanation of this matter. I would urge the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider this Amendment, because under this speedy procedure it is absolutely essential that we make sure that town and country planning considerations are properly considered, and not considered after the event has actually happened.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 280; The House Noes, 136.

  Mart, D. L.

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Moyle, A.

  Royle, C.

  Usborne, Henry

  Murray, J. D.

  Sargood, R.

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Nally, W.

  Soollan, T.

  Viant, S. P.

  Naytor, T. E.

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  Walker, G. H.

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Segal, Sq.-Ldr. S.

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

  Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.

  Wallace, H. W (Walthamstow, E.)

  Nicholls, H. Ft. (Stratford)

  Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

  Warbey, W. N.

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Watson, W. M.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

  Orbach, M

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Weitzman, D.

  Paget, R. T.

  Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

  Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Solley, L. J.

  White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)

  Parker, J.

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.

  Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.

  Stamford, W

  Wigg, Col. G. E

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Steele, T.

  Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Stephen, C.

  Wilkes, Maj. L.

  Pearson, A.

  Stewart, Capt Michael (Fulham, ft.)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Peart, Capt. T. F

  Stokes, R. R.

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Perrins, W

  Strauss, G. R.

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Platts-Mills, J. F. F

  Stubbs, A. E

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Popplewell, E.

  Summerskill, Dr. Edith

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Swingler, Capt. S.

  Williams, W. R- (Heston)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Symonds, Maj. A. L.

  Williamson, T.

  Pursey, Cmdr. H

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Willis, E.

  Ranger, J.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Rankin, J.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Wise, Major F. J

  Rees-Williams, D. R.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Woodburn, A

  Reeves, J.

  Thomas, georģe (Cardiff)

  Woods, G. S.

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Thomson, Rt. Hn G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

  Yates, V. F.

  Rhodes, H.

  Thorneycroft, H.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Richards, R.

  Thurtle, E.

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M

  Tiffany, S.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Robens, A.

  Titterington, M. F.

  Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. Emrys (Merioneth)

  Tolley, L.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

  Mr. Joseph Henderson and Mr. Hannan

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  NOES

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Gammans, L. D.

  Medlicott, Brig. F.

  Aitken, Hon. Max

  Gates, Maj. E. E.

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Glyn, Sir R.

  Morris-Jones, Sir H.

  Anderson. Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Hare, Lieut.-Col. Hn. J. H. (W'db'je)

  Nicholson, G.

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Nutting, Anthony

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Hogg, Hon. Q.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel

  Hollis, M. C.

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O

  Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

  Howard, Hon. A.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Bower, N.

  Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Hurd, A.

  Raikes, H. V.

  Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

  Hutchison, Col. J. R (Glasgow, C.)

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T

  Jeffreys, General Sir G.

  Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

  Butcher, H. W.

  Jennings, R.

  Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hilthead)

  Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)

  Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Renton, D.

  Carson, E.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Robinson, Wing-Comdr, Roland

  Challen, C.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Cole, T. L.

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Sanderson, Sir F

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K

  Savory, Prof. D. L

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Scott, Lard W.

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

  Low, Brig. A. R. W.

  Smithers, Sir W.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O. E.

  Lucas, Major Sir J.

  Snadden, W. M.

  Crowder, Capt. J. F. E

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Spearman, A. C. M

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O

  Spence, H. R.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  MacAndrew, Col. Sir C

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

  De la Bère, R.

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Digby, Maj. S. W.

  Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Dodds-Parker, A. d.

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Strauss, H. G. (Com. Eng. Univ'sities)

  Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)

  Maclay, Hon. J. S.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J

  Drayson, Capt. G. B.

  Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Dugģdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  MacLeod, Capt. J

  Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'ton, S.)

  Duthie, W. S.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold

  Teelinģ, William

  Eccles, D. M.

  Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

  Erroll, F. J.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Fletcher, W. (Bury)

  Marples, A. E.

  Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.

  Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Turton, R H.

  Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)

  Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

  Vane, W. M. T.

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

  Maude, J. C.

  Walker-Smith, D

  440

  441

  Ward, Hon. G. R.

  White, J. B. (Canterbury)

  York, C

  Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Young, Sir A. S L. (Partick)

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Mr. Studho'me and Mr. Drewe.

  6.30 p.m.
  Commander Galbraith: I beg to move in page 3, line 13, to leave out from "aforesaid," to the second "the" in line 16.
  Unless hon. Members have the Bill before them that will not convey very much to them, but let me remind the House that we are dealing with the Clause 2 procedure, the quick procedure, as the right hon. Gentleman said when he moved the last Amendment. This Amendment relates to the second Subsection of the Clause, which gives to the Board of Trade and to the Minister of Transport the right to use the quick procedure under the Clause. There may be a case, perhaps not a very strong case, for giving these powers to the Board of Trade, but I cannot see any reason why the quick procedure should be available to the Minister of Transport. The Minister of Transport requires land, so far as I understand it, only for the purpose of trunk roads, and I cannot believe that any case could arise where he would want to use this quick procedure. After all, the planning of trunk roads is something which must be done very thoroughly and a long way ahead; everything must be on the map, and the Minister must know considerably in advance what land he requires. It therefore seems that the Clause 1 procedure would be all that he would need. I can see no reason why he should require these powers, and that is why I move the Amendment.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I beg to second the Amendment.
  We on this side of the House appreciate the necessity for speedy procedure in matters of great urgency, and the Government could, with some justice, say that we should give those powers to the Board of Trade, because we are always telling them to get a move on and make quick decisions. But hon. Members who took part in the discussions on the Trunk Roads Bill upstairs will remember that we were constantly pressing the Minister to get on with trunk roads, but we were told that there was no hurry at all. If that is so, I cannot see any really good argument for giving this ruthless procedure to anyone who comes along and says
  442
  he does not want to have any trouble in acquiring land. They want to be able to seize it whether they are justified in doing so or not. I should like to hear a word or two from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport in justification of this Clause.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. G. R.
  Strauss): I think it very easy to justify our request for powers of this sort. It was admitted by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) that there may be a case—he would not go so far, I think, as to say there was a case—for these powers to rest with the President of the Board of Trade where he desires to develop a factory or to help a development area for the purposes of production and, particularly, for the purposes of export production. Many of these development areas require, and require urgently, new roads to link them up with ports or with other centres of production, and it is probable that these roads will be trunk roads for which the Minister of Transport will be responsible. It may be that sometimes we will have to make a new trunk road or widen an existing one.
  Our experience in the past has been that we have been held up sometimes by as much as six months by an obstructive owner of property who has not agreed with the amount of compensation offered to him. Under the old procedure, which is unchanged and merely codified under Clause 1, I am informed by my Department that we could be and have been held up, although we have done every thing we could do, by someone prepared to use every device of the law to obstruct us for six months. It is undesirable, when we want our development areas constructed as quickly as possible, that the Government should be held up for a long period making the necessary access roads—
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Is do not think the hon. Gentleman wishes to fog the issue, but he says they could be held up under Clause 1 procedure for six months or more. What does he mean by that?
  Mr. Strauss: What I say is, and I say it on the information that my Department has put before me, that if someone wants to stretch the law and be as obstructive as possible we could in future, as we have been in the past, be held up, up to six months. That is obviously undesirable, and in order that we may assist the President of the Board of Trade in creating his development areas by making the necessary access roads, and make them really effective for their purpose, it is desirable—it is essential—that my right hon. Friend the Minister of War Transport should have the powers which are proposed in this Subsection.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: Would the hon. Gentleman enlighten the House? At what stage of the proceedings of normal compulsory acquisition is this six months' delay alleged to be probable? Is it in connection with the setting up of an inquiry or the confirming of it? At what stage is this delay likely to arise?
  Mr. Strauss: I understand that it is not just at one special stage, but that there is a variety of stages by which obstructive landowners have been able to hold up progress by preventing the Government entering his land. We have had cases where in a mile there have been 150 owners, of whom 149 have agreed and been helpful, and one has held us up for many months. It is to overcome this difficulty in cases of emergency and urgency that we ask for these powers.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. J. S. C. Reid: It is a great pity that neither the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport nor anyone in his Department has taken the trouble to read Clause 1 and the Schedule. I do hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, who does know the Bill, will indicate to his hon. Friend, even while I am speaking, the true meaning of Clause 1. It is perfectly true, as the Parliamentary Secretary says, that it has been in the past possible to take up as long as six months, but that cannot possibly occur under Clause 1 procedure. I wish to put to the House what are the differences between the two procedures in order that we may test this. The differences amount to a few weeks and no more. Let me take it step by step. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health will correct me if I am wrong.
  444
  So far as the preliminary investigations are concerned and the confirming of plans, there can be no difference at all. None at all; because I assume that the Ministry is going to plan its development just as carefully and just as fully, no matter what may be the procedure for the acquisition of the land. The next point is service on the owners. Here there has been great delay in the past, but Clause 1 removes this entirely, because it gives the confirming authority power to dispense with the search for the owners and to use the short form of service wherever that is necessary in the interests of speed. I do not think we save even a day at that stage between Clause 1 and Clause 2. It might, perhaps, save two or three days, but that is about all, because I do not think the Ministry of War Transport would ever dream of adopting the shortened procedure of sticking notices on the ground instead of serving the owner if it were possible with reasonable diligence to find the owner in a few days.
  The next stage is the stage of advertisement. There are to be two advertisements under Clause 1 and one under Clause 2, and so we save a week there. That is the first saving. The next stage is that of the 21 days for objections under Clause 1 and 14 days for objections under Clause 2. I am not sure that there is an extra week's saving. I rather think not. But let us give the Parliamentary Secretary the benefit of the doubt. He has saved a fortnight, that is all. The only remaining stage is that of the hearing or an inquiry, and we specially put in a new Clause today allowing inquiries in every case. I really cannot imagine the Minister of War Transport, that having been put on the Statute Book, refusing an inquiry where there is a genuine fear on the part of responsible people that a new road is going to destroy amenities or make agriculture more difficult, or something of that kind. But let us assume that he is not going to have an inquiry and, therefore, that he decides this matter in the dark. Is that inquiry going to take six months? All he has to do is to appoint his investigator at once so that he may summon people before him, which will take two or three days, and then write out his report. I cannot see how an inquiry can take more than a month, if things are done with reasonable speed and not in the manner with which some Departments treat their affairs when they

  445
  do not think they are urgent. Therefore, six weeks seems to me to be a reasonable estimate, an outside estimate, between Clause 1 and Clause 2 procedure.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport is a busy man, and we do not expect him to read all these details, but we do expect somebody in his Department to instruct him; and he has been gravely misinstructed in this point. I do hope, therefore, that he will either take a hint from his next-door neighbour just now, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, or, at least, say he will reexamine this matter before it goes to another place. He will remember, I am sure, that, if you cut out too many safeguards, you are apt to make yourself very unpopular, and I do not think the hon. Gentleman would desire that. He will also remember that, when you cut out safeguards in regard to inquiries into the facts, you are much more apt to make mistakes. Some slight mistake in the siting of a house affects only a few people, and it does not, as a general rule, upset the amenities of a district—it is unfortunate, but it is not serious—but a mistake in the siting of a trunk road is a much more serious thing. Therefore, I cannot imagine any Minister of War Transport refusing an inquiry, or enough time to find out the defects, if there is some genuine difference of opinion. Even if he does refuse proper inquiry, he will save six weeks, but if he allows proper inquiry, he will save one or two weeks. Is it worth while to cut out the safeguards—they have been cut to a pretty bare minimum under Clause 1—for the sake of saving a few weeks? You cannot build or plan a trunk road overnight. Adding together the period of

  Division No. 108.]

  AVES.

  [6 55 p.m.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Beswick, Fit.-Lieut. F.

  Byers, Lt.-Col. F.

  Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

  Callaghan, James

  Adamson, Mrs. J. L

  Bing, Capt. G. H. C.

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworlh)

  Blackburn, A. R.

  Champion, A. J

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Blenkinsop, Capt. A

  Chater, D.

  Alpass, J. H.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Chetwynd, Capt. G. R

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Boardman, H.

  Clitherow, Dr. R

  Altewell, H. C.

  Bottomley, A. G.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Austin, H. L.

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

  Cobb, F. A.

  Ayles, W. H.

  Bowen, R.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Collindridga, F.

  Bacon. Miss A.

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)

  Collins, V. J.

  Balfour, A.

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Colman, Miss G. M

  Barstow, P. G.

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Cook, T. F.

  Barton, G.

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

  Battley, J. R.

  Brown, georģe (Belper)

  Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Bellenger, F. J

  Bruce, Maj. D. W. T

  Crawley, Fit.-Lieut. A

  Benson, G

  Burden, T. W

  Daines, P.

  Berry, H.

  Burke, W, A

  Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

  planning and the period of building, the additional few weeks in order to make certain that the plans are right, seem to be negligible. It gives the Minister a much better chance to avoid mistakes, even if he insists on the plans contained in this Bill.
  Mr. Key: It is one thing to talk in theory about Clauses in a Bill, but it is another to speak from experience of the operation of the method here suggested. You can take minimum periods in the Bill, setting them out one beside the other, to show that there is not more than about six weeks difference between the Clause 1 and Clause 2 procedure, but people in local government who have tried to use this method of compulsory purchase know that things do not work out according to the theory laid down, and that there are all sorts of things which crop up and waste time. From long experience' in local government where compulsory purchase has been used, I say, quite definitely, that the saving between Clause 1 and Clause 2 procedure, on an average, will be three months, and probably considerably more.
  Mr. Reid: Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us at which stage these discrepancies occur? Is it at the initial stage of planning, is it at the stage of service, or at the holding of an inquiry?
  Mr. Key: It is at all stages, and in the intervening periods between the various stages.
  Question put,"That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 289; Noes, 126

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Scott-Elliot, W

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Lipson, D L.

  Segal, Sq-Ldr. S

  Davies, S O. (Merthyr)

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

  Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A

  Diamond, J.

  Logan, D. G

  Sharp, Lt.-Col. G M.

  Dobbie, W.

  Longden, F.

  Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

  Dodds, N. N

  Lyne, A W.

  Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)

  Donovan, T.

  McAdam, W.

  Silverman J (Erdington)

  Douglas, F. C. R.

  McAllister, G.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Driberg, T. E. N

  McEntee, V. La T

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Dumpleton, C. W

  McGhee, H. G.

  Skefhngton-Lodge, T C

  Durbin, E. F. M.

  Mack, J D.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

  Dye, S.

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Smith, H. N. '(Nottingham, S.)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Mackay, R. W. G (Hull, N.W.)

  Snow, Capt. J. W

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  McKinlay, A. S.

  Solley, L. J.

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Soskice, Maj Sir F

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

  McLeavy, F.

  Stamford, W

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  MacMillan, M. K.

  Steele, T.

  Ewart, R.

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Stephen, C.

  Fairhurst, F.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Stewart, Capt Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Farthing, W. J

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Stokes, R. R

  Follick, M.

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N-)

  Strauss, G R

  Foster, W. (Wigan)

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Stross, Dr. B.

  Gaitskell, H. T. N.

  Marshall, F. (Brightside)

  Stubbs, A. E

  Gallacher, W.

  Mathers, G.

  Summerskill, Dr. Edith

  georģe, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Medland, H. M.

  Symonds, Maj. A L.

  Gibbins, J.

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Gibson, C. W.

  Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Gilzean, A.

  Monslow, W.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Gtanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Montague, F.

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  Gooch, E. G.

  Moody, A. S.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Thomas, John R. (Dover)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

  Morley, R

  Thomson, Rt. Hn G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

  Thorneycroft, H.

  Grenfell, D. R

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W)

  Thurtle, E.

  Grey, C. F.

  Mort, D. L.

  Tiffany, S.

  Grierson, E.

  Moyle, A.

  Titterington, M. F

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Murray, J D.

  Tolley, L.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

  Nally, W.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)

  Naylor, T E.

  Ungood-Thomas, L.

  Gruffydd, Prof. W. J

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Usborne, Henry

  Gunter, Capt. R. J.

  Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

  Vernon, Maj. W. F

  Guy, W H.

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Viant, S P.

  Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Walker, G H

  Hale, Leslie

  Oldheld, W. H.

  Wallace, G D. (Chislehurst)

  Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

  Oliver, G. H

  Wallace, H. W (Walthamstow, E.)

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R

  Orbach, M.

  Warbey W. N.

  Hardman, D. R,

  Paget, R. T.

  Watkins, T. E

  Hardy, E. A.

  Paling, Rt. Hon Wilfred (Wentworth)

  Watson, W. M

  Herbison, Miss M

  Palmer, A. M. F

  Webb, M (Bradford, C.)

  Hobson, C. R.

  Pargiter, G. A

  Weitzman, D.

  Holman, P.

  Parker, J.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.

  Walls, W T (Walsall)

  Hoy, J.

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushclifle)

  Westwood, Rt. Hon J.

  Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)

  Hughes, Emrys (S, Ayr)

  Pearson, A.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon W

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Peart, Capt T. F

  Wigg, Col. G. E

  Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

  Perrins, W.

  Wilcock, Group-Capt C A. B

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Popplewell, E.

  Wilkes, Maj. L.

  Irving, W. J.

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Janner, B.

  Price, M. P

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Proctor, W.

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Jegur, Dr. S W (St Pancras, S.E.)

  Pursey, Cmdr H

  Williams, D. J (Neath)

  John, W.

  Ranger, J.

  Williams, J L. (Kelvingrove)

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Rankin, J

  Williams, W. R (Heston)

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Rees-Williams, D. R.

  Willis, E.

  Keenan, W.

  Reeves, J.

  Wills, Mrs. E. A

  Key, C. W.

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Wise, Major F. J

  King, E. M.

  Rhodes, H.

  Woodburn, A.

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr- E

  Richards, R.

  Woods, G. S

  Kiney, J.

  Ridealgh, Mrs M

  Yates, V. F.

  Kirby, B V.

  Robens, A.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Kirkwood D

  Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. Emrys (Merioneth)

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Lang, G.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Lavers, S.

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Rogers, G. H. R

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Royle, C.

  Mr. Joseph Henderson and Mr. Hannan.

  Leslie, J. R.

  Sargood, R.

  Levy, B. W.

  Scollan, T.

  NOES

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Bower, N.

  Aitken, Hon. Max

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

  Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

  Baldwin, A. E,

  Boles, Lt.-Col. D, C. (Wells)

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T

  448

  449

  Butcher H. W.

  Jennings, R.

  Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

  Butler, Rt. Hon. R A. (S'ffr'n Wld'n)

  Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H

  Renton, D.

  Carson, E.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)

  Challen, C.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Sanderson, Sir F.

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Scott, Lord W.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

  Low, Brig. A. R. W.

  Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

  Crowder, Capt. J. F. E

  Lucas, Major Sir J,

  Smithers, Sir W.

  Cuthbert, W. N

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Snadden, W. M.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O

  Spearman, A C. M.

  De la Bère, R.

  MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

  Spence, H. R.

  Digby, Maj. S. W.

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Dower, Li.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Drayson, Capt. G. B

  Maclay, Hon. J S.

  Strauss, H. G. (Com. Eng. Univ'sities)

  Dugģdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  MacLeod, Capt. J.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J.

  Duthie, W. S.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold

  Studholme, H. G.

  Eccles, D. M.

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Teelinģ, William

  Erroll, F. J.

  Marples, A. E.

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Fletcher, W. (Bury)

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.

  Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)

  Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

  Turton, R. H.

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

  Maude, J. C.

  Vane, W. M. T.

  Gammans, L. D.

  Mellor, Sir J

  Walker-Smith, D.

  Gates, Maj. E. E.

  Morrison, Maj. J G. (Salisbury)

  Ward, Hon. G. R.

  Glyn, Sir R.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

  Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J

  Grimston, R. V.

  Nicholson, G.

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Hare, Lieut.-Col. Hn. J. H. (W'db'ge)

  Nutting, Anthony

  White, J. B. (Canterbury)

  Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Hollis, M. C.

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Howard, Hon. A.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  York, C.

  Hurd, A.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

  Young, Sir A S. L- (Partick)

  Hutchison, Lt -Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W)

  Raikes, H. V.

  Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

  Ramsay, Maj. S

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Jeffreys, General Sir G.

  Rayner, Brig. R

  Major Conant and Mr. Drewe.

