Lords Sitting of 19 February 1946

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Prayers.
The Lord Cunliffe took the Oath.
The Lord Ettrick (L. Napier) sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

CABINET MISSION TO INDIA.
2.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, may I, by private notice, ask the Secretary of State for India whether His Majesty's Government have any statement to make on Indian affairs?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE): My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Viscount for the opportunity he gives me of making a statement on behalf of His Majesty's Government. Your Lordships will recall that on the 19th September, 1945, on his return to India after discussions with His Majesty's Government, the Viceroy made a statement of policy, in the course of which he outlined the positive steps to be taken, immediately after the central and provincial elections to promote, in conjunction with the leaders of Indian opinion, the early realization of full self-government in India. Those steps include:—

(1) Preparatory discussions with the elected representatives of British India, and with the Indian States, in order to secure the widest measure of agreement as to the method of framing a Constitution.

(2) The setting up of a constitution-making body: and

(3) The bringing into being of an Executive Council having the support of the main Indian parties.

The elections at the centre were held at the end of last year and in some of the provinces they are also over and responsible Governments are in process of formation. In the other provinces polling
668
dates are spread over the next few weeks. With the approach of the end of the electoral campaign His Majesty's Government have been considering the most fruitful method of giving effect to the programme to which I have referred.
In view of the paramount importance not only to India and to the British Commonwealth but to the peace of the world of a successful outcome of the discussions with the leaders of Indian opinion His Majesty's Government have decided, with the approval of His Majesty the King, to send out to India a special Mission of Cabinet Ministers consisting of the Secretary of State for India, the President of the Board of Trade, and the First Lord of the Admiralty, to act in association with the Viceroy in this matter. This decision has the full concurrence of Lord Wavell.
I feel sure that your Lordships will give your support and good will to the Ministers and to the Viceroy in carrying out a task in which the future of 400 million people and crucial issues both for India and the world will be at stake.
I should add that during the absence of these Ministers the Prime Minister will himself assume responsibility for Admiralty business and the Lord President will be in charge of the Board of Trade. So far as the India and Burma Offices are concerned, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will be in charge during my own absence, but he will be able to rely on the personal advice of the Prime Minister whenever it is required and he will refer important issues to him, particularly those affecting Burma, where the Governor will not, as will the Viceroy, be in personal touch with myself.
2.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, the Secretary of State has made a most important statement and has announced a highly novel procedure. We shall all join in the hope that this plan may bear fruit and that it may be regarded in India as a proof of the genuine desire of this country to help towards a solution of India's intractable constitutional problems. I ask leave to put to the noble Lord one or two questions about his statement, not by way of criticism—we shall need time to study the announcement—but for greater clarification. May

669
I first ask whether I am right in understanding that the purpose of the visit of these three Cabinet Ministers is not to take part in framing a future Indian Constitution, but to take part in the preliminary work of seeking agreement as to the method of setting up a constitution-making body? The distinction is all-important, as I am sure the Secretary of State will agree.
India has already been assured that it is for Indians to devise their new Constitution and that, subject to certain necessary conditions, the British Parliament will then enact it; but the future Constitution has to be framed by a constitution-making body composed of Indians. I take it that the new announcement is not to be read as going back on that promise, but that this Mission is going to India for the purpose of helping to bring together a body of representative Indians who will then be charged with the task of fixing their own Constitution. Secondly, it is manifestly important to know what will be the extent of the authority of the three members of this Mission to speak for Britain. Sir Stafford Cripps went out with carefully framed instructions from the Cabinet, of which he was a member, and in all he did in India he carefully and loyally kept within those instructions.
What I think we should like to know from the noble Lord—I do not think it will embarrass him in the least; it is not meant to—is whether when these Ministers go out they will have plenary power to act for the Cabinet, or will they, as I should rather assume, report to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet in London., which will still remain the responsible executive in the matter? Then again, and still more important, will any decisions that may be reached in the matter be subject to Parliamentary approval in the sense that Parliament will be given an opportunity to discuss them before any final decisions are taken?
There is one other point which must be in everybody's mind, so I venture to ask finally whether the Secretary of State will tell us how long these three Cabinet Ministers are expected to be out of the country engaged on this important Mission. I quite appreciate that their Departments are going to be looked after by others while they are necessarily away, but still, important as this matter is, the absence, for example, of the President
670
of the Board of Trade, in the light of domestic difficulties as to the distribution of supply, might become a matter of serious concern. Your Lordships will, I hope, think that these questions are reasonable. They are not intended in the least to be critical; they are asking for enlightenment. I would at the same time repeat that in the light of the decision which is now announced the Government may be assured of the good will and good wishes of those on these Benches in this bold effort to help to bring about a happier state of things in India.
2.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I am sure the House will welcome the announcement of this fresh effort to break the persistent deadlock which has so long prevailed in India. In earlier days we on these Benches felt compelled to exercise our right of criticism of the course which had been pursued in several particulars by the Government here at home in relation to Indian affairs, but the difficulties that have arisen in recent months, and ever since what has been known as the Cripps offer, cannot in any degree in my opinion be attributed to the course adopted by the previous Government or by the present Government; they arise from conditions in India. I hope that the strong initiative that is now being taken by His Majesty's Government will elicit some helpful response from the contending interests in India. The present Viceroy commands a very general measure of confidence both in India and in this country. We may hope that he will find his hands strengthened by the delegation from the Cabinet which is about to go to India and that the objects which he has long had in view will be forwarded by their assistance.
I would mention only one specific point arising out of the Government statement. One of the three purposes which were announced last September as being pursued by His Majesty's Government was to secure that the Viceroy's Executive Council should be transformed into a fully representative body. That is one of the objects of this new Mission, but from the statement that was made then, and which has been made to-day, it is quite clear—and I hope it will be appreciated by the Indian political bodies—that any such transformation of the Viceroy's Council now does not prejudice in any

671
degree the preparation of the ultimate Constitution of India, and will not prejudge at all any conclusions which may be reached by the constitution-making body. For the sake of preventing any misunderstanding by Indian public opinion I think it should be emphasized that these new arrangements which are being sought in the Viceroy's Executive Council are transitional and provisional and are open, of course, to full review by the constitution-making body when it is brought into being.
The noble and learned Viscount who has just spoken has mentioned that the absence of the President of the Board of Trade may give rise to considerable difficulties here. In his hands is a very large part of the whole work of post-war reconstruction in this country, and the functions he is performing in relation to industry and to foreign trade are of urgent and fundamental importance; yet Sir Stafford Cripps, the President of the Board of Trade, has rendered such signal services in India and is so fully acquainted with all the necessities of the case that it is clear that if three Cabinet Ministers are to go to India he should properly be one. I hope the Indian people will appreciate that the British public, in giving him leave of absence, are accepting a very considerable sacrifice of their own immediate interests.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I would ask your leave to put just one question, arising out of his statement, to the Secretary of State. That question is whether, when he replies to my noble and learned friend Viscount Simon, he will make quite clear the precise relation which these Cabinet Ministers will have to the Viceroy. Will they be purely advisory or will they be, so to speak, colleagues of the Viceroy? Or will they represent the authority of His Majesty's Government—that is to say, all the authority of the Cabinet? I do not wish to make an argumentative speech, for I do not think that it would be very much in place at this moment. I have put my question merely for the purpose of eliciting clearly what the statement of the Secretary of State amounts to.
2.52 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, before the Secretary of State replies, per-
672
haps I might address one or two questions to him. There are one or two points which, as a member of the Parliamentary Delegation to India, which has lately returned to this country, I think it behoves me to mention and I hope the noble Lord will be able to give me some reply upon them. The first thing I desire to ask is this. While I re-echo every word that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, has said, I would like to inquire further whether the Viceroy will remain as His Majesty's representative in India, in spite of the fact that three Cabinet Ministers are proceeding there from this country, including the Secretary of State for India. The second point upon which I would like to ask for information is whether, in view of the strategic importance that India holds, and must hold now and in the future, the decision of His Majesty's Government has been communicated to the Dominions chiefly concerned—to Australia, to South Africa, to New Zealand.
In this connexion, I would ask further whether any decision at which these three Ministers may arrive will be communicated—with a view to obtaining their views—to the Dominions concerned. Thirdly, may I ask the noble Lord this I understand that one of the steps which is contemplated is to bring into being an Executive Council having the support of the main Indian political parties. That is somewhat different from the proposal which was made by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. It will not be a representative body, as I understand it, but a body which has the sole and whole support of the chief Indian political parties. I should like to have that point made clear before the delegation departs on its journey. May I add that I feel sure that the whole House will wish it: "God speed and good luck."
2.54 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I should like to thank your Lordships for the exceedingly friendly spirit in which, on all sides, the announcement which I have had the honour to make has been received, and I will do my best to be lucid and frank with your Lordships in answering all the questions that have been put to me. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, asked me four questions. First he asked was it clear that this Mission of the Cabinet was

673
not going out to frame a Constitution for India but was merely going out with the intention of setting up a constitution-making body.
VISCOUNT SIMON: To assist in setting up such a body.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: To assist in the setting up of a constitution-making body. That is the answer, of course. This announcement that I have made to-day does not alter in any way the statement that was made by the Viceroy on his return to India in September. The only change is—and I will come to the question by the noble Marquess later on—that the Viceroy's hands will be strengthened by the presence with him of members of His Majesty's Government. As the noble and learned Viscount correctly said, it is for Indians to decide the basis of their own constitutional structure. That has been the avowed intention of, I think, all Parties in this House for a considerable number of years, and that remains the intention of His Majesty's Government at the present time.
Then the noble and learned Viscount asked me—and I will take his fourth question next—how long it was proposed that the Mission should stay in India. He rightly stressed the importance to this country of having the authorized heads of the Ministries concerned present in this country; and I would emphasize the point that I think he made, that it is an indication of the extreme importance which His Majesty's Government attach to a successful solution of the problems of India that His Majesty's Government have made this proposal. I, of course, appreciate that it is desirable that members of the Mission should not stay longer in India than is vitally necessary. At the same time, I am sure that your Lordships would not have any desire that the Mission should return with its work only half done, that is, not having laid a firm foundation but having laid one which might afterwards prove insufficient to carry the vast consequences which are necessary.
Beyond that, it is not very easy for me to go at the present time. I do not think that I can be very specific as to the length of time we shall stay. Your Lordships may be assured that we shall not stay longer than we consider abso-
674
lutely necessary. But we shall certainly stay as long as we find necessary in order to bring about the objects of our visit. That, as I say, was the fourth question which the noble and learned Viscount asked. He further asked me what was the position of the Mission in relation to the Cabinet. This Mission is a representation of the Cabinet in India. It will carry with it in India the authority of the Cabinet, subject to what I am going to say just now.
Of course we have already had, and shall continue to have before we leave for India, very careful discussions with the whole Cabinet, and, no doubt, when we go we shall be given certain specific instructions on the direction and general purposes of our procedure. Within these instructions we shall, of course, have power to take such decisions as may be necessary at the time, and we shall be able to have contact with His Majesty's Government at home. On major issues that do not fall within the instructions already given to us, we shall, no doubt, wish to consult with our colleagues in this country. I think that that answers as fully as I am able the questions put by the noble Viscount.
Then he asked me a further question on how far we would be in a position to commit Parliament. I am not saying anything which arises out of this special Mission. To the best of my knowledge and belief I am interpreting what is the Constitution of this country. Neither a part of the Cabinet nor the Cabinet itself can commit Parliament to certain actions as far as I am aware, and it must be perfectly evident that any fundamental alteration in the relationship between this country and India will have at some stage or other to come before Parliament. I imagine, in fact I think it was stated in the Cripps Declaration, that in some matters there will be a definite treaty between this country and India. Quite clearly, in some shape or form that must be brought before Parliament.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for answering fully and candidly, and I thank him. The question I put, which I agree is sometimes a difficult one to answer, was this: Will Parliament be given the opportunity to discuss this before any official decision is reached? I am perfectly aware that Parliamentary

675
authority is needed before a great change can be effected, but it is one thing to discuss it after it has been agreed and it is quite a different thing to discuss it before any executive decision has been reached.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I would remind the noble Viscount that under the conditions of the Cripps Declaration a perfectly definite promise was made and we go to India with that as a background. The Cabinet has always the right to take certain decisions and to undertake in certain contingencies to present its proposals to Parliament. I do not think His Majesty's Government in what they are proposing, are going in any way out of the normal constitutional procedure. If necessary, that can be dealt with later, but that is as far as I should like to commit myself at the moment, although I think it meets the point which the noble and learned Viscount was making. I should now like to deal with a point raised by the noble Marquess, and which was also referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. They both wanted to be assured that we were not overriding, or going to override, the Viceroy, but that we were going with him to attempt to obtain a settlement of this problem. I can certainly give them the assurance that it is our intention to be associated with the Viceroy and for the Viceroy to be associated with us—as I have already said, with his full concurrence—in trying to reach a solution. Our presence in India will not alter the substantive relationship between the Cabinet and the Viceroy which remains in precisely the same form as it is at the present time. I have no doubt that we shall pursue such conversations, in mutual agreement between ourselves and the Viceroy, that we may arrive at the best solution.
Perhaps I may answer the question of the noble Earl, Lord Munster, which he put to me at the same time. I speak on the spur of the moment, and subject to a review of the strict legal constitutional position, but I think the noble Earl is quite right in saying that the Viceroy does remain as His Majesty's representative in India and the fact that the Secretary of State is in India does not alter that fundamental fact. Naturally, before giving a final and categoric answer, I should like to verify my view on the matter. The
676
noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, also asked me whether the reference in the earlier part of my statement to the formation and the nature of the Viceroy's Executive Council in any way prejudged the nature of the ultimate constitutional machinery. The answer to that is, of course, No. In fact, this part of my announcement was really a recital in an abridged form of the statement that was made in September last by the Viceroy himself, and there is obviously no intention conveyed in it that we are prejudging the final constitutional machinery which, as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has already pointed out, is, and must be, and should be, the work of India itself.
That only leaves, I think, the two other questions which were put to me by the noble Earl, Lord Munster. He asked me whether the Dominions had been informed. My noble friend Viscount Addison assures me that that is the case. The other question was, as I understood it, what precisely was to be the nature of the Executive Council which is referred to in the announcement. I should not like to be too specific with regard to that. It is hoped to base the Viceroy's Executive, during the period while the constitution-making body is proceeding with its labours, on the main Indian Parties. It cannot be representative in the sense that it will rest on precisely some representative body, because there is no precise body A which it is representative. I cannot say the precise way in which the transformation that it is hoped may be expected will take place, and I must leave it in the somewhat vague terms which were used in September last and which have been abridged in the recital of the statement. I think that answers all the questions which were put to me.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, may I worry the noble Lord with one further question? When this Committee of Ministers who go out to India arrive at a decision will they communicate it to the Dominion Governments before any public announcement is made in this country? I attach very great importance to that.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That is a question which is a matter more for the Cabinet, but I have no doubt that it will be the business of my noble friend, the Secretary of State for the Dominions,

677
to keep the Dominions informed, and if he thinks it desirable, to inform them beforehand. But I should not like to pledge myself on that.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, may we take it that this announcement implies no abrogation of what is known as the Cripps Declaration, the President of the Board of Trade's own Declaration, with regard to the relation with the Indian States and the protection of minorities?
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: In my announcement to-day I repeated the point about the Indian States, in the recital:
"Preparatory discussions with the elected representatives of British India, and with the Indian States, in order to secure the widest measure of agreement as to the methods of framing a Constitution."
Therefore, so far as that is concerned, this is merely the repetition of what was said in September, and bears out what was also said in a slightly different form in what was known as the Cripps proposals.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I do not think there has been any repetition of the statement with regard to the protection of minorities.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I think that is another point. I do not fully understand the noble Lord's question. I have answered so many questions that perhaps it is not necessary to go any further, because it is not always easy to follow the gist of questions put orally, but I have done my best to meet those which have been put.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932: BOROUGH OF ILFORD ORDER.
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Order standing on the Paper be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section 1 of that Act to the Borough of Ilford, and laid before this House of Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STOKE ON TRENT GAS ORDER, 1946. MARCH GAS ORDER, 1946.
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Ammon, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Paper in his name.
Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ELECTORAL REGISTRATION REGULATIONS, 1946.
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ASSURANCE COMPANIES BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
3.14 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. I will ask your Lordships' permission to move rather rapidly across this subject, because, if ever a Bill was an agreed Bill, this Bill falls under that heading. It is a Bill that has been agreed upon between all the political Parties, or shall I say, all the main political Parties. It has been agreed with the insurance companies. It passed through another place with only the smallest Amendments. In fact everyone is already agreed upon it except your Lordships, and I hope you will agree upon its principles in a very few minutes.
Its main object is to underline the stability and security of the British insurance market which is second to none in the world, and it is my privilege, before coming to the Bill, to repeat what the President of the Board of Trade said in another place, that the Government have no intention of interfering with the transaction of insurance business by private enterprise save to the limited extent to which insurance at home may be affected by the existing proposals relating to personal social insurance and industrial injuries. I feel it is as well to make that

