Commons Sitting of 19 November 1953

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  GLSGOW CORPORATION (WATER &C.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Furniture (Quality Mark)
    Mr. Doddsasked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in the introduction of the Kite mark quality scheme for furniture by the manufacturers.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): The British Standards Institution has announced that under the specifications for cabinet goods, dining-type chairs and tables, licences to use the Kite mark have been issued to just over 200 manufacturers, whose output is estimated to represent rather more than two-thirds of the industry's production of cabinet goods, over half that of dining-type chairs and over a quarter that of tables. It is too early to estimate the effect of the specifications recently published for bedstead ends. I understand that specifications for upholstered furniture are well advanced.
    Mr. Dodds: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep a close watch on this matter? Is not he aware that many of the best furniture manufacturers are afraid that if some persuasion is not used the scheme might collapse and, with it, reasonable minimum standards?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that fairly good progress has been made.

    Film Production Fund
    Mr. Swinglerasked the President of the Board of Trade on what date he will introduce legislation to maintain the British Film Production Fund.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am glad to be able to inform the House that the four film trade associations have reached agreement to continue the British Film Production Fund for three years from the end of July, 1954. This agreement is in accord with the view I expressed on 10th March, in answer to Questions from the hon. Members for Nottingham, Northwest (Mr. O'Brien) and Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd), that support for British film production of the kind provided by the British Film Production Fund should be achieved, if possible by voluntary agreement within the industry, for at least three years after the present scheme is due to end. In these circumstances, I do not propose to introduce legislation on the matter.
    Mr. Swingler: While congratulating the Minister on his narrow escape from the need to legislate on this matter, may I ask him whether he is aware that this voluntary agreement has come about only as a result of the ultimatum he presented to the industry? Does he realise that if he wants the Eady levy paid with good will the Government will have to pay some attention to the question of tax relief for the industry?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not know about ultimatums. All I would say is that I am very glad that all this has been achieved by voluntary agreement rather than by having to pass a Bill.

    Industrial Development, North Staffordshire
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade what action has been taken to assist the City of Stoke-on-Trent in the development of its industrial sites at Longton, Newstead, and Stoke; how many firms have opened on the sites; what action has been taken to encourage firms to open on the sites; and whether he will take steps to see that future pottery production development takes place on or near these industrial sites.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am always prepared to consider applications for industrial development certificates on their

    1875
    merits; but the siting of industrial developments within the Stoke-on-Trent area is a matter for the local planning authority. There are five factories on the sites mentioned by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Smith: As the Minister knows this area very well, does he not agree that the local authority should have more encouragement from his Ministry than they have had? If he does, will he ask his officials to meet the local authority so that, as this is not a Development Area, action can be taken to deal with the area on the lines indicated?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Industrial development certificates are the responsibility of the Board of Trade, and I am always prepared to consider that. But the actual siting of the factories is a matter for the local authority and it would be wrong for me to try to intervene in that matter.
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will have prepared reports, comparable with that on Government action in Wales and Monmouthshire, Command Paper No. 8959, for North Staffordshire, or for a 50-mile radius around Manchester.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: No, Sir.
    Mr. Smith: Although all credit ought to be given to London, Wales and Scotland, has not the time arrived when other large industrial areas should stake their claim? Is the President aware that, while we give all credit to this very fine Report, it covers only 2½ million people, and that we are asking that similar action shall be taken in respect of areas in which 11 million people are living.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: My reply showed no disrespect for the area concerned, in which I was born. However, if I start producing reports on every area in the country it will run into a considerable volume of paper.
    Mr. P. Morris: Would it not be more honest if the right hon. Gentleman assured my hon. Friend that the disproportionate amount of labour involved in the preparation of these documents makes the task hardly worth while, because the Government never implement any recommendations or even take any notice of them?

    Pottery Industry
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade if all the recommendations made in the Working Party's Report on the Pottery Industry have been carried out; what recent action has been taken; and what future action it is proposed to take.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: No action specifically related to these recommendations has been taken by the Board of Trade, nor is any such action contemplated beyond that described in my reply to a Question put to me by the hon. Member on 5th December, 1951. As I then pointed out, the majority of the recommendations are matters for the British Pottery Manufacturers' Federation or for individual pottery manufacturers.
    Mr. Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this industry is making a great contribution to our export trade and that it could make a greater one? In view of that, does not he consider it his duty to get all sections of the industry together with a view to making an even greater contribution?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I certainly agree about the importance of this industry, especially for our export trade, but there are a great number of detailed recommendations here most of which are the responsibility of the industry itself.
    Dr. Strossasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has noted the fall in the volume of exports of pottery; and whether he will give an assurance that Japanese and German pottery will not be imported into Britain as a result of further liberalisation of trade.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I have noted the fall in our exports of pottery with concern, but am glad to see some improvement in the last few months of this year as compared with the corresponding months of 1952.
    With regard to the second part of the Question, imports of all types of domestic pottery from Western Germany are now free from quantitative restrictions as a result of the relaxation of restrictions on imports from Western Europe which I announced on 12th November in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the

    1877
    Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd). These measures do not, however, extend to Eastern Germany or Japan.
    Dr. Stross: Has the President been made aware that many medium-sized potteries manufacturing in Stoke-on-Trent and exporting to Canada and the United States find that the trade has practically disappeared? In view of that, will he particularly note that it is due to competition from Japanese pottery? May we have an assurance that Japanese pottery will not be brought into the home market?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: That raises a rather different question. I was asked to state the situation today, and that is what I have done.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Will my right hon. Friend say whether Japanese and German pottery carries an import duty, and if so, what percentage it is?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: There is a specific rate of duty at present, but the main obstacle to Japanese pottery is the quota restriction rather than the tariff. If the pottery industry wishes to make application for a higher tariff—I am not suggesting that it should do so—it is free to do so.

    Russian Manganese
    Mr. Harold Daviesasked the President of the Board of Trade what orders have been placed with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for manganese; and if he will give the tonnage of manganese imports from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for each year since 1946.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: There were no imports of manganese ore or metal from Russia from 1st January, 1946, to 30th September, 1953, and no import licences have been issued for manganese metal this year. Manganese ore can be imported freely under open general licence and no application to my Department for permission to import is required.
    Mr. Davies: I thank the Minister for that reply, but does he realise that he has not directly answered whether we are importing manganese or not? My information is that we are importing 100,000 tons from Russia. Am I correct?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I believe that an order has been placed, but imports will appear in the Trade Returns. So far as my responsibility is concerned, no import licence is required, because it is on open general licence.
    Mr. Davies: While thanking the Minister for that second answer, may I ask him whether, in view of the fact that we are importing this highly strategic material from Russia now, it would not be wise for his Department to make every endeavour to relax embargoes and support British business men who are losing trade to their Japanese, American and German rivals in Eastern Europe and Asia?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: That is a rather wider question.
    Mr. Bottomley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that from 1946 to 1951 we tried to buy manganese from Russia, but without success? Russia is now prepared to sell manganese and many other commodities, and is anxious to buy consumer goods and other commodities from us. Is it not in this country's interest to develop more active trade between the two countries?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The Question deals only with manganese ore. It would not be right for me to deal here with the whole question of trade relations.

    Exports to China
    Dr. Strossasked the President of the Board of Trade when he considers it will be possible to increase the export of antibiotics to China.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: We are now considering this matter in consultation with the other Governments who, like us, restrict the supply of certain pharmaceuticals to China.
    Dr. Stross: Is the President aware, that, while these considerations are going on, no doubt actively, orders are going to other countries, particularly France? Does he not agree that if we do not quickly take action about these drugs, which are surely not strategic material, we shall never get the orders in the future?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: With reference to orders going to other countries, we are

    1879
    acting together with our allies in Western Europe on this matter. France is in the same position as we are in that respect. I am not out of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has in mind, which is the desire to expand trade in non-strategic goods, and that is under active consideration at present.
    Mr. Strachey: Is it not rather illogical that now that we have allowed to be exported to China passenger motor cars, which might be considered rather more strategical than antibiotics, we should hesitate about antibiotics?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: We are discussing this item with our friends at present.
    Mr. Hastings: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the enormous potential market for these drugs which exists in China, and also that great economy in their production can be achieved by producing them in large quantities?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The trade prospects in this matter and other matters are not absent from my mind.
    Mr. Swinglerasked the President of the Board of Trade what quantities and values of wires and cables, steel plates, fertilisers, and sulpha drugs, respectively, have been exported from the United Kingdom to China in 1953 to the latest date for which figures are available.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Since the answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Swingler: I suspect that the answer does not contain very many figures. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the goods mentioned in this Question have been exported this year in increasing quantities to China by Germany, France and Japan? Can he give an undertaking that he will endeavour to obtain a relaxation of the embargo and not impose further restrictions to prevent these goods being exported by manufacturers in this country?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will study the figures when he reads the answer. In reply to the second part of his supplementary, I would point out that he has constantly made the
    1880
    allegation that we are, so to speak, exporting less than are other countries. I do not think there is any foundation or any real substance in that allegation at all. We are working in consultation with our allies. It is true that the Japanese reduced some of their restrictions the other day, but as they started with a much higher level of restriction than we did, it has now really only brought them down to the level of the Paris group.
    Mr. Swingler: But is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that I supplied figures to his Department and that a few days ago his right hon. Friend admitted that Germany and Japan were exporting goods for which British manufacturers were being denied licences?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not say that there are not marginal differences, but, broadly speaking, we are keeping them as closely in line as we can.
    Following are the figures:

    UNITED KINGDOM EXPORTS TO CHINA JANUARY-SEPTEMBER, 1953

    Commodity

    Unit of Quantity

    Quantity

    Value (£)

    Plates and sheets of steel—

    Tinplate

    ton

    626

    55,943

    Other

    ton

    —

    —

    Wire cable and rope

    ton

    1

    253

    Electric cables, wires, etc.

    ton

    6

    2,533

    Fertilisers

    ton

    9,015

    174,019

    Sulphonamides—

    In tablet form

    Th. tab.

    15

    23

    Other

    lb.

    11,567

    18,846

    Anglo-Spanish Negotiations
    Mr. G. Jegerasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now make a further statement on the Anglo-Spanish trade negotiations.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: These negotiations entered what I hope will be their final phase last Monday, when a delegation of United Kingdom officials arrived in Madrid to conclude the discussions about trade and payments arrangements for the remainder of this year and to make corresponding arrangements for 1954.
    Mr. Jeger: Will the right hon. Gentleman issue a White Paper about the negotiations when they are concluded?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: We had better wait until they are concluded before deciding about that.

    Vehicles (Export to Argentina)
    Sir W. Wakefieldasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he is aware that, under the Anglo-Argentine Trade Treaty Agreement, the United Kingdom can export to the Argentine an equal number of vehicles as Germany under equal conditions, but that discrimination is taking place in favour of Germany as against the United Kingdom in the granting of import licences; and what steps he is proposing to take;
    (2) if he is aware that 21 passenger cars, 609 tractors and 212 other vehicles were imported into the Argentine from the United Kingdom in the six months ended August, 1953, whereas in the same period 1,708 vehicles and 2,380 tractors were imported into the Argentine from Germany; and what steps he is taking to rectify the position.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I cannot confirm the figures contained in Question No. 27; but imports from Germany of vehicles, and particularly of cars, have been substantially larger than those from the United Kingdom despite the undertaking by the Argentine Government to which my hon. Friend refers. We have, accordingly, taken this matter up with the Argentine Government, and the Argentine Foreign Minister has promised to consider it urgently.

    Oil and Soap (Monopolies Commission Reference)
    Sir R. Boothbyasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now direct the Monopolies Commission to examine some of the larger industries, such as those engaged in the production and distribution of oil and soap, in which monopolistic practices may exist.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Several large industries have already come under review by the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission. In making further references I will bear in mind the points made by my hon. Friend.

    Development Areas
    Mr. Willeyasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will present a White Paper on the Development Areas.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: As the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) was informed on 27th October, I will certainly consider the desirability of publishing from time to time a White Paper on progress in the Development Areas, but in view of the full discussions which have taken place in the House during the last year I doubt whether a White Paper is called for at present.
    Mr. Willey: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his doubts are misplaced? Did he not, more than a year ago, express himself as sympathetic about the issue of a White Paper? The Development Areas would very much appreciate such a White Paper now for the purpose of reviewing the progress made in recent years.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I will certainly consider the matter. We have had very full discussions on the subject.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that such a White Paper may well reveal that progress in the Development Areas has been such that it might be time to deschedule some of them?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: There is nothing in the question about descheduling.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Do we understand from the right hon. Gentleman that he is not considering removing any of the areas from the schedule at the present time?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: That would be rather too broad a deduction to make from my answer.
    Sir W. Wakefieldasked the President of the Board of Trade how many claims have been received from firms moving into development areas for grants under Section 3 (i) of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1950, in respect of expenditure or loss arising in connection with the transfer of industrial undertakings to such areas; how many such claims have been admitted; and what has been the amount of the grants made.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Thirteen applications for grants have been made, two of which the applicants did not proceed with. Two grants have been approved in principle, but the detailed examination on which payment would be based has not yet been completed in either case.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Can my right hon. Friend indicate, for the guidance of industrialists generally, what would be considered exceptional circumstances for the payment of a grant for moving into an industrial area?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I should like to help my hon. Friend, but circumstances differ so widely between one case and another that I would find it very difficult to define "exceptional circumstances."
    Mr. Bottomley: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what plans he has made and settled for dealing with the matter?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Not without notice.
    Mr. Willeyasked the President of the Board of Trade how many new factories have been licensed and commenced since 1st November, 1952, in the North-Eastern Development Area.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: According to the latest available information, 12 new factories and 38 extensions to existing factories, all exceeding 5,000 sq. feet have been licensed since 1st November, 1952. Of these, work has commenced on four new factories and 26 extensions.
    Mr. Willey: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that though this seems to be a considerable improvement on last year, it is still inadequate for our needs in the North-East? This is another reason why we should have a White Paper so that we can see what progress the Government's policy has made.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I had hoped that the answer showed such a substantial improvement on last year that the hon. Gentleman would not press me further.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the corresponding figures for the latest addition to the development areas, namely, the one in North-East Lancashire, or shall we have to wait for the publication of the White Paper which he does not yet wish to publish?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: If the hon. Gentleman puts down a Question, I will try to give him the information he wants, but I think it is true to say that something substantial has already been done in that area.

    Tariff Reductions
    Mr. Wadeasked the President of the Board of Trade what progress he has to report upon the reduction in tariffs and other impediments to international trade as between Great Britain and other members of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation and other European nations.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The reduction of tariffs has, of course, been pursued under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and on that I would refer the hon. Member to the statement after Questions which I made on 27th October about the Eighth Session of the Contracting Parties.
    As regards quota restrictions, over 70 per cent. of the trade on private account between the member countries of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation is now free from such restrictions.
    Mr. Wade: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no unilateral action will be taken by Her Majesty's Government which might lead other European nations to increase, rather than decrease, their restrictions on international trade?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Nothing which Her Majesty's Government is doing could in any way justify other countries in increasing their restrictions.
    Sir W. Smithersasked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the official statement, details of which have been sent to him, agreed between the President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister of Canada at the President's recent state visit, what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to removing barriers to trade as quickly as possible.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Her Majesty's Government are in agreement with the joint Canadian-United States communiqué on the importance to the free world of healthy national economies and of the expansion of world trade.
    Sir W. Smithers: As Great Britain is the one country in the world which cannot become self-supporting, would not my right hon. Friend agree that the only hope for a permanent recovery is to remove all trade barriers so that we can buy in the cheapest markets and sell in the dearest?

    1885
    Has my right hon. Friend seen the speech of Sir Roger Makins, as reported in "The Times" today?

    Foreign Exports (Subsidies)
    Mr. Wadeasked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made by Her Majesty's Government towards reaching agreement with member Governments of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation and with Governments of other European countries on the subject of subsidies to exporters, designed to give such exporters an advantage in competing in world markets.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Her Majesty's Government have taken a lead in efforts to get rid of export incentives of various kinds which amount to concealed subsidies. This matter is at present being studied by the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation; and the Council of European Industrial Federations has, on the initiative of the Federation of British Industries, unanimously condemned the race between countries to grant such export incentives.
    Mr. Wade: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that these subsidies to exporters, which are designed to capture overseas markets, may have the effect of bringing about that form of economic warfare which did so much harm to international trade before the war? Can he say when he will have anything further to report on the conversations which, I understand, have been taking place in Paris?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I agree that these forms of subsidies are thoroughly undesirable. We have already made some considerable progress, and Germany, France and the Netherlands, for example, have already dispensed with or modified their arrangements for currency retention. If the hon. Gentleman puts down a Question, I will certainly inform him on how things go.
    Mr. Bottomley: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to remove tariffs and other trade barriers altogether?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: This Question refers to export subsidies, which was what I was dealing with.
    Mr. Hurdasked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent the Government are prepared to accept offers of surplus United States produce that carries an export subsidy in one form or another; and how far these offers are subject to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: We are ready to consider offers by the United States of surplus products we require. Any purchases of such produce would, of course, be the subject of prior negotiation between the two Governments, and we for our part would take due account of all relevant considerations including price and the availability of home supplies.
    As regards the second part of the Question, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade does not prohibit export subsidies, but if any member of the General Agreement subsidises exports in such a way as to cause serious prejudice to the interests of any other member, it is open to the latter under the General Agreement to seek redress.
    Mr. Hurd: May I take it that the President will be very ready to seek that redress if the occasion arises?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Yes, but that would be more likely in the case of imports into a third country than into this country.
    Mr. Paget: Will the Minister tell us why we, as an importing country, should refuse the free present to us represented by the subsidies?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: It would depend upon what the present was.

    Fabrics (Light Fastness)
    Miss Burtonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take powers by Statutory Instrument to enforce a minimum standard for materials of fastness to light; and whether, in framing such standards, consideration will be given to the necessary minimum fastness to light of different fabrics such as lingerie dresses, suitings and furnishings.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: No, Sir.
    Miss Burton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proposed minimum standards of fastness to light of the British Standards Institution for blouses

    1887
    and lingerie should, in the opinion of the trade, be twice as good as they are? Can he also tell me whether I am correct in stating that these standards are not based on tests made of the materials in actual use? Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it is important that curtains should not fade immediately they are put up?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The Question asks me whether I will take statutory powers to enforce minimum standards. As I made clear to the hon Lady, of whose interest in the matter I am fully aware, I am not prepared to take such powers to enforce these standards.

    Blab-Off Switches (Imports)
    Mr. Mayhewasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will grant a licence for the import from the United States of America of blab-off switches into this country.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I have not yet received any application for a licence to import blab-off switches from the United States. If one were submitted, the Board of Trade would consider whether the expenditure of dollars was justified.
    Mr. Mayhew: Is the Minister aware that this popular device, which enables American viewers to switch off television advertisers' announcements, may soon become indispensable in this country? Is it fair that the Government should import the bad features of American television and prohibit the rest of us from importing the good ones?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Without expressing any view upon the hypothesis which the hon. Gentleman puts forward, I would not have thought that the manufacture of blab-off switches was beyond the wit of British engineers.
    Colonel Harrison: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the public-spirited action of the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) who recognises that there will be a very large number of viewers who would prefer to see his handsome features silent rather than vocal?
    Mr. Strachey: Does not the Minister think that we should find these switches very useful in this House?

    Canadian Barley
    Captain Duncanasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the increase of the imports of barley from Canada, from 559,180 cwts. in the first nine months of 1952, to 8,861,750 cwts. in the same period of 1953; and how much of this was paid for in sterling.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Yes, Sir. Payment for these imports would be in dollars.
    Captain Duncan: While welcoming the extension of inter-Imperial trade, does not my right hon. Friend realise that there is a possibility of endangering our balance of payments as between dollars and sterling if this sort of increase goes on? Will he put a ceiling on it?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, this trade is now on private account, and I think it is necessary to take a rather broader view over a longer period before drawing any particular assumption.
    Mr. Stokes: If I put down a Question, will the right hon. Gentleman tell me how much of this barley went into the manufacture of whisky?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: If the right hon. Gentleman puts down any Question I shall try to answer it.
    Mr. Bottomley: If we are to allow private enterprise to spend dollars freely shall we not be in great economic trouble once again through the failure of the Government to do their job?

    British Standards Institution (Funds)
    Miss Burtonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the work done by the British Standards Institution is suffering because of the lack of funds available for a suitable publicity campaign; and if he will consider the possibility of a larger grant for this purpose.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: We are at present considering the future grant-in-aid to the Institution and this review will cover the question of publicity.
    Miss Burton: Is the Minister aware that I am very glad to have a chance to pay my tribute to the Institution? It is

    1889
    their terms of reference to which I object, not their working. Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that their work would be much better publicised if they had a little more money available?
    Mr. Nicholson: If this means that the larger part of the Institution's income will come from the grant-in-aid, is it not right that their finances should come under the purview of this House?

    Textiles (Consumer Research)
    Miss Burtonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the consumer research, essential for quality control of textiles, is not being carried out at the present time; and if he will, therefore, consider remitting this problem to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Consumer research is continuously undertaken by manufacturers and distributors as part of their normal business. The problem does not fall within the province of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.
    Miss Burton: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that in so far as the rayon industry is concerned this quality research is not being carried out? Is he aware that he gave the House an assurance about 18 months ago that the rayon industry would mark their cloth, and that only last week he said that that undertaking was not being carried out? Is he going to break faith both with this House and the shopping public?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am not at all sure that the research is not being carried out by the rayon industry.

    Statutory Instrument No. 1078 (Annulment)
    Mr. Willeyasked the President of the Board of Trade what action he has taken, following the annulment of Statutory Instrument, 1953, No. 1078.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I have today made a new revocation Order.
    Mr. Willey: What does the Minister intend to do to meet the very formidable case put forward by the Glass Manufacturers' Federation, which persuaded this House last week to help them?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: That raises a different question.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Films (Tax Rebate Scheme)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has considered the proposed entertainments tax rebate scheme recently submitted by the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association to the Board of Trade and passed to him; and if he will make a statement.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I have seen the proposals to which the hon. Member refers. As they would involve changes in taxation the hon. Member will not expect me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.
    Mr. Swingler: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to approach the proposal with sympathy and audacity? Is he aware that these proposals provide for the combined reduction of Entertainments Duty and a stimulus to British film production? If the hon. Gentleman is told that it might be contrary to G.A.T.T., will be bear in mind that if the Italians are already doing it, and if it is contrary, there is something wrong with G.A.T.T. and not with the proposal?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: We approached the problem with both the qualities to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and a good many others.

    Wireless and Television Revenue (Retention)
    Mr. Wadeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the net revenue from wireless and television licences is to be retained by the Treasury for the year 1953–54; what sum is expected to be received by the Treasury in respect thereof; and how much Exchequer grant-in-aid for overseas services is to be provided during the same period.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The answers to the three parts of the Question are, respectively: 14 per cent.; £2,050,000; and £4,950,000.
    Mr. Wade: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this raid on the licence revenue, like the raid on the Road Fund, is difficult to justify in principle and is a really unsatisfactory method of raising

    1891
    general revenue? Can he give us an assurance that this cut will be discontinued?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that word "raid" is appropriate, though I appreciate that the interests concerned would always like more money.

    Grant-aided Bodies (Printing and Stationery Orders)
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will ensure that fresh instructions are issued in respect of orders for printing and stationery placed by grant-aided bodies to make certain that where such a body can obtain as competitive or more competitive a quotation from outside sources it will not be instructed to purchase from Her Majesty's Stationery Office and be involved in the 12½ per cent. service charge.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There is no hard-and-fast rule that all grant-aided bodies must obtain all their stationery and printing requirements through the Stationery Office, but it is generally to their advantage to do so, as the benefits of large-scale purchase normally outweigh the charge for departmental expenses. It would, however, be both wasteful and undesirable for the Stationery Office to quote prices for particular jobs in direct competition with private traders, and I could not agree that they should be expected to do so.
    Mr. Shepherd: In view of the fact that statements have been issued by the Stationery Office and the Treasury, giving the impression that these grant-aided bodies cannot go outside to get a better quotation, as they can in many cases, is it not better for the country that they should do it?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If my hon. Friend will draw the particular case he has in mind to my attention I can, no doubt, clear up any misunderstanding that exists in the particular quarter.

    Ex-Lord Chancellors (Pensions)
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to how many ex-Lord Chancellors pensions are now being paid; and the present total cost per year.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Pensions are now being paid to three former Lord Chancellors. The total cost is £13,750 a year.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is there any qualifying period for this pension, as in the case of Prime Ministers?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I understand, No, Sir.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Is that the gross figure, or has taxation been taken into account?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is the gross figure. I could not give the net cost for a limited number of individuals without entering into their personal affairs.
    Sir R. Boothby: Is it not a fact that ex-Lord Chancellors give continuous service in the House of Lords and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is certainly a fact that, subject to other public duties which they have, the noble and learned Lords have rendered that assistance from time to time.

    Cost of Living
    Mr. Lewisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans Her Majesty's Government have for bringing about a reduction in the cost of living.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. R. Maudling): The level of the cost of living depends on many factors, some of which are outside the Government's control. The first task of the Government in this field is to prevent inflation from forcing up prices. Here we have already achieved much, and shall continue with our policy. Further, the restoration of competitive trading in many fields will help to keep prices down. But one of the most important ways of reducing prices is by reducing costs and raising productivity. The Government can help, but this is primarily the task of both sides of industry.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister not aware that, because of falling world prices of raw materials, there has been a small reduction in the prices of some consumer goods in this country, and equally because world food prices have fallen, whereas we are finding that food prices are going up? Is it not about time that

    1893
    the Government did something to implement their promise to reduce food prices?
    Mr. Maudling: For the facts as to the trend of food prices I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the speech made by my right hon. and gallant Friend in the recent debate, and I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the prices of raw materials are only one of the factors in the final cost.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the Minister aware that prices have been stabilised roof high and that our manufacturers are at their wits' end to quote for exports in the spring? Does he not think it is time that this stabilisation at roof height should be brought down to the basement?
    Mr. Maudling: The Government are very anxious to bring prices down as soon as possible, but at any rate the stabilisation precedes prices coming down and follows very considerable rises in prices which we inherited.
    Mr. Marlowe: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the relevant factor is public expenditure and that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis), who put this Question, could contribute to its reduction by not asking for increases in the salaries of Members of Parliament?

    United Steel Stock
    Mr. Fienburghasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the demand for United Steel stock at the higher than normal interest rates offered, he will instruct the Iron and Steel Realisation Agency to offer more normal rates of interest in future issues.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As there have until this week been no dealings in ordinary shares in steel companies since they were nationalised, there is no such thing yet as normal interest rates in relation to such shares. I am confident that the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency proposed terms for the United Steel offer that were the most reasonable in the light of all the circumstances at the time, and I have full confidence in their judgment for the future.
    Mr. Fienburgh: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the exceptionally high
    1894
    yield in the terms offered by the Realisation Agency was such as to produce over-demand? Is he not aware that that was, in effect, a bribe to investors to invest in this industry? Why should not the normal laws of supply and demand operate, and the price be increased or the yield be reduced for further issues of steel shares?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Unless it is contended that any successful issue is a bribe to somebody, I cannot follow the hon. Gentleman's reasoning.
    Mr. Jay: Is not the Financial Secretary aware that according to the whole of the financial Press the yield on the shares exceeded that of comparable industrial shares? Why should the Government sell these shares at below the market price?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As my original answer made clear, there are not, at the moment, any comparable industrial shares and so, with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that question does not arise.
    Mr. Jayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the terms on which shares in the United Steel Company have been sold to private investors; and if he is satisfied that the public interest is adequately safeguarded.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, Sir.