  Amendment made: In page 3, line 13, leave out "War."—[Mr. Key.]
  7.0 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I beg to move, in page 3, line 26, at the end, to insert:
  "Provided that the conforming authority shall not give an authorisation under this or the preceding Subsection enabling the acquiring authority to enter on or take possession of a building whereon the occupier carries on a trade or business unless alternative accommodation reasonably suitable for the purposes of that trade or business has been offered to him on reasonable terms by the acquiring authority."
  This is an Amendment of some substance, and one about which a lot of us feel very strongly. We wish to plead the case of the shopkeeper, tradesman or business man who is being displaced from the place where he earns his livelihood by means of the speedy procedure. This is a thoroughly reasonable Amendment, because all we ask is that these people should, if necessary, have their premises acquired under Clause 1 procedure or, if the speedy procedure is applied, that they should have alternative accommodation to which to take their business or trade.
  If we consider the people who are to be affected by the speedy procedure, a man may well find that it is a greater
  450
  hardship for him to lose the place where he works than the place where he sleeps, if he is fortunate enough to find any place wherein to sleep. Even though he has other premises where he can carry on his trade, he will, in all probability, have lost his good will and business connections and will suffer in many other ways. Therefore, we wish to bring to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary that we feel that the acquiring of business premises, shops and office accommodation should not be by means of the speedy procedure, but by means of the more normal procedure under Clause 1. It has been stressed by hon. Members during the course of this stage of the Bill that the speedy procedure goes through all its stages in 28 days or even less. During that period a written objection has to be sent in and of that period, seven days must be given for the objection to be considered and seven days before it can be returned. This period should only be applied in cases where it is reasonable, and I suggest that if, under that speedy procedure, we take a man' s place of business where he earns his livelihood, we shall impose a great deal of hardship and unkindness, whereas if he is given a little extra time, as under the Clause 1

  451
  procedure, he would be able to put his business affairs in order.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to second the Amendment.
  This Amendment has been moved in a temperate and persuasive way by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Lieut.-Colonel Dower). We pressed before for the principle of exempting dwellinghouses from the harsh and arbitrary procedure of Clause 2, and I am glad to say we did convince the Government on this issue. Now we are bringing to their attention the almost equally deserving claims of the person carrying on his trade or business. My hon. and gallant Friend has referred to the procedure of Clause 2 as speedy procedure, but it is not only because there is less time given to the person whose property is affected under the Clause 2 procedure that we think it presses unduly hardly upon the people placed in the position of those described in this Amendment, but it is also because their rights of representation are so restricted. It is obviously going to be much more difficult not to have authorisation made in the case of one's place of business under the Clause 2 procedure than it would be to prevent the confirming of a compulsory purchase Order made in accordance with the ordinary procedure now standardised under Clause 1 of this Bill. It seems to us that a person carrying on a trade or business deserves the same consideration that the Government have now agreed to apply to the case of dwellinghouses, because it is very difficult indeed, as I pointed out earlier this afternoon, for any displaced person, whose property is acquired, to acquire alternative accommodation unless steps are taken to provide it for him. Of course, that consideration applies equally strongly in the case of trade or business premises as it does in the case of the domestic accommodation. I would add this, that people carrying on retail trade are providing for the rest of the community and to take away their premises by this procedure without giving any alternative accommodation will bear hardly not only on the retailers in question but on that larger part of the community who may be their customers In the interests, therefore, of these people and others who deal with them I
  452
  think that this Amendment should be embodied in the Bill.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Key: In the Acts that authorize the compulsory acquisition of land, there is, at present, no provision made for giving alternative accommodation to the occupier, and this Bill is a procedure Bill. It does not affect the powers of particular authorities in acquiring land, and we are not prepared at the present time to introduce into this Bill drastic qualifications of the powers of compulsory purchase possessed by the various authorities. It is true that the Amendment relates only to Clause 2 procedure, but the essential difference between Clause 1 and Clause 2 procedure is merely that in Clause 2 the powers of compulsory purchase are given in writing, instead of by order, but more particularly that there is a much quicker right of entry in the Clause 2 method. In both, if the land is to be acquired, compensation is to be paid and in both entry can be made before purchase is complete. If the Amendment were passed it would still mean that under Clause 1 procedure no alternative accommodation would have to be provided, and, therefore, the effect of the Amendment is just merely to hinder and hamper—
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: No.
  Mr. Key: —the quicker procedure that is necessary for the carrying out of the functions which the acquiring authorities want to carry out. The Bill says definitely that the procedure can only be used in those specific cases where it is urgently necessary in the public interest that the acquiring authority should be enabled to obtain possession of the land without delay. Therefore, Clause 2 procedure is one of urgent public necessity. Yet we are being told that in cases of urgent public necessity a delaying notice is needed and this would be for the purpose of making it pretty well impossible to operate Clause 2 procedure. It is quite true that individuals have to suffer inconvenience in the public interest, but surely public interest must take precedence. Any acquiring authority will give as great consideration as it can to the interest of the individual concerned, but in the end the urgent public necessity must be weighed with it. For this reason I am not going to accept this Amendment.
  Major Digby: I should like to support the Amendment and to ask the Parlia-

  453
  mentary Secretary to reconsider his attitude. I should like the Committee to consider for a moment how this particular Clause will affect the small shopkeeper. One day he is carrying on his business in premises in which he has probably carried it on for something like 20 years. The next day there is served on him a notice that it is proposed to take over compulsorily his shop and premises and he has 14 days in which to appeal. He goes round in a great hurry to find a solicitor and lodges his appeal. It may not take 14 days to lodge the appeal, but perhaps only seven days, but it will take another seven days to get an answer and the answer usually will be "No luck." Up to this he has been reluctant to believe that he is going to be turned out of his shop, and he has not been in a position, owing to that uncertainty, to make arrangements to leave it. Then, when he receives notice to say that he is to be dispossessed, he has exactly seven days in which to make all his arrangements for leaving the shop in which he has worked for so lons?. He has lost not only his shop, but his livelihood, which is a serious matter.
  Mr. McKie: I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary did not see fit to accept this reasonable Amendment. In Standing Committee the Government put an Amendment into the Bill to safeguard the interests of people in regard to dwelling houses, who would otherwise have been very hardly dealt with by this speedy procedure which, we claim, should now be extended to shops, places of business and office accommodation. The very people who have been safeguarded as regards their dwelling houses might be more heavily penalised in regard to their livelihood by the refusal of the Government to accept this Amendment. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Dorset (Major Digby) stressed the point that the people who are most likely to suffer hardship, if the Amendment is not accepted, will be small shopkeepers. Earlier today, the Lord Advocate sneered at what he called the "new-found zeal" of Members on this side of the House for the interests of small shopkeepers. Let me assure him, and the Parliamentary Secretary as well, that that is very wide of the mark. Our zeal for small shopkeepers and for people with small interests is no new-found zeal. We have always had their interests at heart.
  454
  Indeed, were it not for their support we would not be sitting here today.
  The Government have gone a long way towards meeting our wishes in regard to dwelling houses, but what they have given with one hand they are taking away with the other as a result of the Parliamentary Secretary's stubborn refusal to accept the Amendment. I can well imagine the anger that will be aroused in the constituency represented by the Lord Advocate, where there are many people who are likely to be hardly hit if this speedy procedure is put into operation. There will be anger and resentment at the Lord Advocate's action in supporting the Government on this matter and at his attempt to brush aside the rights of small shopkeepers. Even at this late hour, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that there is great substance in the plea we have put forward, that his hard heart will soften and that the Government will do something, perhaps in another place, to meet our wishes, and prevent unnecessary hardship to a deserving class of the community.
  Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I would not have attempted to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, if it had not been for a few words which fell from the lips of the Parliamentary Secretary while defending his refusal to accept the Amendment. He spoke of individual inconvenience being caused, but said it must be overridden in the public interest. I suppose it is possible to describe the crashing of a man's life work as, "individual inconvenience," but that seems to be a light way in which to come here and speak of a man's shop or business, in which he has perhaps invested his life's savings, being taken from him. We are simply asking that the local authority, the acquiring authority, shall impose a little delay.
  The Parliamentary Secretary opposed the Amendment on two main grounds. First, he said that there was no provision of this nature in any of the Acts in which power of compulsory acquisition has been given, and then he said that in any case small shopkeepers, traders, and manufacturers, if their land is to be acquired under Clause 1, will not be offered alternative accommodation by the acquiring authority. We say that the Government should not use this streamlined procedure to crush a man out of business without either

  455
  offering him alternative accommodation, or giving him adequate time to look about him, and set himself up somewhere else, somehow, so that he may carry on his livelihood. It is not unreasonable for us to ask that there should be a second thought about this matter, and that there should either be alternative accommodation offered by the acquiring authority, or that the procedure should be carried out under Clause I, instead of under Clause 2.
  Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I find the devotion of the Parliamentary Secretary to precedent quite endearing. He tells us that because these words, or similar words, did not occur in the Act of 1845 it is, therefore, a bad thing that they should now be put into this Bill. It is nice to think that Members opposite have such great admiration for what our forefathers did, but the Parliamentary Secretary has completely forgotten that we have had two wars since then, with the result that whereas in 1845 anyone with money in his pocket had little difficulty in finding suitable accommodation almost overnight, one can be as rich as Croesus today without being able to find either business premises, or a place in which to sleep. It is no argument to say that when alternative accommodation is easily obtainable you do not need protection of this kind. Protection is only required now because of the scarcity of accommodation. It is not that we are asking for an extra week or two. We are, but that is not the real point. We are asking that there should be an opportunity for proper inquiry before a man's business premises are taken from him. If at an earlier stage the hon. Gentleman had accepted our Amendment to provide for an inquiry under Clause 2 this would not have arisen. Under Clause 2 as it stands there is no necessity for inquiry at all. There is no provision even for a hearing, and a confirming authority is perfectly entitled to turn a man out without his case having been heard. All that happens is that

  Division No. 109.

  AYES.

  17.33 p.m.

  Ailken, Hon. Max

  Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

  Carson, E.

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Bower, N.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col.G.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

  Buohan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Butcher, H. W.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel

  Butler. Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)

  Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.

  the man concerned writes in some representation, and that representation may or may not be considered.
  7.30 p.m.
  I am quite sure that all hon. Members opposite have a good deal of experience of the kind of representation that comes from a small man whose education is, perhaps, not very good. It is not easy to read and it is not easy to follow. We all get letters of that kind every day and it is a very great temptation to busy Government officials who get rather illiterate screeds not to take enough time to see the real point, which indeed may be very difficult to sec unless the man goes to the expense of getting a lawyer, and he probably does not think of that at that stage. If there were to be some kind of hearing he would probably get a local lawyer whom he knew to attend, and justice would most likely be done, but he will not think of that if he is told that he has 14 days to put in his representation. He will put in a representation which is very difficult to follow, and with the best will in the world the confirming authority will miss the point. It would be removing an essential safeguard to a man's business and life work if he were denied a proper opportunity for being heard, and I think that in the interests of so called celerity the Government are doing a very real injustice in this matter.
  Mr. Medland: This is not a question of the old Act of 1845. The provisions of the present Bill are almost on all fours with those of the Act passed by the Coalition Government in 1944 which gave no protection for business premises such as is now being suggested on the other side of the House. It did give protection for rehousing the population but none for the very people about whom hon. and right hon. Members opposite have almost been making me cry this afternoon.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 125; Noes, 292.

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Low, Brig. A. R. W.

  Scott, Lord W.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Lucas, Major Sir J.

  Shepherd, Lieut. W. S. (Bucklow)

  De la Bère, R.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Smith, E P. (Ashford)

  Digby, Maj. S. W.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon O.

  Smithers, Sir W.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Snadden, W. M.

  Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.

  Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.

  Spence, H. R.

  Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G (Penrith)

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

  Drayson, Capt. G. B

  MacLeod, Capt. J

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Drewe, C.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold

  Strauss, H. G (Com. Eng. Universities)

  Dugģdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J

  Duthie, W. S.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Marples, A. E.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Erroll, F. J.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'ton, S.)

  Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)

  Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

  Teelinģ, William

  Gaibraith, Cmdr. T. D.

  Mellor, Sir J

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

  Gammans, L. D.

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

  Glossop, C. W. H.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon, W. S. (Cirencester)

  Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  Turton, R. H.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Nicholson, G.

  Vane, W. M. T.

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Nield, B. (Chester)

  Walker-Smith, D.

  Hare, Lieut-Col. Hn. J. H. (W'db'ge)

  Nutting, Anthony

  Ward, Hon. G. R.

  Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon Sir H.

  Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

  Hallis, M. C.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

  Hope, Lord J.

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Howard, Hon. A.

  Pitman, I. J.

  White, J. B. (Canterbury)

  Hudson, Rt. Hon R. S. (Southport)

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Hurd, A.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl

  Jeffreys, General Sir G.

  Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

  York, C.

  Jennings, R.

  Renton, D.

  Young, Sir A. S L. (Partick)

  Lambert, Hon. G

  Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Commander Agnew and Mr. Studholme.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

  Sanderson, Sir F.

  NOES.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Chetwynd, Capt. G. R

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Clitherow, Dr. R.

  Gooch, E. G.

  Adamson, Mrs. J. L.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Cobb, F A.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Grey, C. F.

  Alpass, J. H.

  Collins, V. J

  Grierson, E.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Griffiths, O. (Rother Valley)

  Attewell, H. C.

  Cook, T. F.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

  Austin, H. L.

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

  Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)

  Ayles, W. H.

  Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)

  Gunter, Capt. R. J.

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Guy, W. H.

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Crawley, Fit-Lieut. A.

  Haire, Flt-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)

  Balfour, A.

  Daines, P.

  Hale, Leslie

  Barstow, P. G.

  Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

  Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

  Barton, C.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Battley, J. R.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Bechervaise, A. E

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Hardman, D. R.

  Belcher, J. W.

  Deer, G.

  Hardy, E. A.

  Bellenger, F. J.

  Delargy, Captain H. J.

  Haworth, J.

  Benson, G.

  Diamond, J.

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Berry, H.

  Dobbie, W.

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Beswick, Fit.-Lieut. F.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

  Donovan, T.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Bing, Capt. G. H. C.

  Douglas, F. C. R.

  Hobson, C. R

  Binns, J.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Holman, P.

  Blackburn, A. R.

  Dugģdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Blenkinsop, Capt. A.

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  Hoy, J.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Durbin, E. F. M.

  Hudson, J. H (Ealing, W.)

  Bettomley, A. G

  Dye, S.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

  Bowen, R.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

  Braddoek, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Edwards, W. J. (Whiteehapel)

  Irving, W. J.

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon G. A.

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Janner, B

  Brown, georģe (Belper)

  Ewart, R.

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Fairhurst, F.

  Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)

  Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

  Farthing, W. J.

  John, W.

  Buchanan, G.

  Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Burden, T. W.

  Follick, M.

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Burke, W. A.

  Foster, W. (Wigan)

  Keenan, W.

  Byers, Lt.-Col. F.

  Gaitskell, H. T. N

  Key, C. W.

  Callaghan, James

  Gallacher, W.

  King, E. M.

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  georģe, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E

  Chamberlain, R. A

  Gibbins, J.

  Kinley, J.

  Champion, A. J.

  Gibson, C. W

  Kirby, B. V.

  Chafer, D.

  Gilzean, A.

  Kirkwood, D.

  458

  459

  Lang, G.

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Summerskill, Dr. Edith

  Lavers, S.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Swingler, Capt. S.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Orbach, M.

  Symonds, Maj A. L.

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Paget, R. T.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Leslie, J. R.

  Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Levy, B. W.

  Pargiter G. A.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Parker, J.

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  Lipson, D. L.

  Parkin, Fit-Lieut. B. T.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Thomas, John R. (Dover)

  Logan, D, G.

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R (Ed'b'gh, E.)

  Longden, F.

  Pearson, A.

  Thorneycroft, H.

  Lyne, A. W.

  Peart, Capt. T. F.

  Tiffany, S.

  McAdam, W.

  Perrins, W.

  Titterington, M. F

  McEntee, V. La T

  Popplewell, E.

  Tolley, L.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Mack, J. D.

  Price, M. P.

  Ungced-Thomas, L.

  Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Usborne, Henry

  McKinlay, A. S.

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Ranger, J.

  Viant, S. P.

  McLeavy, F.

  Rankin, J.

  Walker, G. H.

  MacMillan, M. K.

  Rees-Williams, D. R.

  Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Reeves, J

  Warbey, W. N.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Mallalieu. J. P W.

  Rhodes, H.

  Watson, W. M.

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Richards, R.

  Webb, M. (Bradlord, C.)

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  Weitzman, D.

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Robens, A.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Marquand, H. A.

  Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. Emryt (Merioneth)

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Marshall, F. (Brightside)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)

  Mathers, G.

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Wigg, Col. G. E.

  Medland, H. M.

  Royle, C.

  Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Sargood, R.

  Wilkes, Maj L.

  Mitchison, Maj. G. R

  Scollan, T.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Montlow, W.

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Montague, F.

  Segal, Sq-Ldr. S.

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Moody, A. S.

  Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Morley, R.

  Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Willis, E.

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Morrison Rt. Hon. H (Lewisham, E.)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

  Wise, Major F. J.

  Mort, D. L.

  Smith, H N (Nottingham, S.)

  Woodburn, A.

  Moyle, A.

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Woods, G. S

  Murray, J. D.

  Solley, L J.

  Yates, V. F.

  Nally, W.

  Soskice, Mai Sir F.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Stamford, W.

  Younger, Hon Kenneth

  Neal, H. (Clayeross)

  Steele, T

  Zilliacus, K

  Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

  Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Stross, Dr. B.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Mr. Collindridge and Mr. Simmons.

  Amendment made: In page 3, line 29, leave out ''War."—[Mr. Key.]
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 3, line 31, to leave out "before the expiration of three months from," and to insert:
  " not earlier than seven days nor later than three months after."
  This Amendment is in conformity with an undertaking I gave in Committee that there should be an intervening period between the date of the confirmation of the order and the power to enter and take possesion of the land. The Amendment gives a seven days' waiting period between confirmation and the power to enter and take possession.
  Mr. Charles Williams: As the Parliamentary Secretary seemed to be anxious a little earlier to know whether we were duly grateful for an Amendment, may I say how grateful I am that he has
  460
  acceded to the invariable wisdom of the Tory Party in regard to this Amendment, and express the hope that he may do the same thing in regard to other provisions later?
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 41, leave out "mentioned in that Subsection ", and insert:
  " of the foregoing Section, the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, or the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, as the case may be." — [Mr. Key.]
  CLAUSE 5.—(Interpretation.)
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 6, line 5, at the end, to insert:
  " ' appropriate Minister ' means in relation to—

  (a) any railway, light railway, tramway, road transport, water transport, canal, harbour, pier or inland navigation, dock, lighthouse undertaking, the Minister of Transport.