679
plain again in this place. It is the desire of the Government that in the future, as in the past, insurance should be dealt with on an international basis. It is worth reminding the House that the profit accruing to this country from our insurance business done on behalf of clients overseas is of the order of £20,000,000 a year, so that we can see it was a very substantial business bringing great benefits to this country.
The very high reputation of the British insurance companies and Lloyds is, of course, well known to you all, and the present Bill is directed merely to remedying the two principal difficulties which manifested themselves between the two wars. In the first place, some most important categories of insurance business are for the first time brought within the ambit of the Insurance Companies Act by Clause 1 of the present Bill. I refer to marine, aviation and transit insurance business. And, secondly, by virtue of the provisions of Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill steps are taken to prevent the forming of mushroom companies and also to enable the Board of Trade to step in at an earlier stage than is now possible with a view to preventing insolvency.
At present, as many of your Lordships will be aware, the companies who are subject to the provisions of the principal Act have to make annual returns to the Board of Trade, and in addition they are required to deposit with the Supreme Court certain sums, usually amounting to £20,000, or, in the case of motor vehicle insurance, £15,000. This system of attempting to provide security through deposits has never been satisfactory, a point upon which all the main investigating committees are agreed. Therefore I will take first the prevention of the emergence of mushroom companies. Under Clause 2 the Bill before us provides that in future no person shall carry on in Great Britain assurance business of a class to which the principal Act as now amended applies, except an incorporated company which has a paid-up capital of not less than £50,000. That is a point I would like to stress very strongly. In the future a company will have to have a paid-up capital of £50,000.
Coming now to the maintenance of solvency once a company has started, the Bill before us, in Clause 3, alters the
680
definition of insolvency for an assurance company by providing that an assurance company doing general business shall be deemed unable to pay its debts if the value of its assets does not exceed the amount of its liabilities by whichever is the greater of the following amounts, namely, £50,000, or one-tenth of the general premium income of the company in its last preceding financial year. So in future in order to be regarded as solvent by the authorities a company must have assets which exceed liabilities by £50,000 or by one-tenth of the general premium income for the last preceding financial year, whichever is the greater. This provision to which I have just referred is to be enforced within two years from the passing of the Bill in the case of an existing company and within two years from the commencement of operations by a new company. As you can well imagine, the general object of Clauses 2 and 3 taken together is to prevent failure from occurring at all.
I should add that the system of deposit, which, as I have mentioned, was so unsatisfactory in the past, is now rendered unnecessary, and Clause 4 accordingly abolishes them altogether. I do not think at this stage I need detain you further except to say that great importance is attached to this Bill in insurance circles, and the Government very much hope you will give it a Second Reading forthwith. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Pakenham.)
3.21 p.m.
LORD WOOLTON: My Lords, I will not detain you for more than a moment, but I should like to say that on this side of the House we welcome this Bill. It is a Bill which has been on the stocks for quite a long time. I have heard something about it in other than Parliamentary quarters, and the insurance companies of repute in the country welcome it. There has indeed sometimes in the past been great hardship inflicted on innocent and perhaps not very intelligent people who have thought that they have insured themselves against various risks and have then found the companies that have offered them most attractive rates have not been quite so good when the unhappy time of calamity came. This Bill, in the provisions that it makes for the protection of

681
the public against insolvency, I think is something that we should welcome. I am very glad to have the opportunity of supporting the Bill.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I only want to ask the Minister in charge of the Bill one question. He mentioned motor insurance as being one of the things affected by the Bill. Can he tell us whether the effect of the passage of the Bill is likely to increase the premiums paid for motor insurance or not?
LORD PAKENHAM: I am afraid that is a question of which I would like notice. I should imagine that a nice calculation would be required, and I will not offer an opinion on it now, but at the Committee stage perhaps there will be an opportunity of asking the question again.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MINISTERS OF THE CROWN (TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS) BILL
3.24 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT): My Lords, this Bill which is now to be read a second time, is a machinery Bill with two main objects—first to "tidy up" on a permanent basis the position of the Departments temporarily created during the war under emergency legislation, and second, to introduce for the future a little more elasticity in the Government's powers to adapt from time to time their executive machinery to suit their administrative needs. The second purpose is dealt with in the first three clauses. Under the present law a function which is conferred on a particular Minister by Statute—and of course nearly all statutory functions are conferred on particular Ministers and not on the Government at large—can be transferred to another Minister only by full-dress amending legislation. Clause 1 (1) of the Bill enables such transfers to be effected in future by Orders in Council which, under the provisions of the Bill, will be subject to Negative Resolution procedure.
Of course, a great many functions of Ministers do not rest upon Statute at all, but are derived from the Prerogative of
682
the Crown, as the source of executive power. Such functions can already be freely redistributed by administrative action and the Bill makes no difference to those matters at all; it deals only with those functions which are regulated by Statute or statutory instrument.
Clause 1 (2) enables Orders in Council to be made dissolving Government Departments and redistributing the functions of the Ministers in charge of them—another process which at the present time would require normal full-dress legislation. Orders in Council of that kind will, however, under the Bill require Affirmative Resolutions of both Houses of Parliament. Clause 2 of the Bill enables the titles of Ministers to be changed by Orders in Council, and that provision will be subject to Negative Resolution. The other parts of the first three clauses contain the necessary consequential and supplementary provisions. I would point out that the order-making powers which these clauses confer are limited in scope. They do not enable any new Ministry or new function to be created. They merely provide a simpler procedure—still subject, of course, to Parliamentary discussion and control—for redistributing powers which Parliament has already conferred and for discontinuing Ministries which Parliament has already authorized but which in the process of time have become redundant.
The later clauses of the Bill deal with particular Ministries. During the war ten Ministries were created on a temporary basis under the Ministers of the Crown (Emergency Appointments) Act, 1939—if we exclude the Ministry of Shipping which afterwards became merged in the Ministry of War Transport. Of these ten, two, that is to say, the Ministry of Works and the Ministry of Fuel and Power, were at a later date put on a regular footing by ordinary legislation. Three of the others, Home Security, Economic Warfare, and Production, have already ceased to exist. The Government have announced their intention of letting the Ministry of Information disappear also. The Ministry of Aircraft Production will be dealt with by an order under Clause 1 (2) of this Bill, and the Minister's functions transferred to the Minister of Supply. The Government's intention to fuse these two Ministries has already been announced and was of course foreshadowed

683
by the appointment of the same right honourable gentleman to hold both Ministerial Offices.
That leaves only three of the original ten Ministries and they are all particularly mentioned in this Bill. Clause 4 and the First Schedule make the Ministry of Food a permanent Department. The decision to do that was announced last November, and I may add that recent events have shown all too clearly that the end of our food problem is by no means in sight. The Ministry of Labour and National Service is not, of course, an entirely new Department. It is the old Ministry of Labour with its functions considerably extended. Clause 5 of this Bill provides that the Ministry shall continue as at present until it is discontinued by order under the Bill, despite the disappearance of the powers under which it was brought into being in 1939.
There remains the Ministry of War Transport. This, of course, is not new, since it comprises the old Ministry of Transport. The intention here is to discontinue the Ministry of War Transport and transfer all the Minister's functions to the Minister of Transport. No such Minister is at present appointed, though there is, of course, permanent statutory authority for his appointment; but His Majesty will be advised to fill this vacant post before the Minister of War Transport disappears.
If I may hazard a guess, very likely we shall find that the Prime Minister's choice will fall on the holder of the disappearing office. One result of this process will be that the Minister of Transport will be charged with those merchant shipping functions which the Minister of War Transport has been discharging and which belonged before the war to the Board of Trade; but the original Ministry of Transport Act of 1919 is not formally suitable in some respects for a Minister with these extended functions, and Clause 6 of the Bill and the Second Schedule make the necessary adjustments. This Bill, therefore, clears the way for repeal of the Ministers of the Crown (Emergency Appointments) Act, 1939, since it saves all that still needs saving of what was done under its temporary authority. There is already power to repeal that Act by Order in Council and it will be exercised shortly after this Bill becomes law.
Clause 7 deals not with a temporary
684
but with a permanent Department, the Department of Overseas Trade. The Prime Minister announced on December 17 last that this Department was to be abolished as a separate entity. This w.11 be done by Order under Clause 1 (2) of this Bill, and Clause 7 is necessary for technical reasons in relation to the Imperial Institute and because some adjustments to Statutes are required which are rather outside the scope with which Orders in Council under the Bill are designed to deal.
The Bill is a modest one, and deliberately so. It has been very carefully framed, so as not to enable the Executive to do by Order things which in peacetime ought to be subject to the full rigour of our legislative procedure—such, for example, as the creation of a new ministerial department. But, within its limits, it is likely to be extremely useful. Whatever Government may be in power, it is right that they should be able to make swift adaptations in the executive machinery at their disposal and not find that executive efficiency is subject to the exigencies of a crowded legislative programme. I hope your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading. I do not think it is controversial. It received its Second Reading in the House of Commons without a Division, and I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.34 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, the House will be very grateful to the Lord Chancellor for explaining so clearly the technical operation of the various clauses of this Bill. I agree with him that the Bill is not controversial in the sense that it raises some great topic of dispute; though I myself do not think that a Bill of this kind, especially as it is a permanent measure (not a measure which contains a clause limiting it to the period prescribed) is, because of great legislative pressure, necessarily to be welcomed. After all, if Parliament—what I think my noble and learned friend calls the full rigour of Parliament — is employed for creating a new Ministry and for defining the powers and duties of the Minister, it does not seem to me anything out of the way that, if you are going to alter those powers or duties or put them elsewhere,

685
an Act of Parliament is the proper way to do it. This is, it is true, a machinery Bill, but the way the machine works is to put in the hands of the Executive, partly on the ground of Parliamentary pressure and want of time, that which has hitherto been in the hands of Parliament; and I am bound to say I regret it when that becomes necessary.
It is quite true that these matters are subject to Parliamentary check in the sense that there would be an opportunity for a Negative Resolution, as it is called, in the case of a transfer of powers, and I think an Affirmative Resolution if we were going to abolish a Ministry altogether. Well, that is the least that can be done. But the fact is that this is another instance of the substitution of Executive decisions for ordinary Parliamentary process (which is openly justified, and perhaps rightly so, because of the pressure of the present legislative programme) by which the Government proposes to make a permanent change in our constitutional machinery. Of course, the fact is—and it is probably inevitable—that under modern conditions the number of Ministries and of Ministers has greatly grown, and I can quite understand the attraction to a Government and to a Prime Minister of being able to transfer a portion of the powers from one Ministry to another instead of having to ask for ordinary Parliamentary authority.
One or two figures have been taken out which I venture to quote to the House. In 1914 the number of Ministers in this country (and I am including Under-Secretaries and Whips) was 52. In 1939 it was 67. At the present moment, and under the present dispensation, it is 81. I have not included the Parliamentary Private Secretaries, of course. That would greatly increase the number. I agree that one must in this complicated world increase the number of Ministers, but it does seem to me that, if we were able to get back to normal times, one ought not to treat the substitution of an Executive decision by means of an Order in Council for Parliamentary enactments modifying previous Parliamentary enactments as a matter of very small consequence—though, no doubt, it is a matter of very considerable convenience. If you take Ministers of Cabinet rank, as it is called, and leave out the Under-Secretaries, and so on, in 1914 there were 25. In 1939 there were 31. At this moment I believe there are 36.
686
I entirely agree with the Lord Chancellor that there is some comfort to be derived from the fact that, whatever is done under this Bill by Order in Council, you cannot create a new Ministry. That, at least, is still left to Parliament to enact.
We ought to be grateful for this small mercy. The old plan, of course, was that if a Minister did not discharge his powers satisfactorily, well, it might be that the Prime Minister got rid of a Minister, but there is another way of playing puss in the corner, and that is to transfer the job and keep the Minister; and it may be that there will be instances where that is a very suitable thing to do. I wonder whether the Lord Chancellor was quite right, with great respect to him, when he said, as I thought he did, that in the first subsection of the first clause the only Minister referred to is a Minister created by Statute. I thought my noble and learned friend said so. The reason I doubt it is because at the end of the Bill there is a definition of "Minister of the Crown," and it says it includes the Treasury and the Admiralty. So far as I recall, neither the Treasury nor the Admiralty was created by Statute; and though I quite appreciate that, where you have what one may call a Common Law Ministry, the extent of the things that it does are not necessarily determined by Statute, inasmuch as their transfer involves both methods—puss in the corner means two corners—I suppose the idea is that though those Common Law Ministers might have additional powers, or it may be smaller powers, at the other end of the chain you might very likely come across what I may call a statutory Ministry. There it is.
I myself do not profess—and I think many others will agree with me—to think that this change is in itself admirable. I do not think that it is an improvement in our constitutional arrangements that there should be additional power in the Executive to group functions in different departments just as they like, subject, of course, to the Resolution in cases at any rate where in the first instance Parliament has deliberately defined what those functions are. One could easily give ridiculous illustrations, but there is no value in taking extreme and improbable instances. On the other hand, while I myself think it would have been much better to make this a temporary measure, which was strongly urged by the Opposition in the House of Com-

687
mons but was resisted, I certainly do not urge your Lordships to spend a long time in opposing the present Bill.
There is, I think the Lord Chancellor will agree, one change which will have to be made in the Bill, and that is at the top of page 3, in Clause 3, subsection (2). That subsection provides that if an Order in Council has been made under the Act, if either House within a period of 40 days, beginning with the day on which a copy thereof is laid before it, resolves that the Order in Council be annulled, it shall thenceforth become void. That is the exact position to which my noble friend Lord Llewellin took such effective objection on the Statutory Instruments Bill, and, as the result of his efforts and the good will of the noble Lord on the Woolsack, a change has been made in that Bill, both on constitutional and on practical grounds. I take it that the Government will propose a corresponding change in this Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I say that that certainly will be so. The explanation is that when this Bill was before another place Lord Llewellin's suggestion had not gone through.
May I add one other remark in regard to the other point which the noble and learned Viscount raised. Clause 1 of the Bill deals with functions created and assigned by Statute. It does not matter whether the Minister to whom those functions are assigned is created by Statute or by Prerogative.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I quite agree with the noble Lord's observations. The fact is that this is not the first but the second time in which the legislative acumen of the House of Commons has had to be corrected.
LORD CALVERLEY: The House of Correction!
3.43 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Lords who sit on these Benches, I only want to say that, subject to the important considerations which the noble and learned Viscount has explained, we are disposed to extend a Second Reading to this Bill, adding that it is none the less acceptable because it permits a decrease and forbids the increase in the number of existing
688
Ministers. From that point of view we hope it is efficiently designed and will be generously employed, adding again only one specific remark: that we shall take considerable satisfying on the point that where there are two Under-Secretaries in any one Department as a result of the arrangements arrived at in wartime there is a good case for the continuation of that system now that something remotely approaching peace is at hand.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

AGRICULTURE (ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION) BILL.
3.44 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON): My Lords, this small and, I hope, non-controversial Bill has been a very long time coming to your Lordships' House. It started its career in another place during the life of the last Parliament, but there events unfortunately stopped its progress. It was reintroduced last August and comes to this House with but few alterations—hardly any change at all — since its original phrasing. I commend it to your Lordships as I think it is a measure which will help towards the improvement of live stock in this country.
The noble Duke the Duke of Norfolk, who has played such an extremely big part in the development of this practice of the artificial insemination of cattle in Great Britain, will, I hope — I do not see him for the moment — address your Lordships, as he can tell you far more about the development of this practice in the last eighteen months than I could ever do, as he has been chairman of a committee on the subject. I would, however, like to stress the very great advantages of artificial insemination of live stock over natural mating from the point of view of the commercial farmer and indeed of the country generally.
From time to time reference has been made in this House to the great losses we have suffered from animal diseases. The transmission of some breeding diseases from the bull to the cow can be

689
avoided by this method of artificial insemination. The method of the selection of the bull and of keeping him will also prevent other diseases being transmitted, and, in fact, prevent the bull having them at all.
At this time when producers in Great Britain and throughout the world are striving, or will be striving, to build up their stocks, it is imperative that there should be not only increased quantity but quality in our primary products, and we hope that, through the use of artificial insemination, we can get better sires to be used in wider and wider fields, and rapidly increase the quality of our herds.
In that respect, I thought it might interest your Lordships to hear of an experiment which was being carried out in the last month of last year. Semen was actually transmitted by aeroplane from Prestwick, from rams in Scotland to ewes in Iceland. The Iceland Agricultural Society have promised to give the Department of Agriculture information as to the progress of this experiment, and if it succeeds it opens out enormous possibilities for the development of this practice. However, although great benefits are anticipated from it, it is also obvious that potentially great harm might be done too. The Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1943, empowered the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland to make regulations governing the development and practice of artificial insemination under proper regulation and control. So far it has been thought desirable to make regulations only in relation to bulls in this country and to bulls and stallions in Scotland, but if, later on, it should be found advisable to regulate the practice in regard to other live stock, there are adequate powers to do so and they will be used.
In England and Wales the practice is assisted by the Central Advisory Committee on. Artificial Insemination. This Committee, under the very able chairmanship of the Duke of Norfolk, has, in the last eighteen months, carried out a survey of our national needs in this respect in the country as a whole, and I must say that by its tireless efforts to guide the initial development of the practice, has rendered a splendid service, both to the live stock industry and to the country as a whole.
690
The first experimental period has passed and we come to the second period. Large numbers—probably millions—of cattle have been inseminated by this method in the U.S.A., the U.S.S.R. and Denmark. We, in this country, have very little up-to-date knowledge of insemination on a big scale, but we have a certain amount of very useful data which has come from experiments carried out in trial centres at Reading and Cambridge. During the stage upon which the industry is now entering, it is obviously necessary that financial assistance should be available; and Clause 2 of the Bill provides the means of assisting commercial development in the early stages by grants from public funds.
Side by side with the development of commercial centres there must be provision for research work. Much has yet to be learnt, and many problems, genetic, veterinary and economic, require investigation. This Bill before your Lordships provides a means whereby such work can be financed. It gives power to the Minister to set up research centres and to aid approved research work on artificial insemination elsewhere. By 1950 commercial centres should function efficiently and without financial loss, but in the meantime it is proposed that the Minister should be empowered to meet reasonable losses. Provision is made so that centres which have received financial assistance but which in subsequent years during the period covered by the Bill make profits should recoup the Government for payments made in earlier years to the extent of two-thirds of those profits. Care will be taken to ensure that the centres function economically, and the Minister will not sanction payment in respect of losses incurred unjustifiably. The aim will be to ensure that current and capital expenditure—this includes buildings and the erecting of suitable laboratories or anything of that kind—are kept within reasonable bounds, while making certain of an efficient service to the farming community.
The task of a centre is not only to get cows in calf, but particularly to breed better beef. Under Clause 2 of the Bill grants will be made only to duly licensed centres owned and operated by producer-controlled bodies. This provision should ensure that the centres operate primarily for the benefit of the users. For this