    Exports (Tax Relief Claims)
    Mr. McKibbinasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the reasons for the change in procedure, made on 2nd November, 1953, regarding the export by parcel post of articles, such as linen handkerchiefs and sheets, normally subject to Purchase Tax when sold at home, in view of the fact that this change involves a multiplicity of forms, notes and labels which adds considerably to the cost.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to a Question on this subject by the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) on 12th November.
    Mr. McKibbin: Is my hon. Friend aware that under the new system a linen

    1895
    exporter seeking to send a parcel to Italy has to fill in a label addressed to the consignees, three non-adhesive Customs forms, one dispatch note, one Purchase Tax form P.T. 43, one Purchase Tax label P.T. 44, pages 1 and 2 of the Exchange Control form and about three other forms equally unnecessary? Does my hon. Friend not think that it is time this procedure were altered?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Government, as I explained in the answer to which I have referred, are endeavouring to secure that the completion of these forms shall be as closely similar as possible to that of forms demanded by the foreign Customs authorities, so as to minimise trouble as far as possible.
    Mr. McKibbinasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that, under the new arrangements regarding export by parcel post, brought in on 2nd November, 1953, an exporter who sends numbers of parcels at the same time to a single overseas customer is now required to give a separate receipt for each parcel instead of one for the whole batch as before; and whether, in view of the difficulties thus involved to exporters, he will revert to the former simpler procedure.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir; a single certificate of posting is accepted for any group of parcels for which a single Customs declaration is accepted in the country of destination; and in the case envisaged in the Question a single Customs declaration is usually accepted for a number of parcels for the same addressee.
    For the reasons I gave in reply to the Question on this subject by the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) on 12th November, I am afraid we could not continue the former procedure.

    Capital Issues Committee
    Mr. G. Williamsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he anticipates being able to abolish the Capital Issues Committee.
    Mr. Maudling: The Committee performs an essential function in advising my right hon. Friend on individual applications for consent to raise money for
    1896
    capital purposes. He has no intention of dispensing with their services, which he values highly.
    Mr. Williams: Would the Minister tell us how many have been considered during the last year and how many have been rejected? Surely he realises that this uncertainty in not knowing whether people are to get it or not is operating to the detriment of trade and enterprise.
    Mr. Maudling: I could not quote the exact figure without notice, but the number of rejections is very small indeed in relation to the total number of applications. I would not accept the suggestion that any widespread uncertainty is caused by the present arrangements.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Capital Issues Committee is the only device of Government which is not subject to any democratic procedure? Does he not think that the time is now ripe to bring their deliberations before Parliament so that we can all see what principles guide their actions?
    Mr. Maudling: My noble Friend misunderstands the position. The Capital Issues Committee is an advisory body, and responsibility to this Houses rests upon my right hon. Friend.

    Purchase Tax Changes (Announcement)
    Brigadier Medlicottasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give favourable consideration to the proposal put forward by the Retail Distributors' Association that any changes in the rate of Purchase Tax should take effect in January instead of at Budget time.
    Mr. Coleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will arrange that when changes in purchase tax are made this is done in January, or at such other date appropriate to the trade concerned, when retailers' stocks are expected to be at their lowest, instead of at the time of the Budget.
    Captain Ryderasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, when making alterations to Purchase Tax, he will arrange for this to be done on 1st January, when stocks in retailers' hands are normally at their lowest, instead of at Budget time.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would refer my hon. Friends to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) on 12th November.
    Mr. Cole: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that we are drawing near to the end of the year, that this matter is one of very great concern to the traders affected, and that it would be of vital assistance if an early decision could be made?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I appreciate that, and we certainly do not underrate the importance of this matter.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: The hon. Gentleman said that a week ago. Can he say whether the Chancellor has now stopped shuffling along from week to week and will really try to help trade and industry?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not know whether a question expressed in those not very courteous terms is serious or not, but I have nothing to add to the statement I have made.

    Retired Ministers (Pensions)
    Brigadier Medlicottasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the financial problems which face former Ministers of the Crown who have no private means and who, during many years of public service, have been unable to save for the time of their retirement owing to the high level of taxation; and if he will examine the problem with a view to initiating a suitable and adequate pension scheme for retired Ministers.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Successive Governments have concluded that no special measures on these lines could be justified, and, while I have every sympathy with former Ministers who are faced with such difficulties, I regret that I do not feel able to take a different view.
    Brigadier Medlicott: As, very often, acceptance of office involves a major financial sacrifice is it not normally desirable that those holding high office under the Crown should not be under any anxiety?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would not necessarily wish to traverse my hon. and
    1898
    gallant Friend's views, but, as he will appreciate, this is not a new problem, nor an easy one.
    Mr. Lewis: While not disagreeing with the legitimacy of the statements contained in the Question, may I ask the Minister whether he is not aware that this also affects back bench Members? Notwithstanding the vicious and unworthy remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe), is he aware that many working men on this side of the House cannot go out and earn big fees in the Law Courts?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This question, as I understand it, relates solely to former Ministers.

    City Corporations (Organisation and Methods Inquiry)
    Captain Waterhouseasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the valuable results obtained by the investigation by Treasury officials into the organisation and methods of Coventry Corporation, he will entertain requests for a similar inquiry from the corporations of other cities.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: We want to help in this way and believe that this approach has valuable possibilities. The best way in which we can help is by giving such guidance as they need, for example, to groups of local authorities to set up organisation and methods machinery of their own. This was done with our help by the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee last year.
    We have not got the trained staff to conduct these investigations at all widely, and, while we will do our best to try to meet any such request as my right hon. and gallant Friend mentions, I can make no promise that it will necessarily be possible to do so in view of the other calls on the limited trained staff available.
    Miss Burton: Would not the Minister agree that tribute should be paid to the open-minded attitude of the Coventry Corporation in making the investigation?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have already paid that tribute, as the hon. Lady may be aware, within the boundaries of the City of Coventry, and I will happily repeat it this afternoon.

    Colombo Plan (Committee's Report)
    Sir R. Aclandasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish a second annual report of the Consultative Committee on the Colombo Plan following its recent meeting in Delhi; whether he will make it comparable in scope to Command Paper No. 8529; and when its publication may be expected.
    Mr. Maudling: My right hon. Friend hopes to present this Report on or about 15th December. In scope it will be similar to last year's Report.
    Sir R. Acland: When the Report is published will it show how much outside financial assistance has been received from which countries, and to which countries and in what conditions; and will it also set out the achievements in terms of acres irrigated and kilowatts generated, so that we may know clearly whether the scheme is going at the rate set out at the beginning?
    Mr. Maudling: I could not guarantee that all those details will be contained in it, but the Report will contain a great deal of factual and statistical information, both about kilowatts generated, areas irrigated, work done and so forth.
    Mr. Osborne: Can my hon. Friend say how much money is being spent by this Government under the Colombo Plan, as compared with that spent by the American Government under Point Four of their programme?
    Mr. Maudling: Not without notice.
    Mr. P. Morris: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the widest possible information on the Colombo Plan is one of the greatest factors in promoting world peace, and will he say whether the Government accept that point of view?
    Mr. Maudling: Her Majesty's Govern-certainly accept the view that the success of the Colombo Plan will be of very great importance for the future of the world.

    Ministers' Overseas Visits (Cost)
    Mr. Wyattasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount spent on official trips abroad by Ministers and
    1900
    junior Ministers during the recent Recess; and the amount spent on similar trips in the equivalent recess of 1950.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: About £16,000 in 1953 and £25,000 in 1950. In both years, rather more than half is for accompanying officials.
    Mr. Snow: Can the Minister say whether this covers the cost of sending to Kenya, during the Summer Recess, the hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser), who appears to have gone in a quasi-Ministerial capacity?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I cannot answer, without notice, Questions about individual items, but if the hon. Gentleman will agree to put that Question down to the appropriate Minister no doubt an appropriate answer will be given.

    U.S. Tobacco (Sterling Purchase)
    Mr. N. Macphersonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the conditions laid down, respectively, by the United States Government and the British Government, under which 20 million dollars worth of American tobacco is to be imported against payment in sterling; and whether payment of freight and insurance is also to be in sterling.
    Mr. Maudling: Reference should be made to the full text of Section 550 of the United States Mutual Security Act, 1953, of which these are the main conditions:

    (i) The purchases under the Section should not displace usual marketings of the United States or friendly countries.

    (ii) Private trade channels must be used to the maximum extent practicable.

    (iii) Purchases must not be resold or transhipped to other countries.

    In addition, the effect of other provisions of the Mutual Security Acts is that at least 50 per cent. of the purchases must be carried in United States ships. I understand arrangements can be made for payment of freight in sterling; some dollar payments may be involved for insurance.
    Mr. Macpherson: Can the hon. Gentleman say, first, that there is no possibility whatever of a reduction in the purchase of Commonwealth tobacco as a result of this purchase, and, secondly, whether the

    1901
    arrangement as to 50 per cent. of the freight being carried in American bottoms, which applied in the case of aid, is really applicable to this kind of transaction? Will he not press to make certain there is equal competition for the carrying in this transaction?
    Mr. Maudling: It is specifically provided that the movement of these commodities should be, and must be, additional to what would otherwise have been purchased. I can give an assurance on that. On the second point, I think my hon. Friend must have regard to what is laid down by the United States Acts. When the movement of these commodities is in effect, in this case, a gift of our economy, I do not think we can press too much on the matter of the ships in which they are carried.
    Mr. Jay: Can the hon. Gentleman say what will be done with the sterling which is received by the Americans?
    Mr. Maudling: I think I have already informed my hon. Friend that the sterling is to be applied to meet the defence costs of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Macpherson: To obtain greater clarification of this matter, I wish to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Retailers' Stocks (Tax Reductions)
    Mr. Coleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any proposals to make to minimise the loss likely to be suffered by retailers on tax-paid stocks, as a result of future reductions in Purchase Tax.
    Dr. Kingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he proposes to take to mitigate the burden which is likely to fall on retailers holding tax-paid stocks resulting from future reductions in Purchase Tax.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I regret that I cannot add to what I said on this subject on 22nd June during the Finance Bill debates.
    Mr. Cole: Is my hon. Friend aware that, although the suggestions made about the dates of changes in Purchase Tax will be of assistance in the difficulties of traders, there will still be many losses
    1902
    suffered? Will the Chancellor give careful consideration to the many schemes which have been submitted to him?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not go back on anything that has been said. I am aware of the connection between this and the other Question.
    Dr. King: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that almost everybody in this country admits the injustice whereby retailers who collect Purchase Tax for the Government are punished when it is reduced? Will he not see that something is done before the next Budget, indeed in the next few weeks, otherwise the injustice will be perpetrated?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I hope the hon. Member will not be too critical of us for not solving a problem which the Hutton Committee could not solve in six months, and which the late Administration did not solve in six years.

    British Museum (Staff)
    Colonel Gomme-Duncanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the industrial staff at the British Museum has increased from 26 in 1952–53 to 32 in 1953–54.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Because six additional labourers were authorised to help with the return of sculpture from wartime storage, and to reinstall it in the exhibition galleries.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will this therefore be a temporary item?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I understand that the work will not be concluded in this financial year and will, therefore, go into the next. I cannot go beyond that.

    Grain Imports (Dollar Allocation)
    Captain Duncanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer his policy regarding the allocation of dollars for the purchase of grain from overseas.
    Mr. Maudling: Imports of grain for U.K. consumption are permitted freely under open individual licences. When dollars are required they are made available.
    Captain Duncan: Does my hon. Friend realise that the enormous increase in the quantity of grain coming in from abroad in the last few months, may well endanger

    1903
    the balance of payments between dollar and sterling? If that is allowed to continue without any ceiling put on, it may be very serious in relation to our economic position.
    Mr. Maudling: It is, of course, important to save dollars, but it is also very important that the imports we buy should be bought as cheaply as possible. The continuation of discrimination between dollar and non-dollar commodities, in this type of commodity, leads to considerable premium prices which would have to be paid if we did not allow dollar commodities freely to be imported into this country.

    Post-war Credits
    Dr. Kingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will set up a Departmental Committee, or move for a Select Committee of the House, to investigate what groups of citizens, such as the disabled, unemployed, or sick, might be allowed to receive their post-war credits ahead of the legal time.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I regret I cannot accept this suggestion.
    Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that the Treasury can solve the most intricate problems when it is a question of collecting money, but always finds technical difficulties when it is a question of paying money out? Will he not let the House help him solve the problem of paying post-war credits back to those who need them?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: While not dissenting from the compliment implied in the first part of that supplementary, I must point out that this is not a new problem. It has been considered sympathetically by a number of Governments over a number of years, and they have all come to the conclusion that this is not the right criterion.

    U.S. Surplus Food (Purchase)
    Mr. Peartasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the details of the Government agreement to purchase surplus United States stocks of food.
    Mr. Maudling: So far, arrangements have been made for the purchase of 20 million dollars worth of tobacco, the sterling proceeds of which will be applied in relief of the United Kingdom defence
    1904
    budget. Discussions with the United States Administration in respect of other commodities are still proceeding. I would also refer the hon. Member to my reply today to the Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Mac-pherson) setting out the general conditions governing these purchases.
    Mr. Peart: Will the Minister bear in mind the interests of the Commonwealth, which might well be affected, as, also, can be the very important interests of home producers of food?
    Mr. Maudling: I think the hon. Gentleman will find the legitimate interests of both home and Commonwealth food producers are safeguarded by the conditions I read out in reply to an earlier Question.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how such an arrangement helps the dollar sterling balance position?
    Mr. Maudling: I do not know that it specifically assists the dollar sterling balance, but it means that we get 20 million dollars worth of tobacco for nothing.

    £ Sterling (Purchasing Value)
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring up to date the table published in HANSARD on 25th June last, showing how the purchasing value of the £ sterling has varied month by month since October, 1951.
    Mr. Maudling: Taking October, 1951, as 20s. the figures for the months since May, 1953, based on the Ministry of Labour's Interim Index of Retail Prices, are as follow:

    s.

    d.

    June

    …

    …

    …

    18

    3

    July

    …

    …

    …

    18

    3

    August

    …

    …

    …

    18

    4

    September

    …

    …

    …

    18

    5

    October

    …

    …

    …

    18

    5

  ATOMIC ENERGY (PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS)
  Mr. Peartasked the Prime Minister which Minister will be responsible for the answering of questions concerning atomic energy in the House of Commons.
  The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): Subject to the usual procedure, the Order in Council transferring responsibilities from the Minister of

  1905
  Supply to the Lord President of the Council will take effect on 1st January. Until then, the existing arrangements will continue.
  Thereafter, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply will answer only those Questions which relate to the development and production of atomic weapons for specific Service requirements.
  Questions relating to the responsibilities transferred to the Lord President will be answered on his behalf by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works.
  Mr. Peart: In view of the uncertainty of the Prime Minister on Tuesday, may I ask which Minister will be responsible in the interim period, because, on Tuesday, we had a reply from the Foreign Secretary and a reply from the Minister of Supply, and there was uncertainty in the Prime Minister's mind? Apart from that, is it not important that in future we should have a reply by a Minister directly responsible in this House?
  The Prime Minister: I have said that, after 1st January, the Minister of Works will answer Questions here on this subject on behalf of the Lord President of the Council. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not good enough."] You do not like that; you do not like the House of Lords at all. That will be the arrangement which will be made, but, with regard to the making of atomic weapons by the Ministry of Supply, Questions on that subject will, as hitherto, be answered by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply.
  Mr. G. Strauss: May I ask the Prime Minister how the Minister of Works will know anything at all about the industrial activities on atomic energy? Is he to be associated with the work of the Lord President of the Council in this matter, because, otherwise, it would appear that the answers will be made by a Minister having no responsibility for and no connection whatever with this enterprise? Would it not be very much better if the Minister of Supply were to answer both on the industrial and the weapon side of this business?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. We have considered that a line should properly be drawn in this case, though not in every case, between research and supply.
  Mr. Attlee: I understand that the Lord President of the Council is being placed in charge of this matter because it is a matter of major Government policy. Should not, therefore, the response in this House be made by a member of the Cabinet?
  The Prime Minister: I think that the arrangement which has been made is the most convenient.
  Brigadier Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the arrangement he has made is regarded on this side of the House as a great improvement on that made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Attlee), who was frightened to let his own people know that he was making atom bombs?

  GOVERNMENT SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS (CIRCULAR)
  Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) to what Government Departments Establishments Circular No. 21, issued by the Treasury on 11th March, 1952, have been circulated; and how many civil servants were affected;
  (2) what discussions have taken place between the Treasury and the national staff side on matters dealt with in Establishments Circular No. 21, dated 21st March, 1952; and
  (3) whether he will place in the Library of the House a copy of Establishments Circular No. 21, issued by the Treasury on 11th March, 1952.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: A Treasury circular was issued to all Government Departments in March, 1952, after discussions with the National Staff Side, setting out the current procedure for checking the liability of a limited number of staff employed on exceptionally secret work, especially work involving access to secret information about atomic energy.
  As requested by the hon. and gallant Member, I am placing a copy of this circular in the Library. As the hon. and gallant Member will see when he looks at paragraph 3 of the circular, the number of posts affected is about 3,000 plus the posts involving access to classified information about atomic energy.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Am I to assume from that reply that this circular will contain the annexure to it containing the questionnaire which had to be filled up by the persons concerned?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think when the hon. and gallant Gentleman looks at the circular he will find that all he wants is there. If not, perhaps he will put down a further Question.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: But does it include the annexure?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he will state the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 23RD NOVEMBER—Second Reading: Industrial Diseases (Benefit) Bill.
Committee stage: Money Resolution.
We hope we may be able to get it by about 7 o'clock.
Second Reading: Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Bill.
TUESDAY, 24TH NOVEMBER—Motions for Addresses to continue in force for one year:
Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945.
Various Defence Regulations and enactments having effect under the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947.
Motions relating to: Patents Act, 1949.
Registered Designs Act, 1949.
WEDNESDAY, 25TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading: Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill.
Committee stage: Money Resolution.
We hope we may obtain that by about 7 p.m.
Committee and remaining stages: Cinematograph Film Production (Special Loans) Bill.
THURSDAY, 26TH NOVEMBER—Committee and remaining stages: Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
Further progress will be made with the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Bill.
Motions to approve: Draft Police Pensions Regulations.
Draft Civil Defence (Grant) Regulations; and similar Regulations for Scotland.
Draft Coastal Flooding (Acreage Payments) Scheme (No. 2).
FRIDAY, 27TH NOVEMBER—Private Members' Motions.
Mr. Attlee: Has the right hon. Gentleman given any consideration to the request that there should be a discussion on foreign affairs prior to the Bermuda Conference?
Mr. Crookshank: Yes, Sir. We have considered that very sympathetically, of course, but the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there have been three debates on various aspects of foreign affairs within the last month, and we thought that it would perhaps suit the convenience of the House generally, as nothing new has emerged in the last few days, if any debate on foreign affairs were to await the return from the Conference of my right hon. Friends. [HON. MEMBERS:" No."] I hope that that will be satisfactory to the House.
Mr. Attlee: The right hon. Gentleman will surely realise that the House would like to express its opinion on some of the problems and give the Government an opportunity of explaining their views on some of the matters which will be discussed at the Bermuda Conference. I think that our previous discussions on foreign affairs have been, on the whole, limited to certain special subjects.
Mr. Crookshank: They do not have to be limited when they are taken on the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will think that in this particular case it would be better to postpone such a debate.
Mr. C. Davies: When may we expect the White Paper on Wales which has been promised, and when may we have a debate on Wales, especially rural Wales, which has been promised since July?
Mr. Crookshank: I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware of the position. We hoped to get the debate in

1909
October, at the end of last Session, but we postponed it because there was to be a White Paper dealing with such matters, including Wales. I understand that the White Paper is likely to be issued within a week or 10 days, and I hope that we may have a debate before Christmas.
Mr. S. Silverman: Does the Leader of the House recall that there was a most distinguished Royal Commission which sat for five years considering possible alterations or modifications of the death penalty, and that it produced a most interesting Report with a series of perhaps controversial but, nevertheless, interesting suggestions for the alteration of the law? Can he say whether he proposes to pay the Royal Commission the compliment of allowing a day of Parliamentary time to consider its conclusions?
Mr. Crookshank: I should have to consider that. It will certainly not be at the moment, or next week.
Mr. L. M. Lever: In view of the urgency, will the right hon. Gentleman afford time to debate the Motion standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland (Mr. Logan), myself and others relating to the persecution of Roman Catholics in Poland and the arrest of Cardinal Wyszynski?
Mr. Crookshank: I am sure that in every part of the House there is deep concern at what has occurred, and that very great sympathy will be expressed by every hon. Member, wherever he sits. I should like to find a little time for considering this Motion, but at this period of the Session we have some very urgent business which must be got through by certain dates. I will bear the matter in mind. Possibly, some evening an opportunity might arise.
Mr. Lever: I am very much obliged.
Mr. Edelman: Will the right hon. Gentleman provide time for a debate on the White Paper on atomic energy, and will the Order in Council transferring the powers from the Minister of Supply to the Lord President be laid before the House before such a debate takes place?
Mr. Crookshank: It not only will be laid, but it has been laid. It was laid on 10th November, and the Order in Council is subject to Prayer before it can take
1910
effect. I think we shall have to see, through the usual channels, about any debate which may take place. Of course, in the end there will have to be a debate on any legislation which arises out of the transfer of powers.
Mr. Gower: Further to the question raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), may I ask whether my right hon. Friend has noted the disproportionate amount of time occupied in discussing and debating the affairs of Scotland with 5 million people, and of Wales with 2½ million people?
Mr. Crookshank: Far be it from me, as an English Member, to get mixed up in that sort of argument. The only thing I can say to my hon. Friend, which must be some little consolation to him, is that it is only since this Government has been in office that all this attention has been paid to Wales.
Mr. Foot: Further to the proposal for a debate on foreign affairs before the Bermuda Conference, when the Leader of the House stated as an excuse for not having such a debate that no new event had occurred since the last debate on foreign affairs, may I ask whether he recalls that since then a Note has been sent by Her Majesty's Government to the Soviet Government which obviously bears on the matters to be discussed at Bermuda, and it ought to be discussed in this House? In addition, there has been a most important debate in the French Chamber on these subjects. Therefore, will he not reconsider the matter, in order to avoid the difficulties we had on the last occasion when the Foreign Secretary went to the meeting in Washington and made proposals which had never been discussed in this House before?
Mr. Crookshank: I do not think I shall add to what I have already said, except to say that the Note which was sent on behalf of the three Powers to Russia has, as far as I know, met with assent.
Mr. H. Morrison: Reverting to the question of Wales, is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Government has given no more attention to Wales than the Labour Government did? Is he aware that it was we who restored economic well-being in Wales, and not the Tory Party? Is he further aware that we provided

1911
a day each year for debating Welsh affairs, and sometimes two days? Surely he ought to follow the example of the Labour Government in this matter.
Mr. Crookshank: I really do not know why we are treated to this disquisition. There are no by-elections in Wales today. In spite of being told of the wonderful things which our predecessors did, the fact remains that it was not until my right hon. Friend became Prime Minister that a Minister was specially appointed for Wales.
Mr. Attlee: Is it not a very long time since the Conservative Party produced any Welsh Member fit for office?
Mr. Crookshank: The right hon. Gentleman had so many that he did not dare trust any of them.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Reverting to the question of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment, if the Government cannot find time for a discussion of the Report of that Commission, in the alternative, will the Minister say whether it is the intention of the Government to take any steps to implement the recommendations of that Commission?
Mr. Crookshank: That is not a question which should be put to me at this
1912
stage. All I said was that this was a matter which required a great deal of consideration. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) himself pointed out that it had taken the Commission five years to consider this matter. I think a little time must be allowed even to this admirable Government.
Later—
Mr. P. Morris: On a point of order. May I have your guidance, Mr. Speaker, in asking you what remedy is available to hon. and right hon. Members from Wales against the cynical indifference with which the Leader of the House treats our legitimate claim for overdue days for discussion of Welsh affairs?
Mr. Speaker: There is nothing near a point of order in that. I think the hon. Member knows so, too. Hon. Members really should not use a point of order for purposes like that.