  461

  (b) in relation (o any undertaking for the supply of electricity, gas or hydraulic power, the Minister of Fuel and Power,

  (c) in relation to any undertaking for the supply of water, the Minister of Health;

  ' ancient monument ' has the same meaning as in the Ancient Monuments Acts, 1913 and 1931;
  common ' includes any land subject to be enclosed under the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1882, and any town or village green;
  fuel or field garden allotment ' means any allotment set out as a fuel allotment, or a field garden allotment, under an Inclosure Act;
  ' held inalienably,' in relation to land belonging to the National Trust, means that the land is inalienable under Section twenty-one of the National Trust Act, 1907, or Section eight of the National Trust Act, 1939."
  This Amendment is consequential. It results from the inclusion of the new Clauses and the necessity for bringing the definition within the body of the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 6, line 11, to leave out "and any other," and to insert:
  " the receiver for the metropolitan police district or any other authority being a."
  The purpose of this Amendment is to extend the powers of compulsory purchase to the receiver of the Metropolitan Police District and thus put the Metropolitan Police in the same position as the police authority in any other part of the country. The confirming authority in this case, as in the case of the other police authorities, would be the Minister of Health.
  Mr. Charles Williams: This Amendment may or may not be necessary, but could the Parliamentary Secretary say why, if it is necessary, it was not put in the Bill at an earlier stage? Will he also tell us whether there was any direct application from the Metropolitan area to come under the Bill? Is it not possible that the Metropolitan Police would have been covered in any case, and that this Amendment is rather unnecessary?
  Mr. Key: No, it is not unnecessary; it is a very necessary Amendment. The police in other parts of the country come under local authorities, and local authorities as such, for all their functions, are given these powers. In the case of the Metropolitan Police, there was no authority, and therefore, it was necessary to bring in the responsible authority for the Metropolitan Police, that is to say,
  462
  the receiver. The omission of the provision was an oversight.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made:
  In page 6, line 17, at the end, insert:
  " ' National Trust ' means the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty incorporated by the said Act of 1907;
  ' open space ' means any land laid out as a public garden, or used for the purposes of public recreation, or land being a disused burial ground."
  In line 24, at the end, insert:
  " ' statutory undertakers ' means any persons authorised by any Act (whether public general or local), or by any order or scheme made under or confirmed by an Act, to construct, work or carry on any railway, light railway, tramway, road transport, water transport, canal, inland navigation, dock, harbour, pier or lighthouse undertaking, or any undertaking for the supply of electricity, gas, hydraulic power or water.
  (2) If any question arises under this Act which Minister is the appropriate Minister the question shall be determined by the Treasury." —[Mr. Key.]
  CLAUSE 6.—(Provisions as to Scotland.)
  The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 6, line 30, after "Health," to insert:
  "or to the Minister of Town and Country Planning."
  This Amendment and the three following Amendments are consequential upon the new Schedule, and adapt the wording to Scottish procedure.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made:
  In page 6, line 34, after "references," insert:
  " to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, and to subsection (1) of section two thereof, there shall be, respectively, substituted references to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act. 1932, and to subsection (1) of section- two thereof; for references."
  In line 35, after "thereof," insert "to section twenty-three thereof."
  In line 39, after "thereof," insert" to section twenty-two thereof."
  —[The Lord Advocate.]
  The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 8, line 4, after "roll," to insert:
  " or otherwise known to the acquiring authority "
  This Amendment is moved as a result of discussions with the right hon and

  463
  learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. Reid) and meets a point raised in Committee.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 8, line 11, after "if," to insert:
  " the words in head (b) of sub-paragraph 1 from except in so far,' to ' particular case,' and head (c) of that sub-paragraph and."
  This Amendment is very much on the same lines as the last one. It also meets a point raised in Committee.
  Mr. Charles Williams: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman for a rather wider explanation? Those of us who were not in the Committee have a right to an explanation of how it comes about that this Amendment is necessary. Was it one of the Amendments in Committee which was considered frivolous and is now found to be necessary? Could I have an explanation of precisely what it is, as it seems rather complicated? We would like to know before we let these powers go through. I do not want to be discourteous in any way. May I say how much Scots Members would appreciate it if we could have a fuller explanation so that we can be absolutely certain what we are doing?
  The Lord Advocate: One or two points arose on account of the peculiarities of serving a notice in Scotland. It is a comparatively easy thing to do in Scotland, where there is a valuation roll of the owners and occupiers. It is a very simple matter. This Amendment and the previous Amendment are connected with that, and we are able to get rid of one or two of the complications which arise in England because they do not have a valuation roll here. That is why I agree to this form of Amendment.
  Mr. Williams: Who asked for it?
  The Lord Advocate: It arose out of discussions with the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. Reid), who is very familiar with this type of thing.
  Mr. Gallacher: This is how the Subsection now reads:
  " … if notice is served on all the persons appearing from the valuation roll to have an interest in the land… "
  Will the Lord Advocate not add the words
  " or otherwise known to the enquiring authority as having honestly come by an interest in the land "?
  Amendment agreed to.
  The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 8, to leave out lines 18 to 30, and to insert:
  " (II) For the purposes of Part III of the First Schedule to this Act."
  This Amendment is consequential on the transfer to Clause 5 of the Bill of the definitions of "held inalienably" and of "National Trust "which are at present included in paragraph 14 of the First Schedule.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Reid: I beg to move, in page 9, line 29, to leave out sub-paragraph (3), and to insert sub-paragraphs (2, b), (2, c), and (3).
  This Amendment requires a little elucidation. It is quite simple. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate said a few minutes ago, the presence of a valuation roll in Scotland makes it a comparatively simple matter to discover the right person to serve with notices, and that applies equally under Clause 1 procedure, or under the speedy Clause 2 procedure. In the earlier part of Clause 6 we have said that in every case, speedy or otherwise, it is sufficient for the local authority to copy the names of the owner and the occupier off the list and post the letters. That is all they need do and that can be done in a very few minutes, whichever procedure is adopted. In England, the matter is not quite so simple, as will appear from the Third Schedule, paragraph 2 (2) of which sets out three alternative methods of serving notice under the speedy procedure. A notice may be served on the owner or occupier by sending him a letter, by delivering a letter to some person found on the premises, the letter being generally addressed to the owner and occupier and no name being used, or, if nobody is found on the premises at all, the notice is pinned up on some part of the premises and left there. The last two alternatives —the delivery of a letter with no person named on it, or the pinning up of a notice —are, no doubt, necessary in England, but they are unnecessary and out of place in Scotland, where the name is always known. We always have our valuation roll, and local authorities are sufficiently wide-awake to see that somebody's name goes in that valuation roll, because some-

  465
  body is always liable for owner's rights even if there is no occupier. Accordingly, it does not happen that you cannot find somebody's name to attach to a piece of ground. Therefore, we need never resort to the second or third alternatives. I do not, therefore, understand why the Lord Advocate has not accepted this Amendment to leave out all reference to those two alternative methods of serving, so far as Scotland is concerned, and relied here, as he has already agreed to do a moment ago in respect of Clause 1, on the valuation roll which will carry him through every time. I hope that with that explanation, Major Milner, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will see his way to accept this Amendment, I cannot see that any local authority can possibly object to it and it would remove a considerable blot.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. William Adams: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it in Order for hon, and right hon. Members opposite to address you by name?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): It is not in Order, when I occupy Mr. Speaker's Chair as Deputy Speaker.
  The Lord Advocate: I think I can agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr Reid) on this matter. I agree that these two Subsections are unnecessary. The view I took originally was that our application Clause was sufficient to exclude their application, but I am prepared to accept the Amendment because, in substance, we are at one on the matter.
  Amendment agreed to.
  CLAUSE 7 (Short title and repeals.)
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 9, line 37, to leave out from the beginning to "where "in line 38, and to insert "(4)."
  This Amendment, and the next two Amendments, which are consequential, have the effect of making a new Subsection (4) instead of the proviso as at present. It is intended to make the matter plainer, and there is no change in the intention
  Mr. E. P. Smith: I am a little worried about the position of the colon at the end of line 36 under this rearrangement. What is to happen to it? Is it to be left suspended in mid-air?
  Mr. C. Williams: I am not in the least worried about the colon, as far as this is concerned, but how do we arrive at the point when we no longer want a proviso to a Clause, and the matter can be dealt with by a new Subsection (4)? We were told that was necessary, and I am sure the Government said it in perfectly good faith, but it makes a big difference whether you have a proviso to a Clause or not. I think we are entitled to some explanation.
  Mr. Key: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will look at the proviso while I read what the new Subsection would become. The new Subsection (4) would read as follows:
  " Where before the commencement of this Act proceedings for obtaining authorisation of a compulsory purchase in accordance with the provisions of any enactment referred to in section one of this Act have been begun but not completed, the proceedings may be completed as if this Act had not been passed."
  When we had this in Committee upstairs, there was some doubt whether or not it was as positive as it might be, and the rearrangement, I think, makes it much plainer.
  Mr. Turton: I am happy about this Amendment because I think it is devised to meet the point of the Amendment which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. York)— in Clause 7, page 9, line 42, at the end, to add "in accordance with that enactment." No doubt that Amendment will not be called because it is covered by this Amendment. Unless we have some words like this, it does appear that any proceedings under the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930 which may have been taken before this Bill is passed, and have not been completed by the time it receives the Royal Assent, would be left in a state of suspended animation. The County Councils Association have been very worried about that matter.
  Mr. Key Mr. Key indicated assent.
  Mr. Turton: I gather by the way in which the Parliamentary Secretary is nodding his head that that is the intention of this Amendment?
  Mr. Key: Exactly, because it ends by saying that then
  " the proceedings may be completed as if this Act had not been passed."

  467
  In other words they are completed under the Act under which they are begun.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 9, line 41, leave out "hereby repealed," and insert:
  " referred to in section one of this Act."— [Mr. Key.]
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 9, to leave out line 42, and to insert:
  " the proceedings may be completed as if this Act had not been passed."
  Mr. C. Williams: I am not sure whether we have been told for certain that this Amendment is consequential. Is this Amendment consequential?
  Mr. Key: Yes.
  Mr. Williams: The words "proceedings may be completed "seem to me to carry it a shade further, though I will not say a long way further. I think the Amendment may have a wider meaning, and I would like some legal advice on the matter. I am sure, if the hon. Gentleman opposite has his brief on the subject, he will be able to make me quite happy.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: In moving the first Amendment, the Parliamentary Secretary said that the next two Amendments were consequential, and in reply to the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), he read out the new Subsection, incorporating the three Amendments.
  Mr. Williams: If that is the position, I will accept the Amendment at once.
  Amendment agreed to.
  FIRST SCHEDULE. —(Procedure for Authorising Compulsory Purchases.)
  Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 10, line 20, after "situated," to insert:
  " and if the land comprised in the Order is situated within the area of another local authority, serve upon that authority."
  The Schedule as at present drafted protects the private owner of land, especially in paragraph 3 (b). He is served with a notice, and I hope I shall have the support of the hon. Gentleman who represents West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and half the Communist Party in this Amendment, because it is devised to secure that the public and the local authority are informed when they are affected by any operation under Clause 1.
  Mr. Gallacher: If the hon. Gentleman has some interest in the public, I am very suspicious.
  Mr. Turton: I am glad I have aroused the suspicion of the hon. Gentleman. It is a great advance because he has not been very attentive to the Bill up to now, and we are hoping that later on he will give his views on the Acquisition of Land Bill. I should have thought it was a matter in which he had considerable interest. I often hear him talk about some of his Friends as "robbers," and it might be a good Bill to talk about.
  Coming back to this Amendment, it seems important that a local authority should be advised. It may be said, "We have provided here for publication in a local newspaper." That is not sufficient. I think it is quite sufficient for private owners, but it is not sufficient for a large local authority, like, say, the West Riding County Council or, indeed, in Scotland some of the Scottish county councils.
  Mr. Kirkwood: The Duke of Buccleuch?
  Mr. Turton: I did not know the Duke of Buccleuch was a local authority. I am glad I have aroused the suspicion and attention of the hon. Member for West Fife but not the attention of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) for we are here dealing with local authorities. How are they to be advised when one Department or another local authority makes an incursion into their area? They are not the owners of the land, but they have an interest in how it will be utilised. It may well be that the utilisation of their land and the acquisition of it by another local authority will materially affect their own future. I remember that in the Committee the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Attewell) told us, in graphic terms, how he wished a sewer from Chingford to advance across into Middlesex. I felt rather sorry for Middlesex. Under the present arrangements Middlesex will not be advised when the hon. Member's sewer advances across from Chingford into Middlesex. Cases like that are present to the minds of hon. Members, and ought to be protected. Perhaps the Amendment is not drafted in the correct form but some amendment must be devised to secure that a local authority is told when it is affected by the plans of another local authority, or of a Government Department.

  469
  I put in a word of caution about my Amendment because I believe that elsewhere in the Bill there is a definition of "local authority" which would have the effect of making my Amendment rather too wide. It is a matter for the Minister to put right. I cannot alter his Bill by putting in a new definition of local authority. I am anxious to secure that all major local authorities who are periodically elected under the democratic procedure of Britain are advised when other local authorities are making invasions into their areas.
  Mr. C. Williams: I beg to second the Amendment.
  After the speech we have heard most of us realise that local authorities must have some protection. A local authority may propose to overflow not only into a neighbouring county, but also to absorb a great deal of the land in that neighbouring county. If this matter is not altered, there will not be the same right of appeal as there should be. Some of us have taken the trouble to go rather carefully into cases where two local authorities are trying to grab bits out of each other. Unless this provision is put into the Bill those cases will cause confusion and trouble. Naturally, the Government want to see their Bill work smoothly. There is nothing in the Amendment that would in any way handicap the working of the Bill. It would create the greatest good will among local authorities. For that reason I expect that the Government will accept the Amendment. We may get support for it from some hon. Members opposite, but even if we do not, I believe that the Government will readily accept the Amendment, because of commonsense and practical administration.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Key: There are two good reasons for not accepting the Amendment. The first is on the score of drafting. Here we deal with instructions to the acquiring authority about what they will do in the matter of issuing notices, but the acquiring authorities under the Bill are not only local authorities. There are the Minister of Transport and the President of the Board of Trade, and others. Therefore one cannot strictly talk about "the area of another local authority." Secondly, we should be in great difficulties even where the acquiring authority is the local authority. Take the case of a county
  470
  borough which wishes to get rapid possession of a piece of land outside its area in order to make provision for the overspill from that area. What is the local authority to do? The county borough have to give the necessary notices, but to whom? To the county council, the district council or to the borough council in whose area the piece of land may be? The land may be in all those areas and in that of the county district. Is notice to be given to the parish council or to sundry joint boards such as the drainage board, all of whom are included in the definition of local authority in the Bill? It is, therefore, not merely a case of giving notice to one other local authority.
  Take what is perhaps the more ridiculous example of a county district council wishing to acquire land in its own area. The land falls within the area of a parish council or of a drainage board or another local authority. Has the county district council, in exercising its housebuilding functions inside its own area, to issue notices to those local authorities, in those circumstances?
  Mr. C. Williams: Why should one local authority which is taking land from another local authority not give it notice? It would seem to help things on.
  Mr. Key: If the hon. Member had read the Bill carefully he would have known that there must be public advertisement in two successive weeks in a local newspaper circulating in the locality, with information of the intention to do this thing. Is the hon. Member telling me that even the most conservative and Tory-minded local governing authority in this country does not carry out its duties sufficiently well to have people in its office who would read two successive issues of a local newspaper and give information of such advertisements? The local authority so concerned is not in the same position as those who are directly interested as owners of the land. I see no reason why we should pick out one particular set of people who are interested, it may be, but are not owners or lessees of the land, and give them special treatment.
  Mr. Turton: In view of the explanation given by the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 10, line 26, after "days," to insert:
  " from the first publication of the notice."
  This is one of two Amendments regarding publication of information in newspapers. It is to make provision for some date, as from which this provision is to operate.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 10, line 35, after "days," insert "from the service of the notice."— [Mr. Key.]
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 10, line 36, at the end, to insert:
  " (c) in the case of any land with respect to which a direction is given under the head (b) of this sub-paragraph, affix to some conspicuous object or objects on the land a notice or notices in the prescribed form addressed to ' the owners and any occupiers ' of the land (describing it) containing the particulars specified in the said head (b)."
  When we were discussing this matter in Committee, the point was raised in connection with the first two lines in paragraph 3 (1, b) of the Schedule that if those powers were there exercised, the necessary notice would not be given to individuals who might be concerned. We felt that it would be right in this particular case to give some additional notice and for that, reason we wish to add this subparagraph (c).
  Mr. C. Williams: May I thank the hon. Gentleman for making this concession to our wisdom, and congratulate him on having read his Bill, at least in part?
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In page 12, line 10, after "service," insert "or affixing."
  In page 12, line 13, leave out "the form of."
  In page 12, line 14, after "modifications," insert, "of the form of the notice."— [Mr. Key.]
  Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 12, line 39, after "land," to insert:
  " (other than any such land as is referred to in the foregoing sub-paragraph (a))."
  This Amendment refers to the compulsory purchase of land which is owned by a statutory authority. Paragraph 10 suggests that where there is a compulsory purchase order which includes land belonging to a statutory undertaker and
  472
  used for the purpose of the undertaking, if objections are made within the period laid down in the Bill, the Minister has to be satisfied as to two conditions, one of which is contained in sub-paragraph (a):
  " that any of the said land is used for the purposes of the carrying on of their undertaking."
  The compulsory purchase order shall not be confirmed or made if the Minister is satisfied, except in regard to land to which two other conditions apply, and these two other conditions follow immediately after. The Amendment wishes to exclude from these two other conditions the land which is included under subparagraph (a), that is, land used for the purposes of carrying on the undertaking.
  Mr. Key: I thought we had argued this sufficiently in Committee for hon. Members opposite to be satisfied about the matter. The hon. Member who was responsible for moving the Amendment in Committee, after my explanation, quite definitely withdrew it. Sub-paragraph (a) says
  " that any of the said land is used for the purposes of the carrying on of their undertaking,"
  shall not be subject to compulsory purchase. What may that land be? It may be a sports ground that is held by a gas company. It may be the showroom of some electricity undertaking. It is there for the purposes of the undertaking. Are we to say that if some necessary alteration, such as a street widening is to be made, electricity showrooms are to be exempt from compulsory purchase merely because they are held as part of the statutory undertaking?
  In dealing with the statutory undertakers, there are two stages if the undertakers object to compulsory purchase. The first stage is that the appropriate Minister has to be satisfied that the land is used or an interest in it is held for the purpose of carrying on the undertaking. If that condition is satisfied, the appropriate Minister has to certify one of two things, either that no serious detriment to the carrying on of the undertaking will result from the compulsory purchase order, or that if the particular piece of land is bought it can be replaced by other land belonging to the statutory undertaker or available for acquisition by the undertaker so that the undertaker can go forward

  473
  successfully. That test, it seems to us, is the correct one to apply in these cases. But the protection goes still further, because if the appropriate Minister certifies and the order is being confirmed and the statutory undertaker still objects to the operation of compulsory purchase, special Parliamentary procedure has to be adopted in order that the compulsory purchase order may be confirmed. What more can a statutory undertaking expect for the protection of the carrying on of its undertaking?
  Mr. Berry: As one who moved a similar Amendment in Committee, I am satisfied with the explanation that has been given. The anxiety among statutory undertakers is that their operational land shall not be touched. Operational land would certainly not include a sports ground of a gas company or similar undertaking, as cited by the Parliamentary Secretary, or the showroom of an electricity or gas undertaking. There is very keen anxiety that operational land should receive similar protection to that under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944. It is clear from what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, that there is ample protection, and as one who, with other hon. Members in the Committee, kept a fatherly oversight in regard to statutory undertakers, I am bound to say I think that in the light of the explanation that has been given all possible protection is provided by this Bill. I would appeal to the hon. and gallant Member, in as much as he is speaking in the name of statutory undertakings, to agree that proper protection is given in the Bill as it stands.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. C. Williams: I join the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Mr. Berry) in his appeal to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) to withdraw this Amendment, in due course. I feel that we, and especially the hon. Member for West Woolwich, have done a useful bit of work in clarifying the position so that there can be no doubt that the operational area of these undertakings is secure. The Parliamentary Secretary, who is replying for the Minister of Health— and is doing so not so badly— eased my mind considerably on this matter. The statutory undertakens are doing a great deal for the country as a whole, and we have been able to satisfy
  474
  them. As the answer which has been given satisfies back benchers on both sides, I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend whether, in those circumstances, he might not withdraw his Amendment, unless there is some further point which he would like to extract from the Government, now that we have legal advice available.
  Commander Galbraith: In view of the full and satisfactory explanation which we have received from the Parliamentary Secretary, and also in view of the fact that there is general agreement on both sides of the House that statutory undertakings are adequately protected, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 14, to leave out lines 42 to 45.
  This is a drafting Amendment. Land that is owned by a local authority may also be part of a common or open space. The paragraphs that are referred to in this sub-paragraph which it is proposed to delete, deal with two types of land—
  Mr. Turton: On a point of Order. Could the Parliamentary Secretary explain which Amendment he is moving?
  Mr. Key: Yes, Sir. The Amendment is "In page 14, leave out lines 42 to 45."
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The Amendment I called on the hon. Member to move was, "In page 14, line 1, leave out sub-paragraphs (1) & (2)."
  Mr. C, Williams: On the point of Order. It would be interesting to the House to know whether the hon. Gentleman has been speaking on the Amendment which he moved, or on the one which he thought he was moving. He may be certain how much I sympathise with him in the slip he has made. I know how difficult it is to follow a complicated Bill of this kind. I was rather amazed at what he said just now, but I feel sure he would not like me to retaliate, so I will just say how much I appreciate his difficulty, and how I hope we may have the matter made absolutely plain now.
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 14, line 1, to leave out sub-paragraphs (1) and (2).