691
purpose importance is attached to the provisos that, to qualify for a grant, a centre must make its service available, without discrimination, in respect of all cattle within its area of operation, subject always to due regard being paid to sound breeding policy, to animal health and to general efficiency. In connexion with the limitation of assistance to producer-controlled bodies, it is interesting to observe that both in the United States and in Denmark the greatest success which has attended this practice has been in conjunction with farmers' co-operative societies.
As I indicated earlier in my speech, it is one of the duties of the Central Advisory Committee on Artificial Insemination to advise the Minister in planning development in England and Wales. Care is being taken to see there is no waste through unnecessary duplication of effort and that areas of beef as well as of milk production are included. The advice of the veterinary profession is that as a general rule it is undesirable to house more than twenty bulls in one centre, and the reason is that if there should be a stoppage owing to an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease nearby there would be considerable losses to the farmers round about—the cow owners—as it might be difficult to get semen from a distance. Therefore there must be some limitation on the size and the location of the centres. I am also happy to say that the Milk Marketing Board propose to play a very big part in the development of this national scheme. They already operate in four of the thirteen areas where the service is at present provided, and they expect to extend this service to several more areas very shortly. Their centres will further increase in numbers during the next few years. To permit the Board to carry out their proposals fully, Clause 5 of the Bill empowers them to operate centres for the benefit of all cattle owners irrespective of whether they are registered milk producers or not.
In conclusion I would again like to stress the potential value to the live stock industry of this country of this practice of artificial insemination. Through this service ccws can be mated to bulls far superior to those available to the majority of commercial cow keepers to-day. Furthermore, centres working in close co-
692
operation with the Ministry's local officers and with the county executive committees will encourage farmers to adopt a suitable breeding policy. The mongrelisation of our herds, if I may say so, should thus decline and Britain's livestock should be enabled to reach a higher plane of efficiency, with better and cleaner herds. For these reasons I commend this Bill, and move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
3.56 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, this is a short Bill, but it is an important one which, I think, started its career in the hands of the last Government. I should like very briefly to say that on this side of the House we welcome its introduction. I think we are all agreed that one of the most important foundations of agricultural policy in the future must be live stock improvement. It has always been a source of worry and regret to those of us who are connected with the agricultural industry that while this country produces some of the best stock in the world it also produces some extremely poor stock as well. Unquestionably this Bill, if passed into law, will be of the greatest assistance to the small farmer, the man with 15 cows or under, who cannot afford to buy an expensive bull and who therefore, all too frequently, buys what he can afford, which, again all too frequently, is what we call a scrub bull.
I am glad the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading mentioned the question of disease because that is obviously of fundamental importance. The scrub bull is very frequently the village bull, who goes round the village spreading disease from one herd to another. I think that this Bill can also be of assistance to the pedigree breeder at the other end of the scale. If artificial insemination is to be a success there has got to be an adequate supply of proven sires. There is no question that in many cases the pedigree breeder wants to get hold of certain blood for breeding a new line, but is either unwilling or unable to purchase a particular bull for the full-time use of his herd, although he does want to get certain services in order to produce what he feels is likely to prove later to be a proven sire. I think it would be most useful for that purpose.

693
If artificial insemination is going to be useful, it also undoubtedly contains dangers, and the noble Earl mentioned some of them. Therefore I particularly welcome the provisions for controlling the use of this form of breeding. That is quite fundamental. The purpose of artificial insemination is to enable a sire to spread his influence further than he can by direct service, and that means that it he is a bad sire he can broadcast bad blood throughout the industry. For that reason I hope that, as far as possible, as indeed I believe is the policy of the Board controlling this development, they will restrict themselves to the use of proven sires. That is absolutely fundamental. I think all of us who have been trying to breed cattle for some time have learned that a pedigree is all right and past performance of ancestors is all right, but that it is extraordinary, for instance, what poor milking capacity you can get from stock bred from a bull with an exceedingly high milking ancestry.
We know exceedingly little about the problem, and if you ask an animal geneticist he will tell the practical farmer that all we can really say is that it is highly likely that a bull which has produced good stock in the past will produce good stock in the future. That is, I am afraid, just about as far as we have been able to get. Therefore, I do stress very strongly this point of the use of the proven sire. I welcome also Clause 1, which recognizes the need for more knowledge. I know it is quite true that many other countries such as Russia, the United States of America and Denmark are far ahead of us in their use of artificial insemination, and in many ways that is to be regretted, but there is still a great deal which is not known.
We want more knowledge of the technique, more knowledge about methods of storage and the length of time that storage is possible. We want to know more about the distances that we can send semen, and more about the number of cows that one bull can deal with. More information is needed, too, on the question of organization. When I was in America a little while ago, I found that there had been very rapid development of societies for dealing with artificial insemination. There had been what I would, call a mushroom growth of such bodies. They had not always used the
694
best bulls, and a good deal of bad blood had, therefore, been spread. In some instances, the societies had very soon gone bankrupt and their work had, in consequence, completely broken down. We do not want that sort of development here. It is far better to go ahead steadily and carefully with a controlled scheme.
As I have already said, there are numerous matters on which we need more knowledge, and I believe that, in that connexion, centres established under this Bill can be immensely useful. It may be said that we really know very little about the principles of breeding. We know, as I say, something about the effectiveness of a proven sire. We know a certain amount about line breeding and about in-breeding. We are, through the Agricultural Research Council, setting up an institute for research into the fundamental principles of animal breeding, and genetics. But however large that institute is, however many cattle and other animals we have at that institute, it is not going to be possible to have nearly enough to obtain all the information that we require. Therefore we want to get the full benefit of the experience of all existing breeders.
The time has not come yet but I think it will come, when we shall have to make an appeal to all the big and experienced breeders of the country to help by giving us such access as is possible to the results of their experience. We ought also, as I say, to be able to get a great deal of information from the work of the artificial insemination centres. I am not sure whether it is the fact that this is going to be done or not, but I hope it will be laid down that all the calves produced by this method will be earmarked so that it will be possible to trace them in the future. I think that is most important and if it is done it will be of great value. That, my Lords, is all I have to say about this Bill. It is certainly not the panacea for all our problems of breeding that some people have represented it as being, but it is one step, and I think, a very sound step, in the direction of improving the live stock of this country.
4.5 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I wish to say only one or two words because Earl De La Warr has, in my view, entirely covered the ground. As I was one of those who, a good many years ago, were

695
very much concerned with efforts which were made to deal with the problem of the scrub bull, I welcome this Bill very warmly. I think that these proposals for having a properly controlled scheme are most necessary. Control, in this matter, is essential because there is a great deal more to be discovered, as Earl De La Warr has said, than is now known to those who are concerned with the matter of breeding. The scrub bull has presented a problem for a long time. I can only hope that as the result of action that will be taken under this Bill, his use will be largely dispensed with. I believe that, provided sufficient care is taken in the control of this business, you will raise the whole standard of quality of the cattle of this country, and greatly reduce the very large proportion which, at the present time, are not of the best quality. The effect of that improvement on milk production may be very considerable, and a very great improvement in the quality of beef cattle may also ensue. Therefore, it is from the point of view that I have endeavoured to voice that I now express my hope that your Lordships will pass this Bill, and that the work envisaged will have the fullest success that it can have, under proper and adequate control.
4.8 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, there is only one very small point upon which I would like to have some reassurance. That arises from what has been said—quite truly, of course—about the supply of first-rate bulls. The backbone of the industry of a pedigree stockbreeder is constituted by his export bulls. I should deprecate anything being done that might adversely affect the buying by, for example, the Argentine of bulls in this country. Buyers from abroad give very large prices for first-rate animals, and this helps to keep the industry which produces the best class of stock going.
Whereas, at the moment, the export of semen is limited to certain distances, there is a posssibility that in the future a method may be developed whereby it can be delivered to any part of the world. It would be very unfortunate for the industry which I have mentioned if instead of being able to sell their bulls, that particular branch of their trade was
696
done away with. Moreover, this would, I think, have an adverse effect on the supply of first-rate bulls needed for the purposes of the artificial insemination centres.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

UNITED NATIONS BILL.
House in Committee according to Order.
Bill reported without amendment.

FURNISHED HOUSES (RENT CONTROL) BILL.
4.12 p.m.
Amendment reported according to Order.
Clause 2:
Reference to tribunal of contracts for furnished letting.
(2) Where any contract to which this Act applies is referred to a tribunal, then, unless at any time before the tribunal have entered upon consideration of the reference it is withdrawn by the person or authority by whom it was made, the tribunal shall consider it and, after making such inquiry as they think fit, and giving to each party (and, if the house is one the general management whereof is vested in and exercisable by a housing authority, to that authority) an opportunity of being heard, or, in his option, of submitting representations in writing, shall approve the rent payable under the contract or reduce it to such sum as they may, in all the circumstances, think reasonable, or may, if they think fit in all the circumstances, dismiss the reference, and shall notify the parties and the local authority of their decision in each case.
(3) Where the rent payable for any premises has been entered in the register in accordance with the provisions hereinafter contained, it shall be lawful for the lessor or the lessee or the local authority to refer the case to the tribunal for reconsideration of the rent so entered on the ground of change of circumstances, and the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall apply on any such reference in like manner as they apply on a reference under subsection (1) of this section subject to the modification that the tribunal shall have power to increase the rent payable.
(4) An approval, reduction or increase under this section may be limited to rent payable in respect of a particular period.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTERhad given Notice of an Amendment at the end of subsection (2), to insert:
"Provided that in any case where a contract to which this Act applies includes payment for services and the lessor shows to the satis-

697
faction of the tribunal that the cost of the provision of such services has increased in respect of the house or part of a house since the date of the contract the tribunal shall, if satisfied that the rent is otherwise one which they would approve, have power to authorize the payment of the amount of such increase."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is simple. It is designed to give a greater measure of justice to landlords in assessing the rent of service flats. I will not weary your Lordships with the arguments on this matter which I have done my best to put forward on other occasions. The position is extremely simple. These landlords are bound to provide these services, and, as I have said before, they can be sued in law if they do not provide them. The cost of providing these services has very materially increased. There is no need to produce any figures to prove that. A single example like the cost of coke will show how penal this burden has become. So grave an imposition has it turned out to be that there are many tenants, I am advised, who have voluntarily offered their landlords some increase in rent to cover the extra cost.
That is no reason why others who are unwilling to do this should take advantage of the position. I need only remind your Lordships that the Ridley Committee not only recommended that this matter should be dealt with, that these landlords should be entitled to recover the increased costs of these services, but they added that it was a matter of first priority. The noble Earl who has been good enough to listen to me so patiently has agreed to accept what I have proposed. His wording is other than mine but relying as I do, on his positive assurance that it gives me in substance what I am asking for, I am prepared not to press this matter. I feel sure that the noble Earl will also agree that a few days shall elapse before the Third Reading so that there may be an opportunity of considering the phraseology. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the noble Earl, and also of thanking those noble Lords, who, while not sitting on these Benches, have of their own accord, so generously and without stint given me their support. In the circumstances I do not move.
4.12 p.m.
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL)THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL) moved, after subsection (3), to insert:
698
"(4) Where on any reference of a contract, the rent whereunder includes payment for services, the tribunal are of opinion that it would be proper that the rent payable for the premises should include an amount in respect of increase since the third day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, in the cost of providing such services, and are also of opinion that in all the circumstances a rent higher than the rent payable under the contract might properly be chargeable for the premises in order to include an amount in respect of such increase, they may approve a rent higher by not more than such amount as they think reasonable in that respect."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the noble Viscount opposite was good enough to let me know by letter that he could accept my Amendment and that he wanted to withdraw his own, and I am much obliged to him for doing so. In deference to the wishes of the House as expressed by several noble Lords during the discussion on the Committee stage and in accordance with the undertaking I then gave, the Government have given further consideration to the Amendment put down by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster and they are prepared to accept it in principle. The Amendment I am now moving differs, as the noble Viscount has just pointed out, from the wording of his Amendment. The object of this alteration is to secure that it is an increase in the cost of services since the beginning of the war which has to be taken into account by the tribunal and that any increased rent approved by them to cover the war-time increase (which may of course relate to wages or prices) is registrable. This Amendment which I am moving would enable the tribunal if they are satisfied that it would be proper to charge a higher rent because of the increase in the cost of services since September 3, 1939, to approve such a rent raised by not more than the increased cost of the services. I very much hope that this will meet the points raised not only by the noble Viscount but by other noble Lords who spoke on the Committee stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 39, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl of Listowel.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, as one of those who took part in the discussion on the previous stage of this Bill I should like to thank the noble Earl for the way he has met the points we made. Like the noble Viscount who originally raised this matter, I have not really had

699
the time to consider these words fully but I have looked at them since they have been on the Order Paper and so far as I can see they fully meet the point we made and I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for the way he has met us on this matter.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.14 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, after subsection (4), to insert:
"(5) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this section a tribunal shall not be required to entertain a reference made otherwise than by the local authority if they are satisfied, having regard to the length of time elapsing since a previous reference made by the same party or to other circumstances, that the reference is frivolous or vexatious."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to carry out an undertaking I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, during the Committee stage and broadly speaking it is designed to prevent the time of the rent Tribunal from being wasted by litigious or vindictive persons. The wording is slightly different from that put down by the noble Lord opposite but I hope it will meet the case. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 41, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl of Listowel.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, once again I get up to thank the noble Earl. These are not quite the same words as those I put down on the Order Paper nor, in fact, are they quite the same words as were in the noble Earl's mind to move. I think it would have been entirely wrong if the tribunal had been left with no way of dealing with having its time taken up by frivolous or vexatious applications. This gives an opportunity of dealing with vexatious persons who come before the tribunal and I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for meeting me in the way that he has.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.16 p.m.
Clause 12:
Interpretation and saving.
"services" includes attendance the Provision of heating or lighting, the supply of hot water and any other privilege or facility connected with the occupancy of a house or part of a house;
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (1), after "part of a house," to insert:
"not being a privilege or facility requisite for the purposes of access, cold water supply o sanitary accommodation."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to meet points raised by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham. It aims at excluding in precise terms from the services which bring contracts within the jurisdiction of a rent tribunal, such facilities as stores and passageways, water taps or lavatories which may be shared by a number of tenants living in the same building. I have discussed this Amendment with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, who is unable to be present in his place this afternoon, and I gather from him that this meets the substance of what he wanted to achieve. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 36, at end insert ("not being a privilege or facility requisite for the purposes of access, cold water supply or sanitary accommodation").—[The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule:
Provisions Regarding Constitution of Tribunals.
4. The Minister may appoint a clerk and such other officers and servants as he thinks fit of a tribunal, and there shall be paid to them such salaries and allowances, as the Minister, with the consent of the Treasury, may determine.
4.18 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in paragraph 4, to leave out, "The Minister," where those words first occur, and insert "A tribunal." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this proposed Amendment I have put down in order to carry out the undertaking I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, during the Committee stage. It provides that instead of the Minister himself appointing a staff, the tribunal will do so subject only to the approval of the Minister, a proviso which is obviously necessary in view of the financial responsibility of the Treasury. I hope that this meets the point of the noble Lord opposite and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 10, leave out ("The Minister") and insert ("A tribunal").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD CHESHAM: I should like to add my quota to the spate of gratitude going from this side of the House to the noble Earl who is moving these Amendments. I thank him very much for making this rather small but important Amendment to the Bill.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I think it is a great improvement that the tribunal can have power to appoint their own clerk and officers. These should not be thrust on them entirely from Whitehall and I think we are all grateful to the noble Lord behind me for raising this point as well as to the Minister for accepting it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, with the permission of the House, in order to save time, I should like to move the next Amendments on the paper en bloc. There are three consequential Amendments and I think it would save the time of the House if I adopted that procedure.
Amendments moved—
Page 7, line 10, after the first ("and") insert (",with the approval of the Minister as to numbers,")
Page 7, line 11, leave out ("he thinks fit of a tribunal") and insert ("they think fit,")
Page 7, line 12, leave out ("them") and insert ("the clerk and other officers and servants").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