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

HER MAJESTY'S COMMONWEALTH TOUR
3.41 p.m.
The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty on the occasion of Her Majesty's departure with His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, to visit Australia, New Zealand, Ceylon, and certain of Her Majesty's Colonies and of the Territories under Her Majesty's Protection, conveying an assurance that Her Majesty will leave with the prayers of Her people in this country for a safe journey and a happy return and, further, assuring Her Majesty that this House will follow the journey with deep interest and loyal affection.
All Members of the House will, I know, wish to place on record their good wishes to the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh for the success of the long tour on which they are about to leave, and to proclaim the eagerness with which we look forward to their safe return next May. This, Sir, will be the first time in history that a British Sovereign has circumnavigated the globe. Her Majesty and the Duke will set foot in many lands owing allegiance to the Crown and will, I have no doubt, arouse the keenest sense of loyal devotion. We have no doubt of the joyful welcome which the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh will receive wherever they go.
Her Majesty's ship "Gothic" is more spacious and travels faster than the "Golden Hind," but it may well be that the journey which the Queen is about to take will be no less auspicious, and the treasure which she brings back no less bright, than when Drake first sailed an English ship round the world. We wish Her Majesty and His Royal Highness God-speed, and our fervent prayers accompany their toils and duties.
Mr. C. R. Attlee: On behalf of Members on this side of the House, I rise to support the Motion that has been moved by the Prime Minister, and to express our good wishes for a prosperous and successful journey to the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh. I know well how anxiously our friends overseas have been looking forward to the Royal visit, and I am sure that the Queen and the Duke will receive a tremendous welcome, not only because
1914
the Queen is the symbol of the unity of the Commonwealth but also because the personal affection which is borne to Her Majesty and the Duke by the people of this island is equalled by that which will be extended to them by the people in the other Dominions.
Mr. Clement Davies: I beg to support this Motion and to express complete concurrence with what has been so admirably said by the two right hon. Gentlemen, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. We of this House, on behalf of ourselves and on behalf of the people of this country whom we have the honour to represent, desire to convey to Her Majesty and to His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh our loyal and affectionate greetings and to wish them God-speed on their great mission.
Once again, they go as the ambassadors of good will, of true friendship and of good fellowship from the people of this country to the peoples of the West Indies, Australia, New Zealand, Ceylon and the other countries they are to visit. In turn, they will be again ambassadors from the peoples of those countries back to us. Our sincere good wishes go with them. Their safety and happiness will be in our earnest daily prayers.
Mr. David Grenfell: It is almost 31 years since I spoke in this House on a maiden occasion, and I do not remember having spoken on a nonparty issue during the whole of that period. I have been unashamedly a party man, and I feel it quite consistent with everything I have done, in this House and outside, to support this Motion today.
The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh are going to experience a tremendous influence from, and perhaps to exert a tremendous influence upon, the many nations and subdivisions of races with which they will come into contact during their tour. They will represent us, I feel quite sure. I am perfectly sure that they will enjoy their tour. I do not think there has ever been in the world at any time the kind of spontaneous demonstration which they will meet in the Dominions and the Colonies and Territories overseas.
I speak with feeling. I have been to the Dominions. I went to Canada many, many years ago. I have been to Australia and New Zealand, and I cannot help

1915
testifying here to the tremendous admiration for those countries, which I have gained from visiting them and seeing their model democracies at work so far away from home. I am interested in Australia because I have been married for many years now to a woman who spent her girlhood in Australia. I know Australia very well from hearsay, and I know that there is no brighter surge of human emotion anywhere than that which is waiting to be displayed in Australia when the Queen goes there.
I am very glad that the House has permitted me to make a speech which is non-controversial and which will, I am sure, gain the approval of the House. I hope to return, even as Father of the House, to chide and reprove hon. Members who represent parties other than mine. I shall take my part readily on controversial occasions. This is not a controversial occasion. It contains the promise of the most marvellous demonstration of unity that the Empire has ever witnessed.
Question put, and agreed to nemine contradicente.
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty on the occasion of Her Majesty's departure with His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, to visit Australia, New Zealand, Ceylon, and certain of Her Majesty's Colonies and of the Territories under Her Majesty's Protection, conveying an assurance that Her Majesty will leave with the prayers of Her people in this country for a safe journey and a happy return and, further, assuring Her Majesty that this House will follow the journey with deep interest and loyal affection.
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL

    Clause 1.—(GRANTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    3.51 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I notice that in subsection (1) provision is made for the sum of £500 million. I do not know whether the Financial Secretary is in a position to tell us roughly how he anticipates, judging by past experience, that that will be divided between the various services that are financed by this Bill, but I note that he said the other day that the sum of £36 million had been spent, since we had the last Bill, on education. As some indication of the way this money is likely to be spent in the future, could he tell us the way that money was divided between the local authorities and financing the voluntary aided schools under the Act of 1944?
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): The right hon. Gentleman, with his usual courtesy, was kind enough to give me private notice that he was going to raise this point, and I am therefore able to reply to him now. The position is that this provision under this Bill to the Public Works Loan Board for loans to local authorities does not in general touch the provision for the voluntary schools, in as much as their capital expenditure, as the right hon. Gentleman will no doubt recall, is not borrowed by local authorities: it is provided out of Ministry of Education Votes.
    The only exception that I have been able to discover to that is a very trivial one, and that is the expenditure under the 1944 Act in respect of providing a room or accommodation in which school meals are served. Otherwise the provision either for the grants towards construction or otherwise is borne on the Ministry of Education Votes. So far as this £500 million is concerned, the figure is a trivial one in respect of providing

    1917
    accommodation in such schools for serving school meals.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, without Amendment, read the Third time, and passed.

POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH [MONEY]
Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for raising further money for the development of the postal, telegraphic and telephonic systems and of any other business of the Post Office, it is expedient—

(i) to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums, not exceeding in the whole one hundred and twenty-five million pounds, as may be required for the purposes of such development as aforesaid;

(ii) to authorise the Treasury to borrow by means of terminable annuities, or in any other manner in which they are authorised to raise money under the National Loans Act, 1939, for the purpose of providing money for sums so authorised to be issued, or for repaying to the Consolidated Fund all or any part of the sums so issued, and to authorise payment into the Exchequer of any sums so borrowed;

(iii) to provide for the payment of such terminable annuities out of moneys provided by Parliament for the service of the Post Office, or, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund;

(iv) to authorise the repayment into the Exchequer of such sums as are equal to the excess of—

(a) the sums authorised to be issued under paragraph (i) of this Resolution over

(b) the sums borrowed by means of such annuities as are payable under the said Act of the present Session out of moneys provided by Parliament

and to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of interest on the sums so authorised to be repaid;

(v) to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of sums paid into the Exchequer as mentioned in the last preceding paragraph and the application of sums so issued in redemption or repayment of debt, or, in so far as they represent interest, in payment of interest otherwise payable out of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt.

Resolution agreed to.

POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL
Considered in Committee.
[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(GRANT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF POSTAL, TELEGRAPHIC AND TELEPHONIC SYSTEMS AND OTHER POST OFFICE BUSINESS.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
3.55 p.m.
Mr. Ness Edwards: There are two points I want to raise of which I gave the Assistant Postmaster-General notice in our Second Reading debate. As I understand it, of this money which is to be raised, £116 million is reserved for the telephone service. Of that £116 million, £30 million is for defence works, and £625,000 is for radio links or links between television stations. What I am concerned about, and what I should like to have some satisfaction about, is how this money for defence works is to be paid back to the Post Office.
Speaking from recollection, £60 million has been spent now on defence work, and one sees no entry in the commercial accounts of any method whereby this money is paid back. I know that the hon. Gentleman has said on previous occasions that the Service Departments are treated like ordinary subscribers, but there is no method by which one can treat many of these defence works as one would treat an ordinary subscriber. There is no parallel for this type of work, and as this money has to be borne entirely by the Post Office, and they have to pay interest charges on this money, we ought to know how repayment is made to the Post Office of this very large sum of money.
The second point concerns the £625,000 of this money which is to be devoted to linking up television stations. I think we are entitled to know whether this is for the B.B.C. or whether it is for the commercial television stations the building of which is envisaged during the period when this money is being spent. If it is only for the B.B.C., I agree that it means

1919
that the Government are not making provision for expenditure on similar links in linking up the proposed new stations. Perhaps the Assistant Postmaster-General will give us some help in this matter.
As I understand it, there are to be three commercial television stations, one in London, one in Birmingham, and one in Manchester. Are these to be linked by the expenditure of this money? Are they to be linked by radio links or coaxial cables? If they are to be linked in that way, on what terms is the proposed new corporation going to reimburse the Post Office for this expenditure? Those are the two points on which I think we are entitled to have an explanation before we pass this Bill and authorise the Government to have this money.
The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): As to the first point raised by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to defence expenditure, as he quite rightly said approximately a quarter of this sum will be spent on defence. This is a lesser percentage than last time, when it was approximately a third, and we anticipate that the percentage which goes on defence will taper off from now on. The right hon. Gentleman asked how this was to be paid back. The answer is that there is no difference at all in the procedure as compared with that of the days when the right hon. Gentleman was at the Post Office. What it comes down to is that the Service Departments pay full rent just like an ordinary subscriber for these services.
What the right hon. Gentleman has in mind, and what was in the minds of his hon. Friends last week, was that if this expenditure is for defence, why should it not be borne on the Defence Vote? The answer is that that has never been done, not even in the right hon. Gentleman's days. The reason is that the cables and other facilities which are provided are part of the general telecommunications service of the whole country. The right hon. Gentleman might have asked whether we would have put the cables in these places if they were not for defence. The answer is "Yes" in some places and "No" in others, but we have no reason to suppose that, taken over a reasonable period, these links will not form a useful part of our telecommunications service.
1920
It is exactly like any other form of expenditure; the Service Departments pay an ordinary rental for the service we provide for them, exactly as if they were private subscribers.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to television links. The total sum involved is about £650,000. To a certain extent, the figure must be tentative at this stage. It is the sum of money that we assume may well be spent over the next two years. A large part of it is in connection with the extensions to the B.B.C. service which are already envisaged, and I can give the right hon. Gentleman some figures which may be of interest to him.
The most expensive link will be that with Aberdeen, which is estimated to cost £130,000. It will be a radio link. The radio link with the Isle of Wight will cost £75,000. The new link between Alexandra Palace and the Crystal Palace when the London station is moved there will be a cable link, and the sum involved will be £44,000. There is also £52,000 for a cross-Channel link. The B.B.C. hope increasingly to be able to pick up programmes from Europe. There is also provision in the sum for a radio link to East Anglia. The East Anglian station is not yet approved, but we have promised that when the next programme of B.B.C. extension comes along it will have priority. There are then some small sums for Belfast and Newcastle.
About £80,000 is to be used to strengthen the links between Manchester and Holme Moss, and Birmingham and Sutton Coldfield, so that if the B.B.C. is ultimately allowed to give a second programme, the facilities will be provided. Then there is a very large sum of money, more than £100,000, which accounts for most of the balance, and this will be used for strengthening the main co-axial cable which goes up through the centre of the country to Scotland. Incidentally, that can be used for the telephone service, or, if the B.B.C. has a second programme, for television.
On the specific point about the capital expenditure on Post Office links relating to the commercial proposals of the Government, no decision has yet been made about where the station will be, but on the assumption which the right hon. Gentleman put forward that they may be in London, Birmingham and Manchester,

1921
so far as we can see now, no additional capital expenditure on Post Office links, except for a very small sum, will be required.
Mr. Ness Edwards: Do I understand that the present links are adequate to provide new channels if a commercial network programme is desired?
Mr. Gammans: That is so if we assume that they are in the places mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, but I should be forestalling not only debates in this House but also the formation of the new corporation, whose views on the matter must be taken into account, if I were to give a definite assurance that they will be in those places.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

AIR CORPORATIONS [MONEY]
Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the borrowing powers of the British Overseas Airways Corporation and the British European Airways Corporation, it is expedient to authorise such increases—

(a) in the sums issued out of the Consolidated Fund under section ten of the Air Corporations Act, 1949, being sums required by the Treasury for fulfilling guarantees given under that section;

(b) in the sums paid into the Exchequer under that section, being sums received by way of repayment of any sums so issued.

as may be attributable to the provisions of the said Act raising the limit on money borrowed by the British Overseas Airways Corporation from sixty million pounds to eighty million pounds, and the limit on money borrowed by the British European Airways Corporation from twenty million pounds to thirty-five million pounds.
Resolution agreed to.

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL
Considered in Committee.
[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(PENSIONS IN RESPECT OF MEMBERS OF CORPORATIONS.)
4.6 p.m.
Mr. F. Beswick: I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, at the end, to insert:
(3) The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation shall, as soon as possible lay before each House of Parliament a statement of such provision for the payment of pensions to or in respect of members of each of the air corporations as he with the approval of the Treasury has determined.
On the Second Reading I gave some indication of the attitude of my hon. Friends and myself to the Bill and to the provision which will enable the Minister to pay pensions to members of the Boards. We recognised that there were some controversial elements in the case for pensions, and the Minister himself recognised some of them. There are instances, some of which I mentioned, on which it would seem unfair to withhold the possibility of paying a pension. Therefore we do not propose to contest the Clause. However, the Minister claimed that the Clause was broadly the same as the provision in other nationalisation Acts. It is, broadly speaking, the same, but I should like to read the relevant provision from the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946. Section 2 (6) says:
"There shall be paid to the members of the Board such salaries and allowances as may be determined by the Minister with the approval of the Treasury, and, on the retirement or death of any of them as to whom it may be so determined to make such provision, such pensions and gratuities to them or to others by reference to their service as may be so determined."
The fact is, as the Minister admitted, that previous Governments have not hitherto paid pensions to this category of Board members of publicly-owned industries. When the provision was drafted, it was not the intention that definite pension provision should be offered to potential members of the Board. The idea was more that a pension should be a

1923
reward for services rendered rather than an inducement for services to be provided. We thought that the Minister ought to be free to offer pensions or gratuities in appropriate cases. Perhaps the Joint Parliamentary Secretary can tell me whether the fact that the wording of the Clause is now slightly altered indicates a different approach on the part of the present Minister.
There is another point to which I wish to call attention. When I asked if it was proposed to pay pensions in addition to the present salary, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary replied,"Certainly." He gave the impression that this additional reward was regarded as being of comparatively little monetary significance. Of course, that is not the case. Salaries in the past have been attacked, very often by Conservative Members, as being too high, and they have always been justified on the basis that the posts were not permanent and were not pensionable. Conversely, for example, the Permanent Secretaries of the Departments which may have some responsibility for these industries were said to enjoy comparable remuneration because, although the salary was smaller, possibly only half that paid to the Chairmen of the Boards, they had pension rights and security, which balanced the smaller salary.
Now, apparently, we are about to make some changes in these arrangements. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he agrees or the Government agree that it is proper to consider a situation in which the permanent head of a Government Department, responsible for a particular industry, should get £4,500 a year and a pension, while the head of the industry is paid £5,000, £6,000 or £7,000, or, as apparently we are now proposing to pay the head of the new public body to be set up to control atomic energy in this country, £8,500 a year, and also a pension. What does the Parliamentary Secretary have to say about that? I make no comment, of course, upon the fact that the Minister constitutionally responsible not only for the Permanent Secretary but also for the members of the Board gets a salary less than either, with, of course, no pension and no security at all.
It does seem that we are getting this whole business somewhat out of perspective. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary
1924
whether he has considered this aspect of the matter, and whether the Government, having decided to make special provisions for pensions in addition to the high salaries, are quite certain that it is not reasonable to have another look at this business. In any case, whether it is agreed that the order of priorities is right or wrong, we think that the House should at any rate know what the position is; the House should know what arrangements are made.
It is agreed, of course, already that the details of the salaries and allowances should be made known to the House and that the House should be in possession of all that information. We are asking in this Amendment that any addition to the other provisions regarding salaries and allowances should also be made known to the House before the Minister or when the Minister reaches a decision about them. I hope, therefore, that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will recognise that we are endeavouring to assert the principle of Parliamentary accountability in this Amendment, and that he will be able to accept it.
4.15 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Profumo): I think that it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I intervene at this stage to say that, so far as I can see at first sight, as this Amendment only came into my hands this morning, there would be no objection to our accepting the spirit of the Amendment. I hope that the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) will understand if I reserve the right at this stage to say that we may require to change the wording of the Amendment when it reaches another place, because it may be that we should prefer to draft it in a different manner.
I can accept the principle of the Amendment, and I do so very gladly. I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the thought which he has given to this matter, as he always does to everything to do with civil aviation. I am sure that he will not expect me at this stage to answer in detail the points he made because they were all in elaboration of his argument in favour of the Amendment.
I should like to say, as my right hon. Friend said during his speech on the

1925
Second Reading, that we are not seeking here to do anything sinister at all, but are merely seeking to bring the Air Corporations into line with the other nationalised industries. I think that the hon. Member for Uxbridge would be the first to appreciate, understand and applaud anything which can be done to make it possible for us to get the very best men at the head of these two extremely important organisations which not only account for a very considerable amount of public funds, but which are also the spearhead in many directions of great financial gain and prestige for this country in the future. That is all that we are seeking to do.
I accept the principle of the Amendment put forward, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that we may have to change the wording when it reaches another place.
Mr. Beswick: I acknowledge the attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary, and I thank him for his offer, which we gladly accept. May I assure him that we did not for one moment think that there was anything sinister in this Clause. I appreciate the reasons why it has been brought forward and I accept some of those reasons, as I indicated earlier. I also accept that the wording may conceivably have to be changed in another place.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(LIMITATION OF ACTIONS, ETC.)
Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: I beg to move, in page 2, line 17, to leave out from "effect," to the end of line 18, and to insert:
"as therein provided, and in the case of either of the air corporations where damage is suffered by any person as the result of a tort or tortfeasor liable in respect of that damage may recover contributions from either air corporation (as the case may be) who is, or would if sued have been, liable in respect of the same damage within the period provided by section two of the said Act of 1939."
The object of this Amendment is to make Clause 3 accord with what the Tucker Committee said in their Report and also to accord with the hope that was recently expressed in the Court of Appeal.
1926
The present law with regard to this matter is that in the case of contract and tort—a tort in its wider sense being a civil or private wrong or some breach of duty that somebody owes to someone else which gives that other person the right to damages for that breach—the period during which one can bring proceedings is normally six years from the date of the cause of action, but in connection with public authorities and Government Departments, as, for instance, a Corporation of the character which we have here, the period is limited to one year. So anyone who has a right of action against a public authority or a Government Department is confined to the period of one year, whereas if the action for damages were against any other body or any private person it could be within six years.
Secondly, in the case of a tort—a civil wrong to which I have just referred—one wrongdoer can usually recover a contribution from another co-wrongdoer if he is rendered liable within the period of six years, but in the case of a public authority or a Government Department the period of claim is time-barred after one year. In the case of the public authority and the Government Department the wrongdoer goes free, however responsible for the injury or liable for the damages he may otherwise have been. That is a shameful protection by law that rests on no cogent or ethical reason.
The Tucker Committee, in 1949, came to a definite conclusion on this and other cognate matters. They were unanimous that this distinction between public authorities and Government Departments, on the one hand, and ordinary bodies and private people, on the other hand, was completely indefensible. After receiving evidence and following the fullest consideration of the matter, they said most specifically that the period of limitation during which an action could be brought should be the same for public authorities and Government Departments as for other persons or bodies. The question whether the period should be shorter for nationalised bodies was also considered by the Committee and a shorter period was completely rejected. The Committee said that there was no reason at all why the period during which an action could be brought against a nationalised body should be less than

1927
in any of the other normal cases, and they said precisely the same thing in regard to actions against the Crown.
In the case of the public corporation, such as the two Air Corporations to which the Bill relates, it is clear that the Tucker Committee came down emphatically in favour of the period of limitation being identically the same as in the case where the six years' period applied. It is because the Clause leaves the two anomalies to which I have alluded that I have introduced the Amendment to remove them.
The Clause as drafted not only leaves the anomalies, but it re-enacts them. It protects the two Air Corporations against any citizen who is injured by neglect or default or breach of duty by either of the Corporations and whose life may be wrecked or whose financial position may be ruined. Secondly, the Clause shields the Corporations from making a contribution, and it leaves the whole burden to be borne by its co-wrongdoer if the shorter time should have elapsed during which the action can be brought.
As the Attorney-General well knows, this favoured and extraordinary immunity has caused hardship and again and again has defeated otherwise unanswerable claims. I recall a case with which I was familiar, in which no fewer than 29 plaintiffs had a claim for damages, to which there was no answer except this particular distinction. Those plaintiffs suffered grievously and every one of the 29 was unable to succeed in his claim merely because of this distinction. That case was clearly an example of the monumental injustice of this exception in favour of public authorities and Government Departments as a privileged section of the community. I want the Committee to appreciate that Clause 3 seeks to re-enact that very injustice.
Parliament ought not deliberately to legislate an anomaly such as it is doing here. A fortiori it ought not to do so if the anomaly has already been condemned by a Committee which has been purposely set up by Parliament to look into the matter and has pronounced upon it and condemned the distinction, and where the position has been criticised, as it has been over and over again, by judges, whose criticism was reinforced recently in the Court of Appeal. The
1928
Clause as it stands offends all principle as we should accept it, and it flouts judicial and every other authoritative opinion that has examined the matter.
In the case in the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Denning, whose distinguished legal scholarship is marked by a progressive sense of practical justice, referred deliberately to the fact that the Tucker Committee were a strong Committee and that the evidence which they received had shown that manifest injustice often resulted from public authorities and Government Departments having this protection. He pointed out that four years had elapsed since the Tucker Committee had reported. Since that time, nothing has been done until we get this Clause, which seeks to re-enact the very anomaly the Committee said should be removed.
I hope that the Government will not emulate the case of hall-marking of gold articles, in which a committee 73 years ago recommended that the law should be consolidated and amended without delay, and nothing has yet been done. I point out to the Attorney-General that the case of the public corporation wrongdoer as regards contribution is beginning to get very near to that state of affairs. It is 14 years since the position was exposed in the Court—[Laughter.] I do not know why the Attorney-General laughs at this. If an injured person found himself incapable of bringing an action, there would be no reason to laugh. It is 14 years—
The Attorney-General (Sir Lionel Heald)The Attorney-General (Sir Lionel Heald)indicated dissent.
Mr. Turner-Samuels: If the hon. and learned Gentleman looks at the case in the Court of Appeal to which I am referring, which is reported in 1953, 2 All-England Reports, at page 915, he will see that Lord Justice Denning specifically refers to the fact that it is 14 years since the position in regard to a co-wrongdoer and contribution was exposed.
The Attorney-General: Nineteen thirty-nine.
Mr. Turner-Samuels: It was 1935. Not only has the Attorney-General got his facts wrong, but his law is wrong, too. The Act to which I am referring is the Law Reform (Married Women and Tortfeasors) Act, 1935, which deals with this particular contribution in Section 6 (1). There is no doubt that

1929
gross injustice has been occurring again and again since that time, and it was in respect of this matter that the Court of Appeal said they hoped that Parliament would soon remedy the position. This was a call from the Court of Appeal to Parliament, but it looks to me as if the Government have no intention of answering it.
4.30 p.m.
It was said by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary the other day that Clause 3 is going in the right direction. I do not know whether enacting an anomaly can be described as going in the right direction, but it is perfectly clear that the Tucker Committee pronounced most definitely against this principle of three years. Of course, it may be that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary completely spurns the Committee's Report, or that he thinks it should not be given effect to, but I understood from the Attorney-General's reply that he himself was of the opinion that this distinction was quite untenable and ought to be removed.
The Committee were firmly against three years, and if the learned Attorney-General will glance for a moment at paragraph 19 of that Report he will see these words:
"We have given careful consideration to suggestions that have been made to us that the period of limitation in the case of all torts should be reduced to three years. On the whole, we have come to the conclusion that such a change is undesirable."
Here we have a Clause which runs absolutely counter to the Report of this Committee, which so thoroughly investigated the matter and gave as their definitive finding upon the evidence before them a conclusion which was exactly the opposite to what is proposed here.
Paragraph 26 of the Report refers to the nationalised bodies, which is where the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is finding his justification for imposing this three-year limit, although they are in an entirely different context. The Tucker Committee came into existence after the nationalisation Acts in which this limitation appeared and, therefore, the case of these two Air Corporations is not similar.
Paragraph 26, in 1949, said this quite clearly, referring to the nationalised industries:
"Since such legislation is so recent, no evidence is available regarding the working of
1930
the limitation provisions contained in these Acts, but after full consideration of the matter, we can see no reason why the Authorities set up by them should be treated differently from the general public or other public bodies. In this connection we would point out that such Authorities have been made generally subject to ordinary legal liability, except in regard to the limitation of actions."
Nothing could be clearer than that.
If one turns to paragraph 17, it will be seen that the Committee refer to large commercial and industrial organisations in these terms:
"At the present time, many large commercial and industrial organisations have activities as multifarious and diverse as public authorities, but do not enjoy the privilege under discussion, although subject to the same difficulties and open to the same type of attack as those mentioned by the public authorities who have made representations to us. Moreover, public authorities engage to-day to an ever-increasing extent in business in much the same way as the organisations above referred to, and do so for profit."
The phrase:
"… the organisations above referred to …"
means public corporations such as those with which we are dealing here today.
The Committee go on to say:
"We see no reason to think that the system of reporting accidents and of the keeping of records by a public authority is less efficient than that of a commercial undertaking, or that such an authority is—in the absence of special protection—more vulnerable than a commercial undertaking in respect, for instance, of stale or bogus claims. Still less "—
and this ought to be underlined—
"should it be in a position—"
The Chairman: Perhaps it ought to be underlined, but it seems to me that the hon. and learned Gentleman is going beyond this Amendment.
Mr. Turner-Samuels: With great respect, I am trying to have included in this Clause an Amendment which enacts the very things I am referring to. However, I am finishing this quotation now. It ends by saying:
"Still less should it be in a position to rely upon this special protection to defeat honest claims."
I think the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me that in a matter of this kind the only justification that Parliament could possibly have to cut down people's rights would be if there were some flagrant injustice which would

1931
ensue if it were not otherwise done. Certainly, there is no such thing applicable to these Corporations. On the contrary, the very opposite is the case.
This is not a matter of party or of politics. It is a matter of simple sense and justice, and I cannot understand why at this time of day the Government are seeking to protect powerful and profit-motivated Corporations such as are covered by Clause 3. There is no doubt about it that neglect or default by transport today can have the most appalling consequences for the ordinary citizen. Therefore, why should the dice be loaded against anyone seeking to bring an action for damages in respect of them.
Why should six years be the case in the ordinary way and only three for these Corporations. In my submission, State-owned Corporation ought to show an example to the community, and they ought not to shield themselves behind this privilege to defeat what the Tucker Committee calls "honest claims."
I want to conclude by saying that in my submission the Attorney-General has displayed a strange reticence in this matter, particularly on the Second Reading of the Bill. I asked him whether he had consulted the Lord Chancellor about the matter, because I could not believe, in face of the Tucker Committee's Report and in view of what the Court of Appeal said, that the Lord Chancellor could have been a party to this Clause being put into the Bill in order to make Parliament legislate an anomaly. Of course, I got no reply.
The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman was not here after he had spoken. Therefore, it was not possible for me to reply to him.
Mr. Turner-Samuels: I sought to discover whether I ought to stay, but I was told there was no need to. I did get a written reply from the Attorney-General on 9th November and he said, in effect, that the distinction ought to be removed, but, he added quite naively that the Government had no time to do it. Apparently the Government have got no time to correct this objectionable anomaly in the interest of the community, but they can use up time manipuating television in the interests of their business friends.
1932
The Amendment I have moved seeks to redress the two long-standing injustices to which I have referred. I hope the Government will adopt it, and I ask the Committee to support it.
Mr. Profumo: I have listened with the greatest interest to the lucid argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) and I am only sorry that somebody inadvertently advised him that it was not worth waiting for the reply which, to the best of my ability, I gave on Second Reading—
Mr. Turner-Samuels: I did not say that it was not worth waiting, nor was it suggested that anything the hon. Gentleman might say was not worth listening to. I asked and was told that there was no need to wait. In any case, the Attorney-General had had time in which to answer and had not done so, and he was not going to be the last speaker for the Government.
Mr. Profumo: I accept the remarks of the hon. Gentleman and I only hope that in some measure I can make up this afternoon for what he inadvertently missed on the previous occasion. I shall not make so bold as to try to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman into the realms of legal intricacies but, with the greatest and most sincere respect, I suggest that the difference between us is perhaps one of misconception of logic.
In the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, Clause 3 would have been necessary whether there had been a report by the Tucker Committee or not. The requirement was there purely on the grounds of fairness to the general public. At present the Air Corporations are the only nationalised organisations regarded as public bodies which have enjoyed privilege from legal action against acts done in execution or intended execution or neglect of their duty after one year. We have recognised this anomalous position for some time and we were resolved to put it right as soon as a suitable opportunity presented itself. It was for that reason that we included it in this Bill.
The Committee will agree, I hope, first that in such a Bill as this, which deals solely with the Air Corporations, we are in no position to do more than deal with the problems inside the Air Corporations themselves. Therefore, we are limited in