  475
  I admire the tolerance of the hon. Gentleman. I picked up the wrong paper when I rose on the last occasion. The position is that we have already included the definitions in the body of the Bill, and, therefore, there is no reason to repeat them in the Schedule.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 14, to leave out sub-paragraph (3), and to insert:
  " (3) In the case of land falling within two or more of the preceding paragraphs of this Part of this Schedule a compulsory purchase order shall be subject to special Parliamentary procedure if required to be subject thereto by any of the said paragraphs."
  Mr. York: May I inquire exactly why the figure "(3) "is in front of this Amendment? If the Amendment deletes sub-paragraphs (1) and (2), the third paragraph will not be (3).
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The answer to that is that the numbers will be altered in the Bill as a matter of course.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 16, line 19, to leave out from "If," to "to," and to insert:
  "the Minister having jurisdiction to confirm or make the order in connection with which the document is to be served is satisfied that reasonable inquiry has been made and that it is not practicable."
  This amendment is to carry out an undertaking which I gave upstairs. I agreed to accept the principle of an Amendment which was put forward, but I could not accept its terminology. This Amendment will, in fact, tend to speed up the procedure, because the local authorities will now be quite satisfied that they have given the necessary information to the people concerned.
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: We are much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for meeting the spirit of our Amendment by moving to insert these words.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THIRD SCHEDULE.— (Provisions as to Authorisations under Section 2.)
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 19, line 5, at the end, to insert:
  " or with respect to any dwelling house.
  (2) In this paragraph the expression ' dwelling house ' means any building or part of a
  476
  building in which persons are residing, and includes any other building or part of a building in which persons normally reside but from which they are temporarily absent."
  This again is an attempt to carry out a kind of agreement which I made in the Committee, when I gave an assurance that any Government Department, as the confirming authority, would permit no acquiring authority to put out persons without offering them alternative accommodation. We felt that it would be much better that the Clause 2 procedure, the rapid procedure, should not apply to inhabited houses, and for that reason we have brought forward this Amendment.
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: Again I wish to say how we appreciate this effort to meet a point of view which we put forward in the Standing Committee. We felt very strongly that this harsh and sudden procedure, embodied in Clause 2 of the Bill, was inappropriate to dwelling houses, because when a man is deprived of his dwelling house, it is not merely a matter which can be settled by a monetary compensation; it is taking the roof from over his head. I feel very grateful that the Government have seen the reason for that, and have embodied it in these words.
  Mr. Butcher: I would like to add a word of thanks also, particularly with reference to the definition.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. York: I beg to move, in page 19, line 5, at the end, to insert:
  "or to land consisting of the whole or part of an agricultural building."
  The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that on the Committee stage my hon. Friend and I moved an Amendment which was inclusive of both dwelling houses and agricultural buildings. The Parliamentary Secretary then refused to accept the Amendment, on the ground, in his own words, that we were
  " putting … little niggling objections"
  into the Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary just a moment ago proved that our niggling objections were by no means niggling. We thank him for that. One half of that Amendment has been accepted as reasonable and in no way impairing the use of quick procedure under Clause 2 if it is necessary. In this Amendment we are asking him to accept the

  477
  agricultural buildings in addition to dwelling houses. Nobody will argue— the Parliamentary Secretary certainly would not argue— that agricultural buildings should not be taken when it is necessary that they should be taken in the public interest. What we say is that just as it is very difficult at present to come by a dwelling house, if one is hastily thrown out of one's house, so it is equally difficult to house stock, if, at very short notice, agricultural buildings are taken over. It is undoubtedly true that the need in regard to agricultural building is very severe at the moment. That is partly because as a result of long years of war a large number of them are seriously out of repair, and partly because methods and practices in agriculture have had to be changed owing to war conditions. If we are to allow the present shortage of buildings to be made greater by reason of this quick procedure, and if we are to allow farm buildings to be taken away without a chance of new farm buildings being put up to replace them, the position will become increasingly more difficult for farmers, particularly in regard to milk production. It is upon those grounds that my hon. Friend and I are moving this Amendment. I hope the Minister will accept this Amendment in the same spirit as he accepted the last one.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. Turton: I beg to second this Amendment.
  I would like to remind the House that Clause 2 procedure is only to take place where the owner or occupier of the hereditaments is objecting to his building being seized. It seems to me that we have a strong case to say at the present time— remember this Bill is only a temporary Bill— agricultural buildings must not be taken away against the will of the man who is conducting the farming operations. The Minister has helped us on a great many Amendments. I think we are all grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for the way he has tried to meet our objections but, whenever we get to agriculture, for some reason I do not think Poplar has got that same sympathy for agriculture as it has for the legal or other points we have put to him. We have not once had the slightest sign of sympathy from the Parliamentary Secretary for agricultural problems. Here is an opportunity for him to do something to help food production.
  Mr. GallacherThat is a libel.
  Mr. Turton: I am afraid I cannot even hear the Gaelic which is coming from the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher)— if it is Gaelic. May I proceed? For housing and road improvements in recent years agricultural buildings and farmsteads have been taken, thus dividing up the farm against the will of the farmer. That is extremely unfortunate. That may well be necessary under Clause 1 procedure. Here the Government are going to seize farm buildings under Clause 2 procedure. We maintain that is very wrong in view of the fact that we need every ton of food that can be produced in Britain today. For these reasons, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will accept the Amendment which was so ably moved by my hon. Friend.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I would like to know where I stand as far as the Parliamentary Secretary is concerned—
  Mr. Gallacher: The hon. and gallant Gentleman stands below the Gangway.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I have listened to every word the Parliamentary Secretary has said and I am trying to follow, the rules which he is laying down as to what shall be excepted from this speedy procedure and what shall not be excepted. We have been told on several occasions that there is no need to except everything, because in fact the speedy procedure would only be used when it was absolutely necessary in the national interest.
  That argument was put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary when it was a question of exempting shopkeepers from the speedy procedure. When we came to dwellinghouses, we were told such would be the hardship if the speedy procedure should be put into operation, that it was quite right he should come forward and meet the Opposition and concede that dwellinghouses should not be subject to the speedy procedure. Now we have this Amendment pointing out the importance of food production, with which I thoroughly agree, and which I am prepared to support; but may we have from the Parliamentary Secretary the true interpretation of this? Why does he say, if we make out a case where great hardship would be caused, that the speediest procedure should not apply? Then when we make out a case which perhaps he does not consider as great a hardship,

  479
  why does he say that no hardship will be done, because in fact this will never be put into operation, except in exceptional circumstances?
  I would suggest that, when the Opposition make out a case where great hardship can be caused by the application of the speedy procedure, then the Parliamentary Secretary should meet us and exempt it from the speedy procedure. I suggest that the case has been very admirably made out by my hon. Friends who moved and seconded the Amendment, and I hope that, on this occasion, and in the interests of food production, the Parliamentary Secretary will see his way to admit that under the speedy procedure much harm could be done when there is a shortage of agricultural buildings and where there is necessity for the production of every single ounce of food that we can get. I hope the hon. Gentleman will realise that, if the speedy procedure was to apply to agricultural buildings, it would, in fact injure the quantity and quality of the food we are so anxious to produce.
  Mr. Key: I cannot accept this Amendment. First, it would prevent the use of the speedy procedure in connection with any agricultural building at all. Whether it was essential or non-essential, the Amendment would prohibit the speedy procedure being used.
  Mr. Turton: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us what he means by a non-essential agricultural building at the present day?
  Mr. Key: Yes, I know quite a number that are really non-essential, because they are encumbrances on the land and are not being used for any real purpose at all, yet they are agricultural buildings. Under this Amendment, the mere fact that they exist on a piece of land would prevent the speedy procedure from being used at all. There is a good deal of force in the contention that agricultural buildings are vital to the efficiency of the farm. That is admitted. [Laughter.]
  Mr. Quintin Hogg: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Key: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman thinks so too, but that is admitted.
  Mr. Kirkwood: They have not the sense to see it.
  Mr. Key: We have said that these things that are necessary for farm work shall not be taken by the speedy procedure unless — and this is the governing factor in all speedy procedure— the land on which they stand is urgently necessary in the public interest, and what must be done is that we must weigh one public interest against another, and, in the end, which of them will give the greatest benefit to the community. As I have said many times here today, before the confirmation of these Orders will be given, it will be necessary for the Minister of Agriculture to have been consulted in the particular matter, and it will be for him to give the clearance that will be necessary before the confirmation can be given. We feel that, by that procedure, we have given the necessary protection to agriculture as against other aspects of the public interest, and provided for a due balance to be observed and the best thing done in the interests of the public.
  Mr. Renton: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us if he did consult his colleagues the Ministers of Agriculture and Food about this Amendment?
  Mr. Gallacher: Surely.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 19, line 7, to leave out from "must," to the end of line 8, and to insert:
  " (a) have published in one or more local newspapers circulating in the locality in which any of the land to which the authorisation relates is situated a notice."
  This, again, is in fulfilment of a promise which I gave in Committee. Under the ordinary compulsory purchase orders, not only must individual notices be served on interested persons but also public advertisement must be made of the intention to use that method of acquisition. In the case of the speedy procedure, as the Bill stands, it does not provide for the necessary publication of notices in newspapers, and, in order to meet the objection that was raised, I propose that this paragraph be added for the purpose of securing the publication in local newspapers of the notice of the speedy procedure.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for embodying, at this stage of the Bill, the principle of the Amendment which it was my privilege to move in Committee. We, on this side of the House, are very glad

  481
  that this right principle has been embodied in the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 19, line 13, leave out'' of the persons required to be served," and insert "person."— [Mr. Key.]
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 19, line 14, to leave out "fourteen," and to insert "twenty-one."
  This is a very short point, and can be put very briefly. Under the Third Schedule, the operation of this expedited procedure is set in motion by an authorisation in writing given by the confirming authority, and the paragraph which is sought to be amended allows the people affected the space of 14 days in which they can make representations to the confirming authority against the proposed procedure. The simple point is that we think the period of 14 days is too short. We had a certain amount of discussion on this matter in Committee, but we think it is of such importance that the Government ought to grant an extra week. It will be appreciated that, where this procedure is launched, it takes effect automatically and anonymously from a distance, and, consequently, I do not think that three weeks is too long to give a man a chance of making representations for the last time whether or not his land should be included in this rapid purchase.
  I know some people are very apt to obscure the discussion on all these questions of land acquisition with the idea that landlords and landowners are great and rich men and that it does not matter what happens to them in any case. But I know, from my own experience, how many of the contested cases of compulsory acquisition have arisen, not from great landlords, who have plenty of land and need not fear the loss of a little bit, but from smallholders and farmers, although not owners, whose tenancy might be disturbed and whose operations in agriculture might be jeopardised. I do not know how the Government Departments themselves, who are not always as speedy as they might be in doing everything that is required to be done, can expect the ordinary citizen to act with this rather lightning-like rapidity. Will they not feel themselves justified in granting the man an extra week in which to frame his representations on the justice of this particular form
  482
  of procedure? One has to think of the ordinary citizen in contrast with the Government Department, which is always in being. If one Minister goes, there is someone else to take his place.
  If one Secretary or civil servant is absent on leave, there is somebody doing his job; if one man is on a journey there is somebody else there, and there is always a central spot from which the Department acts. But in the case of the ordinary citizen, he may be jeopardised by the operation of this Clause. He has his own business to conduct and he may be away from home on a lawful vocation— he may be having a holiday if he is fortunate enough to do that— and there are little lapses of time which may intervene between his knowledge of the proposed procedure and the time when he can effectively get his material together and make representations in the proper form. The difficulty of the ordinary citizen is far greater than that of a Department which is always on the spot and, therefore, it would be a graceful gesture at this eleventh hour if the Government would say to the proposed victims of this harsh procedure that they shall have at least another week in which to make representation.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Turton: May I remind the Parliamentary Secretary that in the House and in Committee there was so much doubt about this Amendment that even when a vote was taken upon it ten hon. Members voted for retaining 14 days and ten for 28 days, and the casting vote had to be given by the Chairman? It is clear that the Socialist Party, or some of its Members, agreed with this Amendment and, in view of that fact, we have put forward a compromise solution. I know the party opposite always likes to compromise, and 21 days would appear to be a satisfactory compromise to meet the wishes of those members of the party who did not vote against our Amendment before.
  Mr. Key: I will deal with the last point first. If there was any implication in the statement which the hon. Gentleman has just made that any of my hon. Friends supported that Amendment when it was moved in Committee upstairs, then, with all due respect, I think that is a misrepresentation.
  Mr. Turton: If I am being accused of misrepresenting the facts, I would like

  483
  to repeat that ten hon. Members voted for and ten against the Amendment. Many of the Socialists were not satisfied about this matter.
  Mr. Key: They did not happen to be in the Committee Room when the vote was taken and were absentees for one or two minutes. If I had to give adequate and proper reports of other absentees, I could mention several who were absent for much longer. All I was trying to say was that the vote was that of all the hon. Members who were there, and that I was only trying to resist any implication that any of my hon. Friends on that Committee were in favour of the Amendment then moved.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: If the hon. Gentleman says that those Members of his party were only absent for a minute or two, does he mean to suggest that they deliberately left the Committee in order not to be driven by their Whips?
  Mr. Gallacher: Am I to understand, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it is in Order to discuss what happened upstairs?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): Yes, within reason.
  Mr. Key: I do not think there is much benefit in continuing the discussion. All I wanted to clear away was the idea that there was any favour on the part of my hon. Friends for this Amendment.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Many of us have not had the privilege of being on this Committee, and, reading, as we always do, the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Debates that take place in Committee, we saw this Division. I myself looked at it and I thought the Committee must have been evenly divided. I feel the Parliamentary Secretary should tell us where his colleagues were.
  Mr. Key: How I, conducting the business of the Committee, could be expected to know where my absent colleagues were, is beyond my comprehension.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Even if the hon. Gentleman did know, he would not be allowed to say.
  Mr. Key: So far as the Amendment is concerned, we cannot accept it. It would
  484
  mean a further slowing up of what is designed to be a quick procedure to meet a really urgent condition of affairs. In this matter we have followed the example that was set to us in the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act, 1944, in which 14 days was the time allowed. We think in this case there is sufficient time allowed for the purpose.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 19, line 15, to leave out "service of the notice on him," and to insert:
  " publication of the notice; and
  (b) have served on every owner and occupier of any of the land to which the authorisation relates a notice in writing stating that the confirming authority is about to take into consideration the giving of an authorisation as aforesaid, and that representations which any of the persons required to be served desires to make must be made to the confirming authority in writing within fourteen days from the date of the service of the notice on him."
  This Amendment is consequential.
  Mr. Medland: On the Second Reading, I drew attention to the fact that the procedure for the serving of notices did not properly meet the case with regard to devastated land. I pointed out that there were areas of land which had to be acquired for the rebuilding of a city, in respect of which land there were no signs of any owners or occupiers. I was told that this point would be dealt with in Committee upstairs, and that provision would be made for the posting of a notice on the site which would be sufficient to enable the land to be acquired. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether this Amendment does meet the point in the case of land where there are no houses and no occupiers, and where it is difficult to find the owner. I ask that a post may be put up and a notice published on the site, that notice to be equal to the serving of a notice to an individual owner or occupier. Unless we get these powers in devastated areas it will take us months to find the owners and to acquire the land. I would like to know whether this proposed Amendment will meet such a procedure as that.
  Mr. Key: We have this afternoon included in the Bill Amendments to do the very thing which my hon. Friend is asking.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 19, line 40, to leave out from "authority," to the end of line 41.
  This is largely as a result of the Amendment which we made before, in which we have made it necessary for publication to be made of information with regard to these inquiries, and to give the opportunity, not only to owners and occupiers, but to other persons to make representations. The effect of the Amendment which I am moving is that the Minister will have to give consideration to the representations made by these other individuals to whom the notices have been made.
  Amendment agreed to.
  FOURTH SCHEDULE.— (Minor and Consequential Amendments.)
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 20, line 28, at the end, to insert:

  ''The Metropolitan Police Act, 1886 (49 & 50 Vict.C. 22)

  In Section two, for the words "purchase and" there shall be substituted the words" purchase by agreement, or if so authorised by the Minister of Health, compulsorily, or."

  In Section four, Subsections(1)to(10) shall cease to have effect; and in Subsection (11) after the word "Act" there shall be inserted the words "and of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946," after the word" shall "where it first occurs there shall be inserted the words" with the necessary modifications," and for the words from "save that the provisions" to "Parliament" there shall be substituted the words "and where an order authorising the compulsory purchase under this Act of any such land has come into operation "."

  This is very largely consequential upon the Amendment which I moved some time ago to extend the powers of compulsory purchase to the receiver of the Metropolitan Police. This Amendment assimilates the words of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1886, with respect to the purchase of land in consequence of that Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Consequential Amendments made.
  The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 25, line 6, column 2, after "Sections," to insert "thirty-two and."
  This Amendment is designed to secure that Section 32 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1925, shall not apply where the compulsory purchase is for purposes of Part III of that Act. In any such case, the provisions of the Bill should apply to the exclusion of those of the Housing Acts.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 29, line 12, column 2, at the beginning, to insert:
  " In Section sixty-nine, for Subsections (2) and (3) there shall be substituted the following Subsections:
  (2)The county council or a borough council may acquire by agreement any land for the purposes of this Part of this Act, and the county council may acquire any land for those purposes compulsorily if so authorised by the Minister of Health.
  (3)In the last foregoing Subsection the expression ' land ' includes any right or easement in or over land.
  (4)In relation to the acquisition by agreement of any land for the purposes of this Part of this Act the Lands Clauses Acts (except the provisions thereof with respect to the purchase and taking of land otherwise than by agreement) shall be incorporated with this Act; and

  (a)the provisions of the said Acts so incorporated which would be applicable in the case of a purchase of land shall be applicable in the case of a purchase of a right or easement in or over land; and

  (b)for the purposes of this Part of this Act the expression ' the promoters of the undertaking,' wherever used in the Lands Clauses Acts, shall be construed as meaning the county council or the borough council, as the case may be."

  This Amendment is necessary in order to bring the procedure for the compulsory purchase of land in Section 69 of the Public Health (London) Act into line with Clause 1 of the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 32, line 11, to leave out "paragraph," and to insert "Section."
  This Amendment is largely drafting. In the Water Act, 1945, the divisions are called "Sections" and not "paragraphs." That is the reason we make the alteration.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 32, line 12, leave out "sub-paragraph," and insert" Subsection."— [Mr. Key.)
  The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 32, line 51, at the end, to insert:

  "The Water (Scotland) Act, 1946 (9 & 10 Geo. 6. c.)

  In relation to local water authorities, the Act shall be amended as follows: In section twenty, in subsection (4) the words "by means of a compulsory purchase order made by them and confirmed," and subsections (5) to (8) shall cease to have effect, and in subsection (9) for the words "to acquire by a compulsory purchase order made "there shall be substituted the words" to purchase compulsorily."

  The Second Schedule shall cease to have effect.

  In the Fourth Schedule, in section 7, in subsection (1) the words "by means of a compulsory purchase order made by the undertakers and confirmed" shall cease to have effect, for the reference to the Second Schedule there shall be substituted a reference to this Act, and the words "order made "shall cease to have effect."

  This Amendment relates to the Water (Scotland) Act and is designed to bring the procedure under that Act into line with the present Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  FIFTH SCHEDULE (Enactments Repealed.)
  Amendment made: In page 33, line 7, at the end, insert:

  " 49 and 50 Vict. c. 22.

  The Metropolitan Police Act. 1886.

  In section four, subsections (1) to (10)."

