Lords Sitting of 26 July 1949

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The VISCOUNT SIMON on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
  2.36 p.m.
  Read 2*, and committed, the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

BOLTON CORPORATION BILL
Read 3*, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL
Read 3*, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
SOUTHAMPTON HARBOUR BILL
Read 3*, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

STATE OF EMERGENCY
2.37 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I have a Message from The King signed with his own hand. The Message is as follows:
"His Majesty by Proclamation dated the eleventh day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, having declared the existence of a state of emergency for the purposes of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920.
And it having appeared to His Majesty that the state of emergency has now ceased to exist: His Majesty has deemed it proper by Proclamation dated the twenty-sixth day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, to proclaim, direct and ordain that the said Proclamation of the eleventh day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, is revoked."
My Lords, I shall move an Humble Address of thanks to His Majesty for his gracious Message at the beginning of Business tomorrow, Wednesday.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.38 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, as we understand that the debate in another place on your Lordships' Amendments to the Iron and Steel Bill was not concluded when they rose this morning, it is clear that we shall not be in a position to receive their Message on those Amendments in time for it to be debated as first Business to-morrow as we had intended. We propose, therefore, after discussions through the usual channels, and if your Lordships generally agree, that we should take the Commons Amendments on the Patents and Designs Bill, which are down on the Order Paper for Thursday next, as first Order tomorrow, in order that we may take the Commons Message on the Lords' Amendments to the Steel Bill as first Order on Thursday.
The Motion on hereditary women Peers and Parliament, which is to be moved by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, will not be prejudiced by this exchange, as I understand that the Amendments to the Patents and Designs Bill, though numerous, are not of a controversial character, a remark which can hardly apply to some of the Amendments to the Iron and Steel Bill on which your Lordships are expecting a Message from another place.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, on behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House, I beg to say that we are in agreement with the change of which the noble Lord has spoken.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Noble Lords on these Benches also agree.

DEMONSTRATION ALLOTMENT IN HYDE PARK
2.40 p.m.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government if they will take such steps as may be necessary to secure the removal of the plot of unsightly vegetables of poor quality which have long been disfiguring one of the grass plots on the eastern edge of Hyde Park bordering on

485
Park Lane, as no useful purpose would appear to be served by the retention of such an inferior example of allotment cultivation on such an unsuitable site.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON): My Lords, while my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries cannot accept the noble Lord's suggestion that this demonstration allotment is either unsightly or badly cultivated, he agrees that it has now served its purpose. I am therefore arranging for the plot to be restored as part of Hyde Park.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, I should like to ask whether he is aware that the vegetable plot referred to has upon it a notice in which there appears in very prominent lettering, for all who pass to read:
"MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE—DEMONSTRATION 5-ROD GARDEN PLOT."
The public, therefore, naturally assume that the plot is intended as an illustration of the ideal method of growing vegetables on a small allotment, whereas, in fact, the vegetables are highly unsatisfactory; in particular, the potato haulms are little thicker than a pencil. I can vouch for that as I have looked at them closely. I suggest that, from every point of view, it is most undesirable that this very prominent position should be taken up by an exhibit arranged by the Ministry of Agriculture and purporting to show how vegetables should be grown, when the vegetables, in fact, are such as to make a really farcical display.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I will arrange for the notice to be taken down at the same time as the plot is restored.

ARTICLE BY RENT TRIBUNAL CHAIRMAN
2.42 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether the article by the chairman of
486
the East London Rent Tribunal in the People of July 17 is not couched in such language as to indicate that a case coming before his tribunal must inevitably be prejudged.]
THE PAYMASTER - GENERAL (LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR): My Lords, it does not appear to my right honourable friend the Minister of Health necessarily to follow from this article that cases coming before this tribunal will be denied a fair hearing, but he deprecates injudicious statements of this kind.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: My Lords, arising out of the Question asked by my noble friend, I take it that the noble Lord opposite has read the article in question, in which there is a statement to the effect that: "Now is your chance to catch your shark landlord." Does he not think it would be better in the interests, not of one Party or of one side, but of the community as a whole, that a chairman of less obvious prejudice and bias should be appointed to take charge of the affairs of this tribunal?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, replies, may I ask him an additional supplementary question? If he were a landlord who had to appear before this particular tribunal, does he think, having read this article, that there is the slightest chance that his case would receive an unbiased hearing? Is that in this day and age a desirable state of affairs?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I do not think I need to add anything to my original reply except to say that I read the article and agree with the Minister. As to the future of this individual, I prefer to say no more.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I take it, at any rate, that the Minister has conveyed to the writer the noble Lord's views on his article.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I prefer not to add to my reply.

BOROUGH QUARTER SESSIONS STATISTICS
LORD SCHUSTER: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask the Lord Chancellor whether he will issue a table showing in respect of every borough (whether county or non-county), having a separate commission of the peace and a court of quarter sessions, the number of its population and the number of persons committed for trial at that court during the years 1947 and 1948 respectively.]
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who is unable to be present owing to the demand of Judicial Business, has asked me to express his apologies to your Lordships and to reply to this Question. Perhaps I may parenthetically remark that he is engaged in the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House, where he is serving in order that a court may be constituted and the work made up. The noble and learned Viscount's reply is as follows: "I am arranging for this table to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It has not been possible, within the time available, to obtain the figures for the number of persons committed for trial at borough quarter sessions. I therefore propose, with the permission of the noble Lord, to give the figures for the number of cases actually tried. For convenience of reference, I will also give the figures for the cases tried at county quarter sessions during the same period."
LORD SCHUSTER: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, and to the noble and learned Viscount for the action he proposes to take.
Following is the table referred to:

TABLE

Population (to nearest 1,000)

Number of Cases for Trial

1947

1948

BEDFORDSHIRE

300,000

50

60

Bedford

53,000

8

30

BERKSHIRE

392,000

28

48

Abingdon

10,000

13

8

Newbury

18,000

12

13

*Reading

114,000

56

49

Windsor

22,000

5

6

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE

375,000

61

123

*Denotes a County Borough.

488

Population (to nearest 1,000)

Number of Cases for Trial

1947

1948

CAMBRIDGESHIRE

163,000

11

34

Cambridge

86,000

12

31

Isle of Ely

89,000

10

12

CHESHIRE

1,227,000

—

—

Chester Sessions

—

62

86

Knutsford Sessions

—

71

104

*Birkenhead

141,000

79

65

*Chester

47,000

5

17

CORNWALL

331,000

33

55

Penzance

20,000

20

21

CUMBERLAND

276,000

21

23

*Carlisle

65,000

14

25

DERBYSHIRE

815,000

62

90

*Derby

142,000

31

37

DEVONSHIRE

764,000

41

74

Barnstaple

16,000

—

—

Bideford

10,000

—

1

*Exeter

76,000

13

12

*Plymouth

189,000

72

80

South Molton

3,000

—

—

Tiverton

11,000

1

3

DORSETSHIRE

273,000

30

41

Poole

81,000

22

31

DURHAM

1,451,000

97

114

*Sunderland

181,000

38

45

ESSEX

1,988,000

295

328

Colchester

53,000

25

32

Maldon

10,000

1

1

Saffron Walden

7,000

1

—

*Southend-on-Sea

148,000

88

79

*West Ham

174,000

16

27

GLOUCESTERSHIRE

922,000

54

66

*Bristol

437,000

92

137

*Gloucester

64,000

58

59

Tewkesbury

5,000

—

1

HAMPSHIRE

1,112,000

159

175

Andover

14,000

7

31

*Bournemouth

138,000

28

45

*Portsmouth

218,000

48

111

*Southampton

180,000

96

96

Winchester

27,000

50

67

HEREFORDSHIRE

124,000

11

21

Hereford

32,000

11

26

HERTFORDSHIRE

593,000

—

—

Hertford Sessions

—

48

72

St. Albans Sessions

—

81

67

HUNTINGDONSHIRE

64,000

16

16

KENT

1,512,000

East Kent Sessions

—

69

82

West Kent Sessions

—

210

292

*Canterbury

26,000

2

6

Deal

23,000

9

8

Dover

33,000

7

10

Faversham

12,000

—

2

Folkestone

42,000

5

10

Gravesend

43,000

6

10

Hythe

9,000

6

1

Maidstone

53,000

9

17

Margate

41,000

13

19

Rochester

42,000

4

7

Sandwich

4,000

12

4

Tenterden

4,000

—

3

*Denotes a County Borough.

489

Population (to nearest 1,000)

Number of Cases for trial

1947

1948

LANCASHIRE

5,077,000

—

—

Lancaster Sessions

—

27

11

Liverpool Sessions

—

176

225

Manchester Sessions

—

163

259

Preston Sessions

—

378

286

*Blackburn

112,000

23

30

*Blackpool

149,000

No Court

28

*Bolton

168,000

32

47

*Burnley

85,000

31

37

*Liverpool

796,000

226

263

*Manchester

697,000

185

231

*Oldham

121,000

35

36

*Salford

179,000

51

76

*Wigan

85,000

14

7

LEICESTERSHIRE

622,000

43

43

*Leicester

281,000

110

89

LINCOLNSHIRE

Parts of Holland

101,000

14

17

Parts of Kesteven

121,000

15

21

Parts of Lindsey

458,000

38

46

Grantham

23,000

5

8

*Grimsby

91,000

28

18

Stamford

11,000

6

3

*Lincoln

68,000

17

20

LONDON

3,374,000

—

—

North of Thames

—

1,057

1,268

South of Thames

—

480

589

MIDDLESEX

2,273,000

416

424

MONMOUTHSHIRE

422,000

59

104

NORFOLK

522,000

—

—

Western Sessions

—

10

13

Eastern Sessions

—

51

48

*Great Yarmouth

52,000

7

13

King's Lynn

26,000

14

14

*Norwich

119,000

42

54

Thetford

4,000

9

3

NORTHAMPTONSHIRE

354,000

37

45

Liberty of Peterborough

63,000

24

19

*Northampton

104,000

22

17

*NORTHUMBERLAND

794,000

44

45

Berwick-on-Tweed

12,000

5

2

*Newcastle-upon-Tyne

294,000

71

81

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE

821,000

—

—

Nottingham Sessions

—

34

75

Retford & Newark Sessions

—

45

44

Newark

23,000

7

8

*Nottingham

299,000

53

85

OXFORDSHIRE

268,000

19

35

Banbury

19,000

11

5

*Oxford

106,000

32

50

RUTLAND

20,000

3

4

SALOP

271,000

19

21

Bridgnorth

6,000

—

2

Ludlow

6,000

1

—

Oswestry

11,000

5

—

Shrewsbury

45,000

21

18

Wenlock

15,000

1

4

SOMERSETSHIRE

542,000

63

78

*Bath

77,000

22

30

Bridgwater

22,000

19

25

*Denotes a County Borough.

490

Population (to nearest 1,000)

Number of Cases for trial

1947

1948

STAFFORDSHIRE

1,592,000

104

108

*Burton-upon-Trent

49,000

10

8

Lichfield

10,000

10

17

Newcastle-under-Lyme

70,000

10

21

*Smethwick

77,000

6

15

*Stoke-on-Trent

274,000

71

83

*Walsall

113,000

36

49

*West Bromwich

86,000

35

19

*Wolverhampton

160,000

50

65

SUFFOLK

East Suffolk

316,000

36

32

West Suffolk

112,000

12

15

*Ipswich

103,000

17

17

Bury St. Edmunds

19,000

12

7

Sudbury

7,000

1

—

SURREY

1,582,000

288

370

*Croydon

249,000

57

51

Guildford

46,000

13

3

SUSSEX

East Sussex

611,000

60

65

West Sussex

310,0O0

82

81

*Brighton

155,000

47

53

*Hastings

65,000

23

27

Rye

4,000

11

9

Chichester

18,000

4

1

WARWICKSHIRE

1,833,000

74

70

*Birmingham

1,104,000

224

280

*Coventry

252,000

76

125

Warwick

15,000

2

10

WESTMORLAND

67,000

10

6

WILTSHIRE

349,000

77

118

Devizes

7,000

58

31

Salisbury

33,000

9

14

WORCESTERSHIRE

514,000

84

104

*Dudley

63,000

11

27

*Worcester

61,000

11

16

YORKSHIRE

East Riding

505,000

25

33

North Riding

497,000

33

52

West Riding

3,552,000

228

228

Liberty of Ripon

5,317

2

3

*Kingston upon Hull

297,000

79

81

*Middlesbrough

114,000

39

24

Richmond

5,000

9

4

Scarborough

45,000

9

11

*York

104,000

41

26

*Bradford

290,000

133

158

*Doncaster

80,000

16

29

*Halifax

97,000

30

58

*Huddersfield

128,000

54

55

*Leeds

504,000

288

238

Pontefract

23,000

4

7

*Rotherham

81,000

16

25

*Sheffield

512,000

113

127

WALES

ANGLESEY

49,000

4

1

BRECONSHIRE

54,000

9

11

CAERNARVONSHIRE

123,000

18

13

CARDIGANSHIRE

54,000

1

3

CARMARTHENSHIRE

170,000

13

13

Carmarthen

13,000

13

8

DENBIGHSHIRE

168,000

22

20

*Denotes a Count Borough.