TRUNK ROADS BILL.
4.20 p.m.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendment read.
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report of this Amendment be received. In doing so, I should like to say a few words which I hope will prevent any misunderstanding which might possibly arise from what I said, or rather what I omitted to say, on the Committee stage. I said rather impetuously from my love of Scotland that the work with regard to the Forth Bridge would be put in hand as soon as labour and materials were available. I ought to have explained that before that could possibly be done certain preliminary procedure must be instituted and approved by the House of Commons.
Before work can be put in hand on a very large proposition like the Forth Bridge, which runs into something like
702
£6,000,000 or more, it must go on the Estimates for the Ministry of War Transport and be approved by the House, and to put the matter where it really should be, and to remove any doubts from the mind of anyone concerned in this matter, particularly the associated local authorities, I hope that the House will allow me to read a letter sent by the then Minister of War Transport, Lord Leathers, to the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, who was acting as correspondent for the associated local authorities, on the 26th July, 1945. It runs:
"I am directed to refer to your interview with Lord Leathers on 1st May and his letter of 2nd June about the preparation of the necessary legislation for the construction of the Forth Bridge.
"I am to inform you that it has been agreed that a grant of 75 per cent. of the approved expenditure to be incurred, up to the stage of Royal Assent, in the promotion of a Provisional Order or Bill to authorize the construction of a road bridge over the Forth at the Mackintosh Rock site, shall be made. It is further agreed that the Order or Bill may be prepared on the basis that a grant of 75 per cent. of the approved cost of the scheme will be made at such a time as Parliament may approve the inclusion in the Road Fund Vote of the necessary financial provision.
"I am to request that an estimate may be furnished of the expenditure to be incurred up to the stage of Royal Assent, and to enquire whether should this Assent be forthcoming it is the intention of the promoting authorities to instruct the consulting engineers to prepare the constructional plans, etc., for the bridge in a form which would enable a contract to be let when the appropriate time arrives.
"It is assumed that the consulting engineers will take steps to obtain the approval of the Admiralty, as well as of other interested authorities, to the proposals to be embodied in the Order or Bill"
I hope the House will be good enough to receive that statement and to approve the reception of the Amendment.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Walkden.)
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Walkden, that we in Scotland have had enough disappointment without adding to it what he said the other day. We were not in the least uplifted by his statement, which we took exactly as I am sure he meant it, that when the Forth Bridge was ready to be built, and when the Government would allow it to be built, it would be built from the Mackintosh Rock and from nowhere else, and

703
those other roads will join on, one from Perth, one from Inverkeithing and the other one from Edinburgh. The only thing we do regret at this stage, and I may add that is regretted everywhere in Scotland, is that the noble Lord was not able to add to the statement he has just read that he would make a trunk road of the seven miles from Edinburgh to South Queensferry, which is more used by foreigners and Englishmen than it is by Scots.
I know, because I live on the road, and during the war the local inhabitants were unable to get a seat on any of the buses because they were full of sightseers from the Dominions, from America and also from England. Ninety per cent. of the traffic on these buses, certainly in the summer, consists entirely of people outside Scotland. I accept the noble Lord's explanation, which I can assure him was quite unnecessary. I have been to Scotland since he made his speech and there were no flags out! But I would ask him to get the Government to reconsider the question of making that a trunk road. We are very unfortunate in this House because the noble Lord, Lord Westwood, is not here to back us up. I can assure your Lordships I am speaking for the local authorities who are concerned in the district and indeed for Scotland. There seems to be no suitable reason why we cannot have that seven miles road.
On Question, Motion agreed to:
Amendment reported accordingly.

VISITORS FROM OVERSEAS.
LORD HACKING LORD HACKING rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the necessity for encouraging the flow of visitors to this country from overseas both in the interests of better understanding amongst nations and also as a valuable contribution towards Britain's payments on international account; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion which stands in my name upon the Order paper. When I entered your Lordship's House seven months ago after twenty-seven years spent in another place, I was at once struck by the great difference between the two Houses. That difference I think is best expressed by saying that here your Lord-
704
ships never take part in any debate unless you possess full knowledge of the subject under discussion. That was not, I understand from my own experience, the universal custom in another place. That self-imposed discipline on the part of your Lordships must be responsible for holding back many maiden speeches. It has certainly compelled me to remain silent. I waited patiently for a subject to appear on the Order Paper about which I might know sufficient to make some small contribution to your debates, but I waited in vain, and finally in desperation, I had to put down a subject of my own choice. Hence the Motion which is now before your Lordships' House. I crave your indulgence for a maiden speech.
My Motion requests the Government to encourage the flow of visitors to this country for two reasons: the first in the interests of a better understanding between nations; the second as a valuable contribution towards our sorely needed export trade. Thy first reason needs, I think, very little explanation, even though its vital importance must never be disregarded. I desire, however, in the main, to deal with the financial assistance that this country would obtain from a large influx of visitors from overseas, properly known as tourists. It is well that we should realize what is meant by a tourist. It has been very loosely defined on many occasions, but it was finally, and I think accurately, defined by the League of Nations in 1937, and these were the words which were used in definition: "Any person travelling for a period of 24 hours or more in a country other than that in which he usually resides." That is the definition of a tourist.
A tourist must not be confused with a holidaymaker in his own country. A visitor to Brighton from Manchester may make Brighton more prosperous, but it is only at the expense of Manchester. The country as a whole derives no financial benefit at all from this kind of visit. This is, of course, very obvious, but it is important to realize that, if we wish to increase the wealth of Britain, we do not achieve this, as some may imagine, by moving people about up and down in our own country in which they already reside. For visitors to increase our wealth they must come from overseas, and these visitors are properly described as tourists.
For many years I have been interested in tourism. I hope I shall not be thought

705
presumptuous if I give your Lordships a short history of my participation in an organization dealing exclusively with tourism, namely, the Travel Association. In the year 1929 I was Secretary for the Department of Overseas Trade. My job, obviously, was to increase exports of every description, whether they might be visible or invisible exports. I was not alone in noticing, when travelling about in this country, that on every railway station hoarding there appeared many attractive posters inviting people to go to Switzerland and to Italy and to France and to many other countries. If one walked down Regent Street probably one would find at least a dozen foreign information bureaux. If one went into any travel agency, such as Cooks, Dean & Dawsons, and many others, there were all sorts of advertisements, including beautiful brochures, leaflets and pamphlets, all most attractively designed, all put in front of us with the one object of persuading Britishers to travel overseas.
There was nothing very wrong about that, but why did we not do the same in foreign countries? Prior to 1930 did your Lordships ever see when you were engaged in travelling overseas a single national poster inviting foreigners to come to Britain? Did you ever see a British national information bureau in any of the big cities overseas, such as Paris, Berlin or anywhere else? Were foreigners ever persuaded by publicity—except of a purely sectional character—to come and pay us a visit in Britain? The answer to those three questions is definitely No, and, whilst Governments of overseas countries were spending large sums of money on advertising their own countries in Britain, our Government were doing absolutely nothing.
Statistics are sometimes a nuisance and difficult to assimilate in large doses. I will not give many, but a few figures will show the value of tourism to other countries. In 1929 (and I am mentioning that year because it was before we started to compete in this market) tourists to France spent the equivalent of £80,500,000 and I regret to say that of those tourists no fewer than 900,000 were from Britain alone. Canada benefited in 1929 by her tourists to the extent of £63,000,000. No wonder, then—because these are large figures—these overseas countries were prepared to spend money
706
in advertising when they secured such high returns on their expenditure.
We in Britain have much to offer to the tourists. Few countries in the world have known so much history and, moreover, have preserved so much of it. Few have more attractive scenery. None has better or more varied sport. None can offer finer pageantry; and, alas, few countries can show greater war damage than has been suffered by the great City of London and its environs. But, in spite of our attractions, in spite of the financial benefits which would have accrued to us as a nation, Governments have been slow to assist. In the same year, 1929, along with my colleagues in the Department of Overseas Trade, I worked out a scheme for a national organization to be created which had as its background Government co-operation and financial help. The scheme was submitted by me to the President of the Board of Trade. For the moment, I forget his name; it was either Sir Philip Lloyd-Graeme or Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister; but I do know his name now, and I hope that my noble friend Viscount Swinton will be as enthusiastic to-day as he was seventeen years ago.
With encouragement from the President of the Board of Trade I then saw the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I well remember his name because he has not changed it since that time: it was Mr. Winston Churchill I saw him; sketched out the plan; he welcomed it. He welcomed it almost with open arms and he asked me how much I wanted. What a question for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to put to a Minister! Unfortunately, before I had the opportunity of answering that question, it was obvious that he would have to consult some other individual who was in the room at the same time. That individual was his Private Secretary, afterwards better known as the Secretary of State for War, Sir James Grigg. He told the Chancellor that it was not right that he should offer a large sum because no Chancellor could bind his successor, and his successors might not agree with the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. I came away with a paltry £5,000.
Just imagine—£5,000 with which to advertise this country in every other country of the world! The Travel Association was, nevertheless, formed, and we succeeded in collecting £11,000 from outside subscribers, and with this total of

707
£16,000 we did our best during the first year, always in anticipation that future Chancellors of the Exchequer would be more far-seeing and generous than the one in office at that time. The largest sum that the Travel Association ever has extracted from the Treasury in any one year was £17,000 in 1939 when the total income of the Association from all sources was approximately £60,000. I ask in all seriousness, how can a national organization of this kind do its work properly and effectively with such a small measure of Government assistance?
Experts have formed the opinion that, properly financed by the Government, this invisible export, tourism, can produce for this country on international account no less than £100,000,000 a year. Most of our invisible exports to-day have gone. What an opportunity to build up another! If we get a loan from the United States of America (I understand that it is not absolutely certain yet) we will eventually have to repay at the maximum rate of I think about £35,000,000 or £37,000,000 a year; that is on interest and capital repayment. I myself believe that we could get this sum from the Americans by their visits to this country. An official document published in the United States quite recently expresses the belief that Americans will spend in Europe £300,000,000 a year as soon as tourism can get into full operation, of which they estimate (not we, but the Americans estimate) that no less than £100,000,000 would come to Britain. Well, whatever the sum may be, if we have to pay back £35,000,000 or £37,000,000 to America as the result of the loan we are going to make a very big contribution on account of this particular invisible export trade. I cannot believe that I would have very much trouble in borrowing £I from any of your Lordships if I could promise to repay at the end of the year £100 for every pound, that I had borrowed.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD HACKING: I am very glad that your Lordships agree with that proposition. But the Government do not seem to be attracted by it. In the past the Government have imagined that they have been making a grant to the Travel Association none of which would ever be
708
returned to the Treasury. What a conception! I respectfully suggest to your Lordships that in the future the Treasury should consider any money handed over to advance tourism as an investment, and if the sum so invested did amount even to £1,000,000 a year, if they got a return of £100,000,000 surely it would be well worth their while.
Your Lordships may wonder why I am suggesting that the Travel Association should be the responsible body for attracting visitors from overseas. I hasten to assure your Lordships that it is not because I have any financial interest in the Association—except of a negative kind; it has cost me a considerable sum and also much toil and labour. Neither of these shall I ever grudge or regret. The real reasons why I want more money for the Association are twofold.
Firstly, the Government have already appointed the Association to carry out preliminary post-war work, and the Association is already engaged in carrying out that task. The second reason is that there appears every prospect that the Travel Association will be entrusted with the work on a permanent basis. Your Lordships may ask why I am bold enough to make that statement. Many of your Lordships have heard of the Catering Wages Act. I fought that Act in another place. Others carried on the fight and the struggle when the Bill reached this House. Nevertheless, in spite of our efforts to kill the Bill it was placed upon the Statute Book. A body known as the Catering Wages Commission was set up under the terms of the Act. Mr. Bevin, the present Foreign Secretary, was then the Minister of Labour. He appointed Sir Hartley Shaw-cross, the present Attorney-General, as Chairman of the Commission, and subsequently he appointed his own private secretary to be the secretary of the Commission. He then instructed the Commission to enquire into and report upon the best means for developing the tourist traffic.
I am not suggesting for one moment any ulterior motive in those appointments, but, in view of my hostility to the Bill and my possibly unfortunate feelings towards the constitution of the Commission, your Lordships will, I hope, pardon me for imagining that the Commission would never report anything good about

709
any tourist organisation with which I was ever associated. The Commission were good enough to invite my friends and myself who were connected with the Travel Association to give evidence before them on no less than three occasions. The Commission's Report was published on Thursday of last week. It seems very opportune that I should have put down my Motion for to-day. It looks on the face of it as though at this earliest possible moment I should retract from everything I said about the Act and everything I thought about the constitution of the Commission. I only refer of course to that part of the Report which deals with tourism, for at this moment I certainly am not going to be concerned to argue the case proposed in the Report for the hotels and their future. Others may possibly do that during this debate.
But what does the Report say about tourism? It suggests the setting up of a Board to deal with travel, holidays, and catering. The execution of the general policy laid down by the Board is to be carried out by two Associations—one to be a catering development association, still to be formed, and the other not a travel association, but to be the Travel Association already in existence.
Let me quote the actual words of the Commission's suggestion. They are to be found in paragraph 112 on page 36 of the Report. I leave out words which are of no importance. If the noble Lord thinks I ought to quote them I am willing to do so.
"We think it most desirable to retain not only the existing organization of the Travel Association, with its contacts and background of experience, … but also its name with its accumulated good-will."
I have left out a few words there which are of no importance.
"This appears to us to be particularly important since the tourist organization will be dependent to a considerable extent upon voluntary support and must also operate abroad."
In fact the proposal made in that section of this Report is to take over the whole of the existing machinery of the Travel Association as a unit by itself. At least that is my reading of that particular section. These words are sufficiently embarrassing, but there is even more to follow, and I now read from the final words of the Report at page 42, paragraphs 129 and 130, starting about half-way down paragraph 129:
710
"… it is vital that no time should be lost in planning the development of the tourist traffic and we hope that it might be possible for the Government to give an early indication of its intentions in this matter, since uncertainty must inevitably make more difficult the work which the Travel Association is already undertaking"—
and I emphasize strongly those words.
"At the same time we would urge very strongly that during the interim period the Association should be given every assistance and encouragement in the work of planning with which it is now proceeding."
I cannot resist just reading the concluding paragraph, although it has nothing to do with this particular argument:
"We cannot speak too cordially of the assistance we have received from these varied interests."
They were the interests who had given evidence before the Commission.
"They were ready to co-operate with us in every way and from many of them we received useful memoranda in addition to the views offered in discussion with us. If we mention in particular the help we have received from the Travel Association in matters concerning the development of the tourist traffic, it is because that is an organization which has been active in these matters over a number of years, and our task would have been a great deal more difficult had the Association and its officers not been ready at all times to give us the benefit of their knowledge experience and views."
I consider that there is a fine testimonial in the Report of this Commission, and the Commission have certainly taken a delightful revenge in respect of my unkindly references to the Act which, as I say, was responsible for the appointment of the Commission itself. I should be inhuman if I did not offer to the members of the Commission and to its two able Secretaries, Mr. Grant and Mr. Robertson, my grateful appreciation of their generous references.
Now I would like to, ask the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, who, I understand, is going to reply to the debate, whether the Government have yet decided on the action they propose in connexion with the Report. I ask the question under two headings: first, I wish to know what is their short term policy, for any organization which is to be held responsible for bringing tourists here in 1947–48 must get busy without delay; secondly, and still more important, I wish to know what the Government's long term policy is to be. Do they accept the Commission's Report; do they reject it, or possibly do they accept it with modifications? Here I

711
mention the necessity for continuous policy. The organization which is to be appointed should know its fate and its future at the earliest possible moment, otherwise it is quite impossible to build up a highly skilled staff and an efficient organization. One cannot expect to secure the best officers unless there is some security of tenure.
To revert to the short-term policy for a moment, I was intrigued by an answer given in another place by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a short time ago. Mr. Dalton was asked what were the present Treasury grants to the British Council, whose excellent work I readily acknowledge, and to the Travel Association. He replied, £3,500,000 to the British Council; £15,000 to the Travel Association. He added that less would be spent on the British Council and more on the Travel Association in the next financial year, but — and these were significant words that he used—he could not promise exact equality. When I read that reply, I wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, asking what was in his mind when he used those words about equality. Here let me say that I have no grudge, no ill will whatever, against the British Council, and I hope that I have not got a jealous disposition. It is not for me to try and persuade the Treasury to give less to any organization; it is for me to try and convince the Treasury that they are not giving enough to ourselves, so I am not trying to pull one up at the expense of another. The reply I got from Mr. Dalton to my letter did not start in any very hopeful strain. He said:
"I am afraid that you have read far too much into the answer which I gave last Tuesday"—
not a very helpful beginning. Then he continued:
"Whilst I entirely agree with your argument that a large outlay is always justified if it secures a commensurate return, I must make the point that in the immediate future the possibilities of tourism in this country are severely limited by the practical difficulties of bringing the tourists here and accommodating them or, arrival."
Mr. Dalton justifies his disagreement with my suggestion that a larger grant should be given by saying, "What is the use of giving a grant now, when you cannot get the tourists here this year?" I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has used that as an argument.
712
Surely he does not expect that if you send over some wonderful ammunition in the form of attractive posters and leaflets to-day, the visitors will start coming to-morrow. If he does think that, he is very much mistaken. Of course everybody realizes the difficulties of accommodating large numbers of tourists now in this country—everybody must realize that—but surely it is obvious that a very considerable amount of costly work must be carried out in the next twelve months if we are to obtain good results in even' 1947 or 1948, by which time we all believe, and at any rate hope, that the accommodation position will be much easier, if not completely satisfactory. Money has to be spent in this business overseas well in advance of the actual arrival of the visitors, otherwise they will not know of our attractions and consequently may never come at all. The effect of money spent now may not, in fact, bring any additional results for even two to five years hence.
Let me give just a few examples. Offices and information bureaux must be opened and staffed shortly, both overseas and in this country. That cannot be done in five days, five weeks, or five months. Films of this country have already been taken, and more are in preparation for world exhibition during the next two, three or even four years. You cannot take a film of Britain to-day and show it all over the world to-morrow. The Travel Association is committed to an honorary overseas service membership scheme, a scheme which has been accepted and agreed by the Foreign Office, under which we hope to obtain in membership of our national organization upwards of 1,000,000 Service men and women of the United Nations who have passed through this country during the war, and who are being invited to maintain their contact with Britain and pay return visits to us in the days of peace. A membership card is provided for each one of those persons. This is costing £80,000 for each 1,000,000 acceptances, and unless these people who have passed through this country during the war are invited now, we may miss a glorious opportunity, and the psychological moment may have passed.
Then there is the preparation and arranging of details of coming events. As a simple example of that, the reunion of the American 8th Air Force in Britain is being arranged so far ahead as 1948, and