  — [The Lord Advocate.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  9.16 p.m.
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: I think it would be improper if we were to allow a Bill of this character, which has occupied so much time and labour, to go from us to another place without a few words, if not of commendation, at least of criticism and of hope that, in another place, something may be done by the Government to improve it. I must confess that during its Committee stage a great deal has happened to the Bill which has improved it;
  488
  it has emerged from that stage very much better than it entered it, and in that regard I cannot refrain from paying my tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary, not only for his conduct of the Bill but also for the very satisfactory way in which he has fulfilled the undertakings which he gave in Committee, and as a result of which we withdrew certain Amendments. It has all been a very fine piece of work, and I am glad to acknowledge it.
  The Bill in its present state is in two parts. Clause 1 is a very useful piece of codification, and an expert piece of draftsmanship. No doubt it was well worth doing. As the House is aware, my objection to the Bill, and that of my hon. Friends, is centred entirely on Clause 2 and its relevant Schedules. I am bound to say, before we part with the Bill, that I believe the Government have made a mistake in resorting to this form of procedure for the acquisition of land. I say it more in sorrow than in anger, because the Bill has now reached its penultimate stage, and I do not intend to occupy the House with the detailed arguments against it. The stark fact remains that the Government have found it necessary to dispense with what has always been considered in the past an essential safeguard in all these questions of acquiring land, namely, allowing the man whose land is to be acquired, or whose possession is to be disturbed, the right to be heard in public in defence of his own view. The Government have done that on the score of speed, but I venture to say that the gain of speed is very trivial when everything is worked out. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) showed, in the course of the Debate, that the gain in speed by dropping this safeguard to the individual is likely to be a very small and poor one.
  In these days one cannot regard any whittling away of the individual's right to appear and to be heard with equanimity. I have noticed in the course of the discussions on this Bill, and on previous discussions on cognate topics in which I have been engaged in the past year or two, a certain impatience in the minds of some hon. Members opposite with any attempt whatsoever to secure that the process of acquiring land compulsorily is conducted with some degree at least of deliberation and consideration for the other side. I find too prevalent a mood in which hon. Members opposite tend to say, "The

  489
  local government authority wants this land, why should they not have it? "It is a sort of mood that I think is very dangerous, because it implies, in the subconscious minds of those who use that sort of doctrine, the idea that the Government is always right The whole essence of democracy is that the Government are frequently wrong I am sure no one would agree with that more than the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), because he is in a very small minority, and yet he claims that democracy gives him the right to be heard in his own defence and in his own case. It is a bad bargain to sacrifice the old bulwark of democracy, this right of the individual to be heard against the State, if necessary, for a very trivial and a very illusory gain in speed.
  Mr. Gallacher: If he is an honest individual.
  Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member and I differ, perhaps, in our estimation of the extent to which honesty is prevalent in this country. I think he thinks it is centred in a very small coterie of which he is a member. I hold the view that the people of this country deserve to be treated as honest men, and that the liberty given to them is not abused.
  I believe this is a retrograde step. It is no excuse for the Government to say they are doing this with the best of intentions. Every tyrant who ever cumbered the earth started off with the best of intentions. I am sure the Government will come to the realisation that they have got very little by sacrificing a great deal. Is this gain in efficiency so very great? Mere speed is not always efficiency. One requires that the job should be done not only quickly, but well, and that justice should be done. I am bound to say that this procedure for acquiring land without any public inquiry, without giving a man the right to be heard, seems to me to be very dangerous from the point of view of the proper use of our land.
  I was here on the Second Reading Debate, and the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Town and Country Planning wound it up with a very eloquent speech. He said a thing which struck me, and which I can bear out from my own experience. He said that for an upright and conscientious Minister there was no more difficult task that fell to the lot of a Minister than that of deciding appeals in dis-
  490
  puted cases. It is the sort of responsibility of which no one else can relieve him. He has to do the best he can on the evidence before him. But when one has an inquiry, as we have had hitherto, the Minister has all the information on which to come to a conclusion; not only has he evidence on both sides, but the witnesses on both sides who have been cross-examined. The Minister, faced with the difficult task Parliament has cast upon him of deciding disputed cases on appeal, had that much assistance, at least, until this unhappy innovation. I think decisions will frequently be made in consequence of this innovation as to the use of the land that will be sudden, rash and haphazard.
  I do not think we make for efficiency in this free society if we leave the people with whom we are dealing with a sense of grievance. Very often specious proposals are put before us for this or that short cut to the millenium. One has to learn that one is dealing with human beings, and that they do not, perhaps, see eye to eye with what the executive Government say is in their best interest. They will go along with us on one condition, that we let them have their say, that they can talk openly before their friends, and have the matter inquired into in a spirit of fair play and impartiality. If this country is to be efficiently governed, it is necessary that it should be governed in direct accord with its own temperament and inherited political wisdom, and for that reason, I think the position in regard to Clause 2 represents an unhappy and retrograde step.
  9.25 p.m.
  Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison), I have consistently, throughout the proceedings on this Bill, denounced the hardship and arbitrary procedure of Clause 2, which is introduced into the machinery of compulsory acquisition of land. I have not, of course, always been able to equal the richness of his eloquence on these matters, but I have, at any rate, been equally sincere in denunciation of this new feature in our machinery. Like him, I acknowledge that the Bill is better on its Third Reading than it was when originally introduced in this House. These concessions have been wrung out of the Government, who, like Pharaoh, hardened their hearts against any response to our gentle pressure, and

  491
  the logic of our case. Like my right hon. Friend, I pay tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary. He has been a Casabianca in the Government team, deserted by his Minister and by his colleagues. Nevertheless, he has more or less remained afloat amid the difficulties through which he alone has had to steer the Government barque.
  I will not try to add anything to what my right hon. Friend has said in regard to Clause 2. Clause 2 is a procedure from which I believe the democratic feelings of this country will revolt. It is a procedure more suited to the bureaucratic concepts of a totalitarian régime, and the only comfort we can take to ourselves at this stage, is that this Bill is limited in its operation to five years, and that when that time arrives we shall, fortunately, no doubt, have a different Government. I wish to make reference to the Clause 1 procedure, which my right hon. Friend has not seen fit to mention. Clause 1 procedure is a consolidating procedure It lacks the peculiarly odious features of the new Clause 2 procedure. I say now, as I said on Second Reading, that it is an unhappy thing that we should be asked to standardise an unsatisfactory procedure for the compulsory acquisition of land. I know that there is a tendency on the part of those with large majorities to think that we have arrived at a state of near perfection, but in regard to the machinery for the compulsory acquisition of land, we are far from any state of perfection. Far better would it be, rather than standardise the procedure, to make an objective and dispassionate inquiry into the whole machinery for the compulsory acquisition of land. I hope that the passage of this Bill, passed as it will be by the cohorts of the janissaries opposite, will not be thought by this Government to be incompatible with the undertaking of such an objective and dispassionate inquiry into the whole machinery, and that at no distant date we may be able to standardise a procedure wholly in keeping with the needs of the community at this time.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. Gallacher: I want to reply to the request made by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) that I should give my views on this Bill. I am only sorry that the Bill does not go the full length. We have to ask for the pro-
  492
  vision of land for houses and of land for agriculture, and in order to ensure that, I would have had the Bill take over all the land. I would not have left the landlord with sufficient land to provide him with a decent burial.
  9.31 p.m.
  Mr. Kenton: I wish to make a few brief remarks about Clause 2 procedure, and to make a plea to the Minister to ensure that his Department uses it mercifully. The people who own the land of this country today are not the robbers which we so often hear about. Many are smallholders who have bought their own smallholdings. In my own constituency there are only a handful of people who can be called fair-sized landowners, and there are several hundreds who own their own smallholdings. If Clause 2 procedure is used too harshly it will not be used against the so-called land robbers; it will be used against the people who are perhaps, in many cases, even more humble than those who sit on the Benches opposite.
  9.33 P.m.
  Mr. Turton: I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that nine days in Committee have changed the child which he saw last on the Second Reading and which he sees now, at this late stage before the conclusion of the Third Reading, very materially. The Minister, who absented himself throughout most of the proceedings of the Committee, described our Amendments as frivolous. We have got some greater safeguards into this Bill as a result. I, for one, am very pleased with the improvements that have been made in the Bill. I am, however, still worried over the question of the use of agricultural land, not so much by any omission in Clause 2, but as to how Clause 2 will be administered. If the Minister of Health and the Minister of War Transport are to take agricultural land against the advice of the Minister of Agriculture, under the quick procedure of Clause 2, it will be to the disadvantage of agriculture. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) made a brief intervention into this Debate. I noticed that he has now changed his agriculture policy. Two years ago, at my invitation, he gave me a copy of the Communist policy on agriculture. I thought that it was very Conservative,

  493
  and I told him so. I gather that he has now changed his policy.
  I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that the Minister of Agriculture will, at all times, be consulted in the taking of any agricultural land under Clause 2. It is vital that we should not lose more of our food producing land at the present time, and during the next five years. The Service Departments have taken away, for aerodromes and Army training grounds, many acres of land It is very important that the activities of these three Departments should not further diminish the amount of land. May I end my speech by referring to what some might think is a minor point, but to which I attach importance as I know other people do who love the English language. The Minister has brought in this Bill which is described as the "Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Bill." I did not know that one could have two nouns together, and use one as an adjective. Many grammarians in this country are very perturbed about this point.
  Mr. Speaker: I do not think an Amendment that was not selected comes within the Third Reading.
  Mr. Turton: I was not going into details, but I thought it would be in Order for me to comment on the Title of the Bill, and to suggest that in another place the time and the opportunity would be taken to have this Bill framed in English grammar. I bow to your Ruling and I hope I have made my point.
  9.37 p.m.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: There may have been a tendency in the last few minutes for hon. Members opposite to imagine that this Bill is of no importance whereas it is of great importance. I do not wish to refer to any words which the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) used, but rather to the attitude of hon. Members opposite who greeted his remarks with such kindness. I was one of those who refrained from voting against the Bill on Second Reading, taking the rather long odds that it would be wrong if we were to deny the opportunity of trying to make the Bill something which would help to produce houses more quickly by the more rapid acquisition of land where that was necessary. I remember saying on that occasion that I hoped that the Bill would
  494
  be licked into shape in Committee. I can only say that I was not a Member of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill, and, therefore, my observations were from a remote position. If any licking was done it must have been done at a very great distance from the Minister of Health, because I believe he did not find it possible to attend this Committee once.
  Mr. Gallacher: How does the hon. Member know?
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: Looking at it from a distance., however, I could see a gradual improvement of the Measure as it passed through the Committee and Report stages. I feel that now we have a vastly improved Measure. It has in it a great many safeguards, which were not in it originally and which the Minister must agree should have been in it. It has one grave weakness and that is in connection with the compulsory acquisition of land. There is an abnormal procedure, in that the person who thinks he is wronged has no real opportunity of making his voice heard. That point was dealt with by the right hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. Morrison) and I do not wish to waste the time of the House in referring to it at any length. There is one point which he did not mention and to which I attach very great importance. It is all very well for Parliament to pretend that in a time of emergency— and this is a time of emergency as regards housing— we should adopt emergency measures such as we have in this Bill. But I would ask whether we are right in forgetting that the whole prestige of Ministers of the Crown is involved in this sort of procedure. Something which we sometimes overlook is that we run the risk of undermining any decision a Minister may make, if powers such as these are not used with the greatest possible care assuming that those powers do not give the right to the individual to frame his case and do not allow the individual to make his voice heard. I feel that it is our duty as back benchers of this House not only to safeguard the position of Parliament in these matters, but in safeguarding the position of Parliament to assure that Ministers of the Crown do not put themselves in a position where their prestige will be undermined, and through them the prestige of Parliament. It is a very difficult point to put, and I know I am putting it extremely badly

  495
  because I am not a lawyer. [HON.MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I know there are a lot of lawyers on the opposite side of the House, a lot of people who know everything about everything—
  Mr. Speaker: I was not quite clear myself. I rather thought that the hon. Gentleman was commenting on an omission from the Bill. If so, that is out of Order on the Third Reading.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: Far from wishing to comment on an omission from the Bill, Sir, I was commenting on certain powers which are inherent in the Bill. I was trying to point out that when a Minister of the Crown assumes to himself, as he must, under this Bill, certain rights and powers which deny the right of an individual to state his case, a special responsibility rests upon that Minister. I think that is very much in the Bill. If that responsibility is laid particularly on the Minister, then I think it is the right hon. Gentleman's duty now to give us a very solemn assurance that those special emergency powers will not be abused—
  Mr. Gallacher: We give it.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I know the hon. Member gives it, but he is not the Minister yet. I think we are entitled, as we did not have the benefit of any direct assurance from the Minister on the Committee stage, to a very definite and solemn assurance from him now that he will not do anything which will undermine the prestige of Ministers of the Crown.
  9.43 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Certain concessions have been made by the Government which remove from the speedy procedure the acquisition of dwelling houses, but powers are being taken now by the Minister to apply that speedy procedure to the acquisition of shops and business premises. I should be out of Order if I dwelt on that at length, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will realise that greater harm and suffering will take place if that is done than if he takes a man's home. I therefore hope he will give us an assurance that this harsh procedure will only be used, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, in exceptional cases, where the national interest demands it.
  9.44 p.m.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I am exceedingly obliged to the
  496
  right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) for the very warm tribute he paid to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. That tribute is a complete answer to the reproaches which have been heard from Members opposite that I did not put in an appearance during the Committee stage of this Bill upstairs. The fact is, that I have the utmost confidence in my hon. Friend, because I know he has great experience and sagacity. That being so, there was no reason at all for my presence in the Standing Committee. Indeed, I had a great deal of other work to do, and I should like to remind hon. Members who do not appear to have had much Parliamentary experience that it is quite customary and, I think, desirable for Ministers to allow the hon. Gentleman who is the Parliamentary Secretary to participate to the full in the conduct of legislation.
  I want to say one or two words about what has been said by hon. and right hon. Members opposite. One hon. Member suggested that there was something wrong with the title of the Bill because we had brought two nouns together so as to make the first into an adjective and thus offended certain elements of good English. I think he has forgotten that the science of semantics teaches us that, in English particularly, the conversion of nouns into adjectives enriches our language on very many occasions, and I can think of very many nouns converted into adjectives which I would be very much out of Order in mentioning at the present time. I should like to repeat one thing in case it has not been made sufficiently clear before. It is, that before land is acquired for housing purposes both the Ministry of Town and Country Planning and the Ministry of Agriculture have to approve the site. That procedure has been simplified by the Ministry of Health because they now undertake the responsibility, at the original level, of obtaining the consent of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning and the Ministry of Agriculture. This relieves the local authority of the necessity of carrying on negotiations with three Government Departments, because the Ministry of Health alone is the Department with which the local authority is in correspondence over the acquisition of land. It does not follow that the other two Departments are not consulted In point of fact they

  497
  always are consulted, and land would not be acquired for housing purposes unless it was on good town planning lines. I could not agree more with the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) that we do not wish to lose much more good agricultural land. We have lost a great deal already and it is very necessary that in all circumstances we should build on it only if (here is no other land available in the area. I hope that this assurance will satisfy hon. Members on that point.
  I noted an ominous undercurrent in some speeches One or two almost incited another place to scrutinise this Bili very closely. I understand that the machinery has already been adapted very considerably, and hon. Members claim that it has been improved. The only principle in the Bill which is the cause of contention is the speedy acquisition under Clause 2. I do hope that the incitements I have heard will not be taken in another place as an invitation to do anything at all about the speedy acquisition under Clause 2. I can assure hon. Members that that would be a very serious matter indeed.
  Mr. Quintin Hogg: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman is surely making animadversions on possibilities in another place, which are out of Order.
  Mr. Speaker: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman had gone so far as that. I think the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) saw that I myself was becoming restive.
  Mr. Bevan: I had already reached the frontiers, and I was well aware of it, but it is very necessary for me to reply to some of the statements that have been made by hon. Members opposite. I would remind them that we require these powers very quickly, if only for the purpose of providing cottages this year in the agricultural areas. I have made this point before, and I repeat it with solemnity. The arrangements made by the Government for supplementing the traditional housing resources in the rural areas mean that we are going to provide a type of house which does not demand skilled building labour and does not call
  498
  upon building materials, such as bricks, which are in short supply. Therefore, in order that those houses may be provided quickly, smoothly and inexpensively, it is necessary that sites be prepared for them well before the houses themselves are ready. To do this, land needs to be acquired and to be cleared. Any delay in this Bill being passed into law will mean the sacrifice of large numbers of houses in rural England this year. If hon. Members wish to take the responsibility for that upon their shoulders, they may do so, but I most solemnly warn them that the needs of the agricultural population should be set against the needs of certain landlords who want to argue about the acquisition of the land. I most seriously ask that hon. Members should not do anything which would further delay the passing of this Bill into law.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: What can the right hon. Gentleman do about it?
  Mr. Bevan: Our resources, like the hon. and gallant Member's interruptions, are infinite. As I have pointed out, the rural authorities are just the authorities which have not got land in their possession to any considerable extent. If hon. Members will look at the reports, they will see that local authorities have a great number of acres of land in their possession, but they are not the rural authorities. The rural authorities did little house building between the wars, and consequently, they did not acquire land, and therefore, they have not sufficient land at the moment for housing purposes. If they acquired the land under the normal compulsory purchase procedure, they would not get it quickly enough to build houses this year. As hon. Members know, I have addressed local authority conferences in many parts of the country, and everywhere I have been the representatives of the rural authorities welcomed this Bill, because it will be for them an invaluable instrument in acqu7iring the land they need so urgently for housing purposes. Therefore, I hope that, with those further considerations before them, hon. Members will now give the Third Reading to the Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  SUPPLIES AND SERVICES (TRANSITIONAL POWERS) (FOOD)
  9.55 p.m.
  Mr. C. S. Taylor: I beg to move:
  "That the Order, dated 5th March, 1946, amending the Flour Order, 1945 (S.R. & O., 1946, No. 312, a copy of which amending Order was presented on 11th March, be annulled."
  I would like at the outset to say how sorry we are that "Big Ben" is not with us tonight. [Interruption.] The remark is quite a friendly and polite one. Any how, I am very sorry that the Minister of Food is not here tonight. We are assured that the Minister of Food has full confidence in the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, who is to reply. I wish to draw attention to the fact that on 20th February, 1946, an Order was produced by the Ministry of Food— No. 265— and a very few days afterwards, the Ministry of Food produced another Order dated 5th March amending the Flour Order, 1945. The Ministry of Food might have made up their minds about this matter on 20th February when they produced the first Order, instead of wasting goodness knows how many tons of paper in producing Order No. 265 before they produced Order No. 312, which complettly amended Order No. 265. Here I want to ask the Law Officers of the Crown a question on one small technical point. Order No. 265 was dated 20th February and some of my hon. Friends and myself put down a Prayer against that Order, because we thought it needed a certain amount of explanation. When we had put down the Prayer, the Ministry of Food produced Order No. 312. You, Mr. Speaker, ruled that our Prayer against Order No. 265 would be out of Order because No. 312, although it did not nullify Order No. 265, did completely change it. I admit it may be rather amusing, but I would like to know what would happen, supposing the Ministry of Food produced Order No. 265; then directly my hon. Friends and I put down a Prayer against No. 265, they produced Order No. 312, which would make a Prayer against No. 265 impossible due to your Ruling, Sir; and if when we put down a Prayer against No. 312, another Order was produced— say No. 350— and
  so on ad infinitum—
  Mr. Speaker: My recollection is that the hon. Member's Prayer on Order No. 265 came after Order 312 had been laid. Therefore, there can be no complaint. Points of Order which ought to have been raised at the time Order No. 265 was laid cannot be raised on this Order now, when we are discussing only Order No. 312.
  Mr. Taylor: I very humbly bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and will not mention it further except to say, if I am in Order in doing so, that I was not in my place when Order No. 265. was due to come up because I understood it was to be ruled out of Order. But I do feel, if I may submit this point, that this requires a certain amount of consideration by the Law Officers of the Crown and that an assurance should be given to the House that tactics of this sort will not be adopted to rule out all Prayers against Orders when they are submitted.
  Now I come to the substance of the Order in question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to find a certain amount of support from hon. Gentlemen opposite. In the first place the two Orders Nos. 265 and 312 will increase the wheat extraction from 80 per cent, to 85 per cent. I am a layman; I do not know anything about milling whatsoever, and I know very little about flour, but I feel that, before we allow such an Order to go through, we should know one or two things about it. In the first place I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if she can tell us what difference there will be in the nutritional value of the bread. I know that in wartime the wheat extraction was up to 85 per cent That was a necessity, and I am asking now whether there is an absolute necessity [An HON. MEMBER: "Of course there is."] Wait a moment. I am asking, also, whether the Government are trying to teach the mothers and the fathers and the children of this country what sort of bread they ought to eat. If it is only that, I suggest that we should not teach people in this country what bread they ought to eat. They should be given what bread they like, whether white or brown. I know that other hon. Members will deal with this point in greater detail, if they are called by you, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to know what effect it will have on the production of shell eggs. '[Laughter.] Certainly. The hon. Lady

  501
  the Member for North Bradford (Mrs.Nichol) may laugh—
  Mr. Speaker: Eggs do not come into this Order at all.
  Mr. Taylor: With the greatest respect, Sir, if the wheat extraction is raised, there will be less chicken food available for those who—
  Mr. Speaker: It is a very ingenious argument but I cannot consider it as part of this Order.
  Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fax: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. With the greatest respect, Sir, surely it is very important that we should know that, if we have greater extraction, there will be less of the offals on which we feed pigs and chickens in this country. It is a matter of the greatest importance, and I suggest that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Taylor) is right in saying that it affects eggs.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member must remember that this Order only amends another Order which dealt with this to a minor degree, and the point should have been raised then, not now.
  Mr. Taylor: With great respect. Sir, this Order and the preceding Order increase the wheat extraction from 80 per cent, to 85 per cent, and that, in my very humble submission, will make a vast amount of difference; or, if it does not make a vast amount of difference, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to say what difference it will make to the chicken farmer who is hoping to produce shell eggs. Obviously, because of the wheat extraction, he will not get the same amount of offals and chicken food to enable him to produce shell eggs. But I do not go into that matter further because I understand, that, with your permission, Sir, other hon. Members will deal with it later.
  I come now to the Order 312. Paragraph 1 (a, 3) says that the flour shall contain
  " such other ingredients as the Minister may have authorised to be ingredients of National Flour."
  I have consulted the original Order, No. 1, 1945, and have tried to find what other ingredients are permitted in that flour. I should like an assurance that they are not harmful ingredients.
  502
  [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh; I am surprised that hon. Ladies laugh: They are housewives, and this matter affects housewives all over the country. As a father of three sons I know that that is so. I would like to know what other ingredients are in the flour.
  My next question refers to "W" flour. This is described in the Order as:
  " Any flour which, by the terms of a licence granted under Article 3 of this Order "—
  the main Order, No. 1, 1945—
  " authorising the production of the flour is authorised to be so described."
  I have looked through the No. I Order. I have found a description of "M" flour and of "D" flour. On page 5 there is a reference to "W" flour, but it does not say what this flour is. I would remind hon. Members that this House passed an order relating to this flour, but I challenge any hon. Member, apart from the Parliamentary Secretary, who will know the answer, to tell me what "W flour "means. If any hon. Member would like to interrupt me to tell me what "W" flour is, I am prepared to give way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Wallflower."] Before we pass this Order which deals with "W" flour and makes considerable reference to it, we ought to know what that flour is used for, and all about it. The Order also deals in part with what we have been led to believe is the world wheat shortage. I would ask whether it is a fact that the world is short of 7,500,000 tons of wheat. Let us have it stated now. Obviously the Order and the increase in the wheat extraction are due to the world wheat shortage. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the Minister of Food has looked into the so-called hidden wheat reserves in the Argentine.
  Mr. Speaker: We cannot discuss the wheat situation now. It was described in the White Paper, and it is outside the scope of the Order.
  Mr. De la Bère: Is it not a fact that the Ministry of Food are absolutely uninformed about the world food position?
  Mr. Taylor: With greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I do not believe the Order would have been produced but for what has been announced as the world