Population (to nearest 1,000)

Number of Cases for trial

1947

1948

FLINTSHIRE

139,000

9

19

GLAMORGANSHIRE

1,185,000

66

77

*Cardiff

242,000

79

104

*Merthyr Tydfil

60,000

22

9

*Swansea

159,000

33

72

MERIONETHSHIRE

39,000

1

3

MONTGOMERYSHIRE

45,000

3

19

PEMBROKESHIRE

86,000

22

21

Haverfordwest Town and County

—

5

4

RADNORSHIRE

20,000

3

5

NATIONAL SERVICE (ADAPTATION OF ENACTMENTS) (NAVAL AND MARINE FORCES) ORDER, 1949
NATIONAL SERVICE (ADAPTATION OF ENACTMENTS) (MILITARY AND AIR FORCES) ORDER, 1949
THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be made in the form of the drafts laid before Parliament.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be made in the form of the drafts laid before Parliament—(Lord Pakenham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

CROP ACREAGE PAYMENTS (ENGLAND AND WALES) ORDER, 1949
CROP ACREAGE PAYMENTS (SCOTLAND) ORDER, 1949
CROP ACREAGE PAYMENTS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER, 1949
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON): My Lords, these payments have in the past proved
*Denotes a County Borough.
492
most useful, both to smaller men and those who grow crops on marginal land or less suitable soil. There is nothing very new in these orders and unless your Lordships would like me to explain them further, I will say no more. I beg to move that the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.
Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) ORDER, 1949
HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) (NO. 2) ORDER, 1949
HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) (NO. 3) ORDER, 1949
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (NORTHERN IRELAND) (NO. 2) REGULATIONS, 1949
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg to move, that the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.
Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COAL INDUSTRY BILL
2.47 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments be now considered.
Moved, that the Commons Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I understand that it is in order to put a question to the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, before we debate this Motion. The question I should like to ask is in relation to a debate in another place on an Amendment sent down from this House which sought to safeguard employees against any loss of pensions which might be expected to accrue. That is in accordance with Clause 4 (2) of the Bill. I should like to point out that this Amendment was not disagreed to in another place, but during the debate upon the Amendment the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power apparently found himself unable to give the same assurance as was given in this House by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. That assurance was that the Government did not want to rule out expectation.
I should like to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill whether he can confirm that when the regulations are eventually submitted employees will be covered. The words of the noble and learned Viscount were:
"I want these men to be compensated fairly and reasonably for everything they have lost, including their expectations."
I hope we shall be able to have a complete assurance on this point, because the Minister of Fuel and Power in another place said it was quite impossible for him to comment on what he would certainly not regard as being an important statement of policy made in this House. Of course, it is a matter of opinion whether or not this is an important statement of policy, but the fact remains that the Minister in another place has definitely dissociated himself from the assurance given by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. Are we to understand that the undertaking given by the noble and learned Viscount is to stand? Otherwise, we shall be faced with a very unfortunate and unconstitutional position.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, let me in the first place express the apologies of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for his absence. He is sorry not to be present to deal with this question. Under Clause 4 (2) of the Coal Industry Bill, employees will be provided with fair and reasonable compensation
494
for cesser or prejudice of an expectation of accruer, ascertained, broadly speaking, by reference to their period of past service and to their emoluments, and in such cases and to such extent as may be specified in the regulations, taking into account any loss of benefits which might have been expected to accrue by future employment.
My right honourable friend the Minister of Fuel and Power is not yet in a position to state precisely what will be provided for in the regulations, but very broadly it is not the Government's intention to exclude from benefit any class of person who has been employed in the industry for arty substantial period and is of any age at which he can reasonably be held to have suffered some appreciable loss of expectation. As the noble Lord mentioned, the regulations when made will be subject to Resolution of the House. This will give an opportunity for full discussion if the Opposition are in any way doubtful or dissatisfied. It is not fair to expect all the details of the regulations to be available now. The details can be considered later, and this is not the stage to say any more about them. Broadly speaking, the regulations will follow the compensation regulations made under the Electricity and other nationalisation Acts and the National Coal Board's own practice under their pension schemes.
2.51 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think the noble Lord will agree that, whatever is the inner meaning of the Minister's rather obscure remarks, they do not go so far as the definite undertaking given in this House by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. I consider it is a deplorable position with which we are faced, because we in this House thought we had this definite and specific undertaking; and now, apparently, the Minister has gone back on t hat undertaking. I do not want to take the matter further to-day; indeed, I do not see that any useful purpose would be served by taking any immediate action. However, I would like to safeguard the position of the Opposition in this matter. When the regulations come along, we shall hope end expect that the Lord Chancellor's undertaking, which was given quite definitely to this House, will be honoured in those regulations. If not,

495
we shall have to consider seriously the position which arises.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[The reference is to Bill No. 71]
Clause 2, page 2, line 23, at end insert—
("Provided that before the Board carry on any of the activities referred to in paragraphs (b), (c), (d) or (e) of subsection (2) of section one of the principal Act in any country or place overseas the carrying on by them of that activity in that country or place shall have been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.")
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the said Amendment would unduly impede the National Coal Board in the exercise and performance of their functions.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed. Before dealing with the Amendment now before us, I desire to refer briefly to a matter raised in connection with this Amendment on the last occasion when the Coal Industry Bill was discussed in your Lordships' House. It will be remembered that on that occasion the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, dealt at some length, and at times with feeling, with the question of the sale of Polish coal in Eire. The statement he then made was at variance with the reference I had made to the same matter on the Committee stage of the Bill, and both the noble Viscount and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, were naturally anxious to have the matter cleared up. Your Lordships were good enough to agree to await developments in another place in the hope that the matter might be cleared up there.
In another place no reference whatever of any practical kind, except two to which I desire to refer, was made in regard to this particular matter. There was a wholly misleading and wholly inaccurate statement made by Mr. Brendan Bracken with reference to the sinking of mines abroad. This statement in no way surprised me, for in days gone by I have always found Mr. Brendan Bracken's boisterous and, if I may say so, irrepressible irresponsibility a source of great enjoyment. I was more surprised by the statement, no less misleading and equally inaccurate, of Mr. Robert Hudson, refer-ring to an attack on exporters. Apart
496
from those two statements the discussions in your Lordships' House seem to have been left well alone.
That being the case, I thought it would be your Lordships' wish that I should have further inquiries made into the facts of the sale of Polish coal in Eire. This I did, and I now desire to state that the information I have received differs in some aspects from that placed before your Lordships by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, on Third Reading. The noble Viscount's figure, as regards the export of coal to Eire, of 80,000 tons short in the first quarter of this year is right according to the Trade and Navigation export figures, which may have been his source of information, but the Coal Board's records of shipments show that the quantity was only 38,000 tons short. The Board assure me that their figures, built up as they are from those on which accounts are issued and payments made, are wholly reliable.
Another aspect in which my information does not agree with that given to the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, is as to who took the initiative in this sale of Polish coal. My information is that the initiative to import this coal came from British exporters and not from Irish importers. I would add only that I feel the exporters might have consulted with the Coal Board before arranging the sale of Polish coal. That, I feel sure, could have been done, for I believe, from information received, that some of this Polish coal has had to be put to stock by the importers. Had the exporters consulted the Coal Board I feel sure your Lordships would never have heard of the sale of Polish coal. However, I feel I ought to add that I am satisfied on the information placed before me now that it was wrong of me to argue, or to give the impression to your Lordships, that British coal was left unsold as a result of the sale of the Polish coal. I accept, as I must, full responsibility if I misled your Lordships, and I offer my humble apologies. This statement I trust will clarify the position in regard to the incident referred to, and I also trust it will satisfy your Lordships, and in particular the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
2.57 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, it seems that we are in a rather odd position, because the noble Lord's remarks do not really arise on the Amendment, I take it that the purpose of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, has been to find some opportunity which would enable him to make the statement he has made. In those circumstances, perhaps it will he better if we clear that out of the way before we proceed with the Amendment, however unusual the procedure may be.
With regard to the statement the noble Lord has made, I think in every part of the House we should be grateful to him for the frank exposition of the facts he has given us. It will do a great deal to clear away misapprehensions which existed, both among your Lordships and outside the House, owing to the earlier debate. The fact remains, of course, that the noble Lord, as he himself said, quite unintentionally was not accurate in saying that at the moment there was coal available of similar quality for the supply of the Irish importers. I do not think it would be quite fair to blame the English exporters for taking the initiative. Their object is to deal, and if they had not the British coal, which they would have preferred, obviously they had to get the coal where they could. If they had not got that coal at that moment there would have been a very real danger that the Irish might go direct to the Poles, and we might have lost the Irish market altogether.
The noble Lord said the exporters would have been wiser first of all to get into communication with the Coal Board, who might have been able to provide the coal. That action might conceivably have been taken, but at any rate I think it will be agreed now that there was no reasonable ground for complaint against the action of the British exporters on that occasion. That is what we were anxious to establish, because the noble Lord based his case for an extension of the activities of the National Coal Board on the grounds that the existing private merchants were not dealing fairly with British coal. That appears not to be true. I know it was an entire misapprehension on the noble Lord's part, and I am glad that the matter has now been cleared up.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, on the general question that we ought not to disagree with the actionaf the other place, perhaps I ought to say a few words.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, before the noble Lord does that, I rise on a point of Order, to ask the Leader of the House whether it is in accordance with the practice of this House that the noble Lord should refer to speeches made in another place, not by way of Ministerial statement but in the course of debate, and then controvert those speeches, having quoted from them. I rise on this only in order that it should not be said on some future occasion that a precedent has been made to-day. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, mentioned by name two Members of the other place with whose views he disagreed, quoting those views and controverting them. I would ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House whether, in his opinion, that is in accordance with the practice of this House.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I will take account of what the noble Viscount has said. I must admit that on the whole I agree with him that it is not our usual practice.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My, Lords, I would like to add that in another place both those gentlemen were good enough to name a noble Lord. With regard to the final remarks of the noble Marquess, I should like to say that the case was never based on the sale of Polish coal in Eire. The case for this clause is perfectly plain to those of us who know this industry. In asking your Lordships not to insist upon the Amendment which proved unacceptable in another place, I shall be obliged to indulge in some repetition of previous arguments which I hope will not become tedious repetition.
Your Lordships are aware that the inclusion of Clause 2 of this Bill was made necessary owing to the faulty drafting of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946. Since the passing of that Act, it was discovered that the overseas activities of the Coal Board were restricted to a greater degree than was intended. Clause 2 does no more than carry out the original intention of the Act of 1946.

499
It is not a case of second thoughts, but of first thoughts being rightly interpreted. Here I may refer to the statements made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor during the Committee stage in this House. These statements, in my opinion, make it perfectly plain that what it was intended should be covered by Clause 2 was not covered in the original Act. On June 18, 1946, my noble and learned friend said:
"The public interest is obviously vastly concerned with the re-establishment of our export trade, and let me give notice here and now, if anybody doubts it, that I am certain that the Coal Board will regard the re-establishment of that export trade as one of their most important functions, a function that is vitally important to the whole economy of this country."
The second statement made by my noble and learned friend was as follows:
"One of the main functions of the Board.…will be the development of an efficient organisation to get the greatest amount of export sales that we can. I think everybody agrees so far. I think we should agree, further, that in the past the organisation for pressing sales, even when we had the coal, was not by any means as efficient as it ought to have been. The problem now is how best to help build up a really efficient export trade."
Those statements indicate that the Lord Chancellor himself believed that the 1946 Act made provision for what is now dealt with in Clause 2 of this Bill. It will be understood, therefore, that the original intention—and it remains the intention—was to enable the Coal Board to carry on certain activities in connection with the export of coal. There has been no change of policy since the passing of the Act of 1946. Let me make this perfectly plain: that the clause was not designed in order that the Coal Board should take over all the functions performed at present by coal exporters.
During the debate on your Lordships' Amendment in another place, my right honourable friend the Minister of Fuel and Power gave some six specific instances of how the power granted in this clause may be used, all of which would be handicapped or delayed if Parliamentary sanction were necessary for each of these specific instances. It may be convenient to your Lordships if I briefly mention these instances; and, incidentally, it will help to meet the points raised by noble Lords on the Second Reading of this Bill. These are the instances named by my
500
right honourable friend: first, the opening of offices on behalf of the Coal Board overseas—Paris being given as an instance. Secondly, the National Coal Board may wish to make sales of coal, including insurance and freight—well known as c.i.f. Thirdly, the Coal Board may wish to acquire an interest in bunker depôts abroad. In this way the Coal Board would be able to do what the colliery owners did in the past, either directly or through associated companies—namely, to stock coal at bunker depots if we ran into slack times at home, so as to enable the pits to be kept going. Fourthly, they might find it desirable to purchase an interest in an importing concern overseas. Fifthly, the Board might wish to advertise or take part in overseas trade fairs. The final example which he quoted was the holding of foreign patents. The Board's research organisation are bound to discover things which they would wish to patent and protect in foreign countries.
I know your Lordships well enough to feel sure that you will agree that if the Coal Board are to function in the export trade, the activities referred to are quite proper. I hope your Lordships will agree that to make all such activities subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament would be a very serious handicap and could mean a crippling delay to good business methods, as it may also mean the revealing of facts which could be commercially disadvantageous to the Coal Board. Let me repeat, and repeat with some emphasis, that the Coal Board do not desire to supplant the exporters. They simply wish to do what the colliery owners did before nationalisation. They wish to be put on an equal footing with the exporters, and to supplement the efforts of exporters in certain respects where they may be able to do desirable things which the resources of the Coal Board would render possible. Your Lordships have already agreed that the Coal Board have replaced the employers on the productive side of this industry. This clause is intended to enable them to do in the field of export what the employers did in the field of export prior to nationalisation and, in some cases, were doing right up to the date of nationalisation. I would remind your Lordships that those of us who, for over a quarter of a century, spent our time advocating the