1933
our action at this time to dealing with this problem only in so far as it affects the Corporations. Secondly, it would only have been getting rid of one anomaly by creating another if we had changed the period of one year to six years. This would have taken the Corporations out of a privileged position and placed them in an unfair position vis-à-vis the other nationalised bodies.
Thirdly, if we had waited until some general legislation might have been introduced in this House, we would have missed this opportunity of correcting something which we all recognise to be wrong. We might, indeed, have had to wait for some considerable time because, as my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said in this House on 9th November, in answer to a Question by the hon. and learned Gentleman:
"… the Government recognised that there is much to be said for removing this distinction between public authorities and other defendants."
That gave the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Gloucester what he wanted, which was Government recognition of this problem, but my hon. and learned Friend added:
"but I cannot hold out any hope that it will be possible for the Government to introduce legislation at an early date."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1953; Vol. 520, c. 13.]
Therefore, we felt we ought to take this opportunity, and I think that all hon. Members will agree that this is a step in the right direction. The hon. and learned Gentleman, however, persisted in his argument that this is a step in the wrong direction, and I hope that in the course of my remarks I shall be able to persuade him that this is not so. Indeed, I am reinforced and encouraged in my views by the words of his hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) in his excellent speech on the Second Reading of this Bill, when he said:
"Taking Clause 3 first, the last one of which he made mention, I should say that that would not appear to be controversial at all. As far as it goes its effect in limiting the privilege so far enjoyed in law by the Corporations seems to be wholly good, and although at least one of my hon. and learned Friends seems to think it should go still farther, I do not suppose there will be any criticism of the direction it takes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th November, 1953; Vol. 520, c. 1009.]
Mr. Turner-Samuels: My hon. Friend had not heard the argument at that point.
Mr. Profumo: I understand that he had not heard the argument, but neither had he heard the counter-argument which I put later. However, it would be wrong for Parliamentary Secretaries to step in where even some lawyers fear to tread. On the other hand, the Amendment does not do exactly what the Tucker Committee recommended, since its effect would be to make the period of limitation six years in all cases, whereas the recommendations of the Tucker Committee were that whilst six years should be the period of limitation for actions in contract and tort, this should not apply to actions for personal injuries. In the case of those, they recommended a period of limitation of two years.
4.45 p.m.
Mr. Turner-Samuels: I agree, but what I am seeking to do here is to bring it into line with the law as it is at present. I agree that if a short Bill were brought in, which would need only three Clauses, it could be brought into line with the findings of the Tucker Committee. That would accord to some extent with what the Parliamentary Secretary has just said.
Mr. Profumo: I am glad the hon. and learned Gentleman agrees, because this brings me to the point I want to make, that circumstances have changed since he put down this Amendment in that, among the Private Bills of which notice has been given for this Session, there is one by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) which is designed to deal with the law relating to the limitation of actions. It is designed to give substantial effect to the recommendations of the Tucker Committee and, so far as I know at this stage, it does so in a manner which wholly meets with the approval of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. The argument I want to put forward here is that it seems to me that we have been right in including this Clause in this Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman made a point in saying that this is not a party matter. Therefore, it is one eminently suited to a Private Member's Bill—
Mr. Ede: It is true that it is not a party matter, but it is a controversial matter, as previous discussions

1935
in the House have disclosed, and opinion on both sides of the House is divided on the issue.
Mr. Profumo: I recognise what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says—
Mr. Ede: I am not learned.
Mr. Profumo: Well, the right hon. Gentleman is most learned in my eyes. I fully appreciate what he says, but as this is not a matter of party controversy, it is one which is better suited to a Private Member's Bill which will be brought forward at an early stage in this Session. It seems to me that we have been right in putting this Clause in this Bill, and there should be no difficulty in amending it at a later stage, if necessary, to bring it into line with any change in the law which might seem right at that time in the eyes of the House.
For that reason, I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman if he will consider withdrawing his Amendment at this stage on the understanding that this other and more general, larger and extremely important Bill is to come before Parliament in the near future, and that we shall be able to bring this into line with the general conception of the future limitation of action.
The Attorney-General: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) did not think that I was in any way discourteous to him. On the previous occasion I was prepared to say something on this matter but, as he had left the House, I thought he could not regard it as a matter of vital urgency, and at that time we did not know what the decision would be in regard to the Private Member's Bill.
We now have the position that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has drawn a fairly good place—not exactly on the rails, but not a bad place—and yesterday he secured 4th December for the Second Reading of his Bill. It is not the first Order, but I believe there is every reason to hope that my hon. Friend will be able to get it on that day. If he does, I shall be prepared to agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that we should give him every support in order to get the Second Reading.
1936
When we get to the Committee stage, I think there will be some differences of opinion. There is the question of the precise number of years. There is also the question of the proposal of the Tucker Committee that there should be power for the court to extend the time. That is a proposal, however, of which my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor would not approve. But, if I may respectfully say so, it is highly desirable that matters of principle of that kind should be discussed in relation to all the Corporations and all the local authorities and all the private individuals, and then we can deal with them all together.
Mr. Turner-Samuels: I feel that the purpose which I had in mind has been achieved. I am not laying down any absolute rule about what the period should be, nor am I concerned with what my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) says about unanimity. What I should like to see in the law in this matter is some sense of uniformity, and if we could only hit on some period that applies to everyone concerned, all well and good. Broaching and ventilating this matter has brought some result, and in view of the fact that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) is bringing in a Bill, and I have the honour to be one of its backers, I am perfectly satisfied with what the Parliamentary Secretary and the Attorney-General have said.
I only want to say to the Attorney-General that he and I have been associated for a very long time and I should never accuse him of being rude and discourteous. I was charging him with being reticent, which is unusual in a lawyer and not necessarily a good thing. But on this occasion he has been more forthcoming, and I hope that the House can look forward to his support and that of the Government for a Bill which will amend and correct what has been an anomally so far. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

COTTON [MONEY]
Considered in Committee [Progress, 18th November.]
[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to modify the functions of the Raw Cotton Commission, and to enable the said Commission to be wound up and dissolved, it is expedient—

(a) to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums authorised to be so issued under section twenty-one of the Cotton (Centralised Buying) Act, 1947;

(b) to authorise the raising of money by the Treasury, in any manner in which they are authorised to raise money under the National Loans Act, 1939, for the purpose of providing, or of replacing in the Consolidated Fund, any increase in those sums which is so attributable;

(c) in the event of the winding up of the said Commission, to authorise—

(i) the cancellation of all or any of the liabilities of the Commission in respect of initial and periodical advances under the said Act of 1947;

(ii) the making good, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of any deficiency of assets resulting from the winding up of the Commission, or, as the case may be, the payment into the Exchequer of any surplus moneys resulting therefrom.—[Mr. Amory.]

4.54 p.m.
Mr. Harold Wilson: I am sorry to bring the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State, Board of Trade, back to the House a second time on what is really a very small series of points, but we are concerned that this Money Resolution should not pass from the Committee without being quite certain that when we come to discuss the Bill in detail we shall be able to discuss certain very important points, some of which have a very big bearing on the financial responsibilities of this House in relation to the Commission.
I should like to raise two points, about which I gave the right hon. Gentleman notice this morning, both of which arise from this Resolution. The first relates to the provision in the Money Resolution for finance for purposes of compensation. The right hon. Gentleman discussed this at some length during his speech yesterday evening. I should like to ask him
1938
whether he would make clear that the Money Resolution is sufficiently wide to provide that the Commission shall not only be able to pay adequate compensation to the two groups to whom I referred last night—those already redundant as a result of the dwindling work of the Commission and those who may become redundant between now and the date when the Order is made—but that also, in accordance with a rather different Clause, the Commission will be able to provide compensation to those who become redundant after the Commission have been wound up but who have been retained in the services presumably of a liquidator, or whatever arrangements are made, for the purpose of clearing up the financial accounts of the Commission. I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman could make it clear that that point is adequately covered in the Money Resolution.
The second point is that we shall want to be very sure that there will be no waste of public money in the disposal of the stocks of the Commission. Obviously I shall not press the right hon. Gentleman now to tell us what arrangements have been made for disposal. That, presumably, will come at a later stage in the Bill. But I want an assurance that the Resolution provides sufficient cover to satisfy ourselves on behalf of the House and the public purse that we can establish the safeguards necessary to ensure that there is no waste of public funds in the disposal of these stocks.
4.56 p.m.
The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) for giving me notice of the two questions that he has raised. I think that I can give satisfactory answers to both. As regards the first question concerning compensation, I can say quite certainly that the Money Resolution gives effect to the proposals in Clause 3 and Clause 4 (2) of the Bill which cover both the categories to which he has referred.
Clause 3 gives the Commission power to pay compensation to those who will have been discharged as a result of a change of policy while the Commission are still there. Clause 4 (2) gives the Minister power to make arrangements for

1939
compensation to be paid after the closing down of the Commission. As I mentioned last night, the intention is that the compensation should be payable on the same basis to both those categories of staff who will lose their employment, and it is quite certain that the Money Resolution is wide enough to enable that to be done.
As to the question relating to stocks, it is too early to say exactly what method will be employed. That will depend on many things, including the amount and types of stock that are left when the time comes, but I can say quite clearly that arrangements will be made for disposing of these stocks in whatever way will work out to the best advantage from the point of view of public funds and from the point of view of the industry. They will certainly not be thrown on the market all at once, or in a way which would mean that the best results were not being attained. Later on we shall see what the best arrangements will be, but the Money Resolution provides for these stocks being released under the most sensbile and most advantageous arrangements. I hope that that answers the right hon. Gentleman's two questions.
Mr. H. Wilson: I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for those replies. The second answer, particularly, meets all that I could legitimately ask at this stage of the proceedings. Obviously we shall want to debate the matter in greater detail later. There is not only the question of stocks being dumped on the market but that of the danger of any rings growing up for the purpose of depressing the price of public property.
I should like to press the right hon. Gentleman to go a little further on the first question, because there was one point which I raised yesterday of which perhaps he has not quite taken account. He has dealt with the problem of those redundant hereafter, and after the Commission have been wound up. The Bill and the Money Resolution will provide for those who become redundant owing to past acts, because the Bill is retrospective in certain respects. This is a piece of retrospection which I welcome. Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that this applies to all three categories, including those who have already become
1940
redundant and for whom I understand a compensation scheme has been worked out? Will all three categories get equal treatment?
Mr. Amory: Yes, all three categories: in other words, all who will have lost employment as a result of the change of policy resulting in the contraction of the Commission's business will be included.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Wills.]

BOMBING RANGE, SALTFLEET
5.1 p.m.
Mr. Cyril Osborne: I wish to bring to the notice of the House a question that affects my constituency and, especially, villages just North of Mablethorpe. Near the village of Saltfleet there is a bombing target range which was established in the early 30's. The burden of all I wish to say on behalf of my constituents can be put into one sentence—please will the Air Ministry take the range away? We do not mind if they take it to Scotland, we do not mind if they take it to Wales, we do not mind where they lake it so long as they take it away. If they take it to some place where no one lives that would be a good thing.
While some of my criticisms will be levelled at work done around this target by the United States Air Force, I should not like to leave the impression that any of my constituents is at all anti-American. There is a great realisation among my constituents that this bombing practice must take place. They are also aware of the strength which the American Forces give to our defences. There is no feeling of antagonism to our own airmen who come and bomb this target. When the target was set up early in the 30's planes flew much slower and lower than they do today and the margin of error of a mile on either side was adequate. But now planes, flying up to 600 miles an hour and at a height of about 30,000 feet, make the margin of error too small. The bombing site is less than two miles from the centre of the village; it is much too close for people who live in the village. I wish to emphasise how grateful

1941
are the local parish councils to my hon. Friend for the courtesy he has shown them during the last nine months when they have written to him through their association and through me. Although they are grateful for what he has done, they say it is not enough. They will not be satisfied until my hon. Friend can say that the site will be closed altogether. Incidents of bombs dropping inside the village and doing damage to public property and to everything short of killing people started in the summer of 1952 It is only by great good fortune that there have been no fatal accidents so far My constituents ask—I think with great reason—" Must this continue until someone is killed before the authorities will do anything about it?"
Just after last August Bank Holiday a rather heavy smoke bomb was dropped on a public house called the "Prussian Queen." It went through the window of a lavatory. Had it dropped half an hour earlier someone would have been knocked out, or killed. Complaints have been made of a series of bombs which were dropped miles from the target. I think my hon. Friend will agree that more than a dozen have dropped wide of the target.
The first lot of complaints were lodged with the Ministry as far back as December, 1952. The first reply the parish council received was in March when the Ministry said that the United States Air Force were responsible for five of the incidents and two other incidents were being investigated. It is being said locally, I do not know with what truth, that some of the American planes come from as far afield as the South of France to bomb this target outside a tiny village in my constituency. If they can come so far to a small village in North Lincolnshire they could go so far as Scotland.
Sir William Darling: My hon. Friend has mentioned Scotland twice. What complaint has he against Scotland?
Mr. Osborne: I have no complaint against Scotland, but I was thinking that there is a lot of space in Scotland where no one thinks it worthwhile to live and that that is where these bombs should be dropped. We do not care where the bombing range is stationed so long as it is taken from us. With bombers flying
1942
so high and at so great a speed we think it unreasonable to have a target so close to the centre of a village.
I wish to refer my hon. Friend to a reply he sent me on 5th May. I had written to him on 8th April, and he wrote:
"I am sorry I have been unable to let you have a reply before now, but investigation of the matter in all its aspects, including the possible use of other ranges, …"
That is the key to the problem, the possible use of other ranges. I am appealing for that and I remind my hon. Friend that he mentioned it in his letter to me on 5th May. The letter continued—
"is taking some time, particularly as aircraft of the U.S.A.F. are involved."
My hon. Friend went on to say that two further incidents had occurred since I had written to him and in each case the U.S.A.F. were responsible. He added:
"and we are obliged to conclude that the steps they promised to take to prevent such mistakes have proved inadequate."
My hon. Friend said that in the early part of May. As I shall try to show, there has been a series of incidents since then which prove that the steps the American forces took, in all good faith, have proved inadequate. It would seem that it is no fault of the American Forces but that the target is too close to the village. My hon. Friend went on to say in his letter to me:
"The whole question is to be taken up with the U.S.A.F. at a meeting to be held in the near future, and our concern about these incidents will be represented most strongly. Moreover, consideration is being given to allocating the U.S.A.F. a range further away from Saltfleet."
I ask my hon. Friend if they have been allocated another range, shall we be bombed in this way by British planes? It is no more pleasant to have bombs dropped near the centre of the village from British planes than from United States planes. And in the same letter my hon. Friend said:
"Representations in strong terms were made to the U.S.A.F. following the earlier complaints from the Parish Council and we received suitable assurance that steps had been taken to obviate further incidents."
That was at the beginning of May. During the summer and this autumn bombs have fallen in various villages, some a considerable distance from

1943
the target. I wrote again to my hon. Friend who replied on 30th June. I would remind him of what he said then. Alter inquiring into all these incidents and saying what the Ministery were trying to do, he wrote:
"We think that these moves"
—that is the arrangements he was making with the United States Air Force—
"if they are finally approved, together with the strongly worded instructions which have been issued by the United States Commanding General to his commander about irregular practice bomb releases"—
what exactly does he mean by "irregular practice bomb releases"? If that is the cause of our trouble, then they are not being very fortunate in regulating the releasing of the bombs—
"and the action to be taken to avoid their repetition, should largely remove the fears quite naturally felt by your constituents in Saltfleet."
That is fair, and if he could have done for us what we asked for and what was promised, I should not be making this protest. But during August there were further incidents, and in October there were four or five more. Early this month there have been two, and one more last week. So that all the assurances we have had so far have proved worthless. Consequently, the local authority wrote to me again on 20th August and said this:
"Whilst the parish meeting appreciates what you have done in the matter, it feels that the action proposed by the Air Ministry (as stated in Mr. Ward's letter of 30th June, 1953), is quite inadequate"—
and with that I must agree—
"and respectfully asks you to make further representations. Even if the target had been 700 yards further away, the majority of the bombs dropped in this area would still have been dangerous. …"
Then we come to the other series of incidents of which my hon. Friend has had notice. On 13th October, my constituents, who were getting really angry and worked up about this, wrote me a letter, after a further bomb had dropped at South Somercotes on 5th October.
"The council does, however, feel that a recent incident shows that stricter measures to avoid such happenings are still required. On Monday, 5th October, a bomb was dropped near houses about one hundred yards from the centre of the village of South Somercotes, causing a fire in a farmyard. The parish council hopes that you will not cease from pressing the case with the Air Ministry until these incidents stop."
1944
I feel that these incidents will not stop while the target area is left so near to the village. I think it unreasonable to either our airmen or the American airmen to be so accurate when bombing from such a great height and moving at such speeds, when the target area is within two miles of the centre of the village. Can I have an assurance from the Ministry that something will be done to stop this trouble?
On 27th October we had a further incident and the council wrote to me again.
"A further bombing incident has occurred today. A building in the centre of Saltfleet received a direct hit."
That is not a mile or two miles away, but right in the centre of the village.
"On every occasion such as this your constituents say that, 'the next one will hit some person and then, may be, "they" will do something about it.' "
I could not do anything at that time because I was in America, but on my return early this month I had a phone call from my constituents to say that there had been another incident in the area. On 11th November, the clerk of the council wrote this strongly worded and, I think, fully justified letter, saying that the council had passed this resolution:
"That, in view of the recently proved ineffectiveness of the technical improvements stated to have been made, this meeting asks for the complete removal of the bombing targets from the beaches between Mablethorpe and North Somercotes."
That is what I am asking my hon. Friend to do. To emphasise the need for this, the very day after that letter was written to me they had another fairly large bomb dropped in South Cockington some miles away, next to Red Leas Farm, which is the place where I usually stay when I go to that area.
Sir W. Darling: They must have known.
Mr. Osborne: This is being done by my friends and not by my enemies. I can assure my hon. Friend that it is causing a great deal of concern. This bomb was dropped on 12th November at South Cockington immediately after this last protest. It would seem that whenever the local authorities make a protest the grounds for it are emphasised by the Air Force dropping some more bombs to

1945
show how needful it is to protest. The letter states further:
"I was instructed to inform you of this resolution and to ask you to do everything possible to persuade the Air Ministry to remove the targets. I am to add that also present at the meeting were representatives from the parish councils of South Somercotes. Saltfleetby and Theddlethorpe … and a representative from Mablethorpe."
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland), in whose constituency is Mablethorpe, has indicated that he will support me.
I would remind my hon. Friend that this part of the world suffered very severely during the floods. People go there for their holidays, and the advent of holiday-makers is of great importance to the residents. If in addition to the calamity of the floods they are to face the uncertainty of what the Air Force may do to them, it is not helpful to people who have to make their living in that locality.
At Saltfleet there are miles of very beautiful sands, but the local people can scarcely ever use them because there is always a red flag flying to warn them that the Air Force are proposing to do some bombing practice. Please can this target be taken away?
I had a letter from still another constituent which was written on Sunday last by a lady who lives at Donna Nook and who read in a newspaper that I was proposing to raise this matter. She writes:
"I would like to draw your attention to the fact that it isn't only Saltfleet that is being troubled by R.A.F. bombing practice. All day, every day, there are planes screaming over our houses. There are machine gun targets on the beach quite near; and we have to listen to the appalling noise of machine gunning as well as the noise of bombing near Saltfleet."
I hope my hon. Friend does not think I am creating a lot of song and dance about nothing. I assure him that my constituents think they have stood it long enough, and I think they have very good cause for complaint. I ask, will he please remove this target site altogether to somewhere else where nobody lives?
5.20 p.m.
Mr. John Taylor: I have a great deal of sympathy with the case which the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) has put before the House. I know the district of which he has spoken and I consider that he put his argument
1946
with moderation, except for the suggestion at the beginning that he and his constituents did not mind where the practice bombing took place so long as it was not in their district. He suggested that it might be removed to Scotland or Wales. Although he is not in the position of being able to say, "It is a matter of complete indifference to me how you are faring, Jack, so long as our amenities are satisfactory," he implied that he would like to be.
From the evidence the hon. Member has given it is clear that most of the bombing is being done by the American Air Force. In our little crowded island there is nowhere appropriate now for a bombing range in the modern conditions of swift flying aircraft at great height. We could not guarantee that any bombing range would be without danger of damage to property or persons. Certainly there is no part of Scotland of which that could be said.
It occurs to me that one good solution would be to make representations to the American Air Force that they should do their training in Nevada, Montana or somewhere else in the United States. They should complete their training there and leave this tightly packed little island free from these unpleasant visitations, however necessary they may be considered to be.
There would still remain the problem of our own Air Force. It might be useful to suggest, for a change, that we give so many facilities to the American visiting forces that they might give us some in exchange and allow us to use their wide open spaces for bombing practice. The hon. Gentleman made a good point when he said that this area, with its beautiful sands, which I knew as a young man, is not one which is suitable for this practice. It is an area which suffered a great deal from the unpleasant visitations of nature in the early part of this year. It relies a great deal upon the tourist industry. The hon. Gentleman's case was sound and I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to meet the plea which he has so moderately put before the House.
5.23 p.m.
Commander J. W. Maitland: These incidents took place almost at the junction between my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne). It is just on

1947
that part of the coast that we had the most serious flooding of the whole disaster last year. Although I admit that in my constituency it does not seem to rain iron, as it does in my hon. Friend's, we have had six incidents. We have had one incident at Spilsby, one in the main street of Skegness, three in Mablethorpe and one at Wainfleet.
This is a serious matter. I think that I would be considered to be the last person to try to prevent proper training. It is obviously esential that if we are to train people we should train them properly. At the same time it is intolerable that this sort of thing should be allowed to continue. We should make no mistake about that.
It is the political elements in the Forces—the Secretaries of State and the Under-Secretaries of State—who are really the best protectors of the people in this matter. I know only too well, having been an officer and having seen service myself, that the tendency is always to put the good of the Service before everything else. In this country, generally speaking, we put at the head of our Services civilians who are responsible to Parliament. The reason is that we wish our rights preserved in dealing with the Armed Forces.
I suggest to the Government that we should not run the risk of any further incidents. There is no excuse whatever. They must be stopped, and they must be stopped at once. We often pay danger money to pilots or the people who do dangerous work, but we cannot pay danger money to civilians.
5.25 p.m.
Mr. J. Langford-Holt: My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) has raised a matter—

ROYAL ASSENT
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners. The House went, and, having returned—
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:
Regency Act, 1953.

BOMBING RANGE, SALTFLEET
Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
5.36 p.m.
Mr. Langford-Holt: As I was in the process of saying, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) has raised this matter as a particular constituency matter, but I think it applies, on the other hands, to the whole country, because it is a problem which we must face. As the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) said, we are a large number of people cramped in such a small space. Before continuing with what I want to say, I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State one question. My hon. Friend the Member for Louth spoke a great deal about the damage being done in his constituency. Without discussing the rights or wrongs of that any further, may I inquire what right of insurance, redress or compensation—and I repeat the word "right," as opposed to privilege—is possessed by those who suffer damage or loss as a result of these activities, whether by negligence on the part of a pilot or pilots, or as the result of quite understandable accidents? What right of compensation have these people?
My hon. Friend the Member for Louth spoke of the effect of this bombing on his constituents and his constituency. May we know exactly what sort of bombs are being dropped? In my experience they used to be in the nature of 8–10 lb. smoke bombs. I am assuming for the moment that they are still of that order and that they are practice bombs. A practice bomb, of course, has no form of safety device to render it harmless if it is accidentally dropped.
Mr. Osborne: I understand that the smoke bombs which are used today are much heavier than those which my hon. Friend mentions. By night I understand they are using fire bombs.
Mr. Langford-Holt: I am speaking on this matter because I am not without experience. Apart from having dropped these bombs in various parts of the kingdom during the war, I was at one time in command of several bombing ranges which were carrying out practices of this precise nature. It is not much good, I

1949
feel, for the Air Ministry to fiddle about, so to speak, considering whether they will make some slight alteration in a certain part of my hon. Friend's constituency. I say that with the greatest respect. The assessment of drops on ranges, and of the effectiveness and accuracy of these drops, used to be measured by two quadrants taking bearings on a particular target. By taking a cross-bearing, one would get the fix on the target. As my hon. Friend the Member for Louth said, aircraft today are flying faster and higher, and all the indications are that they will go on flying faster and higher.
The point I wish to put to the Under-Secretary of State is what exactly is the policy of the Air Ministry with regard to these bombing ranges, because it is not only a question of how it affects Louth. In future, it is going to affect my hon. Friend's constituency to an even greater degree, and also every other inland bombing range in the country. We are going to have a greater distance error due to the higher speeds and greater heights at which aircraft fly. Therefore, I want to know what the policy of the Air Ministry is going to be.
My hon. Friend suggested that these ranges might be set up in certain parts of Scotland and in certain parts of Wales. I was very relieved to hear that he did not suggest that they should come to Shropshire. But that suggestion is not an answer in itself. As I said, the old method used to be to take two quadrant sights, that is, on a puff of smoke.
Since those times we have gone a great deal further with the development of radar. Is there no possibility of using a radar service with which to judge range and distance from one point on to a target out at sea? I know that this would present problems with regard to shipping lanes and sea transport, but it is surely much easier to overcome such difficulties than to accommodate these ranges on land.
Mr. Osborne: No matter how perfect the instruments may be, if aircraft are flying at 30,000 feet and are travelling very fast, no range ought to be within two miles of the centre of a village.
Mr. Langford-Holt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I have tried to make the point that they are travelling very much faster and higher than they
1950
used to travel. The margin of error from the aircraft may be smaller due to the accuracy of the bombing sights, but the actual margin of error on the land may be very much greater.
This not a matter of just one bombing range in one village in Lincolnshire. It is a matter which the Air Ministry must sort out. They must recast the whole of their bombing policy. In conclusion, may I again ask the Under-Secretary of State whether my hon. Friend's constituency has any right to compensation, and whether there is not a wide field of development which we could open up through the use of radar.
5.44 p.m.
Sir William Darling: I must say that I have always been an admirer of the English people, and of Englishmen in particular, and I greatly admire them this evening because of their phlegm and lack of sensitiveness. Here we have an hon. Member telling us that his constituency has been bombed continuously since 1943, and is being bombed even tonight, so far as I know.
We have one Scotsman and three Englishmen on the Opposite benches and almost an equal number on this side of the House. If this had been a matter of a dog which had been knocked down and cruelly treated on the Parade at Brighton, or some trade unionist who had been improperly dismissed from his employment, or even some shopkeeper who had been faced with some disagreeable experience which was out of the usual run in his life, this House of Commons would have put down 10 Questions on the Order Paper.
What surprises me is the self-contentment of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne). I have frequently heard him become excited upon subjects which seemed to me to be less important. I have heard him deal with what he calls the "dollar gap" with much eloquence. But I must say that he does himself less than justice when on this occasion, having a cause which ought to be ventilated throughout the whole length and breadth of the country, he comes with such a temporary and technical statement.
This is an amazing matter. It is the kind of thing about which the House of Commons ought really to rise up in wrath and demand from the Air Ministry and

1951
from the Ministry of Defence a statement of their plans to meet this particular case. The fact that the House does not do so forces my hon. Friend to suggest that this is one of the troubles with which England cannot deal, and that it should be transferred to Scotland where they can grapple with anything from bombing to any other trouble afflicting the mind of man.
Mr. Osborne: It is not a question of the capacity of Scotland to deal with everything, but the fact that in Scotland there are vast waste spaces in which even Scotsmen will not live.
Sir W. Darling: I happen to know that Scotland has no vast waste spaces, but a very great culture. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman's daughter attends a Scottish university. Therefore, his suggestion that we should transfer this bombing practice to Scotland or to Wales, though rather a left-handed tribute, is none the less a tribute to the capacity of these two remarkable races to deal with things with which Englishmen cannot deal. His suggestion is that bombs which are an inconvenience to Lincolnshire should be sent to Scotland or to Wales, because the Scots and the Welsh know how to deal with them.
I hope that this debate will provoke more and more speeches from hon. Members, because I am afraid that the next subject which we are likely to discuss has far less interest than this one. Consequently, I hope that some of my hon. Friends and some hon. Members opposite will find it possible to discuss this question which has been raised so sharply by my hon. Friend, that Scotland and Wales should be the places to which this bombing practice should be transferred.
My hon. Friend is really dealing only with the mere fringe of the matter, although I must admit that I am alarmed to think that this admirable village about which he has told us is being destroyed by smoke bombs by day and fire bombs by night. My hon. Friend should not be content with the protection of his own constituents, and I hope to offer him some advice in that direction. It is quite right that he should bring up this matter, and my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt), speaking with the detachment of a Shropshire county,
1952
says that this is a question to which the Air Ministry and the Government must give wide and detailed consideration.
I wonder whether this is what is called "pattern bombing," a subject to which reference was made only yesterday when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies was able to explain what it was. He said that it consisted of four Lancaster bombers—
Mr. Osborne: Lincoln bombers.
Sir W. Darling: Yes, Lincoln bombers, so they come from the same county. I wonder whether this is part of pattern bombing, and if so, what is the pattern in the exercise to avoid this village being hit. It seems that up to now the endeavours to avoid it have consisted of trying to hit it. I suggest that the process should be reversed, thereby avoiding hitting it.
In this connection, I want to ask whether there is any reciprocity in this matter. We are engaged in a great international defence organisation which has, of course, the support of this House. Is there any opposite number to these Lincolnshire targets? Do some people go from Lincolnshire to the coast of France, or is it entirely a one-way traffic? Is it entirely from France that these targets are bombed, or do we have some chance of reciprocity? There was a good deal of reciprocity in that we bombed Heligoland, but we have given up that practice, and we now confine ourselves to accepting the things rather than delivering them elsewhere. I am familiar with the description "cannon fodder," but to be electoral fodder, which is apparently a modern substitute, is not a use to which voters should be consigned.
This is a very broad as well as a very old question, and I have not forgotten the arguments we had in this House and elsewhere whether the London County Council might be allowed to use the public parks for the training of young cadets. There has always been great reluctance on the part of the average citizen to give up his private or public property for defensive purposes. Although I understand that point of view, I do not sympathise with it, because we must accept the risks of the generation to which we belong and of the dangerous and difficult world in which we live.