  503
  wheat shortage. I cannot believe that the people of this country would have had this Order imposed on them, had it not been that there is reputed to be a world food shortage; and I was trying to suggest to the Ministry of Food why this Order was necessary. I feel that if the rumours about the Argentine wheat situation are true—
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot discuss the Argentine wheat situation on this Order. There may be a shortage, but the hon. Member cannot discuss what is happening in the Argentine, or the United States, on this Order.
  Mr. Taylor: Would I be in Order in referring to the world wheat shortage?
  Mr. Speaker: It would be in Order, to refer to the world wheat shortage, but not to any remedies.
  Mr. Taylor: I was trying to suggest to the House why this Order should not be necessary and it occurred to my humble mind that if there were wheat in other arts of the world which could be imported to this country, such an Order as this Order 312 would not be necessary. I suggest to hon. Members opposite who have shown a certain amount of hilarity on this subject, that not one of them has read the Order. Before they show such hilarity, or vote against this Motion, or mock those who are trying to raise a matter of substance, they should study the Order, and realise exactly what it does. If tonight the Prayer is not successful, the Order becomes an Act of Parliament affecting all their constituents. I hope that rather than showing further hilarity, they will consider the speeches made by my hon. Friend and myself before giving judgment on such a serious matter.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Spence: I beg to second the Motion.
  This Order has been brought about by the world cereal position and, to my mind, by the way in which the world cereal position has been handled in this country. The purpose of the Order is to raise the wheat extraction rate from 80 per cent, to 85 per cent. That comes into effect as from 10th March. I wish to direct the attention of the House to the fact that this will affect not only the amount of wheat in the flour, but also the amount of animal feeding stuffs in
  504
  the form of offal, which is of enormous importance to our food production. It is not only the matter of flour we have to consider. The raising of the rate of extraction from 80 to 85 per cent. will have the effect of producing from any given quantity of wheat 6½ per cent. more flour than we had before, but it will have the effect of decreasing animal feeding stuffs by 25 per cent. I will explain that by saying that in round figures we mill 100,000 tons of flour a week to provide our bread. Before this Order came into effect that produced 80,000 tons of flour and 20,000 tons of offal. When the Order comes into effect 85,000 tons of flour and 15,000 tons of offal will be produced, a drop from 20,000 tons to 15,000 tons, which is a reduction of 25 per cent.
  That is a serious matter, and it will have repercussions on poultry keeping and livestock throughout the country. I ask the Minister whether every step has already been taken to rectify that position? Have we gone to Canada and the other wheat producing countries and ascertained what the possibilities were of importing offal so that we can maintain or even increase our annual foodstuffs in this country? Secondly, have we considered every possible alternative, such as maize, etc., so as to try to keep up our total tonnage of animal foodstuffs within the country? It is a vital point which concerns the country deeply.
  Suddenly, within a month, our extraction rate of flour has been boosted by 5 per cent. I wish to draw attention to the fact that when these shortages were foreshadowed by those who studied statistics, no steps were taken to raise the wheat production in this country. The whole of the autumn sowing season was lost. The Minister of Food talked to the farmers and told them there would be no direction regarding cereals. This went on until suddenly, on 5th February, the Minister had to announce to the House the grave position in which we in this country find ourselves. There was a hurried hotch potch of an agricultural programme to plough in three-year ley and raise wheat production. All the good sowing time in the autumn was lost, due to lack of foresight. My objection to this Order is that it would not have been necessary had the facts been studied as they should have been. The Minister informed the House that we had lost the rice crop from India,

  505
  which was a valuable cereal to this country, due to the failure of the rains. He told us that on 5th February, but the monsoon rains in India which produce the rice crop come at the end of August, and he should have been informed what the position was long before then.
  I ask the hon. Lady for an assurance that every step has been taken to see that this position in which we find ourselves today, which is now unavoidable, is mitigated as far as it can be, especially in relation to the livestock and poultry industry. The House must remember that, even in the worst days of the war, we were only forced to go to 85 per cent, extraction, and at no time did we ever produce for this country anything but a wholly cereal loaf. I feel that this Order has been put before the House in a hurry. I think it is obvious that is so, because these two Orders, 265 and 312, have followed each other so closely. It is obvious a hurried decision has been made. I feel the Minister has been living from hand to mouth, in a fool's paradise and has not been studying the world position of cereals. That is the reason why the Order has had to come before us, and why the extraction has to be raised to 85 per cent, from 80 per cent, in the short time of one month. That was never done in war time.
  I would also mention the point that during the war, even in the worst times of the submarine campaign, we never had less than 14 weeks' wheat supply in this country. I hope the hon. Lady will tell us what the position is today. How does our larder stand? Have we got 14 weeks' supply today? What adulteration will have to be introduced to keep up our bread supply, to keep up the supplies we need? I would refer to paragraph 1 (3) of the Order which gives the Minister the right, or the discretion, to direct what dilution or adulteration shall go into our flour. The Order lays down a standard for national flour but it does not lay down a standard for national bread. It directs what the wheaten content of flour shall be— milled at 85 per cent, extraction— but the Minister is given powers to add other ingredients as he may decide. I think we are entitled to know what those ingredients are going to be and what is the percentage that is going to be added, because that will be a reflection of the position of our stocks
  506
  and supplies. Oats, rye and barley were all used during the war. If I may suggest it to the hon. Lady, there is a very profitable use to which barley could be put instead of its being put into the loaf today, if we could afford it. In adulterating the loaf we have to realise what we are doing. If we put in oats and barley and rye, the normal process of fermentation when we put yeast into the dough does not act as it should. As we know from our own experience in the dining room, the crisp and crackling crust is now reduced to a sodden soggy slice. I ask the hon. Lady to tell us what is the position of our wheat stocks today, and what is the intention of the Minister regarding both the percentage of adulteration in our loaf in the future, and materials which are to be used.
  10.24 P.m.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I do not want to detain the House long and, unlike some Members who say that, I mean it. I support the Prayer for the annulment of this Order and the point I want to emphasise is that of the effect on the poultry farmer. In my constituency, and I fancy in most rural or semi-rural constituencies, the poultry farmer represents a large and valuable part of the community. On 5th December last, they were informed that they could keep up to one-third of the prewar stocks of poultry, as opposed to the one-sixth which they were allowed before that.
  Mr. Speaker: I am afraid we cannot discuss poultry stocks. We must not discuss poultry in general at the moment; we can discuss only questions which are covered by the new Order and how poultry stocks are going to be affected by it.
  Sir Wavell Wakefield (St. Marylebone): This Order, No. 312, is headed "Food (Flour, Feeding stuffs)." Surely, Mr. Speaker, that does suggest that a reasonable latitude might be allowed in this discussion?
  Mr. Speaker: That is the heading, but it is not in the Order, and we must deal only with what is in the Order. I am clear, in my own mind, about it, and that is quite definitely the position.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, if I am in Order what the effect of this Order will De. Its effect will be very serious on poultry farmers, and I hope some consideration will De given to them. They will suffer very severely under this Order. I am all for the higher percentage of extraction, from one point of view, but. if it is a matter of having feeding stuffs as well as flour, there should be a proper proportion between the two. I feel that poultry fanners have been let down by a totally false promise which, two months after it was made was withdrawn.
  10.27 P.m.
  Mr. Stokes: The mover of this Motion said that this has been done in a hurry. [Interruption.] Well, the seconder said it had been done in a hurry.
  Mr. De la Bère: And in a muddle.
  Mr. Stokes: Perhaps hon. Members on the other side will carry their minds back to the way in which the wheat extraction percentage was altered with the previous case, when, with a complete disregard of the recommendations of the official advisory committee, the wheat extraction rate was put down from 85 to 80 per cent., to the disadvantage of the consuming public of this country.
  Mr. C. S. Taylor: The last case was on 20th February, 1944. The hon. Member obviously has not been reading his Orders in Council.
  Mr. Stokes: I know the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Taylor) is a good debater, but that is only a debating point. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that I am referring to that disreputable reduction made last year, when, to the disadvantage of the whole community, the percentage was lowered from 85 to 80. What is happening now? With due regard to the necessities of the poultry-interests of this country— [Laughter]. Certainly. The Minister of Food, in his discretion and with the support of all the recognised authorities of the country, decided, quite rightly, that the wheat extraction rate should be put up again from 80 to 82 per cent., and again to 85 per cent., and he calculated, too, what would be the effect on the poultry farmer and
  508
  the effect on the feeding stuffs situation of the country.
  Captain Sir Peter Macdonald: On a point of Order. The hon. Member is referring to a wartime measure introduced for wartime purposes. Our contention is that the war is over.
  Mr. Speaker: That the war is over is not a point of Order.
  Mr. Stokes: So far as I can make out, the war is not over, as indicated by the reaction of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, because the state of things which they imagine should come into being when peace breaks out is quite different from what we imagine should happen. We now have people on the Front Bench who have regard to the interests of the population. [HON. MEMBERS: "Houses and coal."] I am not talking about coal. That is for another occasion. I recognise that the medical authorities in this country have said, despite the disadvantage to the poultry— and I regret very much having to bring in the hens and chickens— that it will be to the advantage of the people of this country as a whole, to put up the wheat extraction again to 85 per cent. or even higher. Not only will it be of benefit to the people of this country; it will be to the advantage of the starving millions across the water, and that is unanswerable. We know that is a fact and we know that the health of the country was better in wartime, which was due to the high extraction of wheat. I trust, therefore, that the House will with no uncertain voice reject the Prayer that has been moved tonight.
  10.31 p.m.
  Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: I rise to support the Prayer against this Order and I hope I shall be in Order if I follow your last Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and discuss how far the poultry stocks will be affected.
  Mr. Speaker: What I said was that the Parliamentary Secretary had been asked a question about poultry, and she could answer it, but that we were not discussing that subject.
  Sir G. Fox: I take it I would be in Order in asking the Parliamentary Secretary to say how the poultry stocks will be affected. The other day I directed a

  509
  Parliamentary Question asking for this information, and I was told that it was not available at that time. I personally do not mind darker bread, which is what this increased flour extraction means, but I assure the Minister that I am concerned about the fact that the country has been promised more shell eggs by the Minister of Food, and the question that arises is, How can there be more shell eggs if there arc less chickens, and poultry, and less food with which to feed them? I ask the Minister to explain exactly how this Order is going to affect the poultry situation.
  10.33 P.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summer-skill): I think I detected a little confusion on the part of the hon. Member for East bourne (Mr. Taylor) when he moved the Prayer against this Order. I think he suggested that when he put the Prayer against Order No. 265 on the Order Paper last week we deliberately tried to thwart him—
  Mr. Taylor: I never said that.
  Dr. Summerskill: Well, that is how it sounded on this side of the House— that we deliberately tried to thwart him by making Order 312.
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Lady will forgive me, I am sure, if I interrupt to say that I never said that. I was putting forward the hypothetical case of the Ministry producing Order after Order, and thus denying the House the right to make a Prayer against the original Order. I would never accuse the hon. Lady of doing such a dirty trick as producing the Order to thwart hon. Members on this side. I knew that the other Order was made after we had put down our Prayer, but we still wanted to pray against the original Order.
  Dr. Summerskill: I certainly apologise to the hon. Member if I interpreted him wrongly. May I say that perhaps I was wrong in thinking he was confused over that. His confusion arose out of the procedure we are adopting. I want to explain to him that it is the normal procedure to amend a main Order as we did when he made Order No. 265. Then one can make a further amendment and the second amendment revokes the first.
  Mr. Taylor: No.
  Dr. Summerskill: This second Order, No. 312, which we have made, of course, revokes the first.
  Mr. Taylor: May I again interrupt on that point, and ask whether Order No. 265 is now withdrawn, whether it is annulled or whether it is revoked, because it is an important point of procedure? I should like to know whether Order No. 312 washes out Order No. 265?
  Dr. Summerskill: I always thought my diction was clear. The word I used was "revoked."
  Mr. Taylor: What does that mean?
  Dr. Summerskill: Washed out. Although Members opposite have suggested that we have "muddled through," I think I shall be able to explain that we have adopted what is a very necessary procedure in the circumstances. The Order in question came into force on 10th March, and, as I have said, was the second of the two Orders for the purpose of raising the extraction rate from 80 per cent.— the rate prevailing before 24th February— to 85 per cent. The first Order came into force on 24th February, to raise the extraction rate to 82½ per cent.May I recall the events which led up to the making of these Orders, and say that I am sure the House does not want a Debate on the world food situation to night—
  Mr. Stokes: We want it, but we cannot get it.
  Dr. Summerskill: We are shortly to issue a White Paper on the position, and I think it is generally known that my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council promised, a little while ago, that there would be a Debate in the House on the world food situation.
  The decision to increase the extraction rate was announced by the Minister of Food on 5th February, on his return from Washington. He pointed out, at that time, that there was a very grave deficit — about 5,000,000 tons— of wheat. He said that all importing countries had to make heavy sacrifices, and that His Majesty's Government had accepted a reduction of nearly 250,000 tons, in the United Kingdom wheat imports, for the first half of 1946. This reduction could

  511
  not be met out of stocks and it was, therefore, necessary to take steps to make greater use of our wheat supplies for direct human consumption. This could only be done by increasing the extraction rate.
  I want to explain why it was necessary to introduce these two Orders in rapid succession. It was done in order to avoid, so far as possible, a run on stocks, due to a possible desire on the part of the public to stock up with flour of a lower extraction rate. The House knows that flour of a lower extraction rate is of a lighter colour, and more attractive to many people, although its nutritional value is not so high as that of the darker flour. It was decided that no public announcement should be made of the dates on which the new extraction rate should come into operation. The reason for making the change in the two stages was the desirability of avoiding a sudden change in the appearance of the flour. If we had gone suddenly from "near white" to darker flour it would have been unpopular, and the public would not have accepted it as they have accepted the new loaf today. The gradual change has been facilitated by a lower percentage of imported flour, mixed with the home milled flour. That is the simple explanation. If the hon. Member for Eastbourne had come to me, and asked me why the successive Orders had been made, I would have explained to him that it was in the public interest. I am sure he would have been the last person to have wanted a run on flour—
  Mr. Taylor: I did not want information privately, but in this House.
  Dr. Summerskill: I have no desire for a private party with the hon. Gentleman, but I am quite willing to discuss this matter on an intellectual plane, without wasting the time of the House.
  I want the House to realise that the annulment of this Order would have the effect of restoring the 80 per cent. rate of extraction, which would give us no more wheat. Many hon. Members have asked me whether we have made inquiries in every country in the world concerning wheat supplies. I really think that, at this stage of the proceedings, that is a rather frivolous suggestion. Hon. Members know perfectly well that the Minister of Food has been in the United States recently. He was there at Christmas.
  512
  We have had delegations from different countries in different parts of the world who have come to us to discuss the shortage of wheat, and we did everything in our power to increase our wheat stocks before we took this step.
  Mr. De la Bère: Will the hon. Lady allow me? I do not interrupt ladies as a rule. Is it not the fact— I am quite serious about this— that the Ministry of Food is well known not to have the world figures of wheat? Is it not a notorious fact that the Ministry of Food is less informed at the present time than it has ever been in its history? The trade will endorse my statement. I am not. speaking without knowledge. It is a most regrettable and deplorable fact that the Ministry shows this ineptitude at the present time.
  Dr. Summerskill: I am surprised that the hon. Member knows more about the stocks in this country than the Ministry of Food. Perhaps, afterwards, he will tell me what the stocks are—
  Mr. De la Bère: Gladly.
  Dr. Summerskill: And I will tell him if he is correct. I want the House to realise that if this Order were annulled, the result would be a dangerous drain on our stocks, which would rapidly fail below the level necessary to maintain a satisfactory standard of distribution. We have said time after time why we are not prepared to reveal the amount of the stocks. A businessman would not con sider disclosing, while negotiating, what amount of stocks of any commodity he happened to possess. The Ministry of Food to a large extent is a trading concern. I think I have answered—
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Lady, but this is a most important statement. She said no business man would disclose the stocks he held. This has considerable relevance to a Debate which is to take place tomorrow. Will the hon. Lady qualify that statement, which applies only so long as the Ministry of Food is a bulk purchaser?
  Dr. Summerskill: I certainly will not repeat the words which the right hon. Gentleman would like me to repeat. I stand by what I have said.
  Mr. Hudson: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady. She will regret it tomorrow.
  Dr. Summerskill: I want to say a word to those who are concerned with the shortage of feeding stuffs.
  Lord William Scott: Would the hon. Lady deal with adulteration?
  Dr. Summerskill: I propose to answer that specific question in a few moments. This increase of extraction has inflicted considerable hardship on livestock producers, but we have had to choose whether we shall feed human beings in this country, or feed animals. Unfortunately, we are faced with this difficulty. It may mean that milk production, meat production, production of shell eggs, may go down. But we have to face up to that difficulty. It must be borne in mind that the reduction in supplies of animal feeding-stuffs in the United Kingdom is not entirely due to the increase in the extraction rate, but also to our reduced imports of coarse grains. The hon. Member asked me whether we intended to put these coarse grains— oats, barley and rye— into our bread. We cannot say at the moment whether we intend to adulterate the bread any further; it depends upon the world wheat supply. The hon. Member asked me in what other way bread was— I know he did not say "adulterated "; the right word is "fortified "— in what way bread was fortified during the war years. We put a certain proportion of calcium into the bread; whether we shall do so again will depend on the advice of our scientific advisers.
  Mr. C. S. Taylor: Chalk.
  Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman and I do not appear to have the same vocabulary.
  Mr. Taylor: It is ground chalk.
  Dr. Summerskill: I was asked whether the extraction rate of 85 per cent. had a good or bad influence on the nutritional value of the loaf. I, as a doctor, say it is excellent. Another point that the hon. Gentleman was not clear about was what "W flour" means. "W" stands for wholemeal. Farmers are allowed to mill a certain amount of flour for the consumption of their own families and, under the Order, they can mill it at a higher rate than 85 per cent.
  Mr. Taylor: Can the hon. Lady say where we can find a reference to "W flour"?
  Dr. Summerskill: I think the hon. Member will have to take it from me that that is the meaning of the term. He may find it in the original Order. I must confess that I forget the source of my information, I got it from some tome; I will find out exactly the reference and let the hon. Member know.
  Mr. E. P. Smith: Can the hon. Lady assure us that the trade is aware of the meaning of "W flour "? Traders who have to carry out these Orders will have to be aware what flour "means.
  Dr. Summerskill: I can assure the hon. Member that the trade knows it. I think those were the chief questions that were raised. I want the House to realise that this step has been taken deliberately, and that other countries are doing the same thing; many countries have an extraction rate of 90 per cent. some have 100 per cent. The United States are now going up to 82½ per cent. from about 75 per cent. and we find that it is the most useful way, at the moment, of increasing our wheat stocks. Therefore, I hope the House will not assent to the Motion.
  10.48 p.m.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: I apologise for not being present during the early part of the hon. Lady's speech; I would like to know whether, as a result of this Order, bread is to be uniform throughout the country. The Order specifically excludes Canadian flour, and presumably Canadian flour, milled at a considerably lower extraction, is coming and has already come to this country. As, presumably, imports of Canadian flour will continue, the effect will be that there will be a mixture of Canadian flour, milled at a lower extraction, and English flour, milled at a higher extraction. Will it be uniform throughout the country, or will different parts of the country enjoy different mixtures? In other words is the loaf to be darker in some parts of the country than in others. Could the hon. Lady make this point clear?
  Dr. Summerskill: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. Canadian flour is coming over and I believe it is milled at an extraction rate of 72 per cent. We are, of course, using it, with the result