501
nationalisation of mines, never thought that objection would be taken to the National Coal Board doing what the coal owners were then doing—selling coal abroad.
I can assure your Lordships that many of those now engaged in the industry will view it with a little alarm if your Lordships' House take this action in regard to what they consider was intended to be clone by nationalisation. It was intended that nationalisation should cover not only production and sales in this country but sales abroad. There is another argument I desire to mention, as I am most anxious not to be misunderstood. The Board are obliged to put the national interest first and foremost in all their activities. The individual exporter is not called upon to do that. In any case he need not do it. Whether his activities are in the national interest will depend upon the individual transaction. It may mean that goods which are available for export from this country will not be sold, but preference will be given to foreign goods, especially if the commission is large and perhaps subsidised. In short, the Coal Board, in their attitude to exports, are influenced solely by the interests of the British coal industry and of the country, whereas the exporter need not be, and perhaps for financial reasons cannot afford to be, interested in the same way.
I desire to turn to a different aspect of the Amendment which I would call the procedural side. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, was good enough to say on Second Reading that
"where the Coal Board or the Minister of Fuel and Power can show to Parliament that the merchants ought to he supplanted, then I am certain that Parliament would be prepared to deal with such an order rapidly, fairly and on its merits."
That Parliament would deal "fairly and on its merits" would not be questioned by your Lordships. I would only add that discussing the "merits" in public may have its risks and dangers. My Parliamentary experience, however, causes me to stop and think regarding the use of the word "rapidly," not because either House would be deliberately dilatory, but because the question involved may require action so quickly that Parliament, even with the best will in the world, could not cope with it in time.
502
Your Lordships are so well acquainted with Parliamentary procedure that I need not develop the point. This may mean that in order to safeguard the export trade it may be necessary to seek Parliamentary approval in advance on certain proposals. The question of c.i.f. sales already referred to is perhaps the most important of these questions, though it may be necessary at short notice to decide other matter such as interest in bunkering depôts, or in a foreign importer. In fact, as I examine the Amendment rejected by another place I am not at all sure whether it would carry out the intention of its supporters of providing Parliamentary safeguards and at the same time of avoiding excessive interference with the Board's business and loss of export trade.
Your Lordships will have noticed that there is an Amendment on the Order Paper which is likely to be moved, designed in the hope that it may prove more acceptable than the previous one. It would be wholly improper for me to discuss that Amendment, as I am nursing the hope that it will not be moved. If your Lordships care to accept this Bill as it left in another place I am convinced that such a course would be in the interests not only of the Coal Board but of the country. But should the Amendment be moved, I am afraid I can hold out little hope of its acceptance in its present form for the same reasons as those for which its predecessor was unacceptable. I should like to suggest that the Amendment now on the Order Paper, with some modification, might be acceptable to the Government, and if the noble Lords opposite who are sponsoring the Amendment could see their way to consider the modification which I discussed with the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition, and accept it, I think we could come to an agreement on that issue.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM had given notice that he would move that the House do not insist on the above Amendment but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
Page 2, line 23, at end insert:
("Provided that the Board shall not carry on any of the activities referred to in paragraphs (b), (c), (d) or (e) of subsection (2) of section one of the principal Act if in any country or place overseas excepting in so far as they shall be authorised so to do by an order of the Minister.

503
An order made under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in spite of the wish of the noble Lord, I fear that I must move the Amendment which stands in my name. It is moved, of course, on consideration of the Commons Reason for disagreeing with our original Amendment to Clause 2, page 2, line 23. The original Amendment which has been disagreed to in another place calls for an affirmative Resolution by both Houses of Parliament, whereas the Amendment in my name provides for a negative Resolution. This, of course, is a simpler procedure, and it would not unduly impede the National Coal Board in the exercise of their functions. I do not propose to weary your Lordships with the whole of the arguments raised during the Committee stage—
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am sure that both the noble Lord and I are of the same mind in desiring to do our Business in an orderly manner, but I am getting a little confused. At the moment the Motion is that we should not insist on the particular Amendment to which the noble Lord has just referred. So far as I understand it, the noble Lord is now discussing another Amendment. I think we had better do one thing at a time.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The position is that the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, explained that the Government are not accepting our original Amendment, but in doing so he made a speech which was in part an answer to the Amendment which has not yet been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham. Lord Teynham, therefore, is put in rather a difficult position. He recognises that the Government will not accept the original Amendment and is moving an Amendment in lieu, and that, in due course, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor will presumably answer—though he has already answered it in part.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am sure that that is a proper and valuable intervention. I am not in the least wishing to restrict the noble Lord; I am only anxious that we should do our business in the proper way. I should have thought that, subject to your Lordships' agree-
504
ment, the first thing would be to get the first Amendment out of the way, and then for the noble Lord's Amendment to be discussed. We ought first to dispose of the Motion immediately before us, which is that we do not insist on that particular Amendment.
VISCOUNT SIMON: The position, as I understand it, is that an Amendment is being moved to a Motion now before the House, and the question before the House becomes an original question. The decision then will be whether that Amendment should be added to the Motion.
LORD TEYNHAM: I do not propose to weary the House with all the arguments raised on Committee stage in connection with the main provisions of this Amendment. On the other hand, I think it raises certain fundamental principles which should be put before your Lordships. Clause 2 of the Bill seeks to extend the operation of the Coal Board in foreign and overseas markets, in spite of the fact that the principal Act, some two years ago, laid down in Section 63, subsection (3), that its activities should be limited to Great Britain. I think it is hardly, as the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, said, a case of first thoughts being rightly interpreted. Perhaps I might also refer to the great work of British coal merchants abroad. They are, in fact, doing great service to the State. The great experience of these merchants is at the present time put at the disposal of the Coal Board. I suggest that it can hardly be expected that that would continue in the future, when these merchants would have to compete with a national selling agent, perhaps subsidised by the taxpayer; and the Coal Board would he the loser of this great mass of valuable experience. It is no argument that the Coal Board would be put by this Bill in the same position as private interests, because without this Amendment the Board will undoubtedly be put in a very much superior position. I suggest that the extension of activities proposed in Clause 2 should not be left to the unfettered discretion of the Coal Board. It may also happen that their operations in certain foreign countries will raise grave difficulties, and for this reason alone I think the matter should be subject to a negative Resolution by

505
both Houses of Parliament. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Add at end of Motion:
"but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
Page 2 line 23, at end, insert—
('Provided that the Board shall not carry on any of the activities referred to in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), or (e) of subsection (2) of section one of the principal Act in any country or place overseas excepting in so far as they shall be authorised so to do by an order of the Minister.
An order made under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.')."—(Lord Teynham.)
3.18 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend in this Amendment, which I think is advantageous from every point of view as compared with the first one. Negative resolutions are on the whole better than positive in many ways. The Minister, in rejecting the Amendment in another place, made a case which seemed to me most extraordinarily lame, and I should like to mention one or two of the points he made, which I think can he demolished with the greatest of ease. He said he might want to open an office in Europe. But for a Government of planners, who always want to eliminate the middleman, to set up a duplicate selling organisation on the Continent of Europe, seems inconsistent. Then, he wanted to be able to quote c.i.f. But there is no reason why he should not quote c.i.f. as it is. Those of us who have been in the habit of dealing in commodities through agents, and so on, know perfectly well that the arrangements between principal and agent are sufficiently confidential and close to be able to quote for anything, anywhere, and to enable the principal to share with the agent the risk of the rate going against him or take it entirely on his own shoulders. It depends entirely on the arrangement he has with his agent.
Then he made another point—that he had lost business in by-products through being unable to quote c.i.f. That was an extraordinary case to put forward. Apparently some person in the office of the Coal Board was asked to quote c.i.f. Denmark for some by-product and answered, "We
506
cannot quote c.i.f.," and Britain lost the business. If that had happened in any of your businesses, would you not immediately have sent for that person and said: "Where is your initiative? Why did you not immediately get in touch with some of the British exporters who work in that market and say, 'This inquiry is in the market'?" I think that was the worst advertisement for the National Coal Board that I have ever heard. To imagine that the Chairman of the Coal Board should put forward to the Minister of Fuel and Power such a tale, and that the Minister of Fuel and Power then should swallow it as a reason for producing this Bill, seems to me most extraordinary.
Then again, he wants to acquire interests in bunker depôts first, where there is no British merchant represented, and secondly, as a stockpile. Surely, the answer is that where there is no British merchant represented—and there are remarkably few spots in the world where that is so—it is easy enough to obtain the power with an order from Parliament, With a stockpile, it is not necessary to own the depot of the stockpile. There is such a thing as consignment and joint account. It is easy to work through their agents, and here there were various other reasons, advertising and so on; but I am convinced that the real reasons for this clause are that there is a lack of proper relations between the National Coal Board sales and the classic exporters. If they were as close together as they should be, there would be absolutely no need for this clause. Of course, the sales department of National Coal Board, full of ambitious men, naturally want to extend their influence all over the world. Therefore, if they see any hope of getting these powers they will naturally not come to the close rapprochement with the exporters which they ought to do.
Then again, the Minister says that this is not a Government concern. Whether it is de jure not Government or de facto not Government, I do not know, but I know your Lordships regard the similar organisation in the Argentine, Y.A.P.I., as a Government concern. I know perfectly well that the National Coal Board will be regarded all over the world as a Government concern. I personally will always oppose any measure designed to allow His Majesty's Government to enter into trade in foreign markets, and par-

507
titularly to own land for trading installations there. I feel that there is already so much bedevilment of international relations that we cannot afford to give further opportunities for it by allowing Government to start in these trading matters. In any event, any reasonable case that could be made out for doing any of these things can be put to Parliament, and it will he approved. Before the National Coal Board start on selling, I would remind your Lordships that the one thing that they ought to have sold, and have not succeeded in selling, is to sell to the miners the fact that money is worth more than leisure.
3.22 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I too should like to support this Amendment. I think it is most important that there should be some Parliamentary control. The present Government increasingly seem to want more and more power in the nation's affairs without any Parliamentary control whatsoever. The Coal Board are a public body, controlled by Parliament, and I think that, before they are allowed to enter into further activities abroad, Parliament should have the right of knowing something about them. The first Amendment which we had down was rather too narrow, but that does not apply to the Amendment now before the House. The two Houses of Parliament do not pray against an order unless they consider it absolutely essential to do so. But the right to do it gives them an opportunity of having some control over the Executive and knowing what is going on. I do not think that the Government should enter lightly into all these international markets without careful consideration. Therefore, I strongly support the alternative Amendment now before the House.
3.24 p.m.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, it seems to me that we had better be clear as to which Amendment is to be supported. I understand that it is the Amendment in lieu of the Amendment standing on the Paper. The Amendment which has been supported so far reads in these terms:
"Provided that the Board shall not carry on any activities outside Great Britain except under an authority in that behalf conferred by order of the Minister.
(2) The power conferred by this section on the Minister shall be exercisable by statutory
508
instrument which shall be laid before Parliament after being made."
That Amendment I am prepared to accept.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, the Amendment which I put to the House is the Amendment which was on the Paper.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: That is right.
VISCOUNT SIMON: What I gather you are now suggesting is that an alternative form of words may be preferred. No such alternative form of words has yet been moved.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, that is the point I had in mind. So far, the Amendment before the House is an Amendment which has not been discussed at all. What the noble Lords are subscribing to is an Amendment in lieu of the Amendment on the Paper. It should be made clear what I am to agree to before I agree.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord is not expected to agree to anything yet. What we want to know is his attitude towards the Amendment on the Paper.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: The truth is that nobody has yet spoken in favour of the Amendment on the Paper.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes, we have.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: So far, I am told that the Amendment, of which the House knows nothing at the moment, is the one that was preferred to the Amendment on the Paper. With regard to that Amendment, I think the noble Marquess was in error when he said that I had already dealt with it. All I have said is this: that the reasons which prompted the Government to resist the Amendment in another place are the reasons why they would resist this Amendment. In so far as the Amendments are similar, the same reasons apply for resisting them. But it seemed to be in the mind of the noble Lord opposite that this was in a negative form rather than in an affirmative form, and therefore it was different from that point of view. What it does is this. The