1953
We must be prepared to make very substantial sacrifices in order to secure adequate training, which our citizens require to defend themselves if attacked. I do not know whether that training can be done adequately in this country. That was obvious during the war, when we trained air crews in Rhodesia, Canada and elsewhere. This little Island is all too small for those great responsibilities, and that is all the more reason why the Ministry of Defence, and in particular the Air Ministry, should survey this question with the closest attention. We have seen that there are possibilities.
When I heard my hon. Friend referring to the disadvantages, I looked to see whether there was anything to be said from the other point of view, of effective training. How effective it is, I cannot say, but there are some other aspects which might be worth considering. I am prepared to follow the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) in his reference to Scotland and I quite seriously take up the view that there may be in this island, and possibly in Scotland, suitable targets of this character. I remember that during the war one village in the North of Scotland was entirely destroyed. The farms and villages were evacuated and the place was bombed away altogether. I cannot recall the name. Then there was Slapton Sand in Devonshire. The Americans used the Scottish village as part of their installation for training, and the village was entirely destroyed. In spite of these disasters and the destruction of property, advantages might accrue.
I have always found that when the Army, Navy, or Air Force go to Scotland they are very careful about what they do. The road system of Scotland is indifferent, but the best roads we ever had were made by the Romans in order that they might quell the spirit of those somewhat lonely Scottish people. Where the Army go they give us roads, telephonic communication, huts if not houses, and centres of population. Where the Army goes population almost invariably follows. The development of the south-west of England has been conditioned by the long attachment of the Army to Salisbury Plan. The development of Portsmouth and Plymouth has been conditioned by the attachment of the Navy to those ports.
1954
Apart from the advantages to the peace-loving civilians of having Army, Navy and Air Force establishments in the neighbourhood, do not let us forget the extensive economic benefits. I wish we had a first-class naval establishment in Scotland, a first-class Royal Air Force establishment in Scotland and an equal distribution of the Army. I repeat that where they go a large measure of development of civilisation follows. If we had a large training centre in the North of Scotland, would we not almost immediately have a Forth Road Bridge, a Tay Road Bridge and in addition considerable flying facilities which at the moment hardly exist at all? I beg my Scottish colleagues, and the hon. Member for West Lothian, in spite of his denunciation of the use of Scotland for this purpose, to remember all the substantial advantages which he and I would rejoice to have, and that would come if we could have in Scotland suitable establishments for the training activities of the Army, Royal Air Force and Royal Navy.
There is a second example which I should like to give of the advantages which might flow from bombing. I am not speaking of the bombing of pleasant, healthy places like the one in Lincolnshire, but of the breaking up of the land in other parts of the country. I have seen the effect of what is called opencast mining, and that has impressed me with another recollection. I saw the land—many other hon. Members saw it as well as I did—in the area from the Ypres Salient down to the Somme from 1914 to 1919. It was wrecked, tortured and destroyed by heavy bombardment. The field drainage was destroyed and every natural feature was eliminated. Small hills disappeared and the valleys became small hills. It was wrecked and devastated as no part of the land ever was in the history of mankind.
By 1920, that desert had blossomed, and today it is not the least of the fertile parts of France. I therefore say to my hon. Friends that if suitable places in this country, which are rocky, barren, lonely, unfriendly and peat-covered could be subjected, after suitable preparation to intensive bombing, there might well accrue agricultural opportunities which would not be without advantages to our people, who would know how to turn them to good account. I suggest that that is not

1955
an unlikely possibility, and would certainly be no less advantageous than the operations of the National Coal Board in the field of opencast mining.
This thing has gone on since 1932 and it is going on apparently twice-nightly. I want to know if there are clearly defined provisions for compensating the civilians who suffer. I should want it to be made very clear that there are positive compensations which are beyond dispute for the citizens of any area affected in this way. The first of these compensations must be for disturbance, an intangible thing.
Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: The hon. Member has outlined many great advantages that already accrue to people as the result of the establishment of naval, military and Air Force bases, plus the additional advantage they get by being bombed and blasted. Is he not being a little unreasonable in asking for further advantages?
Sir W. Darling: The hon. and gallant Member asks me whether I am not a little unreasonable. It is difficult for an hon. Member to follow the whole of my argument when he has only listened to two minutes of it. With an obscure and somewhat tortured intelligence at best, I am sure I would find it impossible to grasp a whole subject in two minutes' audition—but I do not want to discourage the hon. and gallant Member. Let him try again. I had been outlining some of the advantages, and I am now referring to the disadvantages, which are many and obvious, and I am saying that there should be a clearly recognised and clearly defined arrangement made to meet them.
The first disadvantage is disturbance. I do not know in what way people should be compensated for the intolerable noise of aircraft, quite apart from bombing, which occurs during the day and night, but there should be some compensation for the disturbance of one's peace. It may be that the remedy lies in insulation, in the supply of devices to hinder hearing, or there may be actual monetary compensation. If the Defence Forces of the Crown require to disturb the peace of the country's citizens in a particular area, those citizens should be compensated for
1956
disturbance, and the nature of the compensation should be known.
Secondly, there should be a well-established means by which people should be able to claim compensation for loss of property. There has been minor damage, as my hon. Friend said, but it may well be that there will some day be major damage. It should be clearly laid down and made known to whom such claims should be made, by whom they will be paid and the nature of the restitution that is offered. That is the least that can be done.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth suggested that it might soon happen—though I hope he is mistaken—that there may be loss of life. When a life is lost, it is difficult and tragic to argue about compensation, and I suggest that it should be laid down quite clearly that certain compensations have been established as a matter of right to cover disturbance, actual loss or damage to property and also compensation for loss of life. The nature of these claims and the right to make them should be made known to all citizens in these threatened areas, and they should be met promptly and generously.
In this way, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who discharges his great duty and responsibility for the effective training of troops and airmen, may also combine with this primary duty concerning training a duty to the civilian population. I agree that the convenience of citizens is a trivial matter as compared with his primary responsibility, but, having discharged his prime duty, he might see to his responsibilities to ensure that civilians are dealt with equitably, and I am sure that it will be his wish to discharge that duty to the fullest possible extent.
6.2 p.m.
Mr. Raymond Gower: I wish to address myself to a very narrow point. It is perhaps presumptuous of many hon. Members to intervene in a debate about one constituency, but the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) suggested that something might be done by diverting this bombing, firstly, to Scotland, and secondly, to Wales. His suggestion was rejected by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), speaking on behalf of the City of Edinburgh, and, I presume, on behalf of Scotland as a whole.

1957
Just as sincerely, I wish to say that it would be most undesirable if the limitations of view of many of our English colleagues regarding the natural conditions and characteristics of Scotland and Wales were allowed to govern this case. Far too often our countries seem rather wild and rough parts of the British Isles, but I think it would be most undesirable for the Air Ministry or any other Department to decide that all the most unattractive aspects of Departmental duties should be foisted upon Scotland and Wales.
There is a project to extend a bombing practice range in the vicinity of Porthcawl in the Bristol Channel area, and I would ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, in his wider consideration of the matter, to consider that this place is predominantly a health resort, which could fairly be described as one of the few playgrounds for the large industrial area of South Wales I appreciate that this particular case is outside the terms of this debate.
However, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South said, these things have to be done somewhere in the British Isles, and I should imagine that citizens in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth will have some advantage over those in other constituencies, in so far as they have been gradually inured to this kind of thing for 20 years, and presumably many people have gone to live in that area knowing full well that this kind of thing has been going on for a very long time.
The point I want to make is that I believe that this practice should be carried on in places which are remote from centres of population, and also remote from places where people work and sleep. Every attempt should be made to arrange that this bombing is carried on where there will be the minimum of danger to amenities and to human life, and in this connection I think my hon. Friend the Member for Louth has not only done a service to his constituency in raising this matter, but a wider service to us all.
6.6 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): The House will realise that it is for geographical reasons that a large number of Royal Air Force airfields are situated in the Norfolk and
1958
Lincolnshire areas, and therefore a good deal of operational training must be carried out in that part of the country. Part of this operational training inevitably includes practice bombing, and the least objectionable area for such practice is obviously on the coast, where at least part of the danger area, being over the sea, normally presents no difficulty.
In choosing the sites for bombing ranges, the Air Ministry, for operational reasons, have been compelled to look at areas which are reasonably near to the Lincolnshire and Norfolk area, because ranges which are more than about 50 miles away from the associated airfields would entail very expensive flying time, besides being much more difficult to use intensively. Over the years, we have been constantly trying to find more suitable ranges, but we have so far failed to find any more suitable places which would serve the Norfolk and Lincolnshire areas.
They cannot be too far out to sea, which was one of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), because the fall of the bomb has to be accurately determined in order to find out its accuracy in relation to the target, and this can only be done, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt), who knows these matters from personal experience, by observation from two fixed points. As the smoke flash is relatively small, the observation points have to be close to the target; otherwise, one would not see them, especially in conditions of low visibility at sea, in which a small flash would be very difficult to observe from a long distance.
Donna Nook and Theddlethorpe ranges have been in use by the Air Ministry for about 25 years. I wish I could have a pound note for every practice bomb I have dropped on them myself; I know them very well. Although naturally they are not ideal, because they are so near to Saltfleet, we have not been able to discover, nor has anyone else been able to suggest, any more suitable places, even in Scotland or Wales, if we wanted to go there, which, for the reasons I have given, we do not.
The main reason is the distance from the Lincolnshire airfields, which would be very uneconomic and wasteful. Of course, there are also technical reasons why we

1959
could not use the very remote parts of Scotland. It is within the neighbourhood of the Lincolnshire and Norfolk airfields that we have such things as the radar facilities, which are used as part of this bombing training. These facilities would not be available in the very remote parts of Scotland and Wales. In war-time the aircraft would be operating from Lincolnshire, and it would clearly be very wasteful to have all these facilities installed in remote parts of Scotland and then have to install them in Lincolnshire for war-time use.
I do not think it is contested by any hon. Members, or indeed, I think, by the good people of Lincolnshire themselves, that we must have bombing ranges of some sort, but local interests very naturally tend to suggest, as the hon. Member for Louth did tonight, that the ranges should be situated elsewhere. It is a hard fact, which we come across not only in this context but in others as well, that inconveniences of this sort are always better placed in someone else's constituency than in one's own.
Mr. Osborne: We might have fair shares—turn and turn about.
Mr. Ward: Yes, but as I have pointed out, the ranges are only in Lincolnshire and Norfolk because that is where they must be situated for strategic reasons.
There are two live targets and four practice targets in this area. In the Saltfleet area the live targets are over a mile away, and the practice targets are 1,000 yards away from land other than Air Ministry property. Most of the complaints have arisen from No. 2 practice bombing target and the live bombing target at Donna Nook, which are, at present, only one and a half miles from the village of Saltfleet. No. 2 practice target, which is nearly rive miles from Saltfleet and three miles from North Somercotes, is not at present being used. It is not in fact usable, because it was damaged in the floods in the early months of 1953 and at the moment there are no proper target illumination or range facilities there. But we are investigating the possibility of bringing this target back into use as quickly as we can in order greatly to reduce the need to use the practice targets which are nearer to Saltfleet. We cannot bring this target back into use until various things, such as
1960
rebuilding and reconstruction, have been done, but I will undertake to see that a decision is made as quickly as possible, and that there is no unnecessary delay in bringing this target into use. This will greatly ease the position.
Commander Maitland: Will the hon. Gentleman announce that decision as soon as he has made it?
Mr. Ward: Yes, certainly. As soon as we start work on rebuilding that target. I will see that my hon. Friend is informed.
There is one point I should like to stress here. Hon. Members, some of them perhaps in the exuberance of their oratory, have talked about these occurrences being twice-nightly and so on, but in fact the proportion of what we call irregular releases is less than one in 2,000. From March 1952 until 12th November this year, which was the date of the incident on Mr. Allwood's property which my hon. Friend mentioned, and, including that incident, the total number of such incidents has been 16.
Mr. Osborne: Will my hon. Friend agree that four of them took place in the period from 5th October to 12th November?
Mr. Ward: Yes, but the point I am trying to make now is that these incidents, while far too numerous, I agree, are not by any means the twice-nightly occurrence that some Members have been trying to assert.
The hon. Member for Louth quoted from correspondence which he and I have had; he also quoted the steps which I have told him we were taking in the matter and pointed out that in his opinion, and in the opinion of his constituents, those steps were inadequate to meet the situation. If the steps of which I informed him in my various letters, from time to time, were the only ones we had taken, or were taking, I should be inclined to agree that they were inadequate; but there are other steps that we have taken, which I have not listed before because we have generally dealt with one point at a time. I should like to outline the main steps which we have taken, and are taking, to try to ease the situation.
First, we have very considerably tightened up inspections to ensure that

1961
faulty equipment is detected before it goes into the air. Nearly three-quarters of the incidents in recent months and, I think I am right in saying, all those that have occurred very recently, have been caused by technical faults. This is something we feel we can put right, and, in consultation with the United States Air Force, who are doing the same thing, we are arranging for more rigorous inspection. We are not going to use the target which is closest to Saltfleet village until we have moved it 700 yards to the north, but we cannot move that until we have been able to lay the submarine cable which will illuminate it for night bombing. I am hoping that it will not be very long before we can get this cable laid.
Next we have reviewed bombing instructions, and revised them considerably, in order to reduce the possibility of aircrew errors. Aircrew errors have not been the cause of a very large number of these irregular releases, but, in order to eliminate any that have so happened or may happen, we have revised our bombing instructions, and also our methods of briefing before crews take off on these practices.
I have also checked to find our exactly what the American Air Force are doing and I find that they have taken steps similar to ours—with two additional steps. They have given instructions that all approaches to the ranges should be made from over the sea and that, whenever possible, attacks should be made on a line parallel with the coast, so that the number of aircraft approaching the ranges from overland will be very small in future. They have also arranged that, as from 1st September last, the use of the Theddlethorpe range should be restricted. They are not going to make nearly so much use of it, and will make up for the consequent loss of practice by the increased use of synthetic bombing devices.
Commander Maitland: I imagine this business of bombing parallel to the coast would also decrease the amount of interference and annoyance that is being caused by noise, would it not? The hon. Gentleman said that that is what the Americans are doing, but can he also assure me that we are doing that as well?
Mr. Ward: I am afraid I am not sure about that, because I only got the infor-
1962
mation about the American Air Force just before I came in and have not been able to check up with Bomber Command to see whether they are doing the same, but I will certainly do so.
Mr. Osborne: Can my hon. Friend say whether we also follow the same policy?
Mr. Ward: I cannot say offhand, but I will discuss it with Bomber Command.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) asked why we cannot do our bombing in America. The answer is that even if it were possible, it would be terribly expensive, and the climatic conditions are quite different. We must obviously train our crews in the weather conditions with which they are likely to have to contend in war-time in this theatre; besides which it would be quite impossible to train crew replacements, for example, every time a navigator dropped out, by sending one out to America to get practice with the rest of the crew. That is not a practicable suggestion. We must give crews facilities for continuing their training here, and I think that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) appreciated that point.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle also asked about some of the recent incidents which have occurred in his constituency. The one which occurred in May of this year was caused by an error in the bomb computor mechanism of the aircraft. After the incident, all the aircraft were grounded until the defect had been remedied and it had been made quite sure that it would not occur in other aircraft. The compensation claim arising from the incident on 28th May, when a bomb fell near Mablethorpe High Street, was settled by the United States authorities in October.
I have now armed myself with some more stop-press information, which is that all high-level bombing by the Royal Air Force is already done parallel to the coast.
Mr. Osborne: I am much obliged.
Mr. Ward: My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury asked what right of compensation had the people living in the danger areas, and that question was also raised most strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling). The answer is that we

1963
accept full responsibility for all damage, and while I cannot say without notice exactly what the legal position is, normally claims are settled quickly.
Mr. Langford-Holt: Does that apply also to the United States Air Force, or only to the Royal Air Force?
Mr. Ward: It applies to both. I was asked what sort of bombs were used. All the Royal Air Force live bombs are 25 lb., and the United States Air Force live bombs are a little bigger—about 50 lb. The practice bombs contain a small spotting charge or smoke flash. Of course, they are not large ones. I should like to make it quite clear that we have not used any fire bombs; that is an expression which crept into the debate, but it is, in fact, a misnomer.
I was then asked what is our policy in view of the increased speed and height of modern aircraft, and how are we going to avoid these errors which would naturally be more serious at higher speeds and greater heights. The answer is that, in step with the advance in speed and height of modern aircraft, there has also been progress in the accuracy of bombing aids and in the number of bombing aids which are available to the pilot. In fact, I can say from my own knowledge that the bomb sight which I used before the war was far more of a danger to people on the ground than the present modern accurate bombing aids, particularly when one bears in mind the use of new electronic devices. The United States Air Force are also considering the use of radar, and putting in a radar tracking installation to help even further.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South will forgive me if I do not follow him into his consideration of the advantages and disadvantages to Scotland in this policy. The reason is that, as far as I know, we have no intention of going to Scotland, and so the point will not arise.
Sir W. Darling: That is what has discouraged me.
Mr. Ward: My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) referred to Porthcawl. I am afraid I cannot give
1964
him a snap answer to that question, but I will look into it. I know that range well. During the war, when I used to throw things about on it, it did not seem to upset the amenities of the place at all. I thought it was a most pleasant place. However, if my hon. Friend is worried about it, I will look into the matter.
I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and his constituents that I have the greatest sympathy for them, and I am not trying to minimise the very natural anxiety which they have felt. I do, however, assure them that we have looked very carefully at this matter and have given it very deep consideration, but there is no reasonable alternative if we are to do this training and do it in the most efficient and economical way.
Mr. Osborne: If, as my hon. Friend says, there is no alternative but to have this bombing in my constituency near these villages, will he give some undertaking, so far as he can, that steps will be taken to obviate such incidents as occurred on 5th, 10th and 27th October and 12th November, which rather suggest that things are getting worse? We feel that things are getting worse instead of better. Will he give an undertaking that this kind of thing will not go on as it is at the moment?
Mr. Ward: Certainly; I will give an undertaking that I shall do everything possible to put these things right. As I said earlier, the recent incidents have been all technical faults, so far as we know. As to the last one on 12th November, the investigation is still in progress and it is too early to say exactly what the cause was. I refer to the bomb which fell on the airfield. The others have been technical faults and, as I say, I believe that the steps we are now taking to tighten up the inspection of these instruments will go a long way to help. If they do not help, we shall have to try something else, but I assure my hon. Friend that we are very conscious of this matter. We shall do all we can to help, but we cannot move away. I hope my hon. Friend's constituents will accept what I have said in this spirit, recognising that they are making a very real contribution to the defence of this country, upon which so much depends for all of us.

AIRCRAFT CRASH, SICILY (REPORT)
6.29 p.m.
Mr. Wedgwood Benn: The subject that I wish to raise tonight is the crash of the Airwork Hermes off the coast of Sicily on 25th August last year. That aeroplane contained 51 passengers and a crew of six. As a result of the crash, one member of the crew and two women passengers died and four children under the age of five were drowned. I wish to deal with the circumstances that led up to that accident, and more particularly with the way in which the Government are handling the report on that accident now in their hands.
I am grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for his courtesy in agreeing, at very short notice, to answer this debate. At the same time, I know that he will acquit me of any desire to press this matter unduly upon him, as I notice from my correspondence that my first letter to him on this subject was written on 29th December last year. I have been in correspondence with him many times since, and he has also been kind enough to see me on the matter. I have decided to raise it publicly in the House only because I am quite dissatisfied with the line that he and his Department are taking upon it. I believe it is proper that an Adjournment debate should be used to focus public attention deliberately upon the Government's policy towards the report on this air crash.
I want to go very briefly into the background of the accident. The Sudan Government employs a great many people who go back and forth every year between the Sudan and this country. They work in the Sudan in the winter, and many of them come back to this country in the English summer. They have a charter arrangement with Air-work, Limited, by which they are transported at a cheaper rate than they could normally get on the scheduled air liners.
The flight which concerns me is one which took off from Blackbushe Airport on Sunday, 24th August last year. It was flying over the Mediterranean, as is customary on this journey, when it developed engine trouble. I want to make it perfectly clear to the Parliamentary Secretary that I do not intend to
1966
raise any point about the engine trouble. I have seen a note which he was kind enough to send me about this, and it is perfectly clear that one engine and then a second engine failed, and the pilot had no alternative but to "ditch" the aircraft.
It was the circumstances which followed the pilot's decision which led directly, I believe, to the unnecessarily severe loss of life. It is very difficult for us to imagine what goes on in the cabin of an airliner when there is so little time—although in this case it was as long as 10 or 15 minutes—in which people may make arrangements before the plane "ditches" on the sea. I have been in touch with all the survivors, except a few with whom I could not make contact, about the circumstances which led up to this accident.
As far as I can understand, the first thing which enters their minds is that no member of the crew came back to tell the passengers that it had been decided to "ditch" the aircraft. There were two air hostesses attached to the crew, and the passengers naturally asked questions of them, but there is no doubt at all—there is a unanimity of view about this—that although between 10 and 15 minutes elapsed between the pilot's decision to "ditch" the aircraft and the moment when it struck the water, no member of the crew was available to give information either to the air hostesses or to the passengers.
It is not part of my purpose to attack the courage, ability or integrity of any member of the crew. It is impossible for anybody who is not involved in an accident of this kind to judge the circumstances. I am directing my argument to a claim that a full report should be published—either the one which is already available or a further report. If I raise points which are critical of the behaviour of the company and crew it is not because I claim to know what happened, but because I claim that the public have a right to find out, after proper inquiry, exactly what were the circumstances.
The second point—and this seems absolutely incredible to anybody with any flying experience—is that when the air hostesses were asked how to put on and operate the life-saving devices, they were unable to tell the passengers. One air hostess was unable to find her own life

1967
jacket. Indeed, she was very anxious about it, although I do not impugn her courage. One air hostess died in the accident. But it is incredible to me that in a publicly authorised air liner—although it was privately owned—the air hostess should not be able to find her own safety apparatus or be able to inform passengers how to use theirs.
The next and far more serious thing is that the children under five years of age—of whom there were five in the aircraft—were supposed to be provided for by a large dinghy. It is obvious that the ordinary form of what we call the "Mae West" is quite unsuitable for young children. Therefore when an aircraft carries children it should contain a rubber dinghy big enough to contain the children and their parents or guardians. The Minister has admitted in correspondence that the air hostess was unable to find the rubber dinghy, and four of the five children were drowned.
One married couple lost all three children, aged five and a half, four and a half and 19 months. I do not want to bring emotion to bear in this debate, but it is intolerable that four children of that age were lost because the proper apparatus could not be found, and it is intolerable in the circumstances, that the Government should withhold the report which has already been made.
The next thing that happened to the aircraft was that the lights began to flicker, because the generator was operated off one of the engines which failed. I do not intend to go into the technical details of this crash. I am grateful to the Minister for telling me that Hermes aircraft have now been modified so that a third generator can be made available, and that special lighting can be switched on in the event of all engines failing.
The plane landed on the water, and here again there was another period of 10 minutes before it finally submerged. There was the first period of 15 minutes, when, as far as one can make out, there was no organisation of any kind for the crew to provide the safety apparatus, and a second period, from the time when the plane hit the water to the time it sank, and this immediately demonstrated further failures in the safety apparatus.
1968
In many cases the "Mae Wests" which the passengers were wearing would not inflate. Anybody who knows the old war-time type of "Mae West" knows the little bottle which is pulled down with one's hand, which breaks at the top and inflates the "Mae West" automatically. On this occasion it failed to work in many cases. I have letters from survivors in which they say, first—and this is a general defect of this type of apparatus—that it was difficult to get the bottle to press against the body with sufficient push to break its neck and, in other cases, when they did manage to do so, the apparatus was rusted or defective. It is apparent that no proper check of the safety apparatus was made before the plane took off. Further, all "Mae Wests" have little torches by means of which a survivor floating on the water can be sighted by aircraft, fishing vessels, or other craft coming to the rescue. The Minister has a report that many of those torches did not operate.
All this points, without question, to a complete failure on the part of the company to look into questions of safety, check apparatus, and so on, and there were these unnecessary casualties. I say "unnecessary," because, although an air crash normally occurs quickly—when a plane dives into the sea, crashes before landing or just after take-off—without any time for anybody to do anything, in this case there was plenty of time, if any safety training had been given to the crew or the passengers before the flight, to put that training into operation.
The final tragedy is that, although there were 51 passengers on board, and many men amongst them, no arrangement was organised by the crew for the male passengers to look after the children. The mother of the three children who were drowned was herself knocked out when the aircraft hit the water, and—though I put this forward as a case for inquiry rather than a statement of fact—I understand that she was actually trampled on by other people who were getting out of the plane.
This sort of thing could easily be avoided by proper safety control. We always laugh at boat drill when we are travelling on a transatlantic liner, because we never think of the "Queen Elizabeth" or the "Queen Mary" going down before we reach New York, but it is this basic