  515
  that the loaf has gradually got darker as I explained to the House. We are hoping to give a uniform loaf throughout the country.
  Mr. Hudson: I asked the question particularly because it will be within the hon. Lady's recollection— or at all events if she asks her officials they will tell her — that that was not always so—
  Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has exhausted his right to speak.
  Mr. Hudson: There is one short point that I should like to make with the leave of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
  10.51 p.m.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston upon Thames): I should be most grateful if the hon. Lady would clear up one point. In the course of her speech she informed the House quite clearly that this Order S.R. & O. No. 312— which annulled, or, as she preferred to put it, "washed out." — [Interruption]. The effect of the hon. Lady's observation was that this Order put out of action— to use a neutral term — S.R. & O. No. 265. I should be most grateful if she would tell the House how that was done. If the hon. Lady will be good enough to look at the S.R. & O. No. 312 she will observe two things. First there is no specific annulment of the previous Order, and secondly, and more significant, if she will look at note (b) of the present Order, referring to previous amendments of the original Order, she will see that the S.R. & 0. No. 265 is actually referred to there. It is surely the case that an Order which annuls a previous Order, will not, even in a foot note, refer to it as an existing Order. There is clearly some confusion here, and the point I should—
  Mr. Speaker: This is a drafting point and has nothing to do with the merits of the Order before the House.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: With very great respect, surely it is in Order on a Motion to annul S.R. & O. No. 312, to submit that the effect of this Order is to leave the position obscure as to previous Orders. I am particularly anxious, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, to make this point as one who shares the view of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr.
  516
  Stokes) that an increased rate of extraction is desirable. The only point I desire to make is that the way in which the Ministry of Food have seen fit to effect this— to my mind admirable— re form, is confused. With great respect to the hon. Lady I submit that it is not quite clear whether the present Order does or does not revoke the previous one. If it is not clear and explicit, then it leaves the law in a state of some con fusion, and having regard to the great public interest and the great public importance—
  Mr. Speaker: I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I explained to him before that I considered that this matter did not affect the merits of the Order before the House. I stated that I considered that it did overrule S.R. & O. No. 265 and therefore he is now challenging my Ruling.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Of course, I bow to your Ruling, Sir. My point is this, that the Parliamentary Secretary, in the hearing of the House, made a perfectly clear statement. It is surely, therefore, in Order for me to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to explain to the House the reasons for the statement that she gave, and that was my sole purpose in rising. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary may be given the opportunity of justifying her observations.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Lady said a moment or two ago that it was her hope and intention to try to have as far as possible a uniform loaf throughout the United Kingdom. Are we to take it that the Order applies to Scotland? Scotland has hitherto had a higher proportion of Canadian flour than other parts of the United Kingdom. As representing an English constituency, I and a number of others would like to hear that the practice is now to be assimilated. I should like reinforcement of that view.
  10.56 p.m.
  Mr. C. S Taylor: I believe I have a right to reply. I would like to say first of all—
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is wrong in thinking that one has a right to reply. There is no right of reply. The Member who moves a Motion of this kind is allowed to make a second speech.
  Mr. Taylor: Thank you very much for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the two Orders were produced within a matter of days, to enable the country to overcome the effect of the change in the colour of the bread. I suggest that we might have better organisation at the Ministry of Food, and have one Order to say that from a certain date flour shall be of such an extraction, and from a certain date onwards another extraction. That would save time, paper and everything else. I commend it to the hon. Lady for consideration by her Department. I must resist the complaint by the hon. Lady about frivolity. There was no frivolity about this whatever. There was no frivolity on this side of the House. If the House of Commons is to agree to a law being made — as in the case of this Order— the House of Commons, as such, should consider these proposals. I feel that I was not so stupid after all in not knowing what those initials meant. I do not know what "N" flour and "D" flour mean. There is no reason why I should know, and I do not believe that any other hon. Members knew what "W" flour meant until the hon. Lady explained. If a reference is made to "W" flour in the Order in Council, it would be better for the Ministry of Food to say "wholemeal flour" instead of "W flour" so that we could understand what it means. There is one technical point on which you, Mr. Speaker, could give guidance. I know there will be hilarity 3 gain on the other side when I mention this point. Suppose we are fortunate enough to annul Order No. 312, what will the position be then? Will Order No. 265 remain effective or will it stand revoked— will it be washed out? Shall we then go back to the original Order of 1945? If not, what will be the position of No. 265?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: On a point of Order. I asked the hon. Lady a matter of the very greatest importance. Does it apply to Scotland?
  Mr. Taylor: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask your guidance? If we are successful in annulling Order No. 312 what will be the position? Will Order No. 265 still be effective or what will the position be?
  Mr. Speaker: As a personal view I should say that both would fall together but I do not think that question ought to be put to me. It is one for the Lord Advocate or the Attorney-General.
  Mr. Lennox Boyd: This is a matter on which the livelihood and interests of many thousands, indeed millions, of people depend.
  Dr. Summerskill: So far as the extraction rate is concerned, it will apply to Scotland. Whether the admixture will be exactly the same in every part I could not say, but I will let the hon. Member know that detail.
  Question put, and negatived.

  EDUCATION (GRANT REGULATIONS)
  11.1 p.m.
  Sir John Mellor: I beg to move,
  " That the Regulations, dated 13th March, 1946, entitled the Further Education Grant Regulations, 1946 (S.R. & O., 1946, No. 352), a copy of which was presented on 19th March, be annulled."
  These regulations prescribe the conditions for the recognition of expenditure by an authority or responsible body in respect of facilities for further education. So far as I can see, subject to any questions my hon. Friends may raise upon the merits, these regulations are quite satisfactory except for one fault. That fault is that they are invalid, because, by No. 35, it is prescribed that these regulations shall have effect from 1st August, 1945. These regulations were dated 13th March of this year, and were made by the Minister of Education under Section 100 of the Education Act of 1944. The Education Act of 1944, in Section 100, authorises the Minister to make regulations for the purposes of grant. But it does not authorise those regulations to be made with retrospective operation. I have submitted before, and I submit tonight, that it is a well-established rule of law, that regulations cannot be made with retrospective operation without express statutory authority. I have little doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education will tonight produce precedents. supporting the action taken in making these regulations retrospective. I have no doubt that he has succeeded in discover-

  519
  ing precedents where a Conservative Government made such regulations retrospective; I will argue that that is irrelevant. But, I would like now to say this. When a Conservative Government erred in this way, they have not the advantage which the present Socialist Government has: that is, a watchful and competent Opposition waiting and ready to keep them on a straight and narrow path. I raised a similar point on 19th February upon an Air Navigation Order, and in moving the Motion to annul that Order, I drew attention to the comments made by the Select Committee upon Statutory Rules and Orders. They said they felt strongly that Statutory Rules and Orders should not purport to have retrospective operation unless Parliament expressly provided that that should be so; and to show that, they referred to a case where Parliament had expressly so provided. That is Section 4 of the Chartered and Other Bodies (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1939, which authorised Orders in Council to be made with retrospective effect. In the Debate which ensued upon the Order I have referred to— the Air Navigation Order— the Attorney-General entirely accepted the general proposition of law. He said:
  " I entirely agree with the general proposition that unless a Statute expressly gives retrospective powers, delegated legislation ought not to take effect retrospectively."
  He also said:
  " Subordinate legislation ought not to be operated retrospectively unless the Statute giving power so to do is abundantly clear in giving that power."
  In the same Debate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil
  Aviation said:
  The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has asked me to give a direct and clear answer to the question: Do I agree with the words in the report of the Select Committee to this effect, that they feel strongly that Statutory Rules and Orders should not purport to have retrospective operation unless Parliament has expressly so provided? I do give the clear answer that I accept that injunction, and so far as my Department is concerned I give a promise that it will be carried out in any future Orders."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February, 1946, Vol. 419, c. 1055–1062.]
  That promise has been made by the Ministry of Civil Aviation, and that Ministry at that time had a much stronger case than the Ministry of Education has here tonight. Rt. hon. and hon. Mem-
  520
  bers opposite may ask what we are arguing about. They may say that on the merits of the case there is nothing wrong. That I admit. They may say "Let these cases come before the courts, and the courts will have to say whether they are ultra vires." I do not think that that would be the correct attitude for this House to adopt. It has been prescribed by Statute that these regulations shall be laid before the House. That implies a duty upon us to scrutinise these regulations. I think we should have little respect for our task, if we were prepared to allow regulations, which we are convinced are ultra vires, to pass without challenge here. I expect the Parliamentary Secretary will say that if these regulations are annulled it will produce chaos and so on. No doubt that may be true, I do not know. I shall be quite prepared to withdraw this Motion if an undertaking is given that, as soon as possible, the Ministry of Education will bring in a Bill to give the requisite authority to justify retrospective operation in these matters. If the hon. Gentleman gives that undertaking, I shall be quite prepared to withdraw the Motion and all will be well, but I am not prepared to withdraw this Motion in any other circumstances. I am not prepared without challenge to allow regulations to pass which I am convinced are legally invalid.
  11.12 p.m.
  Mr. Marlowe: I beg to second the Motion.
  I always feel that Prayers fall into two categories: those which affect the liberties of the subject, on which this House is well justified in sitting for a very long time, and those of lesser importance, which do not touch such deep emotions, and on which the House is not justified in sitting too long. I am bound to add that this Prayer falls into the latter category. I want, however, to make a few points with regard to it and I am sorry that there is no Law Officer in the House, because a considerable question of law arises here. The point of law is that the regulations purport to be made under Section 100 of the Education Act of 1944. That Section gives the Minister power to make regulations for three purposes and three purposes only. The first is for the payment by the Minister to local education authorities of an annual grant in respect of ex-

  521
  penditure incurred by the local education authorities in the exercise of their educational functions; the second, for payment to other than local authorities in exercise of the same functions; and, third, for the payment of fees at certain establishments where those fees are payable. Those are the only powers contained in Section 100 of the Education Act. No one can look at this Statutory Rule and Order without realising that the regulations contained in it go far beyond those powers. That is the particular point to which I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to address himself. I say at once that there is nothing in the merits of these regulations at all. I make no complaint against them. If the regulations affected individuals in their daily lives, I should make considerable more fuss about them. I am concerned merely with the fact that here you have Section 100 of the Education Act, which gives a Minister certain powers, and I say that in my view— and that is why I am sorry a Law Officer is not present— these regulations go far beyond the power contained in that Section.
  I am not in the least concerned with what the Attorney-General said on 19th February, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) referred, and the view which he expressed as to the extent to which regulations of this kind are good. As the hon. Member rightly said, the Attorney-General pointed out that in certain circumstances Regulations should not be retrospective. In these matters, however, neither the opinion of the Attorney-General nor the opinion of anyone else is of great importance. The question is: What is the law? My view, for what it is worth, is that the law does not permit regulations of this kind to be retrospective, unless the Act specifically authorises retrospection. There is nothing in Section 100 which allows retrospection, but, far more important, there is nothing in the Section which allows the Regulations to be made at all. I do not want to delay the House, because as I have said this is not a matter on which we can justify the spending of much time. But the question of principle is always important and if we let the principle pass on this occasion there would be nothing to prevent our letting it pass on another occasion. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to consider this question of principle.
  11.17 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Hardman): I hope Members will not expect me to deal in detail with the legal implications of the matter which has been raised tonight. I am no lawyer, but I want to make a statement on behalf of the Ministry I represent. First, I understand how anxious Members on both sides of the House are to guard the powers of Members of this House. Therefore, I shall explain, as briefly as I can, the position of the Ministry of Education in this matter.
  In matters of this kind I think frankness, from our point of view, is the right line to take. The regulations which have been called in question, are grant regulations made under Section 100 of the principal Education Act, 1944. They relate both to local authorities and to other bodies and are made under paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 100 (1) of the principal Act. The first paragraph provides specifically that the regulations shall make provision for the payment, by the Minister to local authorities, of annual grants in respect of the expenditure incurred by them. The second paragraph does not specifically refer to the annual grants, but it is the common practice of the Ministry, both as regards local education authorities and other bodies, to provide for the payment of grants with respect of any complete year.
  It is important to notice, in the first instance, that the year adopted for this purpose can either be the financial year, or the educational academic year, which normally begins on 1st August. In the case of the regulations, the year in respect of which grants are payable is the educational academic year, beginning 1st August. I admit that ideally the regulations ought to be established before the date on which the year in question begins, but owing to delay, for one reason or another, it is not always possible to do this. Where the regulations are established before or after the date on which the year in question begins they always indicate clearly that the conditions for such grant shall make it payable in respect of that year.
  The method we have adopted in the Ministry is to provide that regulations shall have effect as from the date on which the year commences, whether the regulations are established before or after

  523
  that date. If they are established after that date, they are retrospective in form. It does not appear there is anything in Section 100 of the Act which prevents regulations being established after the commencement of the year to which they refer. It may be right or it may be wrong, but this has been a long standing practice of the Ministry of Education. Here, I agree that I am making an explanation along the lines earlier suggested by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor), because one can quote instances as far back as 1925. Far be it from us on this side of the House to wish to sin in company with hon. Members opposite, but the fact is that as long ago as 1925 we had an example in which regulations had effect as from 1st April that year, and were not sealed until 18th August.
  I must admit that, in this case raised by the two hon. Members opposite, there has been rather a long delay in putting forward these regulations after the 40 days period of publication had expired. It is understood by hon. Members on all sides of the House that in a matter of this kind various branches of any Department have to be consulted. We in the Ministry, rightly or wrongly, follow a well-worn practice of getting the concurrence of various officers in the different branches affected before the regulations can be established. In this case, apparently, the papers were retained in connection with some other action, with the result that the regulations were not put forward for establishment by the responsible officer because he had not obtained the papers for that purpose. The result, I am sorry to say, was that there has been a long delay between the date of expiry of the 40 days' publication, namely, nth September, 1945, and the date on which the regulations were established, 13th March, 1946.So, quite frankly, I admit delay. I think it is unfortunate that there has been this delay, and I apologise to the House for it.
  I would add, however, as a possible safeguard— naturally, one wants to be fair from every point of view— that these regulations were published in the "London Gazette" on 1st August, 1945. The, have not only received the publicity of the
  524
  40 days' publication, but they were discussed fully with local education authorities, and other bodies concerned before they were published. The watchful and competent Opposition, as it has been described tonight, may be rather punctilious upon a matter of this kind. They may, perhaps, press it to such an extent as to break up an agreement with bodies all over the country, an agreement arrived at before publication in the "London Gazette." I think it would be regrettable if there were an annulment tonight, of something which has worked extremely well. If that annulment took place, it would certainly produce chaos among the local authorities, and in the educational programme which we are establishing. It is, therefore, true to say that any authority or other body of persons who may be receiving grant under the regulations knew well in advance, because we had consultation with them, of the establishment of the regulations. They knew well in advance what the regulations would prescribe. I admit that this is only by way of a safeguard, and is no excuse for the long delay, but I have attempted to explain how this delay has occurred, and I hope the House will understand that we are sorry for it. Nevertheless, I hope the House will also on the bigger issue, decide that it will not stand in the way of further education regulations which, in my opinion, are sound in principle and which we find are already working admirably in practice with the concurrence of people. from all parties in local authorities throughout the country.
  Mr. Marlowe: Perhaps it is scarcely fair to put this question to the hon. Gentleman, because he has only dealt with the delay point, which I quite well understand. But does he find in Section 100, which he himself said deals only with payments to local education authorities, the power to decide whether, if a teacher is convicted of a criminal offence, his engagement shall be terminated, or matters of that kind which are contained in these regulations? Could he say where the power in Section 100 comes from?
  Mr. Hardman: I am afraid I cannot answer a question of that kind without notice. In the absence of legal background and training, I think it only fair that I should have notice of a question so erudite as that.
  11.26 p.m.
  Major Peter Roberts: I am in a difficulty about this matter. It seems that the Parliamentary Secretary has admitted that there is some illegality in this case. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes, and he is suggesting to the House that it would be most unfortunate to upset all the present arrangements because of this illegality. I, at least, cannot accept that suggestion unless the hon. Gentleman is prepared also to put forward some suggestion for remedying the position. If the proposition put forward so ably by my hon. Friend on this side is correct— all the legal authority we have had in the House tonight has supported it, and there has been no evidence to the contrary, and I am prepared to accept that legal advice— I submit that it is up to the Government to suggest some remedy, otherwise we are being asked to allow circumstances, which are obviously not correct, to continue. I think that unless we have some assurance, or some suggestion for remedying it, the matter may become serious.
  11.28 p.m.
  Sir J. Mellor: The Parliamentary Secretary has replied in a very courteous and apologetic manner, and I certainly have a good deal of sympathy with him, but he did not deal with the point at all. I think he cannot deal with it: I do not think there is any answer to it. He told us how disastrous it would be if these Regulations were annulled tonight, but he did not respond to my suggestion that I should be quite prepared to withdraw this Motion, if he would give an undertaking to introduce a Bill to put the thing in order. That offer still holds. I am quite prepared to give way if he would like to respond to that offer now.
  Mr. Hardman Mr. Hardman indicated dissent.
  Sir J. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, so I feel that we must take this to a Division. [Interruption.] Certainly. We owe it to Parliament to see that we, as Members, do not allow shoddy work to go out as a result of statutory authority given by this House to Ministries. The Parliamentary Secretary said that there was nothing in Section 100 of the Education Act to forbid regulations being made retrospective. That is quite true, but the whole point is that when regulations are made carry-
  526
  ing retrospective operation, the parent Statute must convey express authority to that effect. I quoted three passages from the last Debate we had on this question, two of them statements by the Attorney-General and one by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation. All of them categorically accepted that proposition, and now the Parliamentary Secretary tells the House tonight that his Ministry, in making these regulations with retrospective operation, may be right or may be wrong. What an attitude for a Ministry to adopt. If they are in doubt as to the legality of their own actions why have they not a Law Officer here to answer the point tonight? I quoted from the Attorney-General's statement, and the Ministry knew perfectly well I should do so. I believe the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General were sent out of the way purposely, so that the Parliamentary Secretary could get up and in his own very charming and pleasant way, explain that he is not a lawyer.
  The hon. Gentleman talked very apologetically about the extent of the delay. This may or may not have been the cause. I was not interested in that point today. I was not interested in whether the delay amounted to two days or 12 months. I was interested in the question of principle that if there was retrospective operation even to the—
  Mr. Scollan rose—
  Sir J. Mellor: If the hon. Member will wait until I have finished my sentence I shall be very glad to give way. I was calling attention to the fact that if these regulations had retrospective operation even to the extent of only two days they were illegal; that was the point to which I wanted a reply, and I received none.
  Mr. Scollan: May I ask the hon. Member if he is still anxious about the principle? It has been in operation since 1925 and surely he should have protested before.
  Sir J. Mellor: I thought I made my point clear when I said that this House and the Government now have the advantage of a watchful Opposition. I was not in this House in 1925, and if I had been, I might not have noticed it, being on the Government side. I repeat my offer, because I think it is a very serious question

  527
  upon which we shall have to divide if we do not get satisfaction. I am prepared to withdraw the Motion if the Parliamentary Secretary will undertake to take steps to give legal validity to these regulations. So far as I can see, the only way in which he could do so would be by introducing a Bill. Will he do that or not?
  Mr. Hardman Mr. Hardman indicated dissent.
  Mr. J. Mellon: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head so I am afraid that in due course, after my hon. Friends have spoken, we shall have to divide.
  Sir Wavell Wakefield (St. Marylebone): On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. We have here a very important constitutional point and a matter of legality. Ought there not to be a Law Officer of the Crown present to give an answer on this very important point?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): That is not a point of Order. I have no power to direct that any Minister shall be present.
  Mr. Marlowe: On a subsidiary point of Order. Is it possible for the discussion to be postponed until a Law Officer can be present? I am not in the least anxious to raise the matter with the Parliamentary Secretary and I realise that he is not in a position to deal with it. There is, however, an important legal question involved and if a Law Officer were present I should be quite prepared to debate it with him—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: As I have said, I have no power to give such a direction.
  Mr. Pritt: The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) raises what he says is a very important point of law, and he wants the Law Officers here. If it is of such importance, why did he not inform himself of some argument on the law in advance? So far as I know, there is absolutely nothing in the point—
  Sir J. Mellor: May I ask the hon. and learned Member whether he has taken the trouble to read the Orders—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston upon Thames)rose—
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether it in Order to continue a Debate of this kind, after the hon. Member who moved the Prayer has made a second speech?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is quite in Order.
  11.36 p.m.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Parliamentary Secretary, in his usual charming and pleasant manner, has frankly confessed to the House that he cannot deal with the points raised by my hon. Friends. I am certain that the Parliamentary Secretary regards these regulations as of the first importance. They are, manifestly, of great importance in the implementation of the 1944 Act. May I suggest to him that, that being so, he should be the first to feel anxiety when the question of their legality or otherwise is raised, and as he is, unfortunately, deprived of the assistance of the Law Officers, he should take the opportunity tomorrow of consulting them, of getting an opinion as to the legality or otherwise of the regulations, and then, at the earliest possible opportunity, that he should make a statement to the House. If the verdict was that, notwithstanding the apprehensions of my hon. Friends, these regulations are valid, that would relieve the apprehensions of those who regard these regulations as important and are alarmed at the possibility of their being invalid. If the ruling of the Law Officers is that these regulations are invalid, it would be the duty of the Government to introduce a Measure to validate them. I therefore make that suggestion. It would be a more helpful attitude than that which the Parliamentary Secretary has so far adopted of saying merely that he cannot answer points. We appreciate that he cannot, but equally the House is entitled, either tonight or subsequently, to some reassurance as to the validity or otherwise of these vitally important regulations.
  In reply to the hon. Gentleman opposite who referred to certain regulations of 1925, may I say that those regulations have no more to do with this case than "the flowers that bloom in the spring." These regulations are made under the Act of 1944. It is manifest that their validity or otherwise depends on a correct interpretation of the Act of 1944. As that

  529
  Act was not in existence when the 1925 regulations were made under some other Act, that point is quite irrelevant. The Parliamentary Secretary has had the opportunity, during this diversion, to consider the suggestion I have made. I appeal to him in the interests not only of the dignity of this House, but also of these important regulations, of which he is the custodian tonight, to ask permission to speak again, and to tell the House he is prepared to take that course.
  11.39 p.m.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: We have had a lot of legal obscurity from the other side on this matter. There are only two points here— whether the Minister can make a grant on certain terms, and whether, if he makes a grant, it will be retrospective. The first point is clearly covered by Subsection (3) of Section 100

  Division No. 110.]