509
Coal Board try to make some business transaction with somebody abroad. Those abroad working with the Coal Board cannot come to a firm decision because it is subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament. For that reason, because it is not a good business method, the Government cannot accept even this Amendment. The same difficulty applies. Therefore, for the reasons I have given why we could not accept the previous Amendment, we cannot accept this Amendment either.
3.28 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think we are now fairly on the right lines. We on this side of the House have listened with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, has said, in regard both to the original Amendment—the Amendment which was sent down to another place and rejected—and to the new Amendment which we have moved in lieu. I speak for a great many other members of this House when I say that I cannot accept the main contention of the noble Lord, which was, as I understood it, that the only effect of this section of the Bill, without amendment at all, would be to put the National Coal Board in the same position as the private exporter in the past.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Yes.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: To my mind there is no analogy between the position of the two, because the exporters in the past were private firms in competition with each other. The National Coal Board are a great public monopoly supported by all the power of the State, and therefore they are in a position to exert great influence of an extreme character if such be their desire. I do not suggest for a moment that the present Minister, the present Government or the present Board would wish to take extreme or reprehensible action; but we are legislating for the future, and I do not think it is at all impossible that at some time in the future we might have another Government with a large extremist policy or an ambitious outlook which wished to extend its operations throughout the world, and that they might take some action which had the effect of driving
510
the private merchant out of existence altogether. Against that, under the Bill as it at present stands, Parliament could give no protection at all. Therefore, we still feel that some protection must be given, and that Parliament should he brought into the matter somewhere if there is to be this wide extension of the activities of the National Coal Board. But at any rate we are all grateful for the latter part of the noble Lord's first speech, in which he spoke in an extremely conciliatory tone.
I think it is clear that he recognises, I do not say the complete validity but some substance in the point that we have raised. In such circumstances I wish we could have persuaded him and the Government to accept the Amendment which my noble friend, Lord Teynham, has moved in lieu—that is to say, that any order which was made by the Minister should be subject to a negative Resolution of this House. I do not think that would he unfair; I think it would be both moderate and reasonable. But I understand that the Minister finds it impossible to accept it—for the reason, if I understood the noble Lord's argument, that it would be very difficult for the Coal Board to engage in any negotiations with foreign agencies or firms, when any negotiations which might be brought to a successful conclusion might at a later date be nullified by the action of one or other House. I understood that to be the argument. In my view it is a somewhat far-Beached argument, but no doubt there is some colourable substance to it.
But from words that the noble Lord let drop, gathered that the Government's mind is not closed to some alternative proposal. None of us, if we can avoid it, wants to multiply unduly the differences between the two Houses. We already have quite serious differences before us at the moment, and we do not wish to proliferate them beyond all reason. The real question is whether we can find means of maintaining the authority of Parliament in this matter without the device of a negative Resotion. That is the problem with which we are faced. I have 'Peen considering this matter because the noble Lord was good enough, a few hours before we met this afternoon—it could not have been done before—to put to me his preoccu-

511
pations in the matter. I have had some contacts with him and with the representatives of the Minister this morning, and as a result of these contacts I think I have found—in fact, I am sure of it —a line which might be acceptable to the Government and also to your Lordships.
This alternative in brief is this. It proposes that in the event of any extension outside the borders of Great Britain of the activities of the National Coal Board, an order will have to be made by the Minister and a statutory instrument will have to be laid before Parliament after the order has been made. I want to be quite frank with your Lordships. From our point of view that is not so good as a negative Resolution, because we can pray against a negative Resolution and we can nullify it, whereas under this procedure we cannot do that. But at any rate Parliament will be made cognisant of any new extension of the activities of the Board and Parliament can debate it; it can protest; it can move a vote of censure against the Government. It can do anything it likes, except that it cannot nullify the order. That is not so good from our point of view as what we previously proposed, but I believe it is a protection, and personally I should be prepared to recommend it to your Lordships.
My Lords, the effect of what I have said is that we should withdraw the Amendment in lieu and should move the alternative wording. I would like to read out the alternative wording for the consideration of your Lordships. It is as follows:
"Page 2, line 23, at end, insert 'Provided that the Board shall not carry on any activities outside Great Britain except under an authority in that behalf conferred by order of the Minister'"—
that is to say, any extension of their activities outside Great Britain must be subject to an order of the Minister, That is the first part. Then there follows this wording:
"(2) The power conferred by this section on the Minister shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be laid before Parliament after being made."
In my view that is a fair compromise between the opposing points of view, and I think that if Parliament is told of any
512
and every extension of the activities of the Board and has a chance of expressing its views, our most extreme anxieties should be met. Therefore, I would like to move that alternative Amendment in lieu and submit it for the consideration of the Government. I hope they will be ready to accept it. It may be that other noble Lords have views to express upon it.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, in view of the alternative wording which has been suggested, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment in the new form which I read out to the House.
Amendment moved—
Add at end of Motion: "but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof":
Page 2, line 23, at end, insert:
("Provided that the Board shall not carry on any activities outside Great Britain except under an authority in that behalf conferred by order of the Minister.
(2) The power conferred by this section on the Minister shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be laid before Parliament after being made").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, just to be clear on what we are discussing, did I understand the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack to leave out the portion as regards annulment? Because annulment is not without importance. The second printed paper that we have contains the words:
"An order made under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution by either House of Parliament."
Is that part of the Amendment?
VISCOUNT SIMON: My noble and learned friend will appreciate that that was part of the original Amendment, which has now been withdrawn.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I understand that. I mention it only to show the words which I think should be added, unless the noble Marquess has some view to the contrary.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: All I can say to the noble and learned Viscount is that that is the exact point which the Government say they will in

513
no circumstances accept. We can divide the House and defeat the Government on it. But if we can achieve an agreed solution to this question on the basis I have proposed. I believe it will be a better course, and that is what I recommend to the House.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I am much obliged. I now understand what the position is, and i quite agree with what has been said.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, in accepting the Amendment on behalf of the Government I would like to thank in particular the noble Marquess for the manner in which he has tried to find some solution of this difficult problem. The Minister is quite willing to accept this Amendment on behalf of the Government, because it does two things which he thinks are essential; it safeguards the commercial interests of the Board, and it also to some extent keeps him, as Minister, from interfering in the daily conduct of the business of the Board. I am pleased to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL
3.40 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reasons be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reasons be now considered.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[The references are to Bill No. 32]
Clause 10, page 10, line 32, at end insert—
("Provided that nothing in this section shall render a person liable to incur any expenditure for the purpose of complying with any requirement in excess of one florin in respect of each one apparatus in his possession which is made or adapted for use for ordinary domestic purposes and is used by him for those purposes in his household and is in reasonable repair and running order.")
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment for the following Reason:—
Because they consider that it is wrong that a person in an arbitrarily selected class should be allowed to interfere with the amenities of his neighbours regardless of whether it would unreasonably cause him hardship to cease doing so, merely because the cost of abating the interference would exceed an arbitrarily fixed amount; and that if this were permitted the voluntary collaboration on which the Government must in the great majority of cases continue to rely for the control of interference would be undermined.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that the effect of this Amendment at page 10, line 32, which I am asking your Lordships not to insist upon, was to prevent the Postmaster-General serving an enforcement notice, even when serious interference is taking place, if the cost of removing the interference would exceed one florin in respect of a piece of domestic electrical apparatus causing the interference but otherwise in a reasonable state of repair. I think noble Lords will agree that that is a fair summary of the proposition which is before the House. This Amendment has been rejected in another place on a number of grounds, and with your Lordships' permission I will give as briefly as I can the reasons which have been advanced.
In the first place, the Amendment fixes at an arbitrary figure of two shillings the maximum amount which a person can be compelled to pay in order to prevent interference with his neighbours. The figure, is surely arbitrary because it is not fixed in relation to the income of the person causing the interference, who may equally belong to an extremely poor or an extremely wealthy household. Every household is not impecunious. I am sure noble Lords agree with that proposition. On the other hand, some housewives may be so impecunious that even to be forced to make a payment of two shillings might be imposing a hardship on them and mil-hi be asking them for more than they should be expected to pay. Both those propositions, I think, are so obvious that they will not be challenged, The question really is whether or not a housewife can be adequately protected. Ibis Amendment gives no indication, en the face of it, of whether hardship would in fact be caused by the payment of a larger sum

515
than two shillings, and there will obviously be many occasions on which a larger figure—say a few shillings more than two shillings—could not be accepted in relation to the means of the housewife and could not be afforded without causing financial hardship to the person whose domestic apparatus causes the interference.
In the second place—this is the second objection to the Amendment—the Amendment discriminates in favour of a certain class of person who are users of domestic electrical apparatus. It takes no account at all of the hardship and deprivation to wireless listeners, who may also be housewives and who in many cases may be in the habit of listening to the wireless in the evening, or during the daytime while they are at work. I am informed that as many as a hundred listeners may be interfered with by a single piece of domestic apparatus. Thirdly, there can be little doubt that fewer people will voluntarily buy suppressors to prevent interference when they know that the law gives exemption to a certain class of individuals. Everyone hopes—I know that all of us here share that hope—that the great majority of users of electrical apparatus that is causing trouble will be willing to cooperate as good neighbours in order to avoid being a nuisance to other households in their neighbourhood. I think that the last thing we should want to do would be to enact legislation which would in any degree discourage such willing co-operation.
Finally—and this to my mind is a really conclusive argument against the Amendment—the housewife is in fact already protected from the risk of hardship far more effectively by Clause 19 (5), a subsection which was inserted when the Bill came before your Lordships' House on a previous occasion. I think your Lordships will agree that this provision has just that element of flexibility and generality which the Amendment lacks. It obliges the tribunal to allow interference to continue if to do otherwise —and here I quote the words of the sub-section—
"would unreasonably cause hardship to the person using or desiring to use the apparatus."
It would therefore happen, in cases of real hardship, if they ever reached the
516
tribunal—and I am sure the Post Office would be most reluctant to bring cases of real hardship before the tribunal at all; as a rule they would not press the obligation to suppress interference in such cases—that the tribunal would place the housewife in the position of paying nothing at all, not even the two shillings maximum suggested in the Amendment.
I would like, if I may, to read Clause 19 (5), because I think it achieves the object we all desire. We all want to prevent the housewife being penalised by having to pay an unfair amount in order to fit a suppressor to a piece of electrical apparatus which she is using in her home. We all have the same object in mind, and I think that on consideration your Lordships will agree that this subsection gives the housewife even better protection than the Amendment which we are now discussing. The subsection reads:
"In considering for any of the purposes of this Act, whether, in any particular case, any interference with any wireless telegraphy caused or likely to be caused by the use of any apparatus, is or is not undue interference, regard shall be had to all the known circumstances of the case and the interference shall not be regarded as undue interference if so to regard it would unreasonably cause hardship to the person using or desiring to use the apparatus."
I hope that your Lordships will agree that this Amendment should not be insisted upon. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
3.47 p.m.
LORD CHERWELL: My Lords, I do not propose to ask the House to insist on this Amendment, but I must say that I am deeply shocked that the Government should have refused to accept it. The sole purpose of the Amendment is to protect the housewife against undue charges being imposed upon her merely because she is using electrical apparatus for ordinary domestic purposes. For twenty or thirty years now, apparatus of this sort has been in use in almost every household which has electricity laid on. Electric cookers, electric stoves, electric sweepers, electric irons and a host of other appliances have been a commonplace of everybody's existence. Occasionally the radiation emitted by such appliances, or disturbances injected by them into the mains, cause trouble to neighbouring listeners.

517
When this happens, the Post Office, acting, I understand, on behalf of the B.B.C., search out the cause and practically always manage to get the matter put right by voluntary co-operation.
Now, by this Bill this friendly cooperation—so typical it seems to me of this country—is to be swept away. Snoopers are to be allowed to force their way into the house, and the unhappy housewife is to be compelled to pay any sum required to fit suppressors or whatever it may be so as to prevent interference of any sort or kind with some rich man's television set in the neighbourhood. The noble Earl has told us that the housewife herself is often a listener, so that her own reception will be benefited. If so, no doubt she will co-operate without any need for compulsory powers. The noble Earl also told us, and he added that he regarded this as conclusive, that she could always appeal to the tribunal which can take account of cases of hardship. I think that to put this argument forward seriously shows that one is quite out of touch with reality. Does any noble Lord really believe that the ordinary housewife, faced with the demand to spend, say, ten shillings, twenty shillings, or thirty shillings, to suppress interference from her electric iron, or whatever it may be, will have the time or the knowledge, or indeed the courage, to go to some tribunal and plead her case?
The idea is quite absurd. It costs the B.B.C., acting through the Post Office, something like £2 to trace these sources of interference. If it costs only a few shillings to correct them, surely that small amount might be thrown in out of the revenues of £11,000,000 or so which the B.B.C. enjoys. If it costs more than a few shillings, then it is monstrous to impose this expenditure upon innocent people who have purchased appliances, perfectly legally, in good faith, kept them in good order and are using them for their proper purposes, merely because some neighbour thinks it might improve his radio reception.
This House is always anxious to protect humble individuals against exactions by the Executive. This Amendment was designed to do this, and would have achieved it. That it should have been voted down by a Socialist majority throws a lurid light on the unreality of that Party's claim that its main concern
518
is to protect the interests of the poor and weak against the rich and powerful. I hope that the country will take note of this new instance of callous disregard of that most important, most long-suffering and most uncomplaining body, the nation's housewives, who will be injuriously affected.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENEMENTS
Clause 11, page 12, line 30, at end insert—
("(c) if they are satisfied that compliance with the said requirements or those requirements as directed to be varied, would impose unreasonable cost (lot being less than one hundred pounds) upon the person having possession of or any interest in the apparatus they may if they think fit direct the Postmaster General to allocate the cost in such proportion among such persons or class of persons and in such manner as may be specified in the direction.")
page 12, line 31, after ("notice") insert t ("or allocate the cost.")
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendments for the following Reason:
Because the said Amendments would in certain cases affect mimic funds; and the Commons consider it unnecessary to offer any further Reason, hoping that the above Reason may be deemed sufficient.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on these Amendments. With your Lordships' permission, I will speak to these two Amendments together. I think it would save your Lordships' time and, at least to my view, reasons are the same in each ease. These Amendments were rejected in another place because in certain cases they would impose a charge on public funds, and I am certain that your Lordships, in accordance with tradition, will accept that reason as a valid ground for not pressing them. We all recognise it is a matter of privilege. At the same time, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, and I daresay noble Lords in other parts of the House, would like a fuller explanation of the attitude of the Government to the tribunal procedure if Amendments which gave rise to considerable discussion when considered here previously are now dropped. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, that I am most anxious to take him as fully as I can into our confidence and explain how we intend to apply Clause 11 of the Bill, so as to avoid unfair or unreasonable enforcement of measures to stop interference. I hope I shall be able to satisfy