713
it is under discussion at the moment. Finally, there is the preparation and distribution of general literature in most parts of the world, so that tourists may shortly plan visits to be made possibly during the next few years, but certainly not necessarily within twelve months. All these, and many additional activities, must be started and paid for without delay, many of them in the next financial year. I hope that the Chancellor will reconsider his suggestion that it is unnecessary to spend money during 1946 and 1947 just because in those years there may be insufficient accommodation. I have not dealt in any detail with the work in which the Travel Association is already engaged. It would take too long to do so, and I realize I have already taken up too much of your Lordships' time. If, however, any of your Lordships are interested in our activities, my board of management would, I know, wish me to extend to you a cordial invitation to visit our offices at 6 Arlington Street—a very convenient place from which to slip across to the Ritz for lunch—when our enthusiastic Director-General, Mr. Bridges, and his excellent staff would be delighted to give any of your Lordships a full account of our stewardship.
I pass on to ask the Government a few more questions, with regard to most of which I have given notice. First, what is the present number of hotels still requisitioned by Government Departments and by the Services? Secondly, what practical steps are being taken by the Government to assist in the reconditioning and re-equipment of the hotels that have been derequisitioned? Thirdly, in the past, when an hotel has effected an improvement, such as adding bathroom accommodation, it has been penalised by having its assessment increased. That is definitely a discouragement to hotels to bring themselves up to date, and I ask the Government whether they will consider disregarding such improvements so far as reassessments are concerned, thus giving an incentive to hotels to carry them out. Fourthly, will the existing Licensing Laws be investigated by the Government with a view to rescinding or relaxing some of the most annoying and vexatious ones? I think most of your Lordships know what I mean. I hope that these hotel problems, so vital to the tourist industry, will be amplified by other speakers in this debate.
714
There are three other short questions I wish to ask the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham They all concern very materially the comfort and the temper of visitors from overseas. The first deals with passports. Now that the war is over, can passports be simplified or abolished altogether? Secondly, will the charge for visas be reduced, or, better still, will visas be issued free, if, in fact, they are necessary at all? Thirdly, can it be made easier, more expeditious and more pleasant for the tourist to pass through our Customs at the various ports of entry into this country? All these requests taken together really mean this: in future will it be possible for us to give a greater welcome to our potential friends when they come to pay us visits? Mr. Bevin, the present Foreign Secretary—I must quote him once more—said some time ago that he had an ambition. I suppose it would probably be better described as only one of his ambitions, but he said he had an ambition to be able just to buy a ticket to wherever he wanted to go and to go there. Would it not be wonderful if we could just buy a ticket to where we wanted to go and go there? Why should not we approach very nearly, at any rate, to that Utopia? Let us work, all of us, for the abolition of all deterrents to travel. With that end in view, the Travel Association, with the approval of the Government, proposes to hold a conference of foreign travel agencies in two or three months' time. The object of that conference will be to propound plans to simplify the movement of tourists throughout the world.
I have dealt in my speech mainly with the financial effects which will accrue to this country by a wide and wise expansion of our tourist organization, but I cannot close on that mercenary note. I would like to add two or three sentences on a far higher plane, and to conclude by saying that never in the history of the world has the need for international understanding and amity been more urgent than it is now. Unless the nations of the world, and particularly those who are known as the Great Powers, reach a common understanding, all are doomed to destruction. Tourists of themselves cannot achieve the goal of universal concord, and nobody imagines that they can, but through the medium of travel and the intercourse of nation with nation, and people with people, there may be laid

715
the foundations of international friendship which will lead to universal harmony. This, at any rate, is an end worth striving for, and in all humility I ask your Lordships' support. I beg to move for Papers.
5.6 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, it comes as a privilege to be the spokesman of your Lordships in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, on his maiden speech, to which we have listened with the keenest interest. He has dealt with a subject of which he is a master, and on which he knows more, no doubt, than any other member of the House. We are grateful to him for having given us a maiden speech of such an informative character. It is particularly a pleasure to me, as an old colleague of the noble Lord for some twenty years in the House of Commons, having preceded him here by a comparatively short time, that it should be my voice that offers him this welcome.
The noble Lord told us that not having found a suitable subject for a maiden speech provided for him on the Order Paper, he put one there himself. That is quite a right course to pursue, and such initiative is of great advantage and service to the House. It has been said that the silence of a wise man is more wrong to mankind than the speech of a fool. If noble Lords are too diffident to come forward and offer to the House their knowledge, they are doing an injury to us even more than one who speaks on a subject with which he is not fully acquainted. The noble Lord has given us a great many facts and figures out of the depths of that knowledge that he possesses. I shall not attempt to emulate him there, but will address your Lordships on some more general considerations. I have felt for a long time that the subject of tourism has an economic importance and a general importance which the public at large does not at present realize. I venture to think that even in your Lordships' House there are many who still think that this is a matter of quite minor importance which might be considered as a sort of by-product in connexion with other subjects and who do not realize the great scope it possesses and the indirect effects which will arise from its development.
716
When the noble Lord went to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer to plead the cause of the Travel Association, and was asked how much was the grant he wanted, he might perhaps have answered in the words of the man who went into one of the large banks to draw some money, and who, when he was asked by the cashier, "How much do you want?", replied, "How much have you got?" The possible expenditure upon these purposes is almost unlimited, and hardly any demand is likely to prove really extravagant. The facts and figures which the noble Lord has quoted as of the present time are weighty, but if you look to the future and consider the developments that are probable within the next ten or twenty years, and particularly from the point of view of air travel, it will at once be apparent that the importance of this matter may be multiplied manyfold. If the factors of safety and of cost are satisfactorily dealt with by the civil air travel authorities, we shall unquestionably have numbers of passengers to be counted not in thousands but in millions, particularly in view of the probability of rising standards of life, within the next generation, in the parts of the world which have hitherto been at considerable distances measured by time from this country.
Take the 140,000,000 people of the United States for example. It is likely that almost that whole population will be in a financial position to take, at least once in their lives, a holiday in Europe. Similar conditions may develop in the British Dominions and in many other countries. Travellers will come in great numbers from South America, from India and from other parts of the world in the Far East, and you will find that the numbers of tourists to which we have been accustomed in the past will be a mere fraction compared with those that will be registered in the coming generation. And if they come to the Continent of Europe—as they will do for the sake of its natural attractions, its historical associations and its art treasures, as well as from a desire to see the working of the institutions of the present day—it is surely of importance that we should have such attractions and facilities as will induce them to come to Great Britain also.
The consequences of that from the economic point of view may well be very great. The noble Lord has pointed out the very large figures that have been

717
quoted in America of the probable expenditure of Americans visiting Europe in the coming years. They are very great indeed, and it is unnecessary for me to point out to your Lordships how far that may go towards relieving our difficulties with regard to the dollar exchange. Of course, increase of travel works both ways, and many people will travel from Great Britain to other countries. But, nevertheless, since our expenditure on travel on the Continent of Europe will be comparatively smaller, because we shall spend shorter holidays there than would be spent by people coming long distances, and, possibly, only once or twice in their lives, it is most probable—in fact one can feel quite confident—that the amount we receive in the way of foreign exchange in that respect will be far greater than the sums we shall be disbursing abroad. When we take a gloomy view of the consequences of the war in depriving us of the greater part of our income from foreign investment, and a large part of our income from shipping and other services, we should bear in mind that here we have a source from which that may be speedily recouped, and not merely recouped but outmatched manyfold by receipts under the head which has been described to us to-day.
To advertise the attractions of Great Britain is not enough. We must be sure that what we advertise is really worth seeing and that it may be seen with proper comfort and with the amenities that a holidaymaker would desire. The pleasure of travel is one of the greatest pleasures of life, I have always thought. No doubt most of your Lordships will be of the same view. The nations ought to share with one another their distinctive heritages. You go abroad to see natural beauties which cannot be matched here, in the way of great mountains and more genial climate at certain times of the year, and, as I have said, to see the treasures of history and of art which give to the mind refreshment and a stimulus that cannot be obtained in any other way.
The British people also have very much to offer, and they must be sure to offer it attractively. The English and Scottish landscape at its best has a peculiar, indeed a unique, charm, and the historical associations — for example, here in London, and around this very hall in which we meet, the Abbey and Westminster Hall and very many other build-
718
ings of the greatest historical interest—are of the highest attraction to the foreign visitor. We have also, in architecture and the other arts, many things of great attraction dating back from the Middle Ages and the time of the Renaissance. The important thing is that they should be adequately displayed to foreigners, and not only that access should be made easy for foreigners, for we shall find that, having made that access easy for them, it is made more easy for the British people themselves, and that all kinds of fresh attractions, discovered for the sake of others, will be enjoyed by our own people, particularly in these days of more widespread holidays with pay. If the accommodation throughout the country is bettered for the sake of foreign visitors it will, indirectly, greatly benefit numbers of our own people as well.
What then is needed for this purpose? First we need a travel association, and if this debate had taken place a few years ago we should have said: "Obviously, there must be set up some organization to promote this object." But, thanks very largely to the noble Lord, we have now a travel association for that very purpose, and do not need to wait for years while one is being built up. Secondly, as a rule in a debate of this character the spokesman for the Government says: "These objects are obviously exceedingly interesting and very important, and we will appoint a committee to see in what way they can be best accomplished." Here, again, we have a committee and the committee has approved the travel association. So, all these preliminaries have been gone through, and now the next step is one not of preparation but of action.
This is much more than a mere business proposition for the benefit of the hotel industry. And it is much more than a means of providing us with greatly needed foreign exchange. As the noble Lord said in his final words, the international contacts are of supreme importance. The nations must mix more together. We see how harmful is the isolation of Russia, for example. If there had been, in the past, free transit to and fro both of men and ideas between Russia and Western Europe, I feel certain that difficulties that have now arisen would never have occurred.
The more we can intermix our populations by frequent visits, the more likely

719
it is that international goodwill will be promoted and the peace of the world preserved. The action that should be taken for these purposes is undoubtedly to encourage our Travel Association by financial grants, but we should also take pains to see that when we advertise "Come to Britain" we should be certain that what we have to show is really worth seeing and that the best things are preserved. Hence the importance of what many of us have been urging for many years in the town and country planning movement which is of vital interest in this country, and furthermore such movements as those for National Parks and the Associations for the Preservation of Rural England and Rural Scotland.
We must rid our country also of the blatant vulgarity of the abuses of advertising, which really degrade our towns, even some of our most beautiful towns; and perhaps in parenthesis I might point to one example within a few hundred yards of this House, namely, in Trafalgar Square. There, there are advertisements for national savings, which were fully justified anywhere and everywhere during the war, but which still disfigure the memorial to one of our greatest heroes in one of the architectural centres of the capital of the Empire. Valuable as is the work of the National Savings Committee, I venture to urge that they should not use that great memorial any longer as a hoarding for placards.
There is also the question of the provision of proper hotel and restaurant accommodation. Here, I do not think that Britain stands very high in the estimation of the world. I very often hear members of this House saying that this or that in this country is the best in the world. We speak of the Civil Service. That was mentioned not long ago, while the insurance system was mentioned here today, or else there is the Metropolitan Police or the Post Office. With respect to various other things we hear that the British is the best in the world, sometimes without any very intimate knowledge of what are the corresponding institutions in other countries. But I have never heard anyone say anywhere that British cooking is the best in the world. In fact: it is rather a by-word, and when the foreign tourist comes here
720
and experiences the ordinary average cooking of the provincial hotels or samples the food in a railway restaurant car, he is not likely to form a very high opinion of the degree of civilization we have reached in that respect.
It is only fair to say that in America the restaurant cars on the railways do not seem to be much better, but the Continental standards in Europe are much higher. Then there are our railway stations which are often very unattractive and squalid. The accommodation for the tourist at the cross-Channel ports is frequently disgraceful, and although we know that during the war nothing could be done and that the immediate claims of national housing must take precedence, the time ought not to be distant when we can make a great effort to clean up and tidy up these matters and make such improvements as are necessary if visitors are not merely to be attracted but also satisfied when they come here. It is a great compliment to London that the next Olympic Games are to be held here within two or three years and they will bring here a large number of visitors.
In concluding my observations, I would contend that a strong case can be offered for a great international exhibition on a large scale here in London to celebrate the centenary of the Great Exhibition of 1851. Britain was the first to initiate an enterprise of that character and the first international exhibition ever held on this planet was in this city of London at the Crystal Palace in Hyde Park. But as in so many other matters, once having taken the initiative we left it to others to follow it up and even to surpass it. In recent years there have been no great exhibitions here except the one at Wembley which was not international but was Imperial. But in France and the United States there have been many exhibitions which I have visited and which no doubt many of your Lordships will have visited. They were on a great scale and attracted many millions of visitors. They gave both interest and pleasure to those visitors and served the economic interests of the cities and countries in which they were placed. After six years of war and then six years of recuperation, it should be expected that by 1951 the world will be ready to take stock of its situation. There should be, therefore, a great international exhibition to start off the second half of this century, which has

721
not been so happy in its first half, and to which all nations should be invited, and in which it is to be hoped Russia will take a very prominent part.
It is my hope that other countries will agree that London will be the right place for such an undertaking. Not long before the war Paris had a great exhibition and two exhibitions were held in Chicago and New York in the United States; and as the Continental countries are somewhat disqualified from holding an exhibition in the near future, and if one of the great capitals of the world is to be chosen, it should for various reasons be London. We might say to other countries that London, by its sufferings and sacrifices during the war, has deserved the compliment from the other friendly nations that would be shown by their taking part in such an exhibition here. The Travel Association has endorsed this proposal. The Royal Society of Arts which sponsored the exhibition of 1851 is still alive and ready to take the initiative in the early stages for an exhibition in 1951.
It is not too soon, not a month too soon, to begin the preparations and to choose the site (which many of us think should be in Hyde Park as was the exhibition in 1851) and generally to effect the preliminary arrangements. I know that the President of the Board of Trade is greatly interested in this project and it may be that public opinion will declare itself in favour of such an enterprise which is conducive both to the economic and cultural advantage of this country. It should not, of course, be merely an industrial exhibition, but one which includes every form of human activity, of the arts and of the sciences, the best of all we have to show to the world at large, and we should invite others to show here the best that their civilizations can produce. In all these ways we shall help to promote that international good will and universal peace on which the heart of mankind is set.
5.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, in intervening for one moment, I would like to join the noble Viscount in congratulating my noble friend Lord Hacking on his most felicitous intervention in your Lordships' House. I rise to support my noble friend in his plea for
722
the encouragement of visitors from overseas, for the two very important reasons which he gives, namely, international good relations and as an invisible export. My noble friend has covered a great deal of ground, and I will endeavour not to repeat anything he has said. I would like to say I fully associate myself with the four questions which he has addressed to the noble Lord who will reply, and I shall look forward with some interest to hearing his answers to those questions.
I will deal with one point, and one point only, which obtrudes itself into the Chancellor of the Exchequer's letter to my noble friend, apparently rather abruptly—the important question of accommodation. We all feel that it would not be difficult to attract visitors here, but the point I want to make is that no good is likely to be achieved by encouraging tourists from abroad unless we have in this country not only sufficient but also suitable accommodation for their reception. There must be enough, and there must be accommodation of a kind which is good enough to attract visitors. Unless, as experience has shown, visitors are well-catered for, they go away with an unfavourable impression of the country that they have visited. They are not inclined to visit it again, and are not inclined to encourage their friends to come.
Under existing circumstances, provision of enough good accommodation is, I am afraid, a problem awaiting solution. It cannot be pretended that the standard of comfort in the hotels of this country at the present time is sufficiently high to prove attractive to visitors from abroad. I do not think that that is surprising. For six years the hotels of the country have naturally had to cut down, to make do, and, if necessary, to do without. It was absolutely essential during the war. But during the war we were not thinking about tourists, and now quite properly we turn our minds to that question. If it is to be, as I hope it will be, the policy of this country really to attract visitors from abroad, then we must not delay to give our tourist hotels, some of which are still requisitioned, permission to renovate their premises, many of which are desperately in need of repair, and also to refurnish and to re-equip.
Even hotels which have remained open throughout the war have necessarily suffered during those six years, as the result