  AYES.

  [11.40 p.m

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Studholme, H. G.

  Bowen, R.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

  Byers, LI -Col. F.

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  Turton, R. H.

  Challen, C.

  Nicholson, G.

  Wakefield, Sir W. W.

  Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

  Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.

  Walker-Smith, D.

  Crosthwaite-Eyce, Col O. E

  Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. Emrys (Merioneth)

  Ward, Hon. G. R.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

  Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

  Hope, Lord J.

  Scott, Lord W.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Hurd, A.

  Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

  Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Spence, H. R.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.

  Sir John Mellor and Mr. Mar'owe.

  NOES.

  Adams, W. T (Hammersmith, South)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Allen, A C. (Bosworth)

  Deer, G

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Holman, P.

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Delargy, Captain H. J

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Attewell, H. C.

  Diamond, J.

  House, G.

  Austin, H. L.

  Dobbie, W.

  Hoy, J

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Douglas, F. C. R.

  Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

  Barton, C.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Dugģdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Bellenger, F. J.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Irving, W. J.

  Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F.

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  Janner, B.

  Bing, Capt. G. H. C.

  Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Binns, J.

  Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

  Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)

  Blyton, W. R.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Boardman, H.

  Fairhurst, F.

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Bottomley, A. G.

  Farthing, W. J.

  Keenan, W.

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

  Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

  Key, C. W.

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Foster, W. (Wigan)

  King, E. M.

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E.

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Freeman, Maj. J (Watford)

  Lang, G.

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Gibbins, J.

  Lavers, S.

  Brown, georģe (Belper)

  Gibson, C. W.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Gilzean, A.

  Leonard, W

  Champion, A. J.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Levy, B. W.

  Clitherow, Dr. R

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Collindridge, F

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Collins, V. J.

  Grierson, E.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

  Colman, Miss G. M

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Logan, D. G

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden

  Longden, F.

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

  Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

  Lyne, A. W.

  Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R,

  McEntee, V. La T

  Corlett, Dr. J

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Corvedale, Viscount

  Hardman, D. R.

  Mack, J. D.

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Haworth, J.

  Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

  of the Act. Anyone of any intelligence who reads that Subsection will see that, so far as terms of grant are concerned, they are all clearly set out. As regards retrospective provision, if is clear from Subsection (1, a) that the Minister can make a grant for a certain period, and has power to make that period operate even if it is retrospective. It is clear as can be. The other side have done nothing else, in my humble submission, but try to obscure this matter for the purpose of making some capital out of this Debate.
  Question put,
  " That the Regulations, dated 13th March, 1946, entitled the Further Education Grant Regulations, 1946 (S.R. & O., 1946, No. 352), a copy of which was presented on 19th March, be annulled."
  The House divided: Ayes, 40; Noes, 202.

  MoKinlay, A. S.

  Pritt, D. N.

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

  MoLeavy, F.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Thorneycroft, H.

  MacMillan, M. K.

  Ranger, J.

  Tiffany, S.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Rankin, J.

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Robens, A.

  Vernon, Maj, W. F.

  Marshall, F. (Brightside)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Walkden, E.

  Mathers, G.

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Warbey, W. N.

  Mayhew, C. P

  Royle, C.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Medland, H. M.

  Sargood, R.

  Watson, W. M.

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Scollan, T.

  Weitzman, D.

  Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Morley, R.

  Segal, Sq.-Ldr. S.

  While, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)

  Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

  Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

  Wigg, Col. G. E.

  Moyle, A.

  Shurmer, P.

  Wilkes, Maj. L.

  Nally, W.

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

  Willis, E.

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  O'Brien, T.

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Wilson, J. H.

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Steele, T.

  Wise, Major F. J.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Woodburn, A.

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Stokes, R. R.

  Woods, G. S.

  Pargiter G. A.

  Stross, Dr. B.

  Yates, V. F.

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Swingler, Capt. S.

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Pearson, A.

  Symonds, Maj. A. L.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Peart, Capt. T. F.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Perrins, W.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Platts-Mills, J. F. F

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  Captain Blenkiosop and Mr. Simmons.

  Popplewell, E.

  Thomas, John R. (Dover)

  Price, M. P.

  Thomas, georģe (Cardiff)

  PRISONERS OF WAR
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." [Mr. Pearson.]
  11.50 p.m.
  Sir. Stokes: I really make no apology to the House for raising the matter which I wish to raise tonight at what now is regarded as a very late hour, but which for me is somewhat early. I make no apology, because, under the present new arrangements, one may wait for some considerable time before getting the Adjournment, and, therefore, it seems obligatory on a Member, when he gets the Adjournment, to take that opportunity at whatever time it should occur. On this occasion I find myself in a most unusual position. One of my old time co-poachers is apparently detailed to reply to the Debate. That makes it none the less pleasant for me, and I hope that when he comes to reply, he will remember the old battles we had together when we were a much more watchful and eager Opposition than are the hon. Members opposite.
  The subject I wish to raise is the treatment, and particularly the continual detention, of prisoners of war captured from the enemy, whoever that enemy may have been, during the recent hostilities. It concerns a very considerable number of men. We were told recently at Question time that there are in this country some
  225,000 German and about 115,000 Italian prisoners of war, of whom some 267,000 have been put to work. I do not wish to say much about the Italians, because we have already been told that they are being repatriated to their own country as fast as occasion permits. The fact of the matter is— and here I speak as an ex-fighting man— there can be nothing more dreadful, and nothing more degrading, than finding oneself as a onetime fighting soldier detained for an indefinite period, under conditions which at best cannot be agreeable, as a result of capture by the enemy. Remembering that you should endeavour in this world to do as you would be done by, this House should consider the situation into which we have got ourselves owing to the-present condition of things.
  I am not concerned with urging that so-called war criminals should be released and sent back to Germany. In passing, I may say I am in some bewilderment on that matter, because I have never yet understood what is a war criminal. If I had my way and had to deal with war criminals, I should, in the first place, put in the dock those responsible for the release of the atomic bomb. I should certainly include them amongst any war criminals, but that is clearly a matter of opinion. I think that a great deal of the trial now going on at Nuremburg is completely bogus, and it becomes

  533
  even more bogus when you consider some of the things which the Allied Governments are doing at the present. They are doing some of those very things for which we are trying the war criminals at Nuremburg, such as forcible detention and slave labour— because it is nothing else when German nationals are detained as they are here.
  Sir Wavell Wakefield (St. Maryle-bone): Perhaps the hon. Member will describe what slave labour means, as it would greatly help.
  Mr. Stokes: My hon. Friend ought to know me well enough now to realise that I would not leave a good point like that undeveloped. I am going into that without any doubt whatsoever, provided I have the time, and I shall have the time, because my hon. Friend does not want much time in which to reply. I asked the Foreign Secretary on 13th March whether he could give us an assurance that prisoners of war in British hands were being treated in accordance with the terms of the Geneva Convention. He said that the Geneva Convention did not any longer apply and that the protective power has been withdrawn. Therefore, it becomes all the more important that we should pay some regard to our obligations. It is even more important now, because, apparently, we are not decreasing the number of people we have in detention, but are increasing them. We are importing slaves from America.
  I very much doubt whether that is the right thing to do. The only thing that can be said in favour of it is that it brings them nearer their homes. When the Lord President of the Council was asked, on 7th February, a question about this matter he said they would be treated in accordance with the best Socialistic principles. I do not quite know what that means. I had only just entered the Chamber when he said that; had I come in earlier, Mr. Speaker, I would have tried to catch your eye in order to ask a supplementary question. However, I very much doubt whether it is in accordance with the best Socialistic principles to treat prisoners of war virtually as slaves, and to keep them as such after the cessation of hostilities.
  Be that as it may, I would like to remind the House of what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) said when he was Prime
  534
  Minister, when he referred to the whole question of unconditional surrender. It is no use burking this point. I was an opponent of unconditional surrender for reasons of which nobody took any notice. Speaking in the House on 22nd February, 1944, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  " Here, may I point out that the term ' unconditional surrender ' does not mean that the German people will be enslaved or destroyed."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1944, Vol. 397, col. 698–699.]
  I agree that there is no question on destruction, but the question of virtual slavery remains. One of the worst features of the present situation— and this point has been represented to me by responsible German people who are 100 per cent anti-Nazi— is the uncertainty of their future, the lack of definition as to what is to happen to them, how long they are to be detained, when they are to be sent back to their own country.
  On this main issue, may I quote the Geneva Convention? Although it may be conveniently said that it has lapsed and does not apply, nevertheless, we were signatories to it, and I presume that when the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for Woodford talked about treatment of enemy peoples, he meant under the then existing conditions, which, of course, included the Geneva Convention. Article 75 of that Convention says:
  " When belligerents call for an armistice convention they shall normally cause to be presented therein provisions concerning the repatriation of prisoners-of-war."
  The Article goes on to say that this shall be completed as soon as possible. Of course, my hon. Friend will say that there was no armistice, but unconditional surrender. If so, that throws the onus still more on us to see that fair treatment is meted out to these people.
  The second point I wish to refer to is this: What is the Government's policy? How long is it intended to detain these people in this country or elsewhere? When will some definition be given to them as to their final return to their own country? Meanwhile, they are virtually now in a worse position than they were during the war in relation to their ability to communicate with their relations at home—
  Sir W. Wakefield: So they should be.
  Mr. Stokes: I know that the hon. Gentleman is one of the intolerant people

  535
  on the other side of the House— thank heaven there are not many in the country — but I also know he would be the first, if he was a prisoner of war, to be grateful to the people who had captured him if he was allowed to communicate with his friends and relations. He knows that quite well. I know him well enough to know that he thinks that, whatever he may say in his interjection.
  As I have said, these prisoners of war are in a worse position than they were during the war when, by arrangements made by the Red Cross, they were able to communicate with their friends and relations. They have now been detained for nine months since the termination of hostilities, and there are no postal communications. We were told that postal communications with Germany are to be restored, and presumably that applies to other belligerent areas. Can my hon. Friend, when he replies, assure me that these people will be allowed the ordinary humane possibility of communicating with their own families at home, wherever they themselves may be?
  Now I come to the point raised about slavery. Of course, slavery is a matter of degree. I accept that. But here we have a very large body of able-bodied people virtually treated as slaves. I had some of these people sent to me. In the firm with which f am connected we had some work that we wanted done. There was no labour available. We were offered Italian prisoners of war, and we were glad to have them. I asked if I was to pay them, and I was told "No." In view of what I had said in the House about the treatment of prisoners of war, I decided that something must be done. I made a special arrangement with them, and I am not ashamed of it. I told them that, whether the Government approved or not, I was going to credit them with the rate for the job, and that one day, when they went home, the credits would be transferred to them. The consequence was they worked like blacks. I ask my hon. Friends on this side how many of us would sit here for a moment complacently if— supposing the opposite thing had happened— our people were used as slaves by Germans or Italians? That is not what we stand for at all. We have been told by the Secretary of State for War that these fellows are paid a shilling or sixpence a day, according to their cap-
  536
  abilities. I think I am right in saying that we had to pay something like 66s. a week to the Government. It is nonsense for the Government to suggest that it costs 66s. a week to keep a prisoner of war. If it does, they must be less competent than Governments usually are. Surely, if prisoners of war are employed, they should be paid wages, or credited with wages, with which, when they go home, they can start life again in their own countries. Do not let us forget that the slavery charge is one that is levelled against the so-called war criminals on trial at Nuremberg.
  Away back, I think in April last year, I raised the whole question of this slave employment in a Debate in this House. I asked whether any agreement had been come to at Yalta with regard to the use of prisoners of war after the termination of hostilities. A rumour at that time was rife in the Middle East that a special arrangement had been made whereby certain of the Powers were going to employ German slaves for a period after the cessation of hostilities, and that vacancies would be filled by new supplies of labour from among the younger people in German and Italian territory. I was assured by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that that was not the case. But we have not yet seen that Yalta agreement.
  Here, may I absolve the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs from the charge I made against him that he had made secret agreements prior to Yalta? I was wrong. He said categorically that no secret agreements had been made up to that date. But he would probably be the first to admit that secret agreements were made afterwards. I should like to know what those secret agreements were. When I asked the late Prime Minister to publish them he would not. I was very ably supported on that occasion, a year ago, by Mr. Tinker, who was then Member for Leigh, who disagreed with me on a number of other points, but who then said that no self-respecting member of the Labour Party could countenance the continued use of prisoners of war for slave purposes after the termination of hostilities.
  I do not want to speak at any great length. I had hoped to get a longer Adjournment and to develop other points. There are the conditions of these people.

  537
  We read terrible accounts in the papers sometimes as to how they are being underfed. I am not suggesting that we are underfeeding prisoners of war, but we should just recollect that the regulations laid down under the Geneva Convention stated that prisoners of war were to receive exactly the same rations as garrison troops. Whether we like it or not, or whether it is a good thing or not does not enter into it. Those are the regulations and that is the thing which ought to guide us. It is very disagreeable to me to read headlines like "Prisoners of war too weak to work," "German prisoners of war starving," and so on.
  I would just ask my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office, when he replies, to deal shortly with five or six points. First of all, there is a rather more personal point. Some of these people, I understand, are being denied the opportunity for their proper religious observances. Will he assure the House that, whatever the conditions were hitherto, that matter will be looked into and be righted? Secondly, will he tell us what is the Government policy in regard to the date on which these people are to be sent back to their homes? I am not asking whether they want to go back. That is not the argument at all. Under the Geneva Convention arrangements for repatriation are bound to be made as soon as possible after hostilities cease. Thirdly, if it is not possible or the intention of the Government to take immediate action, will he give us some definite understanding when they are to be sent back? [Interruption.] These men have souls. Why should they be locked up indefinitely? If the House of Commons of about the only remaining free nation is reduced to a state of mind like that, then God help the world. Fourthly, will he assure me that communication between these men and their families will be restored as quickly as possible? Lastly, will he see to it that, whatever conditions prevailed hitherto, if they are not allowed full money for the rates for the job they are doing, a fair proportion of what is paid by the employers to the Government for their services shall be credited to their account, so that they can take advantage of it when they eventually get home and have to face a very deplorable situation amongst their own families?
  I do hope that it will be realised in this House that in raising this matter, I have
  538
  done it for one reason, and for. one reason only— that it is undesirable that people, however misguided they may have been, and who have done their job to the best of their ability, though no doubt misled by people who were as misguided as are hon. Members opposite in their economic beliefs, should be considered as having human rights. They have such rights. It is human rights for which we stand, and we should see to it that human rights must be respected.
  12.8 a.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Bellenger): As one who has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) in his picturesque language as a co-poacher, I hope, as one who is now a gamekeeper, to be able to give him some satisfaction in what I am about to say in answer to the points which he has raised tonight. I have considerable sympathy with a good deal of what he said tonight. I myself was very nearly in the same position when I was in Dunkirk retreat and I might very well have been a prisoner of war myself. I know quite well what my feelings would have been had I endured a long separation from my family and loved ones. I can well understand the feelings of most prisoners of war, not only those who are now retained in this country as prisoners of war, but all those, whoever they may be, who are prohibited, for one reason or another, from getting home to their own families.
  In the short time I have at my disposal to answer my hon. Friend I should like to deal with the questions he has raised in two parts— one the legal aspect and the other the moral aspect. My hon. Friend has stressed the latter very considerably in his speech. First of all, I should hope very much indeed that these prisoners of war will not have to look forward to captivity for 20 years or more, as my hon. Friend suggested. I think that would be an intolerable position, and although I may not be here to answer for the Government in 20 years' time, nevertheless, I can say frankly that I should not envisage any period of captivity of that nature.
  Mr. Stokes: I was not suggesting that prisoners of war would be kept for 20 years, but my belief is that a secret agreement was made at Yalta that a certain amount of German slave labour should be kept for 20 years.
  Mr. Bellenger: I think I can deal with that point right away. I know of no specific agreement concluded at either Yalta or Potsdam dealing with the retention of German prisoners of war.
  Article 75 of. the Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war lays down that repatriation shall be effected as soon as possible after the conclusion of peace. A treaty of peace has to be concluded between Governments, and, unfortunately, there is no Government in Germany with whom we can conclude a treaty, but I imagine that at some time one will be concluded with Germany. When that time comes arrangements will doubtless be made for the repatriation of prisoners of war held by us.
  Perhaps I might say a word about the prisoners of war, Germans and Austrians, we are holding. So far as the Austrians are concerned, as my hon. Friend knows, there are about 11,500 in this country, and they are segregated from the Germans. Arrangements are being considered for sending back all the non-Nazis among them— about 7,000— to Austria.
  I can deal with these points only briefly, and I should like to come now to the question of communications between the prisoners of war and their relations or friends in their own countries. That is something for which the War Office is directly responsible, and I think I can give my hon. Friend considerable satisfaction. As regards mail, German prisoners of war in the United Kingdom may communicate with residents in Germany. There is no direct post between this country and Germany at the present time, but for German prisoners of war there are direct mail facilities. They can write direct to Germany or Austria and to all neutral and allied countries. The scale of letters and postcards allowed is three letters and four postcards monthly for officers, and two letters and four postcards monthly for other ranks. The mail facilities to the Russian zone of Germany and Berlin only began at the beginning of February and, therefore, sufficient time has not elapsed to see what the return journey is like.
  Mr. Stokes: Does that apply to Italy as well?
  Mr. Bellenger: I am not quite sure about Italy, but I think it is included.
  540
  In any case, my hon. Friend will know that the Italian prisoners of war are on their way home.
  Mr. Stokes: I was referring to German prisoners of war in Italy.
  Mr. Bellenger: I am not quite sure about that point, but I think what I have said embraces that, subject to checking up the point tomorrow. With regard to the non-Russian zones of Germany, it is understood that between 70 and 80 per cent, of the prisoners of war who have written to residents in those zones have received replies, and I think that is sufficient indication that we have got a comparatively satisfactory system of communication between German prisoners of war in this country and their relations and friends at home. In addition to that, we have organised a system whereby German prisoners of war here who may not know where their relatives are in Germany owing to the dispersal of so many thousands of people in Germany, and inhabitants of Germany who do not know whether their friends and relations are prisoners of war here, may send cards to Hamburg. These cards are compared and, if possible, the two are linked up and communication is effected.
  I well understand what my hon. Friend means about religious observance, and I have every sympathy with his point of view. Wherever prisoners of war are, they should be entitled to proper observance of their religious duties and beliefs. As far as this country is concerned, I think we have nothing to complain about in that respect, although I have reason to believe that perhaps we did not always get reciprocal treatment from certain other countries where our prisoners were held during the war.
  No agreement was ever reached with the German Government regarding the rates to be paid to prisoners of war; therefore, we have had to adopt this system. Prisoners of war are paid or credited, or should be credited, with their rates of pay as soldiers by their own countries. Our prisoners of war were credited with their pay and when they came back to this country they received whatever credits were standing to their accounts. I hope that German, Austrian and Italian prisoners of war will also receive what is due to them from their own Governments when they go back to their