519
the noble Lord that enforcement will always be considered in a spirit of fairness and reasonableness to all concerned.
While we are not prepared to write into the Bill financial provisions on the lines of the original Amendment, I can assure the noble Lord that if in practice financial difficulties arise which cannot be overcome (as they often have been overcome in the past) in the normal course of discussion and negotiation between the interested parties, the Government will give their sympathetic consideration to the next step, and if convinced that something further should be done, will make the necessary proposals to Parliament. But my right honourable friend the Postmaster-General is prepared to go even further than that to avoid the possibility of hardship and to save any firm or individual from the risk of having to bear unreasonable expense in relation to the suppression of interference. I can give the noble Lord the following carefully considered assurance. Although there is nothing in the Bill on this subject, the chairman of the tribunal will in fact be at liberty to express a view on the subject of allocation of expense in suppressing interference to a Government wireless station in any case in which he might feel moved to do so. If he were to express such a view, I need hardly add—but I would like to do so in order to make our intentions absolutely clear—the Government would naturally give serious consideration to his observations. That is as far as I can go towards meeting the desires of the noble Lord opposite, and I sincerely hope he will feel that a genuine effort has been made to satisfy the point he raised. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the said Amendments.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD CHERWELL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for his conciliatory reply and to say that this proposal goes some way to meet the difficulty we had in mind when we put this Amendment into the Bill. Without it, it appears that the tribunal has only two alternatives—namely, to direct the Postmaster-General to revoke or vary the notice, or to put the whole expense of complying with it on the party causing interference. As the noble Earl recog-
520
nises, there must be many cases where it would be in the general interest to have the interference removed but where it would be unfair to put the whole expense on the party causing it. It seems to me that the proposal made, which enables the chairman of the tribunal to express a view as to the proper distribution of costs in such a case, and the assurance the Government have given, that they will give great weight to such a recommendation, go a long way to meet the difficulty we have felt. Therefore, I agree that we should not insist on these Amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PREVENTION OF DAMAGE BY PESTS BILL [H.L.]
3.57 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The references are to Bill No. 38, as first printed by the Commons.]
Clause 1, page 1, line 12, leave out ("the port of London or")
Clause 1, page 1, line 16, leave out from ("the") to ("the") in line 17 and insert I" council of any county")
Clause 3, page 2, line 27, leave out ("premises") and insert ("land")
Clause 3, page 2, line 29. leave out ("premises") and insert ("land")
Clause 3, page 2, line 32, leave out ("premises") and insert ("land")
Clause 4, page 2, line 41, after ("If") insert ("in the case of any land")
Clause 4, page 2, line 43, leave out from ("that") to ("they") in page 3, line 1, and insert ("steps should be taken for the destruction of rats or mice on the land or otherwise for keeping the land free from rats and mice")
Clause 4, page 3, line 3, at end, insert ("for the purpose aforesaid")
Clause 4, page 3, line 4, leave out from ("specified") to second ("and") in line 6.
Clause 12, page 7, line 15, leave out from ("require") to end of line 17, and insert ("cause a local inquiry to be held; and the provisions of subsections (2) to (5) of section two hundred and ninety of the Local Government Act, 1933 (which relate to the giving of

521
evidence at, and defraying the cost of, local inquiries), shall have effect with respect to any such inquiry as if the Minister were a department for the purposes of that section.")
Clause 12, page 7, line 22, at end insert—
("(6) In the application of this section to Scotland, for subsection (3) there shall be substituted the following subsection:
"(3) Before making an order under this section, the Secretary of State shall give to the local authority an opportunity of making representations to him and shall take into consideration any representations made and, if the authority so require, cause a local inquiry to be held:, and the provisions of subsections (3) to (9) of section three hundred and fifty-five of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947 (which relate to the giving of evidence at, and defraying the cost of, local inquiries), shall apply to any such inquiry."").
Clause 15, page 9, line 15, leave out from ("appeal") to ("to")
Clause 15, page 9, line 16, leave out from ("which") to ("situated") in line 17, and insert ("the works are required to be carried out or, as the case may be, in which the food or container is for the time being")
Clause 15, page 9, line 36, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
("(a) in subsection (1), for the words from "to a court" to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words "by way of an application to the sheriff in whose jurisdiction the works are required to be carried out or, as the case may be in which the food or container is for the time being";")
Clause 16, page 9, line 43, leave out ("that section") and insert ("section fourteen of this Act")
Clause 19, page 10, line 40, leave out ("the prevention or treatment of infestation") and insert ("keeping down or destroying rats, mice, insects or mites")
Clause 19, page 10, line 44, leave out from ("approve") to ("in") in line 46, and insert ("different methods for use")
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause—
Compensation of officers
(".—(1) The Minister shall by regulations provide for the payment of compensation subject to such exceptions or conditions as may be specified in the regulations—

(a) by the councils of counties, to persons who, immediately before the commencement of this Act, were employed by such councils for the purposes of their functions under the Rats and Mice (Destruction) Act, 1919, or would have been so employed but for any war service in which they were engaged, and who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments which is attributable to the passing of this Act;

(b) by any local authority in whose case an order is made under subsection (2) of section twelve of this Act, to persons who immediately before that order came into force
522
were employed by that authority for the purposes of their function under Part I of this Act, or would have been so employed but for any war service in which they were engaged, and who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments which is attributable to the order or anything done thereunder.

(2) Any such regulations may include provision as to the manner in which and the persons to whom any claim for compensation under this section is to be made, and for the determination of all questions arising under the regulations.
(3) In this section the expression "war service" means service in any of His Majesty's forces and such other employment as may be prescribed by regulations made under this section.")
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, if it would be for the convenience of the House, I should like to move that this House do agree wish the Commons in all these Amendments They are more or less drafting and improvements on drafting and we can take them all as one.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl for his suggestion, which I think might well have the support of the House. So far as I can see, these are merely tidying-up Amendments. They go to show that we are as much indebted so another place when they act as our second Chamber as they are so often to us when we act as theirs. They have certainly tidied up this Bill, which originated in this House. So far as I am concerned, I have no objection to any of the Amendments which are now proposed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
4.0 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this little Bill has been drawn up to remove a grievance in connection with the administration of the death grant which, as your Lordships remember, was introduced by the National Insurance Act, 1946. I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is a legitimate grievance, and one which ought to be removed. It arises in this way. The Act provides that, in order to qualify for the death grant,

523
the insured person must have actually paid since July 5, 1948, when the scheme began to operate, twenty-six contributions. I draw your Lordships' attention to the words "actually paid." This condition cannot be satisfied by what are called "credited contributions." Perhaps I ought to explain what is meant by "credited contributions." The regulations which have been made under the Act enable insured persons in certain cases to be credited with contributions in respect of which they have not actually made payments; for example, while receiving sickness, unemployment or maternity benefit. Many of the people who are being credited with these contributions are people who have in the past been under the earlier scheme and have paid contributions over many years. But, perhaps logically, the Act provides that as this is a new scheme, which came into operation on the date I have mentioned, those earlier contributions which have been paid cannot be taken into account.
The result is that at the present time a substantial number of people who come under the other parts of the insurance scheme are being excluded from the death benefit; these are people who have been sick, disabled, or unemployed for more than six months since July 5, 1948, together with their wives and their children; widows who are in receipt of the new widow's benefits under the Act, again with their children; and certain categories of young persons, such as those who are credited with contributions where they are continuing their education. Most of these people will, of course, qualify in the future, but at the moment the number of people who are estimated to be unprotected is no less than 500,000 persons. These are people who are substantially covered by the scheme, but who are not entitled to the death grant. As I have said, the persons who are affected by the requirement that there shall have been twenty-six contributions paid are in the main those who have been covered for many years under the old scheme, and who are often among the most needy sections of the population.
The purpose of the present Bill—which, as your Lordships see, is very short indeed—is to amend the Act of 1946 in order to permit that the credited contributions shall rank as a qualification for
524
the grant; indeed, the operative part of the Bill really does little more than add the words "or credited" to the word "paid" which appears in the Act. This is entirely in accordance with the proposals in the White Paper which was issued by the Coalition Government, where it was said that:
"the contribution conditions would be limited to those needed to establish that the deceased was in current insurance, or was the wife or child of an insured person."
I need, perhaps, only add that the cost of carrying through this Amendment is estimated at the present time to be something like £200,000 per annum; but that, of course, is a ceiling figure, and as more people are able to pay their contributions it will rapidly taper off, until within a few years the amount involved will be only a nominal figure. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this is a Bill which ought to receive everybody's support. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Chorley.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, this is clearly a Bill to remove an entirely unintentional lacuna in the original Act. The death grant, I believe, had the support of all Parties in Parliament. We are quite in favour of this Bill, and we do not wish to make any further comment on it.
On Question, Bill read 2*; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 13), Bill read 3a; and passed.

AIRWAYS CORPORATIONS BILL
4.8 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Pakenham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Accounts, etc.
4.—(1) In respect of the financial year ending with the thirty-first day of March, nineteen

525
hundred and fifty, and any subsequent financial year beginning before the appointed day—

(a) the statement of accounts prepared by the British Overseas Airways Corporation under section twenty-one of the Civil Aviation Act, 1946, may extend to the accounts of the British South American Airways Corporation, and in that case no such statement shall he prepared or sent to the Minister under that section by the British South American Airways Corporation; and

(b) the report made to the Minister by the British Overseas Airways Corporation under subsection (1) of section twenty-two of the said Act may extend to the operations of the British South American Airways Corporation, and in that case no report shall be made under that subsection by the British South American Airways Corporation.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN moved to add to subsection (1):
"Provided that where the operations of the British Overseas Airways Corporation extend to areas in which, prior to the passing of this Act, air transport operations were carried out by the British South American Airways Corporation then the said statement of accounts and report shall, so far as is practicable, show separately the operating costs and financial results of the provision of air transport facilities in such areas, and the information herein-before required shall continue to be furnished by the British Overseas Airways Corporation in respect of such areas after the dissolution of the British South American Airways Corporation.
The noble Viscount said: When this Bill was before Standing Committee in another place some of my right honourable friends were very much concerned that in the future, as in the past, it should be possible to distinguish the operational results of the British South American Airways Corporation; that is to say, that it should be possible in future, if this Bill becomes law, to be able to segregate the operational results of those groups which are now going to be taken over by B.O.A.C. from B.S.A.A. As I understand the position, the Minister in charge of the Bill in Standing Committee in another place gave an assurance that, so far as information was available and desirable, it would be given, subject only to a qualification which I took to mean that we should not expect information to be given to Parliament if similar information would not be given in a private enterprise concern under business conditions. With that in mind, this Amendment standing in my name and
526
that of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye has been put down.
Your Lordships will see that this Amendment asks that in the statement of accounts and reports of the B.O.A.C. the air transport operations in the areas previously served by B.S.A.A. shall, so far as practicable, be shown separately in regard to operating costs and financial results. There are one or two points about that. The first is that this Amendment is quite consistent with Section 21 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1946. Subsection (2), which dealt with the operations of a subsidiary, does not apply in this case. I think it will be found that there is nothing in that section which rules out the Government doing what is suggested in this Amendment. There are only two questions which arise on this Amendment. The first is: Is it a business proposition for such information to be kept and such statistics to be recorded? Secondly: Is it desirable to publish them? I want to take those two questions in the order in which I have given them. I do lot think anybody could possibly contend that it was not practicable, as a business proposition, to keep statistics of this sort. I have not had the privilege of seeing the modern card-punching systems of B.O.A.C. or B.S.A.A., but I had an opportunity before the war of seeing the system of K.L.M. Anybody who has the slightest knowledge of those systems knoms that it is not only possible, but absolutely necessary, in the interests of proper business, that the accounts of the different routes should be segregated by the various mechanical devices in such a way that they are produced externally in the office and can be produced externally if it becomes necessary and desirable to produce them.
My next point is: Is it desirable to publish them? Our Amendment uses the words "so far as is practicable." It may or may not be practicable to publish in detail the operating results of the South American section of B.O.A.C. It depends very much on what are the results to be anticipated in competition at the time when it is thought necessary to publish them. But my point is t hat if steps are not taken to keep these records in the proper way, it will be impossible for Parliament to ask for their publication. If, on the other hand, the first step is taken, and the accounts are kept and the information