723
of continual wear and tear, and, as those of your Lordships who travel the country know, there are many hotels now which have not got a towel left, which are desperately short of linen, and for china and glassware can only obtain the substitutes which war-time production was permitted to give them. To take those hotels that are still unavailable to the public on account of requisitioning, the Minister of Works told us, I think, that up to the end of last year there were over two thousand of the hotels and boarding houses of the larger size still being occupied by Government Departments, and we were told at that time that it was hoped to derequisition about half of that number by next April. A great deal has appeared in the Press asking: "Why are not hotels derequisitioned?" That is very important, of course, as a first step, but derequisitioning alone does nothing to attract visitors to an establishment.
Empty shells cannot accommodate anybody. They must be rehabilitated, and they must be re-equipped. Therefore, I think one is inclined to ask whether it is wise to begin at this stage to encourage visitors from abroad until we have made sure that we have got the accommodation in the hotels and the kind of accommodation which tourists will want. In asking that question I am interested to find support from the Catering Wages Commission Report, to which my noble friend referred. On page 29 in the paragraph at the top the authors of that Report say:
"To attempt to attract people for whom we are not ready would be disastrous."
I do not think that that is an exaggeration. It is, naturally, quite obvious in this connexion that, when we talk of building facilities and furnishing equipment, housing is the most vital problem that faces the nation, and that the highest priority must be given to housing and all kinds of household equipment. We are led to expect by Ministerial statements that that housing problem will take a considerable time to solve. It is difficult, therefore, to see how the hotels of the country are to be re-equipped within a reasonable future.
Apart from the great problem of housing, we know how immensely important for our future is the export trade. Every facility and every priority is being devoted
724
to the development of our exports. What I would like to suggest to the noble Lord who is going to reply is that hotels, in so far as they are tourist hotels, that is to say, hotels that cater for visitors from abroad, should be treated as an export business, because they are an export business, and produce the invisible exports which we so much require. So I would ask whether the Government will not consider giving priority to hotels of the tourist character along with the priority that is given to our exports. That is the question which I would put to the noble Lord, and which I hope he will be able to put forward for consideration.
5.38 p.m.
LORD BROADBRIDGE: My Lords, I find myself in complete accord with everything that has been said by the noble Lord in opening this Motion. He has emphasized the necessity for international understanding. I shall therefore, in the few remarks which I intend to make, merely confine myself to the urgency for that, and the reason. It is one of the British characteristics that we do not blow our own trumpet. But there are times when in the interests of the country it is essential that that should be done. Owing to the great upheaval of the war, there is an atmosphere of suspicion by certain countries, not only against each other, but against Great Britain, and it is all due to the unsatisfactory way in which information has been supplied to the various countries of the world of the great part which has been played by England and its Empire in the late war.
If we do not ensure that the world is kept fully posted as to what we, as well as the Empire, have done and are still doing, we must expect to be misunderstood. As the noble Lord said in his opening speech, there never was a time when it was more necessary than it is now that we should get people here from other countries in order that they may come and see after all what the British people really are and ascertain for themselves on the spot what we have done, what our sufferings have been, and what we have sacrificed in helping to save the world. Several years after the last great European war the then President of the Federation of British Industries paid a visit to the United States of America, and on his return he made a report, and this is what he said:

725
"We are well aware that conditions in England are far from satisfactory and that we are going through difficult times."
If I might interpolate there, that is equally applicable to the present time. We are still passing through most difficult times. But, he went on:
"in the United States of America, even in the most friendly disposed quarters, the general impression seems to be that England is definitely down and out."
He continued:
"One hears our plants are out of date, our methods antiquated, we cannot compete, our spirit of initiative has deserted us, and the British workers neither can nor will work."
Now, that is not a nice picture several years after that last European war, but are we satisfied that the same opinion does not exist at the present time? I am fortified in thinking that the same opinion does exist because, as your Lordships probably will have read, two American Senators, even last week, using the American broadcasting system, made a statement that if the American loan was granted to this country it would be a loan granted to a decadent and dying nation.
That does not sound too rosy. There may be other things which affected men like those American Senators in forming their opinions. They probably know that we have been having continuous strikes. They probably know that our women to-day are queueing up for most commodities as badly as during the war, and they also probably know that we are fettered with controls. So let us do everything we can to encourage people from America, Europe, Asia or any part of the world to come here and ascertain for themselves what we British people really are and what we have done, and remove all this misunderstanding and put things right, for there is nothing better than the personal touch.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said just now, there is the financial side to this tourist question. It is true that we want foreign currency and that our shipping and our airlines will want support. Here the tourist industry will help in no uncertain way. I am glad that the Travel Association, of which the noble Lord is the distinguished chairman, is so prominently recognized in the Report of the Catering Wages Commission. I am sure that is going to be most helpful. I am convinced that there are many millions
726
of foreign visitors desirous of visiting this island home of ours, and they want to come as soon as they can. In order that we may remove all this misunderstanding about us, something should be done to bring them here as soon as possible. It is up to us, when they do come, to see that they are properly received and encouraged, as well as catered for.
5.45 p.m.
LORD ILIFFE: My Lords, in view of the lateness of the hour, I propose to be very brief. I am very glad indeed that my noble friend Lord Hacking brought forward this Motion this afternoon and I should like to congratulate him on the very lucid way in which he presented his case. As the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said, it is curious how little the public appreciate the great value to this country of the tourist industry. The fact that the Catering Wages Commission was empowered to make recommendations in regard to the tourist industry was due to your Lordships, who insisted that a clause should be added to the Catering Wages Bill to safeguard the interests of visitors to this country. In fact, your Lordships achieved something that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, when he was a member of another place, failed to do; and it was on account of the action of your Lordships that the Catering Wages Commission has made these recommendations to which the noble Lord refers.
When this matter was debated in this House it was pointed out that the money spent by visitors to the United Kingdom was estimated in the year 1938 at just over £30,000,000; but it has been argued with considerable force—and my noble friend mentioned this—that this invisible export might quite easily be increased to £100,000,000 a year, or more, provided the proper steps are taken to make a visitor's stay in this country really agreeable. If so, that is of immense importance to our national economy, especially at a time when the balance of international payments is so adverse to this country. Unless this adverse balance is rectified within the next few years, our standards of living must be very adversely affected. One of the best ways, as has been pointed out, of rectifying this is to cultivate, by all means in our power, visitors from overseas.
The invisible export of tourism is almost all pure gain, which is not the case

727
in regard to many classes of visible exports which require the importation of raw materials before the finished article can be exported. Coal was, in pre-war years, a valuable export, as no import was involved, as is the case with manufactured articles, but even in the case of coal a national asset is being exhausted; whereas there is no such wastage in connexion with the tourist industry. We must take every step we can to increase our export trade in every possible commodity. I wonder how many in this country realize that the invisible export of tourism has greater future possibilities than the visible export trade in coal. In 1938 it is estimated that we exported coal to the value of £40,000,000. In the same year tourists spent, when visiting this country, as I have already pointed out, £30,000,000. So that coal produced only £10,000,000 more than tourism to help our international balance of payments. But the £30,000,000 spent by Tourists can be easily increased to £100,000,000 if we take proper steps to attract visitors; and I think your Lordships will agree that we should be very optimistic indeed if we relied upon any considerable increase over pre-war figures in our coal exports to-day.
This £100,000,000 is no fantastic figure. It has been well thought out, and represents the considered view of the Travel Association which Lord Hacking has already mentioned. I think the noble Lord pointed out that in France in one particular year the amount of money spent by tourists came to something like £80,500,000; I think that was the figure he mentioned. I am not going to take up your Lordships' time in indicating what steps should be taken to attract visitors. The noble Lord has referred to that in some detail. It is a business proposition and should be tackled on business lines; and one of the first principles of successful business enterprise is not to offer your goods to the public until you are sure that they are satisfactory and that the public will continue to buy them.
A good deal must be done, and a large amount of opposition will have to be overcome, before we are able to make our overseas -visitors as happy and as comfortable as we would wish. Until we can — and in this I agree with the recommendations of the Catering Commission—I frankly do not want to encourage visitors,
728
as first impressions, if they are adverse, take a long time to wipe out. Let us, however, lose no time in setting our house in order, and in the meantime make it clear to those who do visit our shores that, while we are glad to see them, we cannot yet provide for them in the way we should like and in the way we shall undoubtedly be able to provide for them directly we have recovered from the first effects of this disastrous war.
5.55 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I only wish to intervene, firstly to have the opportunity, in which I am sure noble Lords will join with me, to associate myself with the congratulations which have been given to Lord Hacking on his maiden speech to-day, and the gratitude of the House for raising this important subject. I had, for a good many years, the honour of representing, I think, the most important seaside district in Britain which contains Margate, Ramsgate and Broadstairs, associated holiday towns, and I was very close indeed to the hotel industry and the tourist industry at that time. I am fully aware of the problems which they had in peace time and which are now multiplied in the period of recovery. I associate myself entirely with what noble Lords have said, that the Government must do more to put variety and colour into the tourist industry than has been the case in the past. Various noble Lords have made specific suggestions as to what steps should be taken. I believe that there must be a change in our mental approach to this tourist industry.
Until we can give gaiety, colour and amusement to our visitors, I do not believe we are going to be able to compete with the attractions on the Continent, and in countries across the Channel, which are already making rapid preparations for the attraction of tourists in competition with ourselves. Austerity and a gay atmosphere do not really go together. I do not think restrictions and empty shop windows go really well with a spirit of gaiety and a generous welcome to those who are coming to visit us from overseas. I fully support the proposal, which I had made a note of myself, of the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, that the Board of Trade, should consider diverting from our export supplies specific goods which would give a priority of issue to our hotel keepers. The hotel and boarding-house

729
keepers in the Isle of Thanet, and in other holiday areas with which I am acquainted, are desperately trying to recover without soap, without towels, without pillow cases and without sheets—and very often with only Army blankets. Many of them had their hotel furniture requisitioned necessarily for our Allied troops during the war and they are granted no priority from the Ministry of Works pools of furniture for re-issue to those hotels.
I hope that the Government will take note of the Seaside Resorts Association's Memorandum which was recently submitted, I think, to the Lord President of the Council, in which they asked for certain positive steps to be taken. If those steps could be taken, I believe we should get our hotels going again. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said that English and Scottish landscapes have a unique attraction to tourists. As regards food, cold spam and boiled cabbage have a unique repulsion for visitors coming from overseas. We are in a period of recovery here, but let us be as expansive as we can to those visitors from abroad. I do really think we need more colour and more gaiety in our national life at the present time. We are all rather letting our minds dwell on our problems and troubles and we have "gloom meetings"; when two or more are gathered together we have a "gloom meeting" about our troubles at home and overseas.
LORD PAKENHAM: Not on this side!
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: That side of the House is not always in touch with ordinary public opinion, with the opinion which the ordinary man in the street holds about the Government. I believe no Government is really in touch with public opinion sufficiently. Every Government tends to elevate itself to a state above people and tends to get out of touch with the people. I do think we need more colour and more fun in our lives. It might not be a bad idea if the President of the Board of Trade were to start a Ministry of Pleasure in this country, to provide amusement and fun for the people.
LORD PAKENHAM: May I ask whom the noble Lord is recommending for the position?
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: The President of the Board of Trade—and I
730
would make him spend half an hour each week on the Merry-Go-Rounds, compulsorily! As the noble Lord Lord Hacking said, I do not believe we are going to attract people from overseas so long as it is an offence against the law to buy a cigarette after 8 o'clock or a drink in certain places after 6 o'clock. I used to see the boats go from Margate and Ramsgate to France every day, packed with British tourists. When they got on to the coast of France at 10 o'clock in the morning, they could have a drink; they had a gay day, and felt relieved from the restrictions under which we suffer in this country. But the boats coming back did not carry many French tourists on a visit to the coasts of England. We must have a different mental attitude on this matter, and I sincerely hope the Government are going to turn away from the difficulties and the political problems of the moment when they tackle this holiday industry, and that they will infuse into themselves and all others who come into contact with them a spirit of amusement, gaiety and fun, and of welcome to our shores.
A Member of another place, who was a member of the last Cabinet, told me to-day that he had just returned by ship from America, and when he got to Southampton he did not get that roaring welcome to Britain's shores which we have heard it is necessary to get. The ship docked at Southampton at 7 o'clock, but owing to technical questions on dockers' wages, the men refused to handle the luggage until 8.30 that night. The luggage was put in a great heap on Southampton Docks, and the passengers were told to hump it themselves to the station. That is an example of the spirit we have to get out of, the sort of petty restriction or difficulty we have to overcome. That can only be done if the Government give a determined lead to make England attractive to everybody who comes to our shores.
6.3 p.m.
LORD WARDINGTON: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but it has been suggested to me that I might say just one word on what perhaps may be regarded as a rather narrow angle, but which I think is of more importance than is generally supposed. Other noble Lords have spoken of the great historic attractions of this country which invite people to come and see them

731
—the beauties of our countryside and our architectural and artistic treasures. The point I would like to put before your Lordships is that there is a vast body of thousands of golfers in all parts of the world who want to come to the home of golf to play on the historic links, and above all, perhaps, to indulge in a reverent pilgrimage to the Mecca of golf, St. Andrews, in Scotland. In St. Andrews there are only two big or moderately sized hotels, and they have both been requisitioned throughout the war. I believe one of them is in process of being derequisitioned, but how long it may take them to get back into pre-war normal conditions unless they receive some help or encouragement, I do not know.
We are struggling, in the golfing world, to get back to normal conditions, and the Open Championship is to be played at St. Andrews this summer. Without proper accommodation, the difficulties of a visit are very considerable. I put only that one point, but it does affect thousands of people, keen golfers, none of whom would be content to come to this country without seeing the chief golfing resorts, and particularly what is called the "Mecca of Golf" at St. Andrews.
6.5 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I, on this side, would like to join with all those who have spoken in offering a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, not only for raising this matter, and not only for a most able maiden speech, but for the many years of selfless work he has devoted to this most important national cause. I am aware that it was he who initiated, when he was in office, the Travel Association; and, in office and out of office, he has been its best friend and its chief champion—its mainspring, indeed—ever since. He knows so much about this matter that it surprises me that he should come down and put a number of questions in order to obtain further knowledge. I am diffident about providing him with any more knowledge; it might overburden him; and so I shall spare his shoulders in my replies. But he can be assured that the Government, to put it quite simply, is at least as keen as he is (and that is, I know, very keen) on promoting visits to our shores.
Before coming to the speech of the noble Lord and my statement of the Government's attitude, may I say one or two words—no more—on the other speeches?
732
The noble Lords who put forward such a wide range of suggestions will not expect an adequate reply from me in the sense of an indication of whether or not their various panaceas will be accepted. An international exhibition appeals to some; the idea of reopening St. Andrew's in full swing appeals to others. I have often hoped to make that pilgrimage myself, although I would never venture to play with the noble Lord, Lord Wardington, at any rate if he was in the form in which he was in pre-war years, when I watched him with awe and terror. As I say, I am sure that these and other forms of entertainment suggested appeal to various members of the House.
The noble Lord, Lord -Balfour, throws open the most generous welcome of all. He wants us to indulge in an ecstasy of pleasure. We, on this side, are all for that, so long as it is widely distributed. Let us have pleasure, and let us try and make this the most gay and enjoyable age this country has seen. But there are difficulties in the material sense. Even the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, himself, if he were Prime Minister, would find a certain number of rather obvious material obstacles to this jolly era which he wishes to inaugurate. I would just say one word to the noble Lord Lord Iliffe. As a Trustee of the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre, he himself is playing a most! valuable part in attracting visitors here. Speaking generally, I feel all the noble Lords who have put forward suggestions have advanced ideas that, in one way or another, are likely to be helpful, and certainly will be very carefully considered.
I am not going to detain the House very long, because I have not got a definitive statement of Government policy to make tonight. I have got an interim report on the Government intentions that will, I feel, be of some interest. But although, as the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has said, this is an opportune moment (since the Report on the Development of the Catering Holiday and Tourist Services has just come out) for him to raise the matter and for it to be discussed, you will appreciate that as the Report has been out for only a week, it is not likely that the full policy of the Government has yet been formulated. I would say straight away, however, that the appearance of this Report marks, in our view, an epoch in the history of the

733
catering and tourist trade in this country. We attach enormous significance to this Report. It is, at the moment, being studied by a departmental group of officials who are working intensively upon it, and I feel sure it will not be very long — I cannot mention a date; the noble Lord has experience in these matters—before we are in a position when we can speak much more frankly and fully as to what the Government's practical proposals in that field will be. Approaching these matters more widely, may I say that we do not feel that in the year 1946 this country is likely to be in a position to offer great attractions to foreign tourists. That is an unhappy fact, but it would appear to be the fact. We do, however, accept with the noble Lord the proposition that we must make sure that 1947 is a year when tourists can come here in a big way and be treated in such a way that they will want often to return. We accept the further proposition with the noble Lord that if that is to occur in 1947 plans must be made at once. In saving that I do not, I am sure, dissent from anything the Chancellor of the Exchequer said to the noble Lord in correspondence.
I need not detain the House with an account of the activities of the Travel Association. I came here equipped to pay them rather an elaborate panegyric, but the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, will take it from me in good part if I say he has saved me that trouble.
LORD HACKING: It would have come better from you.
LORD PAKENHAM: I have come fully equipped, but I feel that the quotations by way of testimonial that the noble Lord has supplied to the House leave me simply with the task of saying that we not only admire what has been done but have the highest opinion of the possibilities of the Travel Association. I put that shortly and simply, but it is sincerely meant, and I hope the noble Lord will take it in that way.
The noble Lord has naturally raised the question of finance, and he wants to know what is intended in the current year. I need not tell the noble Lord, but it may be necessary to remind some of your Lordships, that in the year 1945–46 £15,000 was granted by the Government. That was an amount which was offered pound for pound and which has already
734
been reached. The noble Lord wants to know how much is going to be forthcoming in the year 1946–7. I am afraid I can only tell him at this stage—and in view of his expert knowledge of these matters I do not suppose he will be surprised at my reply—that the amount will be very substantially greater than anything which has ever been offered by any Government in this country towards the tourist trade. That seems quite certain, and I am sure I am within my province in saying it, but I cannot give a specific figure. I am not in a position to say anything more definite on that subject at the moment, but I do not think the noble Lord will have to wait very long.
I have come equipped to reply to the considerable number of questions the noble Lord was kind enough to send me in advance, one or two of which arise out of the Report of the Catering Commission. The noble Lord asks in particular whether hotel improvements can in future be disregarded when hotels are reassessed for rates. He also asks whether the existing licensing laws will be investigated with a view to their becoming more popular with visitors from overseas, and, I dare say, with residents at home. He also raises the more general question of our attitude to the Catering Commission's Report. I will say straight away that the two specific points he mentions, as well as all the other points which arise—and, as he knows, there are a great many arising from the Catering Commission's Report—are being investigated at top speed by the group of officials to which I have already referred. Turning to a different point, I have, I hope, indicated, so far as I am able to do so, our general approach to the financial issue of future grants to the Travel Association.
The noble Lord asks specifically what is the present number of hotels requisitioned by Government Departments and the Services. The answer is that the total number of hotels and large boarding houses still held under requisition by Government Departments and the Services at December 31, 1945, was 2,138. He asks further what practical steps are being taken by the Government to help in the reconditioning and re-equipment of derequisitioned hotels. The answer there is that the appropriate Departments are in touch, as he knows, with the hotel associations. I would inform