1969
training which prevents appalling tragedies occurring when some technical fault develops.
With the information available to me I have dealt as best I can with the circumstances of the crash. I now wish to go on to what happened after the crash occurred. The survivors were all on their way back to the Sudan. Some of them went into hospital. One girl had two children with her, was herself eight months' pregnant, and was swimming for two and a half hours in the Mediterranean before she was picked up; but at any rate she was taken to hospital at Malta, and in a day or two there were no survivors near the spot where the crash occurred.
The Minister of Civil Aviation sent Mr. Nelson, one of his safety advisers, and according to "The Times" report—the only one open to me—Mr. Nelson conducted some sort of inquiry on the spot. Amongst other people, he interviewed the captain of the plane, of whom all the survivors spoke very highly, because of his courage and skill. Mr. Nelson, although he went as the head of a sort of commission of inquiry, did not publish any report. When I raised this with him very nearly a year ago, the Minister pointed out, quite rightly, that, under the Chicago Convention, the Convention on International Civil Aviation, or whatever it is called, it is normal practice for the Government of the country in which the plane crashes to conduct the inquiry themselves, and therefore the decision was taken at that stage that there should not be any simultaneous report, and that it would have to be left to the Italian Government.
I have frequently bothered the Minister in the last six or eight months about the Italian report, and he always said, "We do not know if there will be one. We are waiting for the Italian report to come in." I do not know why, but the Italians have taken a year to produce the report, and there has been considerable delay.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Profumo): I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not want to be inaccurate. I think he said that he had been told that we did not know there was to be a report. At no stage have we said
1970
we would not get a report. We always knew a report would be made, but we did not know at what period, and we did not know how long it would take to translate it.
Mr. Benn: It is not a very important point. I have a letter that I dictated, on the very day I saw the hon. Gentleman in March, to the mother of one of the survivors, in which I said that the Italians might not even submit a report. I had that impression, but it is of no consequence, because a report did come in. All we are discussing now is whether there should be publication of the report. The report came in a year after the accident occurred. It seems a very long time. Of course, the survivors are scattered. The crew, no doubt, have gone back on to other duties. One could, perhaps, understand why such a long period should have elapsed, but it is natural now that it has come in that I should write to the Minister and say, "Now the report is in, will you please publish it?"
I know the hon. Gentleman will not regard it as a breach of confidence if I read a letter which he wrote on 8th October in which he gave the reasons the report should not be published. I ought to explain first of all that the Minister, with great courtesy, if that is the word, sent me a copy of the report and marked it "Confidential." It was clearly impossible for me to read the report and then raise it in the House. If I were in the position of having read that report, I should now be in breach of confidence in raising it in this House. When I saw the report on my table and I read the word "Confidential" on the front page, I realised that if I read it I might well be put in the position of being unable to raise it, because he would have been able to say that I was in breach of confidence. I returned it to him unread. I am sure he will accept my word that it was unread. Indeed, I should know the answer to many of the queries I am raising if I had read it.
Mr. Profumo: I hope the hon. Gentlemen does realise why I had to mark it "Confidential." I did not know that he was necessarily intending to raise the matter in the House, and certainly I did not mark it "Confidential" to preclude him from raising it. I was in duty bound

1971
to see it was not circulated or published. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that.
Mr. Benn: It is not worth going into. It is a minor point. But I feel that I must say that if I had read the report, which was of great interest to me, I should have found myself in possession of certain information, and that then, if I raised it in the debate tonight, the hon. Gentleman would rightly have said that by so doing I was in breach of confidence. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not think I am being offensive when I say that one of the oldest ways in the world for a Minister to prevent these things from coming out is to give confidential information. If I had read the report, it would have been wrong of me to have raised it tonight.
At any rate, the Minister, in replying to me, when I asked him whether the report would be published, said:
"You will see from page 19"—
of course I do not know what is on page 19—
"that though the primary cause of the accident could not be determined a number of contributory causes have been listed, which include criticisms of the crew, in particular the air hostesses, and implied criticism of the operating company."
All of which appears to bear out the allegations I made earlier.
The letter went on:
"Had an investigation been conducted under our Accident regulations the persons blamed would have been given the opportunity to make statements, and to produce evidence and witnesses on their behalf, before the report was finalised. This elementary principle of British justice to give the accused a chance to defend himself was not followed under Italian procedure. The Minister, therefore, feels that in these circumstances it would be unjust to the crew and to the operator to give the report full publication or to place it in the House of Commons Library."
This is a very serious statement for the Minister to make. He says that this report was not drawn up in conditions which gave everybody a fair chance, and yet when I wrote to him a week later and asked whether, in these circumstances, he would institute his own inquiry, he wrote:
"The Minister is in general agreement with their conclusions."
This is the real burden of my argument. The Minister has to make up his mind
1972
one way or the other about this report. Either it is unjust to the aircrew—as it may be—and it is unjust to the company—as it may be; but in those circumstances why does the Minister decide to accept it? Why does he circulate the report to any survivors who ask for it? I could get a copy of the report tonight if I wanted to from one of the survivors in London or from the offices in London of the Sudan Government. They have copies of the report. That report is supposed to be confidential. If it is unfair to the aircrew and to the company it is quite intolerable, in my submission, that the Minister should be willing to circulate it freely to anyone who wants to see it, on the understanding it is not to be published.
Mr. Profumo: I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to be accurate, and it is very important that there should be strict accuracy about this. It is not for anyone who wants it, but only the people who were involved. They may see it, as the hon. Gentleman could have done, only it is marked "Confidential" for them as it was for the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Benn: I withdraw that remark. I meant to any one of the survivors who wants it. The point is that if the report breaks every principle of British justice, it is strange that the Minister says he accepts it and should be willing to circulate it to any one of the survivors who wishes to see it, even if it is marked "Confidential."
I have written on my own authority to all the survivors I could contact, and I have a wad of letters from them. I shall not burden the House with them, but all or almost all of them agree that the position is very unsatisfactory. Some of the accounts of the personal circumstances of the crash are very moving. One I have here is from a man who says:
"The chief concern I have arising out or the crash is the fact that my small child had to leave the plane for the sea without any lifebelt or other means of keeping afloat. It was only the superhuman efforts of my wife which kept the child afloat for two and a half hours. I was separated from both from the moment I jumped from the plane."
Many of the people have written saying, "I have no personal vindictiveness against the company," and I am not raising the question of compensation tonight, but they all say, "We believe that the failure to publish this report will make it

1973
less likely that publicity will be attached to the crash and less likely that the maximum precautions will be taken against a repetition of this sort of thing occurring."
Surely the Minister cannot be satisfied with things as they are now? What we want to know is, why was not the equipment tested for safety? What we want to know is, why were not the passengers in the plane given the most elementary safety drill? Why was not the air hostess able to know where her own safety belt was, let alone the rubber dinghy for the children under five? Why was there no guidance in these circumstances? Why, indeed, did the engines fail, which was the cause of the whole thing? Perhaps, however, that is a more straightforward technical matter. Why was there not basic organisation of the passengers by the captain of the aircraft to see that the women and children went off first? After all, there is a tradition in the Royal Navy and in the Merchant Navy that the captain leaves the ship last, and certainly there should have been arrangements whereby the passengers could have been given guidance in the moment of crisis.
I have put these questions to the Minister, and I have given him notice of them. He knows perfectly well about them, and I hope he will not give the same unsatisfactory answers he has given hitherto. Leaving aside whether the company had an opportunity to reply to this criticism—presumably they could have given evidence to the Italian Government, like everyone else—I ask the Minister to come straight to the point: does he think the report is unfair? Can he please give us reasons which in his judgment lead him to suppose that this report is unfair? Has it not paid full attention to the difficulties which faced the crew or the company? If he thinks it is unfair, I will leave that question aside for the moment. But does he think the report is wrong? Does he think the conclusions which the report reached were wrong, in addition to the unfairness by which they were reached?
Finally, there are two questions which I have already asked but which I should like him to answer. If the report is unfair and if it is wrong, why does the Minister accept it? Surely his concern is that there should be the maximum safety for British passengers, whether they fly by
1974
the nationalised Air Corporations or by private companies. If it is unfair, why send it to the survivors? If it is not, why not have a British inquiry?
We press this matter not because we have anything against Air work, Limited. I have never had any association of any kind with Airwork, Limited. I have no financial interest in this crash, on my behalf or on behalf of any of the people to whom I have written or who have written to me. We press for the publication of the report for reasons for which we should always press for the publication of similar reports: not only because we want to know whether the regulations were obeyed, so that others may see what appalling consequences come from a failure to obey regulations; but also, in the event of a crash of this kind, because we are concerned with the much bigger question whether the regulations would have been adequate even if they had been brought fully into effect. It is only by judging the regulations in force against the situation which faced the pilot and the crew that we can judge whether they are adequate.
If the Minister is not able to satisfy me tonight, I can give him a categorical assurance that this subject will be raised again and again and again in the House. I hope he will be in a position tonight to say that the Government will either institute an inquiry in Britain or will publish the report of the inquiry which they have already accepted.
6.52 p.m.
Mr. John Grimston (St. Albans): The hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) has in my view done at least one good service, and that is in calling attention to the fact that all accidents involving aircraft, particularly fatal accidents, should be investigated and any lessons to be learned noted and applied on all other similar flights. To the extent that the hon. Member's arguments are facts or are directed towards making air travel safer. I am with him, but I detected in what he said a more sinister motive than that. I do not think the tone of some of his remarks was in any way justified or that the necessity for it was proved under the circumstances.
Mr. Benn: Would the hon. Member please substantiate this statement, because I made only one very slight reference to the company. I must confess that I am

1975
concerned about the matter, but if the hon. Member suggests that I have a sinister motive, he ought to substantiate the charge or withdraw it absolutely.
Mr. Grimston: I am grateful to the hon. Member; the purpose of my intervention is to try to substantiate it. There was little doubt from his closing remarks, that, as the hon. Member has said, he was anxious, and his anxiety clearly sprang from a wish to have something to which to point so as to establish whether or not, in his dealings with accidents in the air, my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary treated nationalised corporations on the same footing as, or a different footing from, private enterprise or any other corporation.
Mr. Benn: Perhaps the hon. Member will withdraw the word "sinister." It is our concern that all flying, whether by nationalised companies or by private companies, should be safer. The Minister admitted a few days ago that safety regulations for private airline companies were much lower than, or at any rate quite different from, those for the nationalised corporations. That is contained in HANSARD.
Mr. Grimston: It is quite clear from what the hon. Member has said that I am very close to the point which he is trying to make, and I hope that what I am going to say will mean that at least somebody's anxieties—quite clearly expressed anxieties—will be set at rest.
In the earlier part of his remarks, the hon. Member made what clearly were detailed criticisms of some of the actions of the members of the crew. He used these words, which I took down: That there had not been even elementary safety training given to the crew. That is really quite wrong, and it is a very unfortunate thing to have said about this aircraft crash. These aircraft were bought by Airwork, with which I have no connection at all, from B.O.A.C. They were Hermes aircraft, and as far as I know, in this case one engine failed, the propellor came off and took the propellor off the other engine on the same side. This was at night, and the pilot was faced with the prospect of flying at night over country which contained very high mountains, and also over the sea.
Mr. Benn: I am afraid the hon. Member is mixing this crash with another Hermes crash, when the propellors came off. If he intends to criticise my facts, I hope he will not mix the Hermes crash of 25th August over Sicily with the earlier Hermes aircraft crash which gave even greater reason to doubt the safety standards maintained by this company.
Mr. Grimston: The hon. Members asks me not to confuse two Hermes crashes. One occurred over land at night in France and one occurred in which the aircraft was "ditched" in the sea off Sicily. Is not that so? We know all about the other. This particular aircraft was a former B.O.A.C. aircraft and was on the first day of a flight from this country. The pilot was faced with the extremely difficult task of putting the aircraft down into the sea at night. His lights had failed and he could not even see his distance above the water. Indeed, he could not be quite sure that he was above the water.
Mr. G. Lindgren: The hon. Member says this was the first flight out of this aircraft. Does he mean that this company start to operate without a proving flight?
Mr. Grimston: It was the first day out of the flight from the U.K.
Mr. Lindgren: Surely the hon. Member has inferred that this aircraft had been picked up from B.O.A.C. and was on its first flight.
Mr. Grimston: If I gave that impression, I apologise. It is not what I intended to say. This was the first day's flight. As the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East said, it was on its way from Blackbushe to the Sudan. On the evening of the first day these two engines failed at night as the aircraft was making for Malta. There were very high mountains not far away and also much of the route is over the sea. The aircraft lights had failed. It was an extremely creditable job for the pilot to have put the aircraft down on to the sea without killing every one by the impact. That was a very remarkable technical job indeed, and the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East did not mention a word of it.
Mr. Benn: I do not know how much preparation the hon. Member has done for the debate, but he should recollect

1977
that in fact I paid tribute particularly to the captain of the plane,
"whose courage and skill"—
I thought I used those words; if-not, I quote them now from one of the letters received—
"prevented a far worse accident from occurring."
There were five other members of the crew not engaged in the "ditching" who might have given instructions to the passengers sitting in the back not knowing what on earth was going on.
Mr. Profumo: Is the hon. Member suggesting that five members of the crew merely sat in the back and took no action at all? I am afraid this debate may get a little overheated if we do not return to the serious level which I know both the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. J. Grimston) desire. I had to intervene there because in an attempt to answer quickly we may get confused. What the hon. Member said was certainly not the case.
Mr. Benn: I was air-crew during the war and I know perfectly well that no member of the crew sits and does nothing. But I make the charge, which I repeat willingly, that in the 15 minutes between the decision being reached and the moment the plane was ditched a member of the crew should have been detailed by the captain to go and tell the passengers how to find the apparatus, how to put it on and what was happening. That was a perfectly reasonable criticism to make of the crew.
Mr. Grimston: I think both sides of the House really want this debate to be on a serious level.
Mr. F. Beswick: If the hon. Member intends to intervene in the debate he should try to maintain the same standard as that set by my hon. Friend in opening the debate.
Mr. Grimston: The tribute which I would certainly pay to the captain has now been paid, but it is still wrong to say that there has not been even elementary safety training given to the crew. The basic reason why the accident was not infinitely more severe was because the captain, in particular, was not only an exceptionally able man, but brought
1978
off an exceptionally skilful technical feat in "ditching" this aircraft at night with no lights to help him.
Mr. Benn: Basic safety training refers to training in the use of safety apparatus. I was speaking specifically about whether the crew knew where the safety apparatus was, knew how to operate it and told people what to do. In that connection they were unable to find two pieces of safety apparatus, and I regard that as failure to understand the basic principles of safety training. That has nothing to do with the flying at all.
Mr. Grimston: I am delighted that we now have this much more closely defined than I previously understood from the remarks of the hon. Gentleman. It seems to me that the ditching was exceptionally skilfully carried out. A captain in those conditions certainly has not the time to spare for briefing junior members of his crew, who should know their job without word from the captain. In that, at least, I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
He expressed his anxiety as to whether or not accidents involving private enterprise airlines are treated differently from others. There are in the Library—and I have them here—reports of six accident inquiries since the present Government came to power, involving accidents to aircraft operated by civil firms. Some of them are serious accidents, like the one of the 14th June to a Consul aircraft in the Channel. Some of them are relatively minor accidents, involving one or two people and only minor injuries. There can, therefore, be no reasonable call for anxiety on the part of the hon. Gentleman as to whether my hon. Friend treats the private enterprise airlines and the nationalised airlines in different ways when it comes to investigating accidents.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, no accident should be allowed to take place without the causes being most scrupulously investigated. No doubt the Minister will tell us more about this matter. I understand that the powers of the Minister are derived from legislation which, I think, was passed by the Socialist Government shortly after the war. If these powers are not enough, then I, at least, will support the appeal of any hon. Member of this House to widen them, so that we in Britain can obtain the full benefit of any lesson that

1979
may be learned from any accident which takes place in any part of the world.
7.4 p.m.
Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I am certainly not going to touch on the circumstances of this accident. I am not going to make any technical observations about civil aviation, because I have never been anything but one of the helpless passengers who are very efficiently carried in civil aircraft from time to time.
I am, however, profoundly disturbed by the situation in which this matter has been left. If I had any doubt whatever that something more needed to be done, the course of the debate today would have removed that doubt. I hope that the Minister will be good enough to correct me if I am wrong in what I am about to say. I understand that it is not disputed that the Minister has power to hold what is sometimes called a commissioners inquiry.
I understand, too, that the Chicago Convention, to which I shall be referring in a moment, places a responsibility on the Italian authorities to investigate this accident. I do not understand, however, that the Chicago Convention in any way precludes the Minister from holding an inquiry in this country, and if I am wrong I should like to be told so at once.
Mr. Profumo: It does not preclude my right hon. Friend from doing so, and I hope to explain in a moment the actions which my right hon. Friend has taken. There is nothing to preclude it.
Mr. Mitchison: I am glad to hear that. I also assume—and again I should like to be corrected if I am wrong—that the relative part of the Chicago Convention, which is, I believe, Annexe L, has now been ratified. That matter stands as I put it just now. What I want to point out is the position in which those responsible for the aircraft itself, those who were at the time responsible for navigating her—I use the word "navigating" in a very lay sense—and those who were in any way injured by the accident or had relatives who were injured or died in the accident are left.
The present position is this. The Italian authorities have held an inquiry.
1980
They were no doubt entitled to do so. The Minister has sent an inspector—and I hope again that he will correct me if I am wrong—to the scene of the accident, and some sort of investigation has been held by him out there. Whether his inspector attended or took any part in the Italian proceedings I do not know. It is perfectly clear that the Italian authorities have come to a conclusion which puts very serious blame, rightly or wrongly—I am not concerned about that at the moment—on two of the classes of people which I have just mentioned—that is to say, those who were responsible for the aircraft, if I may put it in that way, and those who were responsible for running her on this occasion.
Mr. Profumo: I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman has had some access to this report. If not, I do not know from what information he is saying that the report gives very serious criticism on these two classes of people.
Mr. Mitchison: I am in the habit of accepting what my hon. Friend says and has just said, and which, if the Minister wished to correct, he had ample opportunity to correct at the time. I am not concerned with the precise degree of seriousness. The point is that criticism and serious criticism, in an accident which led to grievous loss of life, has been made in an Italian report by the Italian authorities. That is all I am concerned with. If the Minister disputes what I have said, I should like him to say so. If there is no criticism so much the better.
Mr. Benn: The passage of the criticism was one which I read from a letter which I received from the hon. Gentleman. I have no knowledge of what is in the report, only what the hon. Gentleman tells me, and that information was available to the whole House when I read it.
Mr. Speaker: I would ask hon. Members to conform to our usual custom of making speech with fewer interruptions. This has been like the Committee stage of a contentious Bill. Hon. Members ought to say what they have to say and listen to what others have to say.
Mr. Mitchison: The matter is now perfectly clear, not only on what my hon. Friend said when he was speaking, but on what the Minister wrote to him at

1981
the time. That report has been circulated—presumably, again marked "Confidential"—to a number of people. Its contents have in part been divulged, without any pledge of confidence, by the Minister to my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend, to whom we ought to be grateful for raising this matter in the House, has, quite properly, repeated in public some of the things that were said by the Minister with regard to that report.
I suggest to the Minister that there are very good reasons for not leaving people in the position in which they have been put by that procedure. Here are people responsible for the aircraft; here are others concerned with the running of it, who are known to have been criticised by a foreign Government or by foreign authorities in connection with an accident which led to serious loss of life, and which certainly no one in this country would wish to treat lightly.
Surely, these people ought to be given the opportunity of defending themselves and of making on their own behalf the kind of case which the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. J. Grimston) at points seemed inclined to make for them. This is not a matter which ought to be decided either by an investigation and a report, in which these people have had no opportunity of stating their case, or by a discussion in the House, in which, obviously, we cannot possibly assume the functions of a competent—I was almost tempted to add "or even a sensible"—tribunal.
As the matter stands, it seems to me mere common fairness to the people concerned to let them have a proper investigation. It is not disputed that we have power to do it. It is not disputed that, whatever the Minister may have to say about the rules of international courtesy or the like, the Chicago Convention does not prevent us from doing that. I cannot help believing that if this had been an accident to a British ship instead of to a British aircraft, the fact that it happened in some other country would certainly not have prevented a proper inquiry from being held under the Merchant Shipping Acts and that at that inquiry there would have been what there ought to be at any such inquiry: a full opportunity for those who have in any way been attacked or criticised to defend themselves.
1982
I do not know how good the criticisms are, I do not know how good the defence may be—I am not concerned with that—but the plain English of the matter is that these men have had uncommonly nasty things said about them. Any criticism of a man's conduct, whether he is a manufacturer or is someone engaged with running an aircraft, in a matter which involves a fatal accident is necessarily a very nasty thing to say about him.
I hope—surely, all of us hope—that those criticisms were largely unfounded. As a mere lawyer I am bound to say that if there were a court in which one could criticise a man and then did not hear what he was going to say in reply, it is quite likely that the results would be extremely ill-founded. After all, we are speaking in the British Parliament. We are appealing to a British Minister and asking him to see that British justice is done to his fellow countrymen—that is exactly what this comes to.
If the views of the Chicago Convention on international comity or anything else interfere with the Minister's doing what we are asking him to do, the sooner he gets a proper convention to oblige him to do it in a proper case, such as this appears to be, the better for all concerned. If there is any obligation that, in his opinion, prevents him from doing it now, the sooner he resiles from that obligation, no matter what offence it may cause to any foreign Power, the better in the interests of this country, in the interests of safety in air transport, and in the interests of those who are concerned in earning their living partly in the manufacture of, and attending to, aircraft and partly in their operation. I do not believe that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary would disagree with that view.
Look at the alternative. If this report is perfectly right, if no injustice whatever has been done, we would come to the same result and there is no harm. But there remains something else. Suppose that one of the affected people chooses to take proceedings in court—very likely they may not do so; people are not always in a position to do these things, especially in a complicated case of this sort, notwithstanding the Legal Aid and Advice Act, which the Labour Government introduced. If any of these people take proceedings in court, there would then be an investigation by a court in

1983
this country which would deal with exactly the same sort of thing as a commissioner's inquiry would have dealt with. It was to avoid that kind of thing happening over accidents at sea, in the first place, and, I assume, accidents in the air now, that legislation has been brought in, laws have been made, the procedure has been established and the rest of it, by which one general inquiry is held before a person of high competence in cases of this sort. Surely it is right that that should be so.
If there are to be a number of individual inquiries, they will be approached from a different point of view. There would be a question of the burden of proof and all the rest; the final issue is one of liability in a particular case. What is really wanted is an inquiry into public safety in these matters. That is the fundamental purpose of all these inquiries, in order to achieve public safety at sea or in the air. If there are proceedings in court afterwards, we would be having exactly what these inquiries were set up to replace. We have had inquiries at sea and there have been air inquiries to deal with the general question of public safety. We might have all the facts out in the court. Nothing would be kept back at that inquiry in court, but it would be got from the wrong end.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister will reconsider this matter. I know he has refused to have a proper, formal commissioner's inquiry, but let him remember the stage that the matter has now reached. Let him remember the position in which those concerned are now placed, and let him set common justice and the best interests of safety in the air above any question of personal pride or of standing by what was said before in the matter. The circumstances have changed, and I believe that the House would welcome on the part of the Minister an acceptance, as the circumstances now are, of a formal commissioner's inquiry into this case. As I see it, that is the only satisfactory solution.
7.19 p.m.
Mr. F. Beswick: My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) disclosed a situation which on any showing is unsatisfactory. He disclosed it in a very restrained manner.
1984
It was a pity that the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. J. Grimston) did not say what he had to say in an equally restrained manner. It was quite unworthy of him that he should say that my hon. Friend had any sinister motive in bringing forward this matter on the Adjournment.
The hon. Member did make some reference to the method of inquiry in this country which was developed by the Labour Government. As a matter of fact, the procedure for inquiries was not set up in 1946 and left there. There were developments in subsequent years, and the trend of them was to make it possible for the public to know what was going on at these inquiries. It was to give them the fullest possible information. We first of all said that where there was any public interest the report should be published, and then we went on to recommend that these inquiries should be held in public where there was known to be a considerable public interest.
I am not concerned with the facts of this particular accident. I am not going to try to criticise or justify anything concerned with it. What I should like to know is something more about the facts of the accident. My hon. Friend has given us enough information to make me want to read the report, and I would have thought that those who try to take an interest in matters of air safety should be allowed to see it.
I understand that the Minister has accepted the report. I would be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would say whether that is so. The acceptance of a report implies the acceptance of the findings, but according to what my hon. Friend says, the Minister does not accept certain of the findings. He holds that the method of inquiry was unsatisfactory. I am bound to say that I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary if he said, as apparently he did in his letter, that it was an unfair method of inquiry, and that no provision was made for evidence to be given either by the operator or by the other affected people and, in particular the aircrew.
In this country we see to it now that opportunities are given for all interested parties to give evidence, and, indeed, to cross-examine witnesses. What seems to arise in this matter is that we ought,

1985
through the appropriate international organisation, to get some uniformity of method of inquiry. That would seem to be an obligation upon us. If there is any particular country whose method of inquiry is known to be unsatisfactory by our standards, then equally there is an obligation upon us, when an accident takes place in the territory of that country, to make some alternative arrangements by which we can hold an inquiry ourselves, the report and the findings of which we should be prepared to publish.
We come to this position. Either the Minister accepts that this report is a fair one, in which case we should be allowed to see it; or if it is an unfair one, then there is an obligation upon him to hold an inquiry under our form of procedure and subsequently publish the report which the court sees fit to present. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to satisfy us on this point.
7.24 p.m.
Mr. G. Lindgren: There is one point I should like to put before the Parliamentary Secretary replies. These accidents are very distressing and, whatever type of inquiry is held, something is always likely to go wrong. It will be within the recollection of those Members who are interested that during the days of the Labour Government there was a tragic accident at a Northern airport in this country. All the formal procedure of public inquiry was gone through, but it was the contention of my noble Friend who was then Minister of Civil Aviation that the facts showed a different conclusion to that drawn by the president of the court. What happened then? My noble Friend added a preface to the report stating that he disagreed with the findings for certain reasons, and he published the report. That caused a terrific storm, because the president of the court was a lawyer, and for some reason it seems that a layman must not criticise a lawyer, even if the lawyer goes wrong.
I know that the present Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary would be the last persons to hide or hush up anything at all. But when any report is withheld, there are always unkind persons who will say that that is done in order to hide something from the public.
1986
Suspicions are aroused, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) suggests. I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary for the consideration of his right hon. Friend that if this report is not fair for one reason or another, or if the Minister does not accept its conclusions, he should at least publish the report and follow the example of his predecessor in office and add a preface setting out his attitude and why he has come to that conclusion.
If that is done everything is open and above board, and anyone trying to make use of wrong information and facts is immediately exposed. The experience of my noble Friend, to which I have made reference tonight, may be helpful in this instance. I should like to conclude by associating myself with my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East for the manner in which he put this rather delicate issue before the House.
7.27 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Profumo): May I join with the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) in paying my tribute to the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) for the way in which he deployed his arguments and, indeed, for calling this matter to the attention of the House and giving me an opportunity of making clearer a situation which appears to be a little clouded.
I apologise in advance if I do not reply to some of the many points which have been made this evening, and I can assure hon. Members that, if I leave some of them unanswered, I am ready to be questioned during the course of my remarks. There is one further assurance I should like to give the House. Although I see no reason to change the view to which my right hon. Friend and I have come on this matter, I will most certainly read very carefully the evidence which has been produced tonight, and will call to my right hon. Friend's attention what has been said for his earnest consideration particularly about this sort of problem in the future.
I am in a difficulty, and I am sure the House will sympathise with me in this. We are here discussing a report which