527
is available internally, then it is always possible to produce those accounts in so far as it is in the best interests of all concerned to produce them. This Amendment was drafted in such a way as to write into the Bill the undertaking given in another place by the Minister concerned. We think the Amendment is a wise one. We do not think that it conflicts with the obvious need not to publish figures which might benefit our competitors more than they benefit our own Airways Corporation. We consider it would be an improvement to the Bill, and I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 18, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Bridgeman.)
LORD PAKENHAM: I sympathise a good deal with the argument of the noble Viscount, and with the intention which is clearly behind this Amendment. I am afraid that I shall have to ask him to withdraw it, and I hope that he will feel able to do so, having served a useful purpose in extracting from me a satisfactory assurance. I have been rather careful to discuss this matter with the chairman of B.O.A.C., and arrive at a binding form of words which will no doubt be carefully considered in years to come. The published accounts of B.O.A.C., which give more information than is normal by commercial standards, already show the operating revenue and expenditure analysed, under suitable headings, separately for each division of the Corporation—that is, of B.O.A.C. as it is now. It will, of course, be necessary to make some change in the present form of this analysis under divisions to conform to any change in the organisation of the Corporation. I can assure the Committee that it is my intention—in which the chairman himself concurs—to see that the published accounts continue to be fully informative, provided, of course, that they do not divulge information which would be harmful to the Corporation in their competition with other airlines.
I think that sums up my reply pretty clearly, but I would add just two points. I do not think there is any difference between the interpretation which the noble Viscount put upon what the Parliamentary Secretary said, and what I am saying now. There is certainly no dif-
528
ference between what I am saying now and what the Parliamentary Secretary said. But I would ask the noble Viscount to accept this form of words rather than his own. The noble Viscount said that the assurance given by the Parliamentary Secretary implied that all the information would be given by B.O.A.C. that was given by a commercial company—or words to that effect. We should not be governed by what some particular commercial company does; we should be governed by the test of whether divulging the information is, in our view and in the view of the Corporation, harmful. I would not like to mislead the noble Viscount into thinking that I had accepted his precise interpretation, although I think in practice it is a distinction without a difference.
The only other point is the fact which was brought out in another place, that we do not intend that the present geographical structure, with its geographical divisions, should be permanent. We intend to move on a little later to an organisation under which there is a devolution to lines on the one hand, and to areas on the other. Therefore, while we intend to give just as full information—subject to this point which might operate in some unforeseen way—we cannot hind ourselves to giving the information by divisions as they are now constituted, because divisions of that character will not exist in the future. I hope the noble Viscount feels that we are out to meet his point. I quite agree that it is right to encourage emulation between the different lines, areas or whatever they might be called at the moment, and I also agree strongly with what I think is in his mind —that the public, both critical and friendly, should have sufficient information to form a judgment as to what is going on. That is most important. Whatever people may say about our airlines —and as the Committee know, I think they are pretty good—I do not think anybody has criticised us hitherto for not giving enough information. I can assure the Committee that, while I accept the intention behind the Amendment, I am convinced that the purpose can be served by an assurance of the kind I have given.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I think the Minister has given the Committee an assurance which is acceptable. He has given it not only in words, but

529
in the spirit in which those words were expressed. As he said, whether we approve of this particular Bill or whether we disapprove, we all want to be able to see the results and the effects of operations under the Bill, to make comparisons with what we think could be achieved in relation to what has been achieved and, perhaps, comparisons as to what might have been achieved had this Bill not been introduced. I think it has been well worth my noble friend's while to move this Amendment, because of the words which we have extracted from the Minister. I think the Minister spoke of the intention of the Government, and I should like to remind him of a Parliamentary gem that came from a Member in another place, to which I am sure the Government does not subscribe any more than we do. These words were uttered by one of the noble Lord's own supporters in Standing Committee:
"The business of the Committee and the Government is to find a way of meeting the intention without incurring the disadvantage involved in carrying it out."
I think that is a gem. It is because we want to avoid any sort of possibility of a repetition of that sort of "sloppy" expression that I am glad that the Minister has been so clear and definite in his words to-day. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
4.22 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE moved, after Clause 5 to insert the following new clause:
Machinery for settling conditions of employment, etc.
" . An order of the Minister of Civil Aviation under subsection (4) of Section one of this Act shall provide that consultation in regard to any proposed discharge or transfer of officers or servants shall take place between the British Overseas Airways Corporation and such organisations as at the date of the said order represented any substantial number of such officers or servants."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the new clause as set out on the Order Paper. It deals with the machinery for settling conditions of employment, and proposes that if the Minister makes an order under subsection (4) of Clause 1 that order shall provide that consulta-
530
tion in regard to any proposed discharges of officers or servants shall take place between B.0.A.C. and such organisations as at that time represent any substantial number of such officers or servants. I would agree at once that it does not look as if redundancy will be any great problem arising out of this amalgamation. We hope that civil aviation will expand and that, far from redundancy, there will be opportunities for new entrants. Nevertheless, there may be some redundancy here and there, through the welding together of these two bodies, and where there is any such redundancy we feel that it should not be decided by any discrimination as to membership or non-membership of any particular union.
There is behind this Amendment a rather unhappy story. I will not elaborate it this afternoon, but your Lordships can read it in the Report of the proceedings in another place. It is the unhappy history of the Aeronautical Engineers' Association, which is a union outside the National Joint Council for Civil Aviation. It has applied for membership of that Council, and the application has been refused. Quite frankly, my Lords, I am not going to press this Amendment. What I want from the noble Lord opposite is an assurance that the Corporations are not closed shops, and that in the treatment of any man no notice will be taken of the fact of whether he was a member of any particular union. The A.E.A. has had, and still has, I believe, a substantial number of members. At one time the engineers in the two Corporations numbered some 5,000 the A.E.A. membership was 2,500. It is a responsible body but in another place was labelled a "goose club," by the Parliamentary Secretary. It is true that he afterwards said he had no intention of disparaging the union, but it is not a pretty expression to use of men who got together originally to protect their ex-Service interests and now seek to protect their technical interests. I hope the Minister will be able to say that, if there is consultation as regards any redundancy, it will not be carried out in any manner which is associated with the union to which men may or may not belong. I trust that the Corporation will feel themselves free to consult anybody, whether it be the National Joint Council

531
or any individual union—the A.E.U. or the A.E.A.—in their consideration of particular cases. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 5, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Balfour of Inchrye.)
LORD PAKENHAM: I am grateful once again to the noble Lord, the representative of the Opposition, for the moderate way in which he has put his case and for saying that he will not press the Amendment. I agree that here is an unhappy and complicated story. As a matter of fact, I think the noble Lord, even if he was thinking of the past, rather exaggerated—quite unwittingly—the proportion of employees of the Corporation in the A.E.A. I will not take up your Lordships' time for very long, but I would remind the House that in the Civil Aviation Act, 1946, Section 19, there is a duty laid on each of the three Corporations, with the qualifications mentioned,
"to seek consultation with any organisation appearing to the Corporation to be appropriate,"
so that they may, among other things, settle by negotiation terms and conditions of employment of persons employed by the Corporation. This, I am advised, includes redundancy. There is, then, an obligation falling on the Corporation to consult with proper organisations as to redundancy. Indeed, this obligation, has been fulfilled hitherto, and since the merger was foreshadowed we have already publicly announced more than once that we shall adopt the machinery of consultation with appropriate bodies.
I would say, in parentheses, that what the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye said is quite right: that the amount of redundancy arising from the merger is expected to be very small indeed. The only question, therefore, is, which are the proper bodies to consult? That is the only issue this afternoon; and, as the noble Lord is aware, elaborate and, I think I may say, very successful machinery has been established under the name of the National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport. It is a machine which is accepted both by the employers—and I am thinking not only of the Corporations but also of the charter companies—and by the trade
532
unions. The A.E.A., not being eligible for admission to the T.U.C., are not accepted as part of the National Joint Council machinery; and therefore I am afraid it is impossible to consult them for such purposes as those suggested without violating the rules and principles of the National Joint Council machinery. We cannot, I fear, bring them into consultation as regards redundancy.
I can, however, give the noble Lord an absolute assurance that individual members of the A.E.A. will be treated in the matter of redundancy on a precisely equal footing with members of the staff of the Corporation who are not members of the A.E.A. There will be no discrimination whatever, either in theory or in fact.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I should like to be clear about the machinery. Suppose that a man who is a member of the A.E.A. has himself representations to make about his redundancy. I understand that that man's case would be considered by the National Joint Council, that the man would be able to make representations direct, either to the management or to the National Joint Council, and that he would not have to go to a union through an official of a union to which he did not belong and of which for his own private reasons he might not approve.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, he would in practice appear before a local joint panel and he would have direct access himself. He would be able to argue his own case. Therefore, while we cannot accept consultation with the A.E.A. we can give this assurance: that no individual member of the A.E.A. has any reason to suppose he will suffer, in respect of redundancy or any other conditions, as opposed to those who are not members of the A.E.A. I hope that that assurance will satisfy the noble Lord. Those are the last words I wish to speak on the subject. I myself look forward to the time when all these difficulties and differences are forgotten, and to a very bright future for the new amalgamated Corporation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without Amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 13), Bill read 3a, and passed.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL
4.32 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clauses 1 to 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Grants to persons other than local authorities for improvement of housing accommodation
(3) Before approving an application under this section for an improvement grant the local authority shall satisfy themselves as to the following requirements, that is to say,
(a) that, as respects dwellings to he provided by means of the improvement works, the dwellings will provide satisfactory housing accommodation for a period of not less than thirty years from the completion of the works, and, as respects dwellings to be improved by means of the improvement works, the dwellings as so improved will provide such accommodation for a period of not less than thirty years from the completion of the works;
Provided that
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (3) to add to the proviso:
("(iii) (a) if in relation to any dwelling the Secretary of State (after consultation with the Agricultural Executive Committee and District Wages Committee having jurisdiction within the area in which such dwelling is situate) certifies that such dwelling is necessary foil the proper and efficient carrying on of an agricultural holding, the provisions of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section eleven of this Act shall not apply with respect to such dwelling during such period as such certificate continues in force;
(b) any certificate granted by the Secretary of State as aforesaid may be revoked by him if he is of opinion that the dwelling to which it relates is no longer necessary for the proper and efficient carrying on of the said agricultural holding but before any such certificate is revoked the Secretary of State shall consider any representations made to him by the owner of the dwelling or by the tenant of the said holding;
534
(c) where any such certificate granted by the Secretary of State is revoked as aforesaid the owner of the dwelling to which the certificate related shall within a period of three months pay to the local authority the like amount as would become payable to them under subsection (2) of section eleven of this Act in the event of a breach at the date of the revocation of the certificate of any of the conditions specified in subsection (1) of the said section and in the event of the owner failing to pay such amount as aforesaid the provisions of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section eleven of this Act shall extend and apply to the dwelling in like manner as they would have applied if in the absence of a certificate from the Secret try of State an improvement grant had been made in respect of the dwelling."
The noble Earl said: I think it is always one of the purposes of this House to endeavour to reconcile elements in the political life of this country which it is difficult to bring together. We have on the one side an urgent requirement in agriculture while on the other side we have existing political exigencies which are divergent. The object of this Amendment is to endeavour to reconcile and draw together those two points. First of all, I should like to say that a measure of tied houses is absolutely necessary. I challenge the noble Lord to give any reliable or authoritative source that would deny that in some cases tied houses are necessary. On the other hand, there is the present political view (shall I say?) largely held by town dwellers who question whether the tied house should be allowed to continue, at least to the extent that it does at the present time.
May I submit my point to the noble Lord in this way? I believe that His Majesty's Government will agree with me. There are undoubtedly cases where tied houses must remain, and it may be there are other cases in which they can be dispensed with. It is to meet precisely that position that I put forward this Amendment to your Lordships this afternoon. May I take the first point, lest it should be thought, from any authoritative reports, that tied houses in Scotland are not an urgent necessity? May I take, first of all, the Report by the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee who have heard a great deal of evidence on this point? They say in paragraph 277 (i):
"A certain number of houses are required as a rule on farms in order to secure that a worker or workers are readily available. In such circumstances no objection can be taken where farmers or landlords build houses for such workers on the farm and as tied houses."

535
Secondly, I turn to the Philip Report on Milk Services, and in paragraph 81 I find this sentence:
"In the case of housing at the farm, in certain circumstances—for example, where there is no adjacent community—the building of some new tied houses or the modernisation of existing ones, if any are available, would seem to be necessary."
I now turn to the Scottish Women's Rural Institutes, where, at the annual general meeting of the Central Council on April 28, 1949, it was resolved:
"That the provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Bill now under consideration be altered to allow agricultural landlords, including farmers, to obtain grant-aid for modernising rural houses, without having to give up their claim to keep these houses tied for their workers."
Those are pretty powerful opinions from a wide variety of sources. What is the difficulty at the present time? It is this: that certain criticisms of tied houses have been made by the Farm Servants' Union. No one would seek in any way to disparage the importance of that organisation. It is the major bargaining organisation in Scotland now, but it is fair to say—and these figures have not been contradicted in public—that its membership consists of 11,000 men and women, out of a total population who might be eligible for membership of some 90,000. I do not seek in any way to undermine its importance. All I say is that the figures indicate that the Union does not enjoy the full support which it might have. But even this body, who have criticised tied houses, are still unable to say that in some cases they are not necessary. I refer to a report in the Scotsman of March 2 which said that:
"Mr. Alexander Ewen, Secretary of the section, said they were not pressing for the complete abolition of the tied cottage, which in some instances might be essential."
So I think there is evidence of an urgent requirement. There is no doubt about that. No one can possibly deny it. I should like to put this further point. If tied cottages cannot be assisted in some measure, who suffers? It is not the landlord it is not the farm tenant. It is the farm worker, because he is the man who does not get his bath water.
This Amendment itself endeavours to reconcile the Secretary of State's difficulty in the case of a disagreement between the Farm Servants' Union and the
536
National Farmers' Union, for there are cases—and no one can deny it—where tied houses are necessary and unavoidable. In other cases perhaps they are not. The compromise suggested—we are often said to be very uncompromising in Scotland, but I think it is a compromise —is that the matter be left entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State. On the advice of the agricultural executive committee he may certify that in certain circumstances a tied house is necessary. In such circumstances a grant can be made, but it is open to the Secretary of State at any time, if he wishes, to refuse to use this power. It is open to him to say: "I will not use it for twelve months." or "I will not use it under certain agreements," or "I will not use it in any circumstances." He has the power in the event of agreement being reached between the Farm Servants' Union on the one hand and the National Farmers' Union on the other. He can use this power without the necessity of further legislation.
I would add only that these houses are urgently required in the drive for the production of food. The present difficulty in agriculture is primarily the shortage of man-power, and the provision of better houses is the surest and most obvious way in which man-power can be attracted. I submit, further, that we in Scotland have a particularly strong case. There are many cases of isolated farms which it is essential should be maintained at a proper level, and that can be done only by men who are working on the farm. In the circumstances I ask the noble Lord, with confidence, to consider this Amendment, the principle of which has not been examined, I think, either in this House or in another place since the discussion of this Bill, or the English Bill. I feel it is an Amendment which the noble Lord could meet without giving away his principle, and leave the matter entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 12, at end insert the said new proviso.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD POLWARTH: I should like to say one or two words in support of my noble friend, and particularly to emphasise why it is that we consider that the question of the service cottage is of