735
him, on the best of authority, that it is not the Government who are in any way holding matters up here; responsibility for any delay if it exists cannot be placed on the shoulders of the Government. The hotel associations, no doubt for the best of reasons, have not up to the present been able to furnish the Government with the information which the Board of Trade requires.
The noble Lord raises one or two very important but, as he will appreciate, highly difficult questions over a rather wider field. He asks whether passports can be simplified or abolished altogether, and whether the cost of visas can be reduced or abolished. As he knows, these are questions which cannot be settled solely with reference to the tourist trade; many other considerations, of a security character for example, come in. Of course in all these matters we have to ask ourselves how far other countries are ready to go pari passu with ourselves. The importance of the issues is fully appreciated, but the noble Lord will appreciate in his turn that they are very complex. He may be glad to know that we certainly share the ambition expressed by Mr. Ernest Bevin to see everyone move freely about the world.
Finally, he asks whether it will be made easier and more pleasant for visitors to pass through the Customs. Every effort is being made to facilitate the passage of overseas visitors through the Customs but until we get more men out of the Services—and, of course, we are getting more every day—the position will remain rather more difficult than one might at first suppose. The bottleneck in other words is personnel.
I have tried to answer, all too briefly, the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. I would assure him and other noble Lords in conclusion that this Government is resolutely determined to fulfil the aims which have been expressed with so much wisdom, authority and sincerity by the various speakers in this debate.
6.16 p.m.
LORD HACKING: My Lords, may I at once thank my noble friend Lord Pakenham for his kindly reference to my speech and also other noble Lords who were good enough to congratulate me on it. All I can say in reply is that I am
736
very glad it is behind me and not in front of me. The noble Lord said the Government had only just received this Report, but they were working on it at top speed.
LORD PAKENHAM: May I intervene? I hope I did not say that it had only just been received. If I said that, it was a slip. It has only been published in the last week, but it was received about three months ago.
LORD HACKING: I was going to make that point; I thought the Government had had it in front of them for a longer period than the general public. I realize that this is a very big undertaking and that it is something to which the very fullest consideration has to be given before the Government can come to a final decision on the assistance they are going to give to any organization which has been set up to try and extend this great invisible export trade. I think it would be very ungrateful if I did not thank the noble Lord most sincerely for the encouragement he has given to this industry to-day. I do not press him for any further information at the moment. He has said that he hopes to be in a position shortly to let us have some more definite information with regard to the Government's programme, and I do hope that the provision of that information will not be very long delayed. I thank the noble Lord for the answers he has given to my questions and for the consideration which he has said the Government are giving to this problem. In all the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, with-drawn.

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND.
6.19 p.m.
LORD BEAVERBROOKhad the following Notice on the Paper: Since the Dominions of Australia and New Zealand have not subscribed to Bretton Woods, thus separating themselves from the policy of His Majesty's Government or this fundamental issue; to ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of this, they will reconsider their decision to participate in the International Monetary Fund; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, for the first time there is a divergence of opinion on a very big issue between some of the Dominions and Great Britain; both

737
Australia and New Zealand have not ratified the Bretton Woods Final Act. Further, reasons are being given for the refusal to ratify which raise the issue in a very vigorous form. Australia gives two reasons for declining to ratify Bretton Woods. The first is that the Fund is dominated by the United States, a creditor nation, and that debtor nations like Great Britain—although Australia does not mention Great Britain—may be required by the Fund to reduce adverse balances by cutting wage levels. That is one of the reasons given by the Australians. They say that this is a plan which results in expanding exports and reducing imports. In short, Australia detects in this plan deflation with its dreadful consequences. That means, of course, reduction in the standard of living. It means cuts in salaries and wages.
It is the old story of a return to the gold standard, followed by deflation and ending in collapse. We know all about it, for we went through it in 1931. We carried the Dominions through it too. The Bank of England imposed the cuts on us. The purpose was to stimulate exports and reduce imports—the old story—so that the Bank of England might get more foreign currency. It was the gold standard then; it is the gold standard now. The only difference is that, in those days, the cuts were inflicted by our own Government and accepted of our own free will. Hereafter, the cuts will be imposed on us by the Fund which is controlled by a foreign Government, or foreign Governments. But there is no real difference, for it is the reign of the bankers once more—bankers here and in the United States, the international financiers, with their foreign commitments, making money, the bankers there, in America, shouting for it, and the bankers here voting for it, or, in the case of some of them on this side of the House, abstaining from voting for it.
They are all in it together, along with with the Government. The bankers want Bretton Woods and the gold standard, and they will not wait. That policy brought on us misery the last time. It will bring more misery this time. On the last occasion we had Imperial preference, the Empire economic structure and the Empire bloc to sustain us, to hold us up, to help us through, but on this occasion this will all be destroyed. We shall not be able to turn for aid to
738
Empire preference and the sterling bloc. These will have been dissipated.
There is a second ground on which the Australians object to the plan. That is because it interferes with Imperial preference. Here I have a statement of the Prime Minister, Mr. Chifley—shall I give it from the Daily Express? I can give it from the Daily Express or from any paper of your choice. I will give it from the Adelaide Advertiser, which reports Mr. Chifley as saying:
"The Commonwealth intends to fight for the retention of those Imperial trade preferences which were essential to Australia's future development."
The Mail, Adelaide, said:
"Mr. Chifley last night said the Commonwealth Government intended to fight for the retention of Empire trade preferences."
And well they might, for it is indeed a desperate blow, the elimination of Imperial preferences, directed against the whole economy of Australia, a blow so serious that it is difficult to understand how this Government can have contemplated it, and particularly with the opposition and resistance of Australia of which we now have knowledge.
Britain is the only food market for Australia. There is no other country to which Australia sells food. Practically everything that Australia exports in the way of foodstuffs comes to Britain, and to a considerable extent the market of Australia in Great Britain has been built up on preferences. In 10 years of preferences Australia took away trade to the extent of over 2,500,000 hundredweights of meat from the Argentine per year. And yet it is contemplated that every vestige of Imperial preference shall be wiped out. The elimination of preference is what is envisaged. Where then can we turn for any means or any possibility of directing trade to Australia? It seems very difficult, almost impossible. Safeguards have been set up by the various instruments that we have entered into which stand in the way of re-forming the Australia trade in the post-war period. There are quantitative restrictions. These are subject to control and limitation and allocation between sources of supply according to a "previous representative period."
I hope very much that noble Lords who are not members of the Socialist Party, noble Lords who are not of the banking fraternity, will examine these proposals in detail and with great care. They will see the amazing provisions that have been

739
set up, provisions which mean the destruction of Empire trade, provisions that are aimed at the destruction of Empire trade. It will be said, as it was by the Secretary of State not long ago, that State purchase is a method of meeting the situation. But State purchase is controlled. State purchases must be made here at market prices and the Government must sell here at market prices plus tariff. Then, again, it is said that subsidy is a means of dealing with this. But subsidy is also subject to restrictions. If seriously damaging international trade, subsidies can be challenged and must be abandoned.
So, for my part, I see no means by which the channeling of purchases of foodstuffs to Australia is to be promoted after these agreements have been entered into, and if they are entered into on the present basis. In fact, the whole purpose of the instruments is to make sure that our purchases abroad are guided by commercial consideration. That is the main purpose, commercial considerations, governed by price with due regard to accessibility. Favouritism in making our purchases abroad is abolished. It comes to an end with the series of instruments. And mind you this is only the first step in the bankers' ramp. It is the first step in the direction of Free Trade with low wages and unemployment.
You may say that Australia, faced with interference with the market for Australian produce in Britain, can turn to the United States of America. Not so. There is no market for foodstuffs in the United States of America. The United States of America is an exporter of foodstuffs. Australia can sell nothing there. If, as a result of this policy, we, in turn, go to the Argentine for our foodstuffs what does that mean? It means that our money paid to the Argentine will be used by the Argentine to buy goods in the United States of America. Bankers' investments in the Argentine may be strengthened by this process; their investments may be safer. The Argentine may flourish, but Australia may perish.
I want to warn the House that if British interest in this Fund is reduced, and seriously reduced, if Australia and New Zealand continue to refuse to ratify the final instrument, if India also standsout—and India has only made a conditional acceptance—then the British Empire interest in this Fund declines to one quarter,
740
whereas the dollar bloc is just less than half. It will be a complete change of the situation, the Empire only having one quarter, and the dollar bloc almost half. I shall be told that we can withdraw from the Fund. We can indeed, but we can withdraw only after breaking up the economic empire, after destroying the sterling bloc. Then we can leave, and we withdraw, of course, at the expense of very considerable unrest and possibly panic, the same as there was when we went off the gold standard. But the price of withdrawal is the destruction of the economic empire and the end of the sterling bloc. I shall be told that you can never have these commercial proposals anyway, that they depend upon the economic ratification of many nations. It is a pretty poor argument if you are bringing something to this House to say that it may never come to pass because many nations gathered together are not likely to ratify all these proposals. But it is not so.
According to the announced policy of the Government, Sir Stafford Cripps, speaking on December 12, said that these commercial proposals derive from our obligations under Article 7, that they carry out our obligations under Article 7. But we are already bound by bilateral obligations to the commercial proposals. They flow from Article 7, and if Article 7 is a treaty, dissent by foreign countries does not impair the validity of that treaty. What gain do we get from all this trouble we are undertaking, all this dispute and dissension? We have had no help from the United States of America in the present crisis, but we have had a great deal of help from the Dominions. I have the long statement of Dominion assistance here. It is a most gratifying and most heartening and splendid declaration. Why, then, do we set up these dissensions within the Empire? Why tie our financial system to Wall Street and. Washington and the gold standard? The answer is that these are the first steps to the old, bad policy of free trade. It is the policy of the bankers, it is the policy initiated by the bankers, and it is a gay and jolly prospect for the international financiers. I beg to move.
6.33 p.m.
LORD PIERCY: My Lords, I am very anxious to do justice to the arguments

741
which the noble Lord has put forward so brilliantly, but I am bound to join issue with him on one point to begin with, before I make a general point on his Motion as a whole. He speaks of a refusal by Australia to ratify the agreement embodying the International Monetary Fund. He spoke of the "reasons" which were given for this refusal to ratify. I do not wish to do the slightest injustice to the noble Lord, but I am sure he will agree with me that as things stand at present neither in Australia nor in New Zealand has there been any refusal to ratify. In neither country has a proposal been brought forward to Parliament to ratify the Bretton Woods Agreements; and since the matter has not been discussed either in the Parliament of New Zealand or of Australia, there has not been, as yet—I will give the noble Lord that point—a refusal to ratify.
LORD BEAVERBROOK: There was a time limit.
LORD PIERCY: Well, to become an original member of the Fund, you had to join by December 31. I will give reasons later why these proposals came before neither of these Parliaments in time for ratification to take place by December 31. But they are still able to apply for membership, and the question whether they will apply is, as yet, undecided. I shall come back later to the question of the attitude and of the situation of the two Dominions on the question. The general point I make is this. It is now barely two months since His Majesty's Government entered into this group of engagements with the American Government. It was a group of engagements which consisted of five instruments. One of them was the agreement relating to the International Monetary Fund, which the noble Lord has picked out. Another was the declaration, that is technically what it was, setting out the final settlement of Lend-Lease and Mutual Aid. I have not heard any voice in this House raised against that settlement. Another was the Loan Agreement. That is a horse of a different colour, but although noble Lords looked at the Loan Agreement from above and below, and from the front and behind, on balance they felt it was to be accepted.
These five instruments were presented to us as a group. I agree that that might
742
be unfortunate, but from the American point of view the five things—the Loan, the settlement of Lend-Lease, the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations Bank, and the heads of the agenda for the Conference on International Trade and Employment—hung together and they were presented all together. I will admit that theoretically, academically, we could have made our acceptance of that group of instruments conditional upon the entry by Australia and New Zealand into the agreement relating to the International Monetary Fund as original members before the 31st December, which was the preliminary date. But we did not make that reservation. The Government entered into these engagements without making that reservation, and what I do want to put, with very great respect to the noble Lord whose brilliancy I admire, is this: Is it possible or is it conceivable as an act of statesmanship that we at this juncture should repudiate these agreements or endeavour to single out any one of them for repudiation? If that is not what Lord Beaverbrook means, I am not clear as to what his Motion does mean, because he asks His Majesty's Government "whether in view of this they will reconsider their decision." Reconsideration of a decision which does not involve taking any steps is nothing. I cannot believe that Lord Beaverbrook had not in his mind, in view of the situation of Australia and New Zealand, that the Government should take some steps. My general point then is this: that it is not conceivable that we should rip up these engagements that we entered into barely two months ago.
I pass from that to consider in detail some of the points which have been made While it is a fact that the Dominions of Australia and New Zealand have not so far ratified these agreements, that is a purely chronological fact. When the noble Lord goes on to say the Dominions do not subscribe to Bretton Woods, "thus separating themselves from the policy of His Majesty's Government on this fundamental issue," I must observe that that is merely an inference, and I venture to say, an inference which at the present moment it would be somewhat rash to draw. The position in New Zealand was, as I understand, that this question of ratification came up at the very end of the Session a little before Christmas. Noble Lords will recollect how our own

743
discussions in another place and in this House were jammed against the end of the Session.
In New Zealand there were three points which carried some weight. In the first place—I wish to tread upon this ground very delicately because one must when dealing with a question like this, which is an unsettled question, and which has still to come before the Parliaments of these Dominions—I think it is reasonable and correct to say that the New Zealand Government was swayed to some extent by the fact that we had not yet taken our decision. There was some diffidence, I 'am sure, about taking a decision on this matter before we had taken our decision here.
Secondly, there is no manner of doubt that the New Zealand Prime Minister had promised the Members of Parliament there that they should have ample time to discuss the matter. When it came up a week before the end of the Session there was a theoretical possibility of extending the Session, which would have brought it right up against Christmas, but as a matter of Parliamentary management it was not possible to extend the Session. Therefore, in New Zealand this matter was not dealt with last Session really and truly because there was not the time in the Parliamentary situation of the moment, and it is to come up again at the next Session of the New Zealand Parliament in June.
I believe I am correct in saving that in Australia the House was not sitting at the time. However that may be, I am clear on this point: the question has not been discussed in the Australian Parliament, and therefore will come up some time in the future. I wish to suggest that there is no solid ground for assuming that in either of these countries ratification will not eventually take place. As far as one can judge—of course, this is all secondhand, at any rate in my case—there is ground for believing that in New Zealand the chances are in favour of ratification. In Australia, the opposition to Bretton Woods is larger, more vocal, more solid and mere reasoned, and some of the reasons which inform it have been described by the noble Lord.
Although one cannot exactly bracket New Zealand and Australia, two considerations are prominent in both countries and as regards each there is something
744
that may help the situation. In the first place, both countries, I think, are rather concerned about the question of flexibility as applying to exchange rates. It will be within the knowledge of noble Lords that neither Australia nor New Zealand have been involved in any sense in the loan agreement. They have stood completely outside that. That is a transaction between ourselves and the American Government. It follows, therefore—or rather, associated with that fact is this fact—that whereas under the loan agreement we have to give convertibility within a rather limited period, within a year, they have the entire period of five years to settle the exchange rates and begin convertibility. Thus they have a far greater opportunity for ranging their initial exchange rates on the target accurately and for choosing their time for commencing convertibility of their currency. I think that that consideration, when it comes to a close discussion, should assist them on that particular point.
The other point undoubtedly is that in New Zealand you have got the question of secondary industries. In Australia you have got the general question of industrialisation, which has begun in a promising way, and is going forward at a good rate. No doubt they are anxious on a point which arises not on Bretton Woods but on the heads of the agenda for the International Conference—they are anxious on the score of the protection of their infant or developing industries. Although, of course, there may be some disadvantage in these countries not having joined the Fund at the very beginning, on the other hand, if a decision is deferred for a few months, there seems little reason why it should not be taken contemporaneously with the discussions of the International Conference; so that it may very well be that Australia and New Zealand alike may have some clearer light on what precisely these various heads and terms relating to State trading and subsidies and the rest of it will be than they have at this particular moment. It may be an advantage in that way for them to postpone a decision, and that may help them to come to a decision in the sense of joining the Fund.
To deal with the remaining points, one of them is this, that while it is extraordinarily important for us to make a correct decision in our own case, it does