1987
deals with the circumstances of a very serious air disaster which we have, rightly or wrongly, decided not to make public, and it may be difficult for me to take up some of the points which have been mentioned by hon. Members without, in fact, doing what is tantamount to making public the contents of the report.
We certainly have no desire to hide anything, and I am glad that the hon. Member for Wellingborough made that point. I believe that I do not need to emphasise it. There is no question of our wishing to conceal anything at all, but my right hon. Friend feels that we must stick to certain principles. Therefore I find it difficult to know exactly how to deal with the accusations which have justly and fairly been made by the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East.
The circumstances in which this serious disaster took place are well known to the House and hon. Members would not wish me to go into them in any detail. I shall merely make the point that the disaster was due to engine failure of a Hermes aircraft. In these technical discussions we are in some danger of giving a false impression to those who might wish to fly in the future. As everyone knows, the Hermes is a very good aircraft indeed and certain modifications have taken place to its engines, well known to all hon. Members here who take an interest in aviation, which make it an entirely reliable and safe type of aircraft. I would not wish the idea to go abroad that there was something wrong with it. As the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East said, this tragic affair caused a loss of life, and I am grateful to have this opportunity of expressing our deepest and sincerest sympathy and regret.
Now let me try to deal with some of the points which were raised. First, an Italian commission of inquiry was set up in accordance with the provisions of Article 26 of the Chicago Convention. A senior inspector of the Accidents Investigation Branch of my Department represented the United Kingdom during the inquiry. The Italian commission made a thorough investigation of the circumstances of the accident and the Chief Inspector of Accidents in general agrees with the contents of the report. There may have been some slight confusion here. It was suggested that either
1988
my right hon. Friend does agree with the report or that he does not. He does agree with the findings of the report. He agrees that the report was carefully and genuinely carried out and he is in general agreement with the findings of the Italian court.
The points which hon. Gentlemen have made tonight can be summarised as follows first, that full publicity should be given to the circumstances of the accident by publication of the report; secondly, that if my right hon. Friend is not prepared to publish the Italian report, he should now institute a separate inquiry, the report of which could be published.
First, with regard to publication of the report. United Kingdom accident regulations require that anyone who is likely to be blamed or criticised shall be given an opportunity of producing evidence and cross-examining witnesses. Under Italian procedure this opportunity was not given. This does not mean that the report was not a good report or that it was not a just one.
Mr. Mitchison Mr. Mitchison indicated dissent.
Mr. Profumo: The hon. and learned Member knows much more about the law than I do, but I have seen the report. He expressed doubt as to whether someone would take legal action, but the point is that this was not a public inquiry but a private one, and therefore nobody on whom any blame may have been cast could be put in any difficulty. In a moment I shall go into the reasons for having these inquiries at all.
The report was private but, owing to the fact that we felt we could not publish it in this country, I felt bound to circulate it under confidential cover to the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East, who has taken a deep interest in the matter, and to those who were affected by the accident. I do not think there has been any question as to the way in which the report was compiled or that the inquiry was unfair to anybody. We have had no complaints that it was unfair.
Mr. Beswick: The hon. Gentleman has not said why the decision was reached not to publish it.
Mr. Profumo: I have not quite reached that point; I apologise for being long-winded. As I was saying, under the

1989
Italian procedure the opportunity was not given. If I may digress here, there was nothing in the letter which I sent to the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East to suggest that there was serious criticism. I did not put that in my letter. I said:
"include criticisms of the crew, in particular the air hostesses."
Do let us get this into its right perspective, because, when we have a discussion of this kind, the more we get into it, the more people may go slightly off beam.
As there was criticism levelled at the members of the crew, one of which was the dead air hostess, it was decided that it would be unfair to those concerned and, indeed, to the relatives of the dead girl, to publish the report since it is one of the elements of British justice that an accused should be permitted to defend himself.
That is the basic reason why we have not published the report, and in a moment I will come to what the report seeks to do. I have sent copies of it to interested parties and I am prepared to send it to any others, but I could not lay it in the Library or circulate it widely since that would be tantamount to publication. I think the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East realises that either it must be published or circulated to those particularly concerned. I do not see how publication could confer any additional benefit, in view of the fact that the interested parties can obtain copies of this report, and that follow-up action indicated in it has been and is being taken at the present time.
Mr. Beswick: The idea of publishing these reports is precisely so that the public can assure itself that follow-up action has been adequate. With respect, it is not enough for the Minister to say that he has done his job properly; the public must be able to assure itself that the job has been done properly.
Mr. Profumo: With great respect, that is not the reason for publishing the report. The Minister has the right, indeed the duty, to publish a report if he feels that by publication anything can be done to stop that kind of accident happening again. There is not widespread public concern about this, and I have assured the House that follow-up action has been and is being taken. It boils down to a question of degree, but the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), who occupied my position for some time, will realise
1990
that the Minister is given the discretion on publication. We do not want to cause alarm and despondency by publishing reports unless any good can be gained thereby. The Minister would only consider publication if it would make something clearer which would prevent a repetition.
Mr. Benn: Is it not perfectly clear in this case that the accident was made far worse because simple, basic principles of safety were disregarded, and that if the report were published it would bring home to people the importance of understanding safety drill and doing it?
Mr. Profumo: There we are getting down to details. I am on difficult ground here because we are getting into the realms of the report itself. I assure hon. Gentlemen that I am not trying to get out of this in any way, but I must be careful. There is no reason to think, from the report or from any other source from which we could get information that the operating company had not complied with the regulations which existed at the time.
Although there has been a certain amount of blame attached to the operators and indeed to members of the crew for certain minor things which happened after the engine failure, I can assure the House categorically that there was no indication that either the company or the crew had failed to carry out existing regulations. That is rather important. But as accusations were made and blame was laid, it would be wholly wrong to publish that Report when these people had not had the opportunity of defending themselves and when at least one is dead. I do not expect all hon. Members to agree with me, but that is the reason why my right hon. Friend decided not to publish.
I was asked about the possibility of setting up a separate United Kingdom inquiry. A thorough investigation was made by the Italian authorities, and it seems clear to my right hon. Friend that no further light could be thrown on the cause of the accident, and that that is the important point. He is satisfied, from the Italian report and on the information he has, that the cause of the accident is perfectly clear and that it would serve no useful purpose to have a separate United Kingdom inquiry. Nor would it serve a useful purpose in increasing the safety of air transport, because any action

1991
which, as a result of the existing report, it was necessary to take in changing regulations has been taken or is being taken at the present time.
I hardly like to mention the next point, but it is that if we decided in this case to have a separate court of inquiry it might well be regarded by the Italian Government as a reflection upon their thoroughness and competence, and as my right hon. Friend sees no reason to cast that reflection it does not seem right that he should have a further inquiry in this country.
Mr. Mitchison: I should like to put two points to the hon. Gentleman. First of all, the hon. Gentleman told the House quite frankly a short time ago that it was one of the principles of British justice that a man who is accused should not be condemned unheard. If I gather rightly from what the hon. Gentleman has said, the criticisms made against the people concerned that matter are criticisms which they have never had the opportunity to answer and which nevertheless the Minister is accepting. They may be right, but have these people had justice? That is the first point.
As to the second point, I notice that at the end of the Report of the 1946 Inquiry, on page 45 of Cmd. 7564, an undertaking was given by Lord Nathan, the then Minister for Air, at the instance of Viscount Swinton, to pursue negotiations with other countries with a view to getting the publicity for the proceedings and results of these inquiries which I understand to be given almost invariably in this country when there is a question of loss of life. Has that been done in this case?
Mr. Profumo: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that almost invariably a Minister in this country publishes a report where there is loss of life? With great respect, that is not so. It is not incumbent upon the Minister to do that.
Mr. Beswick: An undertaking was given that it would be done.
Mr. Profumo: Except in special circumstances, and this is a report made by a foreign Government. Incidentally, I was about to ask the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) if he would kindly sit down, but I see
1992
that he is merely moving to another seat. I thought for a moment that he was coming to me. I was getting a little frightened that he was about to attack me across the Floor of the House.
As I said, this inquiry was carried out by a foreign Government and the undertaking given by Lord Nathan added riders and corollaries in the case of accidents and investigations in other countries. But this does link up with the first question—that of justice. Here we are working on a well-established precedent for the publication of reports. That precedent is that if somebody is accused during an investigation and for some reason has not had the chance of defending himself personally or through a lawyer—and through no act of our own that happens in a foreign investigation—that would be a reason for the Minister not publishing a report.
Mr. Mitchison: We do not carry the Outlawries Bill far enough.
Mr. Profumo: I am not saying that if an investigation took place in this country we would not have taken what we called "Regulation 7 (5)" action, but it was not done in this case. My right hon. Friend feels that the investigations have been most thoroughly carried out and that the general conclusions as to the cause of the accident are right. I need not remind the hon. and learned Member of the principles underlying British justice. It was for that reason that, in the circumstances presented to him, my right hon. Friend felt that it would be wrong to publish the Report.
Mr. Mitchison: I asked for an inquiry in this country, a proper one.
Mr. Profumo: I thought that I had answered or at least tried to answer that and had said why we felt it wrong to have an extra inquiry in this country. Perhaps I can strengthen that point a little further. What are our reasons for holding accident investigations at all? I think that that point is germane to this debate. There are two main reasons. The first is to discover the cause of the accident. Let us apply that to this case. Here were an accident on which, under international convention, a foreign Government had held a court of inquiry and had established without doubt at all to themselves or to the operators or to

1993
us the cause of the accident. It was engine failure, and since then action has been taken with regard to Hermes aircraft. That was the primary cause of the accident.
Mr. Benn: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not say that I am quibbling when I say that the cause of the accident was the absence of dinghies. If the hon. Gentleman says that the accident—that is the loss of life—was due to engine failure, it is not the whole of the story.
Mr. Profumo: I said that the primary cause was engine failure and I was going to expand on that a little. In the course of the inquiry the contributory causes to which the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East referred were investigated. I have only one criticism to make of that speech, and I hope that he accepts it in the spirit in which it is made. It is that when one has not the whole picture it is a little dangerous to draw conclusions. I know that the hon. Gentleman has made every possible effort to get all the information available from survivors, but he has not read the report.
Mr. Benn: But, if I had read the report, I could not have made my speech. The hon. Gentleman has got me in a cleft stick.
Mr. Profumo: So the hon. Gentleman has me. All I meant was that the report indicates certain reasons why certain things happened. The failure of the light happened because there was no auxiliary engine. The very failure of the light was one of the main reasons why the escape equipment could not be found. I have been down in an aeroplane in an emergency landing though, thank heaven, not in water. Hon. Members have no great need to draw on their imagination to think of what happens to the best crews, whether of nationalised enterprises, the R.A.F., or private civil aviation, when there are a great number of passengers including children and women on board when there is an emergency landing. There is bound to be a certain amount of confusion and chaos. If there are no lights it is easy to imagine that if people find that belts for which they are groping are under their feet are being jerked about there is bound to be a certain amount of chaos. Although there has been some criticism here, I am satisfied
1994
that it would be wrong to over-estimate and over-do the criticism. Now there will be auxiliary lighting and we hope that such a thing will not happen again.
There has been a combination of failures, but none of them could be attributed to the fact that the company had not paid due regard to the safety regulations. In regard to the inflated "Mae Wests" and the C.O.2 bottles, hon. Members will know how easy it is to dislodge the nozzles by a knock of the elbow. Hon. Members may think that these are interesting explanations but something should be done about it. I can assure the House on that. Follow up action has been taken. That is the second reason for having an investigation, to discover the contributory causes and to try to see that such an accident will not happen again.
Mr. Beswick: That may be the reason for holding an inquiry, but the reason for publishing a report is that the House may be assured that the faults which have been disclosed have in fact been remedied and that, if necessary, we can question the Minister concerned about the particular action that has been taken.
Mr. Profumo: I was trying to explain a little more of the circumstances of the crash in order to allay suspicion in the minds of hon. Members. If we carried the point put by the hon. Member to its logical conclusion, the Minister would never have the right to refuse to publish a report. Hon. Members would say, "We are not satisfied. You are not right about this. We want to know and we have some suspicion." In that case it would be no good having this "7 (5)" action which has the effect that if someone is accused and has not had a chance of defending himself, the Minister need not publish the report. What is the good of that if hon. Members, or the newspapers, can say that the Minister is trying to hide something?
I say the two main reasons why the court of inquiry is set up are to discover the cause of the accident and to see that these things shall not happen again. In the opinion of my right hon. Friend, those two objects have been wholly achieved. Follow-up action has been taken and the cause of the crash has been clearly established. The only thing which prevents us publishing the report is that people who were in some way accused did not have a chance of defending themselves.

1995
The task of finding out the cause of the accident has been achieved and we are satisfied that the regulations will be changed and anything which was at fault will be changed in the future.
One hon. Member said he thought we ought to have published the report in order to have maximum publicity. I hope the debate we have had tonight has given very considerable publicity, (a) to the seriousness of the accident; (b) to the fact that we have most carefully considered the policy of publishing and not publishing; and (c) to the great sorrow and regret which the whole House feel for those who have suffered or have friends or relations who suffered in the accident.
7.54 p.m.
Mr. Ede: I am quite sure everyone in the House will agree that we have had a most courteous and painstaking reply by the hon. Gentleman. I hope that his right hon. Friend, when he reads the OFFICIAL REPORT, will feel that he has not been inadequately represented here this evening. In fact, I hope that the Test Match selectors, when Bailey gets too old to maintain his wicket for a long time, will have regard to the prowess of the hon. Gentleman as a stone-waller.
I am bound to say, having listened to what the hon. Gentleman said, that I do not think he has made an adequate answer to the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). I should have thought that if it is not desired to have a further inquiry it should at least be possible to afford anyone who is criticised in the report—and who, as I understand, has seen the report—an opportunity of making a statement that could be published as an appendix to the report.
Mr. Beswick: There is a precedent.
Mr. Ede: That seems to me quite a reasonable proposition. I have every sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman
1996
said in regard to the lady who, I understand, was criticised—at any rate so he has told us this evening—and who perished in the accident. A similar thing happened in regard to that terrible railway disaster at Wembley, where considerable criticism was levelled at the engine driver of one of the trains involved. The man was dead, but it did not prevent the report being published and most people accepted the findings. The man clearly could not give evidence as he was dead in the accident and had no opportunity for stating his case.
I do not know how much is left in the report after what we have heard from this side of the House and what the hon. Gentleman has told us. I was beginning to think that possibly his speech would have been shorter if he had read the report to us. I wonder whether there is much left now and, if so, whether it would be better to recognise what I think is desirable: to carry out the practice that these reports should be published and, if anyone is criticised and did not have the opportunity of defending himself, giving that person an opportunity of making a statement which could be added to the report as an appendix.
I throw that out to the hon. Gentleman and I trust that his right hon. Friend, when he considers the debate, will realise that there is strong feeling about it, backed by two of my hon. Friends who have been Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry. Then it would be understood that anyone who fails in his duty—which is not an unimportant thing—will have any lapse that may have occurred made public and will be given an opportunity, if it is a court of inquiry not conducted as an English court usually is, to make a statement in his defence so that it may appear side by side with any criticism made of him.
I wish to end by expressing the thanks of everyone on this side of the House to the hon. Gentleman for the great courtesy he showed in giving way and the very full answer he gave.

DAY NURSERIES (MIDDLESEX)
7.58 p.m.
Mr. J. A. Sparks: I am sorry that the Minister of Health has been called at very short notice this evening to deal with a question which is of some consequence to a section of mothers in this country who are worried by problems largely of financial distress. I can assure him that, side by side with the inconvenience in which he may have been involved by being called here at such short notice, this section of mothers will be very grateful if he can give personal attention to their case. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will listen to what is to be said on this matter, because it is one of some considerable importance and one which is causing great anxiety, particularly throughout Middlesex and other parts of the country.
I want to raise the question of day nursery places in Middlesex, with particular reference to my constituency of Acton. It is important that we should realise the twofold purpose for which day nurseries exist. First, they serve to provide aid to a range of mothers who are very largely in financial distress; or where there is sickness or an invalid husband at home they serve the purpose of aiding families in distress. They aid the mothers who may be abandoned by husbands; unmarried mothers, by enabling them to bring up their children themselves by going out to work and earning their living; mothers incapable of caring for their children either through disability, health or other reasons; and also mothers whose husbands are invalids and unable to work and maintain the family.
The other purpose is to serve the needs of industry. We know what an important problem these involve for our country. We have to increase production, which is of major importance to the country. In constituencies like mine—Acton—we have a large number of light industries suffering from a serious shortage of labour required for light jobs which women can do either in a part-time or full-time capacity. It is a very important contribution to industry when it can receive the assistance of mothers who have to go to work, mainly because of financial distress, to earn money in order
1998
to maintain their children and their homes, and at the same time do a good job of work in industry.
When day nurseries were transferred from the county district councils to the county council of Middlesex we had, in my constituency, a great record in respect of day nurseries. We had four first-class day nurseries, and there was a long waiting list of mothers who desired to go to work and to have their children cared for in them. Here I would say that I am not arguing the case for the family in which there is a large income; I am arguing the case for mothers and families whose income is low and where distress is the main reason for the mother having to leave her children in a day nursery in order to go to work to earn money to maintain the home.
As I say, Acton had a very good record, and we handed over to Middlesex County Council four first-class day nurseries, the children in which were a source of pride to our town. Not only were they well cared for but they also had periodical medical examinations. When the Middlesex County Council got hold of our day nurseries, almost the first thing it did was to increase the price of admission to a prohibitive level. The consequence was that a number of mothers had to give up work because they could not afford to pay the increased charge, and many of them have been lost to industry, they having done no work since then.
My complaint tonight, however, is that the county council has carried a stage further its policy of disintegrating the day nurseries. Quite recently it has decided to reduce the number of day nurseries in Middlesex by half, I think from 4,000 places to 2,000. That means that each county district in the county is expected to reduce its day nursery facilities by half. In my constituency, it means reducing our four day nurseries to two, in addition to which the county council proposed to divert into one of our two remaining day nurseries other children from Chiswick, which is the neighbouring constituency, where they have closed down a day nursery near our borough.
There has been a great outcry about this proposal in my constituency. A special meeting of the Acton Borough Council was called to discuss this matter, and a resolution was passed which the

1999
council has sent to the Minister, asking him to look into the matter and to restore to us our full day nursery service. I have interviewed a large number of mothers who are in sheer desperation as to what is to happen to their children and as to how they can maintain their homes when their children are put out of the day nurseries as a result of the county council's decision.
On most nights when I go home from the House, I pass one of these day nurseries, and at times I pass it when the mothers are taking their children away in the early hours of the evening. I have noticed particularly the number of women I have seen standing outside, on the threshold, with tears in their eyes at the knowledge that out their children are to go quite soon. Some of these women are widows, some of them have invalid husbands at home, some are unmarried mothers.
As a result of the great outcry about this proposal, however, I now understand that the county council health committee has decided to modify its proposals, and, instead of taking two of our four day nurseries, to take one, the largest. That will deprive us of accommodation for 72 children. This day nursery is the last of the day nurseries that should have been touched because it adjoins the industrial area of Acton where most of the women find part-time or full-time light employment, and by closing this day nursery the county council is forcing these mothers to walk long distances—probably half an hour's walk at least—to get to the other day nurseries which remain in order to leave their children, and putting them to a great deal of inconvenience.
Apart from those mothers who will be able to meet the new formula, however, and whose children will be allowed to attend if they can be found places in the remaining day nurseries, there are a large number of mothers whose children will be forced to leave because the Middlesex County Council has adopted a new formula, about which one of my hon. Friends may have something to say in greater detail this evening than I can. This new formula lays down a new principle—that the overriding consideration for the admission of a child to a day nursery must be health grounds, not financial distress.
2000
If there is no illness or sickness at home, that is too bad; a child is not to go into a day nursery. So, as a consequence of this new form of test for admission, a large number of mothers who are now able to leave their children in our day nurseries in order to take part-time or full-time employment will find themselves at the end of this year having to withdraw their children.
Who are they? They are mothers who are financially unsupported, widows or deserted wives; they are unmarried mothers who, rather than have their children adopted, are struggling bravely to provide for their support. Among them are the wives of Service men who find that their Service allowance is inadequate. They have told me that they take advantage of the facilities provided by the day nurseries in order to be able to go out to work to supplement their meagre income.
There is another category, the mothers of families with low incomes. In such cases the family may be in reasonably good health, but because of some physical disability the husband has to take a low-paid job, and in these days, with the cost of living so high, the wife finds it necessary to go out to work. These are the kind of people who are affected by this new policy of the Middlesex County Council.
I dare say the right hon. Gentleman will tell us about the cost of maintaining day nurseries. I know that they cost money, but it is a job well worth doing. The right hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that in the future many of these women will have to apply for public assistance, and what he may think will be gained by closing down these nurseries will be lost by the increased expenditure on public assistance. Therefore, I am concerned at this policy of disintegrating the day nursery service, of gradually increasing the cost of admission to freeze out many people who cannot afford to pay, of reducing the number of nurseries, and in a year or two probably closing even those that are left.
Such a policy will lead to the growth of a very undesirable social evil. It will bring us back to the old days of the baby-minder and the foster-mother who existed before our day nursery system was established. I am surprised by the increasing number of applications being

2001
made by private baby-minders and foster-mothers for licences to look after children. Such people will want to make as much money as possible out of their activities, because they do not do this work for the love of the job, and I suggest that the children will suffer. They will not be properly cared for and it is likely that they will be badly fed. They will not receive that medical attention and examination which is one of the greatest features of our day nursery system. We do not want to return to those conditions.
The children in our day nurseries are a credit to the country. They are looked after by a trained staff and receive a regular medical examination. An opportunity is provided for mothers to acquire knowledge of the right way to bring up their children. I do not think that our day nurseries should be regarded as a service which should cost the nation nothing at all. Our day nursery service is as important as any other social service administered today, and this policy pursued by the Middlesex County Council—I can speak only for Middlesex, but I am told the position is as bad in other counties—is a tragic mistake.
This policy will hit the people least able to stand the blow. It is another manifestation of the narrow-minded outlook of people who are themselves well-off. It is a body blow at those unfortunate women whose lot is not as good as that of most of us. Therefore, I am glad to have the privilege of bringing their case to the notice of the House and of voicing the distress they feel at what is in store for them at the end of the year. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will listen to what is said on this subject. I hope he will look at this matter again to see whether it is possible to halt this process of disintegrating our day nursery system and delivering children to the tender mercies of professional baby-minders and foster-mothers.
8.18 p.m.
Mr. G. A. Pargiter: My hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) dealt with the position as it affects his borough, but the agitation in Acton is also going on in many other parts of Middlesex. The position has been correctly stated by my hon. Friend. The present number of day nursery places
2002
is about 4,000, and the new proposals are deliberately designed to bring down the number of 2,000. The ultimate intention of the present Middlesex County Council is to destroy the day nursery service altogether. I have made these statements at meetings of the county council and they are well aware of what I am saying.
I wish briefly to deal with the history of our day nurseries. Immediately after the war there was difficulty in maintaining them. It is accepted that they were established as a war-time service in order that children should be properly cared for while their mothers were engaged on work of national importance. It was because the Government of the day recognised the need for them that the day nursery service was established, very largely on the responsibility of the Ministry of Labour, who certified the areas where day nurseries should be established. Middlesex being a large industrial area, a large number of day nurseries were established there. Almost immediately after that the county council endeavoured to close day nurseries, the excuse being that staff was not readily obtainable. That, I appreciate, was difficult. Fortunately, soon afterwards, a change of outlook in Middlesex resulted in many of the day nurseries which the authority wished to close being kept open.
The problem of payment for day nursery service also arose. I am not one of those who have argued that people should get something for nothing. After all it is a service provided for a particular section of the people for which they should pay, so far as they are able, a reasonable price. The original charge was certainly not a reasonable price for anyone to pay but, in the amended National Health Service Act, there was even authorised an increase in the price. That was the first excuse seized upon by the Middlesex County Council to reduce the number of day nurseries.
The charges then made were absolutely prohibitive. A joint income—be it noted, a joint income—of more than £6 a week disqualified people from having their children placed in a day nursery, unless there was some special reason for it. It is true that the area health committees did not operate to the £6 limit—that was very soon shown to be entirely inoperable—but it is indicative of the attitude of the

2003
county council that they wanted to operate on the £6 limit for the day nursery system, which they regarded as an expensive luxury. The question of the service did not come into it at all, but the result was that a lot of mothers could no longer afford to send their children to the day nurseries. Submissions have been made from time to time to the right hon. Gentleman to close day nurseries. On the figures, I have no doubt it could be shown that the children were not going to them; therefore, the day nurseries could be closed. But it was all part of the deliberate policy, and these charges were fixed on purpose.
The Middlesex County Council then had to get away from the £6 limit and think of something else in order to close the day nurseries. We now come to this that, according to the scheme now before the Minister, no child may be admitted to a day nursery in Middlesex unless there is a health content in the case. My hon. Friend the Member for Acton has already mentioned that, but it is an important factor. Theoretically, the unmarried mother, the widow and so on, will have to prove either that their health is suffering, or will suffer, or that the child's health is suffering, unless a day nursery place is provided. Could there be a more ridiculous proceeding than that by a responsible body?
Of course, it makes sense in the context that the desire of the present county council is to close all day nurseries. They said, in the scheme put to the Minister, "We realise we are closing down some nurseries, and putting all nurseries on an area basis. It may well be many children will have to travel long distances. If they have to travel long distances we, the county council, will consider the question of the provision of transport." Everybody knows, from experience of the transport of schoolchildren, that the provision of transport is a very costly undertaking and, if I know anything at all about the present county council, they will look at the cost of it. I am quite certain very little transport will be provided.
What does it mean against the present background? The majority of these mothers work in factories and start work at 8 o'clock. They have to get ready for work and get the children to the day nursery—if the day nursery is reasonably placed, that is all right—and when the
2004
mother returns from the factory she has to call for the child. But what is to happen when the day nursery is two miles away? The answer is that the mother will be physically unable, no matter how willing she may be, to get there. It is adding at least another three hours to her working day. I hope the Minister will very carefully examine this scheme—I know he will—and that he will not so readily agree to the closing of day nurseries as appears to have been the case in the past year.
There is no question as to what is the position today. The chairman of the appropriate committee has said that it is an expensive service; more or less a luxury service for a limited number of the people of Middlesex. That may be true. After all, the present number is only 4,000 places. That may sound a lot, but if one looks at it in relation to a population of 2½ million it is infinitesimal. It is not argued that the number should be increased but that it should, at least, be maintained, and the vitiation that has gone on in this service, due to increased charges, ought to be stopped.
I hope the Minister will firmly reject the health content suggestion. After all, his Department has a financial interest in the running of the day nursery service, and I am quite sure that from the point of view of health, his Department is interested in the best means of maintaining these children under the circumstances described here.
Baby minders have been mentioned. Obviously, our experience of the past does not enamour us with the prospect of these babies being forced back to the baby minder, very often a woman, very inadequately housed, who takes in half-a-dozen or more children and looks after them—or does not look after them. At least they are under her care. There is also the mother's anxiety regarding her child until she comes from work. Often she has to decide between her anxiety to keep the home going, and her anxiety for the child's welfare, which would probably make her have to stay at home. These are important and human factors. This is not a matter of great magnitude or of grandiose proportions, but a matter which affects a particular class of the community. It affects widows and unmarried mothers, and widowers also are affected by it.