537
much greater importance in Scotland than it is in England. My noble friend has said that we have a great many more remote cottages where it is essential to have men in charge of stock. I believe it extends further than that. In England the basis of the farming community is the village, and in most parts of the country the farms are scattered around the villages and workers can live in the villages and work with equal ease at any one of a number of farms. In Scotland the village as such virtually does not exist. The normal community is centred on perhaps a school, a church and a post office at some point half way up a valley, and the farms are spread out in a long string up and down that valley. In those circumstances it is impossible for workers to be housed centrally and have adequate access to one or more of the farms.
I do not want to go into the relative advantages or disadvantages of the tied cottage. The point at issue here is simply, shall those cottages be eligible for an improvement grant or shall they not? The Secretary of State for Scotland has expressed his view. He has said that he is powerless to move in this matter until he has the agreement: of the Scottish Farm Servants' Union. What is the objection of the Scottish Farm Servants' Union? It is simply that to give grants for the reconditioning of tied houses is to give money to private owners. That is their objection to tied houses being included in the Bill. In all seriousness, what can the owner gain from a grant of this sort? In the first place, he will receive only 50 per cent. of the amount he spends, and I think it is perfectly clear that, even taking the maximum of £600 which he is eligible to receive as a grant, any gain he might receive in increased rent for the farm as a whole would be more than offset by the increased costs of maintenance and up-keep resulting from the improvement. Again, I do not think there can be any possibility of the owner making a capital profit as a result of the grant, because once he has been given an improvement grant he is bound to retain the farm for a minimum of twenty years, and if he should sell it within that period he is obliged to repay the grant to the local authority. Therefore in that case, too, he cannot conceivably make a profit. The only advantage the owner can receive is the satisfaction of seeing his estate in proper order and the workers on his
538
tenants' farms properly housed. I do not think noble Lords opposite or their colleagues in another place would wish to deprive even a landlord of that pleasure.
The question is simply one of public policy—namely, are we or are we not to spend the money on reconditioning these houses? It is understood that two of the major parts of this Government's policy are, first, to see that everybody in this country has a decent home and, secondly, to give every encouragement to farmers to obtain maximum food production. If the Government maintain their present attitude to the giving of grants for reconditioning service cottages, it cuts right across those two major items in their policy. If they maintain that attitude they will not be able to rely on the good will of the farming community. Feeling on this matter in Scotland is very strong. They will also endanger food production for the sake of a political view which had its origin long ago, it may be rightly or wrongly, and whose greatest advocates now are those who, I would venture to say, have the least experience of agriculture and of country life. We have moved this Amendment in no light manner and we ask His Majesty's Government to consider it very seriously We have gone half way to meet thein—in fact we have gone more than half way—and it will be of the greatest satisfaction to the farming community in Scotland if they can see their way to meet us on this common ground.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: The case for this Amendment has been ably, fully and emphatically put by my two noble friends who have spoken, but perhaps may add a few words to supplement it and to reinforce the point which was so well brought out by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, when he asked who was going to suffer if this compromise were not accepted. It is the key men in agriculture who are going to suffer. As the noble Earl pointed out, it is admitted by three specific bodies who have inquired into the question that some tied cottages are required for agriculture. For whom are those houses required? They are required for the key men—the grieves, the herdsmen, the shepherds and those who must be on the spot to look after the place and in case of emergency. It is impossible for a herdsman to live away from the farm, because he can never tell when a

539
case of illness may arise or when a cow may calve and help may be required. Similarly, other stockmen must be near their posts. For that reason it must be admitted that some tied houses are required. If so, why should those workers who are to live in these tied houses not be entitled to have the best house that they can get. Why should the Government refuse to give aid and assistance for the reconditioning of houses to bring them up to proper standards?
A third point which I think has not been brought out to-day is that in Scotland most farms have a certain number of houses which are fairly good houses but are not up to modern requirements. By the judicious expenditure of a little money, those houses can he brought up to modern standards. May I give your Lordships an illustration from the work done by the County Council of Fife in the period when the Housing (Rural Workers) Act was in force? During that period, which ended on June 30, 1945, 2,856 houses for agricultural workers in the County of Fife were reconditioned on a grant from the State at a cost of approximately £100 each, making a total cost of £278,452. Of those houses, 235 were owner-occupied, and they received a grant of £22,000 odd, leaving 2,621 houses for which the landlord received the grant and supplemented the reconditioning, the grant in those cases amounting to £255,604. I have given the Committee those figures because I feel that, taken as they are from the records of work in a progressive county in Scotland, they show that the position is appreciated by the local authorities. They also indicate clearly that a determination is shown by the local authority in question to undertake the responsibility which is thrown upon them. The net result is that at the cost of some £100 per house to the Exchequer, or to the rates, over 2,800 houses were reconditioned in that county.
That was work well worth doing. But it has now entirely stopped as the result of the action of the Government. The only possibility for future improvement lies in the grant available for the building of new houses. But why should a new house be built at large expense when there is already on a farm a house which, with moderate expenditure, could be put
540
into good repair and brought up to date? It is for those reasons that I would add any weight I can to the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and I hope that the Government, if they are really sincere in their declaration and intention—the Secretary of State and others responsible have declared over and over again that they wish to do something for the housing of agricultural workers—will take this compromise Amendment into careful and sympathetic consideration.
4.52 p.m.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: Arguments in support of this Amendment have been put forward so ably by noble Lords who have already spoken that it is with diffidence that I venture to add anything. But I would ask to be allowed to say a few words to reinforce what has been said. Before the war, progress in the modernisation of farm cottages and rural housing generally in Scotland was very good; it was going on at an increasingly rapid rate and the modernisation was constantly being brought to a higher standard. Since the war, under the present Government, modernisation has been almost at a standstill. There has been official discouragement, amounting almost to prevention, and even the repair of rural housing has been carried on with difficulty in face of discouragement. There have been many deputations to the Secretary of State and other Ministers in Scotland on this subject, but on all occasions we have been told—to a certain extent quite rightly—that the provision of new houses was more important, that we must be patient and wait our turn. But it was always held out to us that, before the end of this Parliament, the Government hoped they would be able to do something to increase again the rate of modernisation of these houses. The opportunity arises to-day.
The Government have boasted a great deal about the numbers of new houses which are going up in Scotland, but they do not seem to take into account the deterioration which has been going on all this time, and which is causing a serious offset in the total number of houses available. If the Government reject this Amendment to-day, they will be ignoring the advice of those who are most concerned in agriculture and those

541
who have most experience and responsibility in the provision of buildings and administration generally. It has already been stated that the principal benefit will accrue to the occupants of the houses. But there will also he substantial benefit to local authorities, in that they will not have to build new houses—often in out of the way places—at very great expense, to take the place of those which could now be modernised.
I think the assistance which could be given to food production needs to be still further emphasised. There is no doubt whatever that in the campaign for increased food production, which still lies in front of us, the improvement of these houses on farms in Scotland now is one of the matters which should come first; and if it is accorded priority a great deal of help will be given in the development of the land and the increasing of production. I would like to emphasise again that the object of the owners is the provision of better houses for people on the land and assistance to food production. I believe that all of us who come from Scotland know from experience that there are a great many farm workers, estate workers, woodmen and rural workers generally who prefer a good estate house at a low rent. This also applies to retired workers and those who want to retire and who are unable to get houses elsewhere. If something is not done quickly to improve what houses can still be improved, the deterioration will continue and there will be fewer houses available for those who want to retire and live in them or for those who wish to use them now.
There are a great many other points which could be stressed in favour of this Amendment, but I do not think your Lordships would wish to hear them today from me. I would only say in conclusion that even if the Government do nothing the responsibility on the landowners remains, and we, as landowners, as well as playing our own part to the best of our abilities, must do our utmost to encourage others to do everything they possibly can for the improvement of these houses at the earliest possible moment.
4.58 p.m.
LORD MORRISON: May I say at the outset of my remarks that we have listened to four excellent speeches de-
542
livered with a sincere desire to effect what I might call a last-minute compromise and so avoid a deadlock which has existed during the whole of the time that this Bill has been going through another place—and the Bill has had a rather prolonged stay in another place. I would like to pay my tribute to the noble Earl who has put down this Amendment for the effort which he has made to seek a way out of what I think—though I am not sure—he described as a deadlock between the farmers' union and the farm-workers' organisation. May I say straight away that I have no authority at all—noble Lords opposite will understand what I mean—to accept this Amendment. I will give some of the reasons which prevent my accepting it, but that does not I hope prevent me from paying my tribute to the excellent and reasonable manner in which the Amendment has been put forward.
The noble Earl, Lord Elgin, asked whether anyone would deny that some tied houses are required. I certainly would not deny it; I do not know about other people. But I respectfully suggest that that is net the issue. The issue which we are discussing is simply whether public money should be spent in improving tied houses which, after they have been improved at public cost, will still remain tied houses. That is the issue around which this Amendment revolves. Putting it in other words, the object of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, is to admit a limited class of cottages to improvement grants which are given to other houses which are not tied cottages. I would say, incidentally, that I am advised that the Amendment has been put down in the wrong place, and that actually it should be a proviso to Clause 12 (1) (b) which relates to conditions of grants.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I would accept that, if the noble Lord wants it.
LORD MORRISON: I anticipated that. I am not trying to lure the noble Earl into moving this Amendment from one clause to another, because apart from that there are certain administrative difficulties. Even on these I need not take up the time of the House, because if all these difficulties could be overcome, the Secretary of State still cannot see his way to authorise me to accept this Amendment.

543
As noble Lords who have read the lengthy debates in another place will know, the attitude which the Secretary of State has taken is that the arguments for and against service cottages, while he thinks they have been exaggerated by both sides, are such that he could not set himself up as an arbiter on this matter. The Scottish Farm Servants' Union are not opposed to the owner spending his own money on the improvement of a service cottage—I am quoting the opinion of the Scottish Farm Servants' Union. I repeat it again because I do not want to he misunderstood. Someone has said that a man who knows only one side of a question does not know even that. I am trying to give the Committee the opinion of the Scottish Farm Servants' Union as communicated to me. The Scottish Farm Servants' Union are not opposed to the owner spending his own money on the improvement of a service cottage if it is worth improving, but they have objections in principle to public money being spent on such cottages, whether these are necessary for efficient farming or not.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: Is the revenue for that expenditure to come from industry or where?
LORD MORRISON: I am afraid I can only refer the noble Duke to the Scottish Farm Servants' Union for an answer to that question. I am trying to give their side of the case and to prove, I hope successfully, why the Secretary of State has not come down on one side or the other in this discussion. The Secretary of State has discussed the whole question with both the farmers and the Union, and he has told both parties that until they can resolve their views he is unable to intervene with any useful action. I am advised that so far they have been unable to do so. That being so, the Secretary of State cannot see his way to force on the farm workers even a limited system of grants from public funds which, through their Union, they say they do not want. I have already paid my tribute to the noble Earl for his constructive Amendment which, although I am sure he will not agree with me, I regard as a form of compromise, and I have explained the reasons why, apart from certain administrative reasons into
544
which I need not go, because they are not of major importance, I cannot accept it. I repeat, that I have no authority to accept the Amendment and I am afraid the noble Earl must do what he thinks best in the circumstances.
5.5 p.m.
LORD CLYDESMUIR: I am sure your Lordships will sympathise with the noble Lord who has just spoken in his wrestling with a distasteful issue. In face of the absolute shortage of houses in Scotland at the present time, particularly in rural areas, I think your Lordships will feel that it is very unfortunate that this compromise suggestion cannot be accepted. It is made with the best will in the world to try to compose differences between the Farmers' Union and the Farm Servants' Union in a manner which might be acceptable to both sides and which would certainly he to the advantage of the country. The noble Lord has said that in certain circumstances tied houses might be necessary.
LORD MORRISON: That is my personal opinion.
LORD CLYDESMUIR: If this Amendment is accepted, the Secretary of State, advised as he is by a most competent Department, will be able to see whether certain tied cottages are necessary for the efficient running of a farm. There can be no abuse. If the landlord should abuse the certificate and put his butler or gamekeeper into the house, the certificate could be revoked and the landlord called upon to repay. It seems to me a watertight arrangement which should commend itself to both parties. The truth is that the parties have had little time to consider this question, as it has been rather rushed on us just before the Recess. I know that the noble Lord is not to blame for this. It took a long time in the Scottish Grand Committee and it comes to us in the last hot days of July, when there has been little time for consideration, not only in this House but outside. The contesting Parties, who have gone into a deadlock over this, would be well advised to sit down calmly and consider this suggestion. I hope your Lordships will see your way to go further with this Amendment. It makes the Secretary of State judge whether or not a particular cottage is necessary.
I have one other further reflection to make. It would seem that unless the