745
not follow that it is equally important or in any degree essential that the decision we make on these matters should be the same as the decision made by Australia and New Zealand. For us it is absolutely fundamental that we should have a means of dealing with what I call the reconversion gap, this great gap in our balance of payments that will last for the next two or three years. That is the reason for the loan. Of course, one may say if we do not take this loan we would get some other loan from the Import-Export Bank. I for one would not like that. It is important for us that we should have a means of meeting that gap, and it has been impressed on us in the last day or two.
I would say this, that whether or not the two Dominions ratify Bretton Woods, it will be very useful for them that we should have this loan because it will enable us to give them some convertibility into dollars—and they must have some; and, paradoxical as it may seem, if they should decide that it is their correct course to stay out, it may well be that our being in and having this loan may help them to make that decision.
Secondly, it is vitally important to us that we should settle correctly the principle of our long-term trade policy. I must not go deeply into that. I am ready to admit and to concede to the noble Lord that the correct solution of the principle of our long-term trade policy is, if you like to put it that way, in the direction of free trade; that is to say, I believe that for a considerable time to come it is important for us to have multilateral trade; so that, to take the simplest example, if we sell most of our exports, let us say, to country A, we could get most of our imports from country B, because there are trade relations between A and B, and it works in the form of a triangle. Multilateral trade means that you have freedom to buy or sell within a whole group of countries without necessarily matching up the bargains. That is very important for us.
We want two things fundamentally in our future prospects. The first is that kind of freedom of enterprise which goes with multilateral trade as distinct from barter arrangements. The second is that we want that trade in an expanding world economy. That implies freedom on the part of countries to trade; it implies importing largely; and exporting largely; and
746
it implies, above all, that countries should be helped to reconstruct their economic machinery, to develop their economic machinery and bring it up to high standards of efficiency, and that backward countries should be assisted to get modern machinery of production. Without that we shall not have an expanding world economy; but we cannot have that unless there is a revival of international investment. I think myself, if I may be forgiven for using a vulgar expression, that international investment is "bust to the wide" without some such mechanism as the United Nations Bank. Therefore I stoutly maintain that our country's correct line of policy is along the line of multilateral trade. Quite irrespective of the other elements of that group of engagements, it would have been to our advantage to accede to the Bretton Woods Agreements. I believe they give us, on the one hand, an indispensable mechanism for conducting our current trade, and an indispensable mechanism for the revival of international investment; and I say that we get those benefits with certain safeguards which we could not have otherwise obtained. In the International Monetary Fund we get the orderly changes in exchange rates. It is, of course, this device of an orderly change in particular rates according to the circumstances of a particular country that differentiates the whole Bretton Woods scheme from the gold standard. We get a guarantee against competitive currency depreciation, and we have those very valuable scarce currency clauses. In the case of the United Nations Bank we get a device which drains off, or should drain off, the United States' incorrigible surplus of exports, and therefore its favourable balance, and we get, along with that, a safeguard against the 100 per cent. clauses which are put in the loans of the Import-Export Bank and provide that wherever American money goes, the dollars must be spent on American goods. American dollars, through the United Nations Bank, if the scheme works, will be spent amongst other things on British goods.
Those are the points which I think make that decision necessary for us, but I do not think, and I do not feel, that as an inevitable consequence Australia and New Zealand must decide in the same way. Personally, I hope they will; I think in the long run it would benefit them to decide in the same way. But suppose

747
they decide to stay out: Are they damnified by the fact that we are in? I do not think it necessarily follows at all. We should still remain the great market for their exports of foodstuffs; we should still retain all these trade and economic links that we have had. And besides that, as a concluding point, it does not seem to me to follow in the very least that if we go in, as we shall do if the Loan is ratified, and if the Australians and New Zealanders stay out, as they may stay out, that is an end of Imperial preferences. Imperial preferences, I agree very much with the noble Lord, as he said on a previous occasion in this House, have been put on the table to bargain with; they are for sale. That is a way of putting it, and we must concede that, but they are not sold yet, and there will be a great deal of skilful and hard bargaining before we sell out on Imperial preferences. There is no reason why we ever should sell out unless we and the Dominions get a bargain that satisfies us. Therefore I must say that I do not feel that the noble Lord's Motion is one that can be supported.
6.56 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I have been interested, as I always am, in the noble Lord's remarks. His speech has been of the same order of cheerfulness as those to which we have been accustomed to listen of late, and while I am quite sure that his forebodings have no relevance to the facts of the situation, I will just deal very briefly with one or two of the points he has raised before I sit down.
In the first place, may I just give the cold facts of the case, which are always useful, if not perhaps always acceptable. The facts are that this Agreement was required to be ratified by a certain proportion of the States by the end of last year, and your Lordships will remember that it was ratified by this Government late in December, shortly before the Recess. It is quite to be expected that, with the large sterling balances that they hold, and with the many other very important collateral considerations, the Dominions should be anxious to know what we were going to do, as an important factor in their own deliberations.
748
We put it no higher than that. But it is a fact, of course, that, amongst the Dominions, Canada and South Africa signified their adherence to the Bretton Woods arrangement before the end of last year, so that the division which the noble Lord professes to discover between ourselves and the Dominions is not quite so complete as perhaps might have been anticipated. At the same time, India, so far as the Executive Council are concerned also ratified it in time, although certain matters are still being investigated by the Assembly.
Now the next point is: what has happened with regard to Australia and New Zealand? So far as Australia is concerned, the facts are as follows. The Australian Parliament had already risen when ratification was being decided in this country, and they did not meet, of course, again before the end of the year. At the same time I may say that I have received no information whatever of any official kind from the Australian Government to the effect that they have no intention of ratifying this Agreement. I have been in almost daily contact with the representatives of Australia, for some weeks past, in connexion with the Conference which has been assembled in London, and I assure the noble Lord that on no occasion whatever has any representative of the Australian Government made any protest to me with regard to this matter. The statements which the noble Lord has mentioned are, of course, taken from the Press, and I have no doubt at all that if an Australian had been so inclined, he could have found quite a number of statements from the English Press, which would not have led him to believe that we were going to ratify the Agreement. I am quite sure that the Daily Express, for example, might have given that impression to such a person. Whatever may have been said in the Press, I have nothing from any official source whatever to lead me to believe at present that the Australian Government, when the Parliament meets, will not ratify this convention. Of course, it is for them to say whether they will or will not, but I have no reason to believe that they will fail to do so.
With regard to New Zealand, the facts are as follows: The New Zealand Government, on December 24—that is-two or three days after the Agreement was rati-

749
fied in this country—informed the United States Government that time did not permit of their being able to sign the Agreement before December 31, and Parliament adjourned and will meet again in June. At the same time, it was stated by the New Zealand Government that it was their intention to bring the matter before Parliament when it assembled in June, together with the recommendations of the New Zealand delegates to the Bretton Woods Conference, that they may be accepted. Mr. Nash, the New Zealand Minister, on January 1 made a public statement confirming that intention.
Those are the bare facts so far as these two Dominions are concerned. As I say, the other two self-governing Dominions have already ratified the Agreement. Further, this scheme drawn up at Bretton Woods, was the work of delegates of forty-four countries—amongst them Australia and New Zealand. The Australian delegation was led by Mr. Melville, and the New Zealand delegation by Mr. Walter Nash. The Final Act of the Conference was signed by all the delegates, including these two gentlemen; so that, so far as that was concerned, they were certainly agreeable to its being considered in the form in which it was then drawn up.
Finally, on this particular point, I would like to say this, that I myself have been in very close association with Mr. Fraser, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, during the last few weeks, including a conversation as late as to-day, and on no occasion has he ever made any objection to this Agreement to me—never. Nor has Mr. Fraser on any occasion given utterance to me of any of the forebodings with which the noble Lord filled his speech. In fact, he is full of enthusiasm for the Empire and for Empire development, and I have no doubt myself, knowing him as I do, that if he had had any of the misgivings that the noble Lord has so paraded before us, he would have at least mentioned some of them at some time. I think that is not an exaggerated suggestion. As a matter of fact, he has not, because he knows very well it is not anything of the kind.
I will just come to one of the statements of the noble Lord. He used a number of phrases—I will not repeat them all—but he suggested it was a "banker's ramp," and they were going to impose the gold standard upon us,
750
which would cause deflation. How the noble Lord works that out, I do not know, but it appears that he believes it to follow from something which may happen as a result of considering the Commercial Agreement. If he thinks of the Party to which I belong, which was thrown out of office because it opposed the "bankers' ramp" as he described it in 1931, and went into the wilderness for several years because it opposed deflation and the forced reduction in prices and wages—I am surprised that he should think we should be quite so shortsighted as to lend ourselves to a repetition of that disastrous performance. I think that is not unreasonable.
LORD WOOLTON: You yourself did not describe it as a "bankers' ramp."
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I was quoting the noble Lord's phrase. But I myself in 1931 associated myself with the condemnation of the performances of the Bank of England and deflation as forcibly as anybody, and I am glad to say I have never regretted it. I refused to follow Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and Mr. Snowden and put myself, with several friends, into the wilderness for several years in consequence. We opposed the "bankers' ramp" as hard as ever we could then, and I am glad to find that the noble Lord is now on our side.
LORD BEAVERBROOK: In 1931 I opposed it quite as violently as you did. I called it a "bankers' ramp." You can't get away with that.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I did the noble Lord an injustice, and I deplore it. However, I am very glad to say that he is at last on the side of the angels. Really, quite frankly, it is a beautiful imaginative structure which the noble Lord has conjured up. He suggests that this Government are going to be "parties to the destruction of Empire trade"—those are his words. On the contrary, we believe, my Lords, that we shall be able to foster a great increase in Empire trade; that is what we are aiming at.
I will not now go over the arguments which we had on another day on the meaning of the Commercial Agreement, but I am quite sure that neither this country nor Australia, nor Canada, nor New Zealand, nor South Africa, will be parties to entering into any agreement, when the commercial conference comes

751
on, under which they are not satisfied that they will get full value. We all enter it as free parties, and I am quite sure we shall never agree to anything which, in our view, would either destroy Empire trade or be inimical to Empire interests. As a matter of fact, strange as it may appear to the noble Lord—and I shall never hope to convince him, because he and I see quite differently in these matters—in believe that our methods of fostering Empire trade by large scale purchases and other means are much more to our mutual interest than leaving it to the chance of the market.
That is our view, and for my part I sincerely hope that we shall continue to be not only the best customers of Australia and New Zealand, but increasingly good customers in the time to come. For myself, I have not any doubt of it whatever, and I am quite sure that nothing that is likely to arise out of the Commercial Conference or out of this engagement will be inimical to that achievement. In any case, these are the facts in regard to those two Dominions. In the one case, New Zealand have signified their intention of recommending it to their Parliament when it meets. In the other case, I have so far had no official indication of objection, although I have been in almost daily communication with them for months past, and I am quite sure that if that had been in the mind of the Government I should certainly have heard something about it. So I would suggest to the noble Lord that his fears are entirely unwarranted, and that I hope and feel confident that the future is better than he anticipates.
7.11 p.m.
LORD BEAVERBROOK: My Lords, I heard the noble Lord, Lord Piercy, with a great deal of pleasure, but I would point out to him that if the Dominions do not ratify Bretton Woods, if they stand aside, if they take no active part in it, then of course they may be discriminated against. That is the meaning of Bretton Woods. It may be possible to discriminate against Australia as compared with Guatemala. Guatemala will say that that Republic has undertaken certain obligations to Bretton Woods and is entitled to the benefits and advantages, and Australia, having taken no obligations, gets no benefits or advantages. We may find ourselves in a
752
credit and commercial system which actually discriminates against Australia and New Zealand, if neither of them are in the arrangement. That is one of the terrors of this Bretton Woods arrangement which I hope you will keep before you and study, because there are ramifications in the Bretton Woods agreement which require close study on the part of all of us if we are not to be plunged into difficulties from which we will find we cannot extricate ourselves. I agree with the noble Viscount's remarks regarding Mr. Nash's statement. I believe he was quoting from The Times.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: No, I quoted from my official information. But it is the same.
LORD BEAVERBROOK: It is the same as the newspapers. Then you will be aware of the newspaper reports about the unrest in Australia; and of the differences in the Cabinet, of the meeting of the Cabinet, of the division and even of the numbers on the other side which are being quoted in the newspapers.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The noble Lord will know that I and much too old and experienced to accept a newspaper account of what happens in a Cabinet as necessarily correct.
LORD BEAVERBROOK: The statements have been made quite openly and have been given to the people of Australia, who are waiting upon the deliberations of the Government and are entitled to know what is going forward. New Zealand has said that time would not permit of her ratification of the Agreement. Russia says just the same thing, so Russia and New Zealand at this moment are taking up exactly the same position. The noble Viscount speaks of the Final Act and those who ratified it. But the Final Act did not commit the Governments; it merely committed the Governments to consider the Bretton Woods proposals.
There was not the slightest obligation on any Minister or delegate who signed the Final Act. I can tell him, as a certainty in regard to Great Britain, that there were many who would have had to take up an attitude in relation to the British Government if the Final Act at that time had committed the British Government. There would be many who would have had to take up an attitude at

753
once. For my part, I know full well that the noble Viscount is under the impression that he was put out by the bankers in 1931. Perhaps that is why he is so subservient to them this time; he may be frightened he will be put out again. In any case it was Lord Snowden who launched the gold standard. I do not think the noble Lord was a member of the Government at the time, but there are others on that Front Bench who were.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: No.
LORD BEAVERBROOK: Well, that Front Bench interests me enormously any way. It is certainly not descended from Keir Hardie, with the exception of one who sits on the Bench beyond. I think it must be descended from that eminent member of the Party, the late Lady Warwick. I heard the noble Lord declaring that I wished to be on the side of the angels. Last time he spoke he said I was like Satan, quoting Scripture for my own purposes. But I did not mind; I am magnanimous. I am not Satanic in the least; I return good for evil. I compare him to St. Paul, but, unlike St. Paul, he has seen the light four times altogether. He has been in four Parties and served in office in three out of the four. I do not know if he will see the light again. If Ananias—the good Ananias—comes his way again and shows him the light, he may be blinded for good.
In any case, I am going to withdraw, I can assure him. I only regret that the noble Viscount, for whom I have the greatest admiration, even though he says I am like Satan, did not begin his speech with the customary formula. It is not fair that I only am permitted to engage in half the formula. When any other speaker gets up in this House, after his speech the Front Bench spokesman says, "We are indeed grateful to the noble Lord for his speech, and deeply grateful to him for raising the matter". Then the noble Lord concerned says, "I beg leave to withdraw". And I do beg leave to withdraw.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

PRODUCTION OF BRICKS.
7.18 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I beg to ask the question which stands in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government—

(1) The number of brickworks, closed during the war, still not in production on January 1, 1946;

(2) The number of men usually employed in these works;

(3) The total stocks held in the country on January 1, 1946 of—

(a) facing bricks,

(b) common bricks,

(c) roofing tiles (other than asbestos).]

LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, the detailed figures asked for by the noble Viscount are as follows:
On January 1, 1946, 860 brickworks which had been closed during the war were still not in production. Before the war these 860 brickworks employed approximately 29,000 people.
The following stocks were held in the country on January 1, 1946:

(a) Facing bricks, 47,554,000;

(b) Common bricks, 929,272,000;

(c) Clay roofing tiles, 31,000,000; concrete roofing tiles, 16,400,000.

The position with regard to the supply of bricks is giving some cause for anxiety and is receiving the continuous attention of the responsible Ministers. The Prime Minister has directed that brickfields are to be given priority in derequisitioning, and that every effort is to be made to clear those which are being used for storage and other purposes. There has been, and still is, difficulty in manning up the brickworks after licences to re-open are given, and increased allocations under the Class B scheme have been arranged for brickworks.
German prisoners of war are being employed in some brickworks, and the National Joint Industrial Council for the industry is making plans for the training of brickwork operatives. The net increase of labour in brickworks as a whole is running at present at the rate of about 1,000 workers a month.
During the war movement of bricks was restricted but transport restrictions are being lifted as from March 1, 1946. This is important in relation to possible local shortages, of which there have already been some instances.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: I thank the noble Lord for his very full answer and for the additional information which he has also supplied.

HOME PRODUCTION OF FOOD.
7.20 p.m.
EARL FORTESCUE: I beg to ask the question which stands in the name of my noble friend the Earl of Warwick.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, what proportion of food consumed in this country was produced at home during 1945, giving separate figures for wheat.]
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, the proportion of the gross output of foodstuffs produced at home to total consumption in 1945 can be measured in calories, protein, weight, money values, etc. Measured in calories the proportion is estimated at 42 per cent, if barley used for brewing is included, or 48 per cent if measured in protein. No exact calculations are available for 1945 in terms of weight or money values.
The proportion of home produced wheat, on the basis of quantities milled was 36 per cent.

LONDON NECROPOLIS BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid on the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the Bill have been complied with. The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
Bill committed.

ROTHERHAM CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]

  MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills, namely:

  L. Audley,

  L. Hatherton,

  L. Wolverton,

  L. Selsdon,

  L. Kenilworth (Chairman).

  Agreed to, and the said Lords appointed accordingly: All Petitions against the Bills or against alteration in the Bills referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by counsel to be heard as desired as also counsel for the Bills.
  House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past seven o'clock.