2005
We come back to this matter of the health content. I have tried to have the word "health" removed; in other words, the considerations would be on general, and not just on health, grounds. The county council resolutely refused to have that word taken out or to fix what is a reasonable charge. The former charge was 2s. a day. Some mothers could not even afford that, but the majority could, and quite willingly paid it. We have proposed to the county council that the maximum charge should be 4s. a day which, on a five-day week, is £1 a week. That is quite a reasonably fair sum which would be regarded, possibly, as a fair share of the mother's earnings for the care of the child.
The county council are quite determined not to accept any proposals which are likely to maintain day nurseries in full use. We have argued that the day nurseries are much better full than half empty If they are half empty, the administrative and staffing costs still continue. We feel that it is much better to keep them full, whatever number of day nurseries we have left. But apparently that will not do. Wherever we go we are faced with an entirely negative attitude. The only hope for Middlesex mothers while the present county council is in office—if there was another election it might be different—rests on the Minister himself. The scheme is now before him, and he should refuse to accept it.
We are told that this is a costly service to the ratepayers. What will be the net saving to the ratepayers by halving the present day nursery accommodation of 4,000 to approximately 2,000? The net saving to the county is less than a 1d. rate. In other words, for less than a 1d. rate they will halve the day nursery accommodation. Conversely, it will be seen that even for 4,000 places this cost is not likely to break the hearts or the backs of the people in Middlesex.
I have heard no complaints from ratepayers. We have heard the argument about ratepayers supporting a particular section of ratepayers, but I have travelled extensively in Middlesex and I have never heard a ratepayer complaining about the cost of the day nursery service which is provided for the benefit of people some of whom are often no worse off than themselves while others are much worse off.
2006
I hope the Minister will tell us that he will not accept the scheme in its present form, that he will send it back to the county council and ask them to act as humanitarians in control of a public service which is of vital interest to the people. It is not only Middlesex which is concerned. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) has told me of the position in Kent. There they have virtually closed down all the day nurseries and, as the Minister will be aware, there has been considerable agitation in that county.
This scheme would appear to be the result of a move on the part of certain types of county councils who are in control of these services, in order to dispose of a war-time innovation, the idea being that whatever we had in the way of wartime innovations, good, bad or indifferent, should be brought to an end. That is good old Tory policy, but I am hoping that we in this House have got away from that idea.
8.32 p.m.
Mr. Maurice Orbach: My hon. Friends have both dealt in a restrained manner with the general question arising from the attempt to close day nurseries throughout the county of Middlesex. I rise to intervene only briefly, in order to deal with two or three other matters which have been touched on by them but which they have not elaborated.
I was struck by the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) when he said that if we do not continue the day nursery service mothers will inevitably be obliged to farm out their children to professional baby minders. The Minister will be aware of the difficulties of that situation, because obviously these mothers are not in a position to pay much money for such services as might be rendered.
The Minister may say that it is not the duty of the State or of the county council to subsidise the poor wages paid to these women who are in industry. But that would come very ill from him as a member of a Government which has not yet been prepared to introduce equal pay for equal work for the sexes. I hope he will not use that argument during the course of his reply.
Both my hon. Friends have spoken about the categories of people who were

2007
entitled to send their children to the day nurseries. They have referred to the health of the mother, the poverty of the family and the need for productivity. I want particularly to stress the latter point. I can recall when my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Viant) and I were asked by the Government to participate in a conference of women for industry, presided over by the mayor of our borough, where we made an appeal, in as eloquent terms as possible, to mothers to come into industry because the need for increased production was so necessary for our national economy.
I feel that the need is still there. I am sure that, as a Member of Her Majesty's Government, the Minister would be the last to declare that our productivity has reached such a height that we can now dispense with mothers in industry. It would be most unfair to throw the responsibility upon those Members who made definite undertakings to their constituents that, where it was not possible for them to look after the young children, there would be a day nursery available, if, because of a change in the circumstances, day nurseries should not be available.
Those two points are less important than the third which I want to make. With my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter), I believe that there must be some selectivity with regard to entry into day nurseries. It is impossible to provide day nurseries for every mother who wants to put her child out of the way for a portion of the day so that she can, perhaps, enjoy herself and do all kinds of things which she is not able to do at the present time in view of the fact that she has to spend some time in looking after her child.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have felt that this scheme was necessary, first, because of the health of the mothers, secondly, because of the poverty of some families, and thirdly, because of the need for productivity. We must exercise some selectivity on those three grounds. But in the exercise of this selectivity the Middlesex County Council have gone much too far. I cannot imagine the Minister agreeing to what they have done. I understand that they have instituted something in the nature
2008
of a means test. Those applicants who wish the children to remain in day nurseries are subjected to a questionnaire and, if necessary, to interrogation.
That questionnaire must be corroborated by the employer of the individual concerned, who certifies that the wages received by the individual are as stated. It has been reported to me that one of these applicants who sought corroboration from her employer found herself dismissed as a result of the disclosure that she, as a young unmarried woman, had an illegitimate child. I cannot imagine the Minister agreeing that that sort of thing should take place.
In so far as the Middlesex County Council assist in that action they are doing something quite unconscionable, which this House will not be prepared to accept, and I hope that the Minister will condemn it in the strongest possible terms. Certification by the applicant concerned ought to be sufficient. Surely a woman who signs a document in which she states her means, or the state of her health, will, if found guilty of misrepresentation or fraud, be liable to prosecution in the same way as anybody else who makes a false declaration to Her Majesty's Government, a local authority, or even the Middlesex County Council. I hope that it will be possible for the Minister to say, in unmistakable terms, that the corroboration from employers ought not to be proceeded with in the case of application forms issued by the Middlesex County Council.
I appeal to the Minister in the same way as my two hon. Friends have done. We do not look upon him as an inhuman Minister. He is the Minister of Health, concerned not only with the material health of the people but also with their mental health. From both those points of view I appeal to him to reconsider this scheme as presented by the Middlesex County Council. There will be a great deal of agitation in connection with this matter in my borough. There was some at the beginning of this year, and also last year. I hope that we shall not make it difficult and awkward for the Minister, but, rather, that he will make it difficult and awkward for the Middlesex County Council to proceed with a scheme which is inhuman and should be abhorrent to us all.
8.40 p.m.
Mr. James Hudson: My division, like the divisions of my hon. Friends who have spoken, is seriously affected by the proposal that the Middlesex County Council has made—indeed, almost more seriously than the Borough of Acton. I find from the lists prepared that there are seven day nurseries at the present time under the scheme in the Borough of Ealing, and four of them are to go out of existence, so that we suffer a greater loss than 50 per cent.
Of the four that are to go out of existence, two are in the division represented by the hon. Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Maude) and two are in my division, the Oldfield and Northolt nursery centres. The mothers in these two districts will be greatly alarmed. I shall be quite honest and say that I have not had the number of representations made to me that my hon. Friend has had, but I have heard complaints, and I am quite sure from what I have heard that the mothers will be very much disturbed by the proposal.
Like other hon. Members, I have no sort of antipathy to the Minister. I know that in several matters concerning children he has shown himself very sympathetic, very enterprising, and very willing to make experiments of the kind that this may be said to be, because the day nursery is still one of the great experiments of our time. It does not cover anything like the number of children it may ultimately be made to cover when we have completed our fuller organisation for the care of our children, but it is an extremely useful experiment that ought not to be weakened.
The Minister came to my division recently, and, moreover, he gave me what I was very pleased to have—an opportunity to go with him to open another type of experiment for children. It was for deaf children. He wanted to see what could be done to give deaf and dumb children a chance, and he wanted the mothers to have an opportunity of seeing the experiment. I was warmly touched by the things he said and by the hopes he expressed about the social efforts made in cases of that sort.
I feel I can speak in his presence now on the expectation that he will understand the concern we feel about the matter. He may reply, though I hope he
2010
will not press this too hard, that in the two nursery centres to which I have referred there are not many children, not anything like so many as could be judging by the places that are provided, but he really must take into account what my hon. Friends have said about the conscious effort—I am afraid more marked in Middlesex than in most counties—to make difficulties through the prices charged for the services, the conscious effort that has been made to keep these institutions undermanned and with an insufficient number of children in them. That has been made the excuse, which it is hoped we shall accept, for the shutting down of these nurseries.
I do not accept it at all. We could just as well proceed to make the secondary schools expensive for the children, and we should find fathers and mothers not taking for their children the places provided. We could do it with school meals. In Middlesex they are doing it with school meals, making them more expensive, and yet the fact is adduced that in Middlesex not as many children are utilising the school meals service as formerly.
That is what has been happening in the case of these nurseries. The argument that some of the day nurseries are not as well filled as they might be does not meet our complaints, and we plead with the Minister to step in at this stage and insist that such day nurseries as have been opened are given an opportunity to run their course, or at least to run for a longer period.
I am speaking, as I said, in the hope that the Minister is capable of revealing a human heart. The women of today have been encouraged by the nation to step out of their homes and bear the burdens, which they accept, of going out to work. Indeed, at the present moment they are being encouraged to do so as a social duty. We have not yet done with the export drive. Everybody tells us that the necessity, not merely for women, but also for old people, to go into industry has by no means ended. In fact, it is perhaps as great as it has ever been. In some senses it is as great today as it was in the war. We should not support a policy of bringing an end to the opportunity for women to work, or make it difficult for them to do so.

2011
There is one point which my hon. Friends have not mentioned much. According to the classification of mothers which I have before me—mothers who have been accepted up to the present as having a valid claim on these experiments—many are classified under the heading dealing with bad home conditions, both in connection with children between two years and five years old and with children under two years old. These are the types of women about whom we sometimes hear snarling reference made in public discussions, when it is said that these women ought to be encouraged to look after their homes and their children and ought not to throw their responsibilities on to the community. That may be so, but what about the children? We have been appealing on behalf of the children in this discussion. Because there are these bad home conditions and because the community has been learning how to improve the behaviour of the mothers—
Mr. Pargiter: I would remind my hon. Friend that many of the homes are overcrowded homes. They are not necessarily bad homes.
Mr. Hudson: I appreciate that, but in public discussion of this matter I have heard it said that this problem arises because of neglect. In one or two cases it may be due to neglect, but we have not removed from ourselves the responsibility for seeing that those children get as good a chance as children in any other type of home. I plead with the Minister that he should make a new and careful survey of the value of this experiment in Middlesex. He should tell Middlesex that, with all the wealth still at its disposal to call upon for social purposes, there is no case for closing 2,000 out of the 4,000 places at day nurseries. I wait expectantly for the favourable reply which the right hon. Gentleman will make.
8.49 p.m.
Mr. S. P. Viant: I shall not prolong the discussion unduly, but my constituency, also situated in Middlesex, has been considerably affected by the policy of that county council. We have listened to speeches by my hon. Friends which might be termed as the portrayal of a real human tragedy.
On almost every hoarding in my constituency there are huge notices appealing
2012
for women workers to go into the factories. If we are so much in need of the women workers in the factories, then we must open up facilities and keep open the facilities that have already been provided whereby the womenfolk may be assured that the children will be cared for while their mothers are at work.
For a number of years these facilities have been available in my constituency. With the advent of a new party in control of the Middlesex County Council, those facilities are being shut down, at no great saving apparently. If there were a great saving a good case might be made for shutting down these facilities on financial grounds, but no great saving will be effected. Whatever the saving may be, let us as Members of this House weigh up the interests of the children against the finance that is likely to be saved. The saving is not worth a snap of the fingers. Our interest must be that of the children.
Most of us have been pleased that within the last 10 or 12 years we have seen removed from our midst a large number of children suffering from rickets. That was a common complaint in prewar days. This is something which we all welcome, and I am sure that the Minister himself welcomes that state of affairs. If we press the women to go into the factories to work and if they are to yield to our appeals, then let us make provision to ensure that the health of the children will be safeguarded. We want no further return of rickets which were largely a result of malnutrition. Even in pre-war days when our womenfolk were compelled by economic necessity to go out to work, the children were farmed out—and they really were farmed out. Many of them were not treated as children but more or less as cattle. It was not an uncommon thing to find seven or eight children in a home which was not adequate for two, much less such a large number. We must not go back to those conditions.
I make an earnest appeal to the Minister to make a strict inquiry into the proposals of the Middlesex County Council. I do not like to utter strictures on them of a severe character. I would prefer to be charitable and to say that the people who are responsible for these

2013
proposals do not understand the conditions that lie behind the need for children being taken to these nurseries. If they understood the predicament with which many of these mothers are confronted, I believe they would change their policy.
On the Front Bench this evening we have the Minister, who has power to see that such a policy is reversed. That is not to say that he should force the county council to do that; he is capable of laying a human case before them that would change their feelings. That is the procedure for which we are appealing tonight. We are not asking that there should be no charge. When people are capable of paying for the care of the children, they should pay a reasonable charge, but to be asked to pay 9s., as against 4s., or more than double the amount, is most unreasonable.
Then there is the institution of a health test. The means test might be reasonable, but to say that no child may be taken into a nursery unless it can be proved that there are sufficient health reasons for doing so, is wrong and must also be eliminated from the scheme. The primary purpose of the nurseries was to enable mothers to go out to work in order to sustain the home. That should be the predominant test. I hope that our appeals tonight will be successful and that the evidence which has been produced is adequate to open the Minister's heart, so that he will promise that the position will be investigated and, I hope, improved.
8.57 p.m.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod): It is a poor heart that never rejoices, and I can at least take some comfort from the fact that as the last Adjournment debate went on rather longer than was expected, I have now had a little more than the half an hour's notice which the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) thought it was sufficient to give before raising a matter of this extreme importance.
Mr. Sparks: I did not think half an hour was sufficient. I made inquiries from the Chair and was informed that it was usual to give the Minister at least half an hour's notice. In fact, I gave the right hon. Gentleman an hour.
Mr. Macleod: I make no complaint; I am at the service of the House in answering this debate. I merely point out that it is extremely difficult on the notice that is given to go into the number of extremely intricate points that have been raised by hon. Members this evening.
We have heard very much one side of the case. That is not wholly surprising, because every Member who has spoken has been a Middlesex Member whose colour is opposite to that of the Middlesex County Council, who are the villain that they have sought to put in the dock tonight. There is a good deal more to be said than has emerged so far from this Adjournment debate, to which I am happy to reply, because I attach great importance to all these matters that affect the social services.
I shall not spend much time on the argument about under-occupancy, although that is a factor that has to be taken into account; I am happy to leave it at that. Nor will I spend any time telling the House that these nurseries are an expensive service and that the action of the county council has been because of that, although the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Viant) dismissed the economic argument a good deal too easily. It simply is not enough in any matters affecting the health or social services to say, as the hon. Member said, that the cost does not matter. It matters very much, because everybody, whoever it may be—
Mr. Viant: If the Minister is referring to me, I did not dismiss it in that way. I said that if people were able to pay, they should be invited to pay.
Mr. Orbach rose—
Mr. Macleod: If the hon. Member will allow me, I should like to reply to his hon. Friend. The hon. Member said that it was not worth that—and snapped his fingers.
All I want to say is that there is a certain limit of expenditure, whether it is a limit on the Minister, the local authority, the hospital authorities or on work under any hospital scheme. The object of economy, in my view, is that more money will be obtained to spend on those things which one thinks should have the first priority.

2015
I do not pursue some of my objectives in the health services so that at the end I can turn over and count the gold, if any, that has accrued from that particular economy drive. I do it so that I can spend more where I think more should be spent, on such matters as the mental health service, the old people, and so on. All authorities are precisely in this dilemma, and if money is saved it is at least available—I put it no higher than that—usually for use elsewhere. Although I am not stressing it tonight in any way, I do not think that the economy argument should be ignored.
Mr. Pargiter: Would the right hon. Gentleman apply that argument to the Middlesex County Council, that they are saving money to apply it elsewhere in the social services?
Mr. Macleod: I was speaking widely.
Mr. Pargiter: Because if it were applied to the Middlesex County Council it would not be true.
Mr. Macleod: I have a higher opinion of the Middlesex County Council than has the hon. Member, who has made the speech he made tonight in the Guildhall across the road and in many other places as well.
The essential thing that we are discussing tonight is whether or not the proposals of the Middlesex County Council will look after the priority categories for whom these day nurseries are provided. It would be as well, I think, to have on record the exact figures of what is proposed.
I understand that at its peak, which was shortly at the end of the war, there were some 96 nurseries in Middlesex with a total number of places of 4,856. It is important to notice here—and the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) made the point very well—that the great extension of this service in war-time took place because of our desperate need for every man and woman who could help in the national war effort. The great decline in the number of nurseries, as hon. Members know, has not been stated tonight. It was not the one that took place in the last year or two, but was the one that took place shortly after the end of the war.
2016
The proposal that is put forward by the Middlesex County Council is this. Of their 74 day nurseries, 32 should be closed. They represent a total of 1,609 places, and by keeping 42 they will have 1,967 places. The date that this proposal is to become effective, according to a letter which I received on 14th November, is 1st January, 1954.
There is one point which is most important, and which I do not think hon. Members realise as yet. These proposals do not require my approval. It is of great importance that we should be absolutely clear about that. Some hon. Members, I know, were aware of that, but I think it might be gathered from some of the speeches that these proposals, which were put up to me for my comments and observations, had to have my approval or otherwise. I do not pretend that the Minister has not considerable powers of persuasion in a matter like this, but it is as well to be clear that this proposal, as such, does not require my approval.
Within a few days of my becoming Minister proposals were put before me in regard to the closing of all the 10 day nurseries that were congregated in a small area in part of Kent. I said then that in my view those proposals were too-drastic, particularly in view of the new Act then in its first days of existence, and that I would like to see five of those kept open. The county council did that and tried to balance as best they could with those five the needs of the priority classes. The main point, then, is to see whether these proposals of the Middlesex County Council look after their priority categories. I should like to do that in two-parts, first on figures—which is, I agree, an entirely mathematical calculation—and secondly, whether they have the right kind of priority classes, which is a different argument.
In the letter sent to me, I am told that 1,456 of those occupying day nursery places in Middlesex are regarded as within the priority categories, and it is proposed to retain just less than 2,000 places. It is clear that on the mathematical argument the priority categories can be looked after plus a substantial safety margin of comfortably over 10 per cent. I do not doubt that this is at some inconvenience in many cases, perhaps involving the use of transport.

2017
Now I turn to the second category, whether the proposed priorities are the right ones. We have heard a good deal tonight about the health argument. I have the originals of the proposals before me, and what is proposed is that under the age of two years there should be three ways in which someone can qualify for being looked after in these nurseries. The first is where mothers are unsupported. A variety of examples are given:
"Where mothers are unsupported (for example unmarried, widowed, divorced or separated) and must necessarily go out to work to provide support for themselves and their children and where the mothers are anxious to keep their babies with them but cannot do so without some provision for the babies' care during the day."
The second is where:
"the home conditions are in themselves unsatisfactory from a health point of view."
Thirdly:
"where mothers are incapable for some good reason of undertaking the full care of their children."
Much, of course, depends on the way the intentions are carried out, but, looking at those conditions which I have read to the House, I would not think that anyone in this category of children under two years of age will be excluded who has, shall we say, an obvious claim to a place.
Mr. Sparks: If what the right hon. Gentleman says now is the fact, the position will not be so bad, but we understand that there is an overriding condition which must apply even to these categories—there must be a substantial health reason. There can be many mothers who are unsupported, including widows, who have no health reason.
Mr. Macleod: This is the original document and I am prepared to show it to hon. Members afterwards, but I have only given half the picture so far. There are additional qualifications which I will come to in a moment.
So much for the children under two years of age. There are the three categories—where mothers are unsupported, where home conditions are bad and socially unsatisfactory, and where the mothers are incapable of undertaking the full care. For the age group from two years to five years, two of these three conditions apply, that is to say, children from two years to five years of age will
2018
be accepted providing that their mothers are unsupported or that the home conditions are in themselves unsatisfactory from the health point of view.
The next paragraph gives certain other possibilities of acceptance and then we come to a point, which is conceivably what is in, or what was in, the minds of hon. Members opposite, because it seems to me from the document that I have in front of me and the case that I have made that the case which has been put to me tonight is not wholly borne out.
It states that in addition to the requirements of "a" and "b," which refer to children of two to four years of age,
"the following considerations must also be fulfilled, so far as they are not incompatible:

(i) That there are no other satisfactory means of caring for the child.

(ii) That it will not be detrimental to the health of the child to be admitted.

(iii) That the placing of the child is necessary to assist in its support.

(iv) That any mother desirous of placing her child in a nursery must engage in employment for at least 30 hours a week."

That is a perfectly fair summary of the annexe to the Middlesex County Council letter which is before me. It is on that case—not the mathematical case but on the question of fairness in the qualifications that are laid down—that I have to make up my mind whether I will or will not put forward observations or, if necessary, exert pressure.
Mr. Pargiter: I am sorry that I did not know beforehand that this matter was to be debated tonight, otherwise I would have brought the documents with me. There is a clause which says that the county council can provide day nursery services where it is considered necessary on health grounds. I think that I am quoting the exact words of one paragraph of the annexe to these proposals.
Mr. Macleod: I have not been able to find that.
Mr. Pargiter: It certainly is part of it, because we moved an amendment in the county council to delete the words "on health grounds" in order not to bind the authority to those grounds only, but the amendment was refused.
Mr. Macleod: I was not present at whatever argument took place at the Guildhall. I have read to the House from the document which is before me.

2019
The question, then, is whether these provisions are reasonable ones for a county council to make. Everything depends upon the way in which things are going to be administered, but there are one or two points of great importance which I should like to put forward. First of all, it has been said by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), and taken up by other hon. Members, that if economy be the object here, no economy would be achieved, because people would stop work and go to the National Assistance Board.
Mr. Sparks: Some of them.
Mr. Macleod: Yes, I am not suggesting that it has been said that all would go. In the other county to which great attention has been drawn in the House of Commons—Kent—where the most drastic measure of closing day nurseries was carried out, that did not happen. Only three out of 166 mothers affected sought National Assistance. I do not say that that is bound to happen in Middlesex, but I say that obviously it is clear from those figures that we can over-estimate the switch that would take place from employment and day nurseries on the one hand to dependence on National Assistance on the other.
The second point related to a slip which was made by the hon. Member for Acton when he said that these children are brought up by a trained staff and then he corrected himself and said that he did not really mean "brought up" but "looked after." That may or may not be a revealing slip, but I have not a shadow of a doubt that the policy of successive Ministers of Health and of Education and all Ministers concerned in this field—not just those belonging to my party—is right. It is that where it is practicable the best possible place for a young child, particularly a child under two, is with the mother. I have not the slightest doubt that we must keep that matter firmly in our minds.
There is another leg to this tripod, of which day nurseries are the second. It is that it may be that some day, when many other much more urgent priorities have been fulfilled, we shall be able to make an advance, which all people would like to see, towards the fullest implementation of the 1944 Act, which would help
2020
with the provision of nursery schools. The general policy, I think, was originally laid down by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), the late Mr. George Tomlinson and Miss Ellen Wilkinson, and there has been no change in the attitude of this Government towards those principles.
We come to the real point, which is whether, having regard to the case made to me tonight and to the letter I have before me asking for my observations, it would be right for me to exert pressure on Middlesex County Council. As a general rule I hold the principle that the less interference from the centre with properly elected local authorities in matters wholly within their province the better. This matter does come wholly within the province of the county council of Middlesex. I would need exceptional grounds for taking the step urged upon me tonight. I think hon. Members opposite would agree with that and would plead that these circumstances are exceptional and make such intervention, or interference even, desirable.
I am bound to say that I have not been convinced by the case they have put before me, but I have not yet replied to this letter from Middlesex County Council. Indeed, it was only received a day or two ago. Before I reply I shall very carefully take into account everything that has been said by the five hon. Members who have spoken in this debate. I am very happy to weigh what they have said and to see if a case has been made for taking what would be the exceptional action of suggesting to Middlesex County Council, by way of observation, that here and there, either in the major proposals themselves or in the categories they propose, the scheme should be modified.
I should not like to leave the House tonight under a misapprehension. My present impression, quite frankly, is that that case has not been made. I am certain in my mind that what Middlesex County Council are trying to do is in effect the carrying out of a scheme to look after the priority classes. I have little doubt that the scheme put before me, if administered with good will—I accept that that would be so—would meet their obligations to provide for these children and their mothers. I do give the pledge, however, that I will not reply to Middlesex

2021
County Council until I have had a full opportunity to regard and study everything that has been said tonight and, in addition, to take into account any representations hon. Members may like to make to me in this matter of the day nurseries in Middlesex. It is one I regard as of great importance and, although the debate has been hurried, I welcome the time spent on this very important social problem.
Mr. Orbach: Would the right hon. Gentleman reply to the point I made? He said that he would look at the matter—and we are very grateful to him—in order to consider what we have said in connection with the major principle and its operation. I did bring to his attention the question of administration, and in his closing words the Minister said "provided this is operated with good will." I did suggest to him that there was some ill will in its operation. Would the
2022
right hon. Gentleman look at that aspect of the problem during the next few days when he considers the general one?
Mr. Macleod: I noted what the hon. Gentleman said; indeed, I replied to it when I said that I had a good deal more confidence in the Middlesex County Council than any of the hon. Members who have spoken tonight. I am, of course, a Middlesex Member myself, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I simply do not believe that when the Middlesex County Council put up detailed proposals to the Minister of Health, as they have done, that they do not mean what they say. I am quite confident that they will carry out those proposals with the best possible will in the future.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one Minutes past Nine o'Clock.