545
Amendment is accepted, the owner of property such as this is likely to be heavily penalised, because on the Second Reading of the Bill the noble Lord said, in reply to a question I raised, that property which qualified for grant under the Bill would be exempted from the development charge under the Town and Country Planning Act. That is a most important admission. It is an admission of the difficulty which is likely to hold up improvement, that the development charge has to be waived in order to get that improvement. If the Bill is not altered in this way the owner of a service cottage may well not only not receive a grant but may also have to pay development charge on the improvement to his cottage. Many agricultural workers will be compelled to live in less comfortable quarters than they might have if the Amendment were accepted. I do not wish to labour the point. The noble Lord might have wished to do something for us, but it is evident that he is not in a position to do so. I trust that the Secretary of State will place this issue before the contesting parties and see whether, even at this late hour, a compromise cannot be effected.
5.9 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is a very bold Englishman who intervenes in a Scottish debate, and I certainly do not intend to do so at any length. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he cannot persuade the Secretary of State to consider this matter further. He could not have had a more modest Amendment than this. All that it says is, that after consultation with the agricultural executive committee and district wages committee, the Minister may certify that a cottage is necessary for the proper and efficient carrying on of an agricultural holding. He need not say it. He can exercise his own judgment. It is impossible to argue that in no circumstances is a cottage essential to an agricultural holding. Everybody knows that a cottage is essential to a holding. It is not open to doubt at all. If it is found that a cottage is being used for another purpose, the Secretary of State is empowered to revoke his permission immediately, and then the owner has to repay the money expended by the State in respect of his property. I cannot conceive a more reasonable Amendment.
546
I was not quite clear as to the position of the noble Lord about tied cottages. The impression I received was that he thought that tied cottages were sometimes necessary but that on the whole the Government thought they were not. I am not certain about that. Undoubtedly the Government agree to the principle of tied cottages in the case of forestry, and I think in the case of the railways and the mines. It is only in the agricultural industry that this "great moral principle" is invoked, that cottages should not be tied. I do not think they represent any large opinion in the country, except those who are actuated by rather old prejudices in the matter.
I was rather shocked by the excuse which the noble Lord gave (it is not his excuse, and I do not blame him; it is the Government's excuse) that the Scottish Farm Servants' Union were against assistance for tied cottages. In any case, as the noble Earl, Lore Selkirk, said, the Union represents only about one in eight of the farm workers in Scotland, which is a very small proportion. Even assuming that to be the fact, is it really a matter on which the Scottish Farm Servants' Union should have an absolute veto? Would the Government apply that to housing generally? Would they say: "It is merely a matter between the landlord and tenant, and it has nothing to do with us"? If they used that argument, I think they would be blown out of the country. Why do they use that argument here? I think the only reason is because it is the only argument they have against it.
The noble Lord, Lord Morrison, agreed that this is a constructive Amendment. And it is a constructive Amendment in every sense of the word. It is an Amendment to enable farm workers to live under decent conditions. It is all very well for the Scottish Farm Servants' Union to say: "Let the man spend his own money." What has happened to the man's money at the present moment? He has been mulcted to the extent of about 18s. or 19s. in the pound by the Government. Is he expected to have the same amount to spend for these purposes as he had before? I do not think bodies like the Scottish Farm Servants' Union consider the position. I do not want them to take the side of the landlord, but they should consider the Position objectively. For all those reasons I think there is a

547
very strong case for this limited and reasonable Amendment. I would beg the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, to see whether he cannot get the Minister to consider the matter further. If he honestly believes he cannot do that, we shall understand his position, and we will proceed to a Division. This is not a matter we can allow to pass without expressing our view. If the noble Lord thinks he can persuade the Minister to consider it further, no doubt he will let us know.
LORD MORRISON: There are three points which the noble Marquess raised to which I would like to reply. The first is that in regard to tied cottages. I repeat that, in my own personal opinion, some tied cottages are necessary. From recent visits I have made to Scotland I cannot conceive how, for instance, in some of the sheep farming areas it would be possible for a farmer to continue unless the cottage where the shepherd lived was a tied cottage belonging to the farmer. However, I do not want noble Lords to draw any distinction between my views and the views of the Government, because I have reason to believe that the Secretary of State for Scotland, at any rate, holds the same view as I do, that some tied cottages are necessary. The noble Marquess raised the question of why we should pay any attention to the Scottish Farm Servants' Union.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I did not ask why you should pay any attention to them; I asked why you should govern your policy by their view. That is a very different thing.
LORD MORRISON: That is the point with which I shall endeavour to deal. Ever since I have been made, to some extent, the spokesman on Scottish affairs in your Lordships' House, one of the points that has struck me is that since the war the whole question of Scottish agriculture has been lifted completely out of Party politics; that has been one of the issues that have been discussed not on strict Party lines. I have met nobody in Scotland who wishes to put Scottish agricultural affairs back into the cockpit of Party politics. Therefore, I assume that is the reason why the Secretary of State for Scotland is not taking sides in this matter, one way or the other.
548
He says: "Here is a dispute that has arisen between two sides. I refuse to come into it. I will do what I can to help them to come to a decision and resolve this quarrel. Up to now I have been unsuccessful. Therefore this Bill does not make the position any worse or any better; it is leaving it as it was." I realise, as everybody here does, that this difference of opinion has arisen at a somewhat unfortunate time, inasmuch as this is the tail end before the Recess. These matters come up suddenly, and some of them require perhaps longer study than we have time to give to them. I can only say that in the limited time that has been at my disposal since this Amendment appeared on the Paper, I have been unable to convince those responsible for Government policy in Scotland that this would be a desirable Amendment. In those circumstances, the noble Marquess will understand that I have no authority to accept the Amendment, and what the Opposition propose to do about it is their business, not mine.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord, Lord Morrison, has not offered to take this matter back in any form. I would like to clear up one or two points. This Amendment appeared on the Paper the day after the Second Reading. I could not have put it down earlier. The noble Lord referred, secondly, to the wording of the Amendment. Things are done a little hurriedly at this stage of the Session, but, after all, there is the other place, where no doubt the wording could be put right. Thirdly, the noble Lord said that the Secretary of State did not want to intervene. I should have thought that his job was to govern. It is not a question of getting one side or the other to come to a decision, but of his making a decision. But even if he does not want to make a decision, he need not do so under this Amendment; he can state openly that he refuses to act under it. But the moment the problem is resolved he can proceed without further legislation. The noble Lord said that he wants to keep this matter out of Party politics. I also would like to keep it out of Party politics. But who has brought it into politics? It is really no more than a small minority who, I suggest with great respect, are probably affiliated to the Labour Party. I submit to your Lordships that this Amendment is both urgent

549
and right. We suffered badly in Scotland when the Housing (Rural Workers) Act was repealed, and I feel that now is the time to get back something that we lost before.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Amounts, and payment, of improvement grants]:
LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 42, after ("executing") insert ("the"). —(Lord Morrison.)
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Provisions as to further improvement grants]:
LORD MORRISON: This is also a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 14, leave out from ("occasion") to the first ("of") in line 20 and insert ("the condition as to rent applicable by reason of the giving of assistance on the last occasion shall be deemed to be the condition as to rent also by reason").—(Lord Morrison.)
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 18 agreed to.
On Question, Whether the said proviso shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 44; Not-Contents, 14.

CONTENTS

Exeter, M.

Long, V.

Grantley, L.

Salisbury, M.

Maugham, V.

Hawke, L.

Templewood, V.

Llewellin, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Luke, L.

De La Warr, E.

Altrincham L.

Mancroft, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Audley, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Baden-Powell, L.

Polwarth, L.

Lindsay, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Manvers, E.

Carrington, L. [Teller.]

Sandhurst, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Cherwell, L.

Schuster, L

Selkirk, E.

Clydesmuir, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Digby, L.

Allenby, V.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Teviot, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Tweedsmuin, L.

Davidson, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Wakehurst, L.

Hailsham, V.

Gifford, L.

Waleran, L

Wolverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Jowitt, V. [L. Chancellor.)

Darwen, L.

Pakenham, L.

Holden. L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Huntingdon, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L. [Teller.]

Quibell, L.

Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

Shepherd, L.

Chorley, L. [Teller.]

Morrison, L.

Winster, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.25 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved, after Clause 18 to insert tile following new clause:
Agricultural leases to continue in force notwithstanding payment of grant under section nine.
" . The lease of an agricultural holding shall not be deemed to live been brought to an end nor varied and accordingly neither the landlord nor the tenant of the holding shall be entitled to bring proceedings to terminate or vary the terms of the lease by reason only of the fact that (following the acceptance by the landlord of a grant under the terms of section nine of this Act) there has been attached to a dwelling let as part of the holding a condition that such dwelling shall not be occupied except by the owner thereof or a tenant."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Selkirk. Its object is to elicit an explanation from the noble Lord. Last year wt: passed the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, and under Sections 29 and 30 of that Act the landlord may be directed to renew or provide fixed equipment to conform with the rules of good estate management. I do not know whether it is the case, but it occurs to me that under these sections a tenant might go to the agricultural executive

551
committee and say: "One of my cottages has not proper sanitary arrangements, and in order for it to conform to the rules of good estate management I want you to direct my landlord to have it improved." The committee may require the landlord to have it improved. Assuming that the landlord accepted a grant under this Bill for the improvement, it would be necessary for him to untie the house concerned, in which case it would cease to be a service cottage. In such a case the landlord might be in breach of the terms of his lease with the tenant, because the tenant has taken the farm as it stands—that is, with the cottages on a tied basis. We want to make it quite clear that if this eventuality comes about there will be no breach of the lease and, therefore, no question of having to renew it. I would like some explanation from the noble Lord. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 18 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD MORRISON: I hope to satisfy the noble Lord with the explanation which I shall give. I was under the impression that his Amendment was based on Section 16 of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948. Under that Act, as he has indicated, substantial alterations might be made in leases of agricultural holdings without the consent of either or both the parties thereto. In consequence, it was considered desirable that the making of such alterations should not be treated as a ground for terminating the lease. But in this particular Bill the case is wholly different.
In the case of a tied cottage and the tenant of a farm, application for an improvement grant may be made either by the landlord or by the tenant farmer, if not less than thirty years of the lease remains unexpired. If it is the tenant who wishes to reconstruct the cottage with the aid of an improvement grant, it may be that such a substantial alteration of the property is not within his rights under the lease unless he has the owner's consent. But in any case the improvement to the cottage would constitute an improvement within Part II of the First Schedule of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1923, as amended by the
552
Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948, and the tenant would not be entitled to compensation therefore unless he did it with the concurrence of his landlord. On the other hand, if the owner proposes to do the improvements he would not be entitled to interfere with the property subject to the lease without the tenant's consent. In either case, therefore, the party wishing to do the improvement would have to obtain the other party's consent, which would be given on such terms, in variation of lease or otherwise, as might be agreed. It follows that there will be no question of a variation of a lease without the assent of both parties and still less of the lease being brought to an end. There is therefore no case for any such provision as is proposed in the Amendment. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord may decide not to proceed with his Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord said there was no case for the provision proposed, but I do not think the point is fully covered. May I put this case quite simply? At the present time improvements to cottages cannot take place if they remain tied; they must first be untied. A tenant farmer does not want his cottage untied, but he cannot have it improved unless it is untied. He is therefore in the position that by not agreeing with the landlord he may prevent the untying of a cottage and thus prevent improvements being made to it. The noble Lord may say that that is a narrow case. I would not like to say whether it is narrow or not, but it is a case which could be helped by a provision of this nature. I know the noble Lord's position, and I could wish that his explanation had been more comprehensible to me. I regret to say that it was not entirely comprehensible to me, but I am grateful for what he has said.
LORD MORRISON: The only answer I can give is that being in a compromising mood I will withdraw the words "no case" and say "some case." But there is an overwhelming case against this Amendment, and that is why I am unable to accept it.
LORD POLWARTH: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I feel we are at cross-purposes, because I am not convinced that the direction to improve in

553
Sections 29 and 30 comes quite within the purview of his brief. It may be better that he and I should have a talk afterwards, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 19 to 31 agreed to.
Clause 32:
Power of local authorities to provide board and laundry facilities
(2) A local authority may make such reasonable charges for meals provided by them by virtue of this section and to persons availing themselves of laundry facilities or services so provided as the authority may determine.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH had down two Amendments to subsection (2), of which the first was to omit "may" and insert "shall." The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, I should like to take these two Amendments together. This clause gives local authorities power to provide facilities for board and laundry in connection with their housing schemes. I said on Second Reading that I felt it was desirable that these subsidiary activities should be run on a business basis and that there should be no question of undercutting other people in these trades by the use of subsidies out of the rates. The noble Lord quite properly agreed that that was the case. We should feel happier if there were something in the Bill to this effect, and we propose that the charges to be made by the local authorities should be sufficient to meet their outgoings on these services, and that if it can be shown to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that any local authority is not making such charges as will meet all these expenses, then it will be open to the Secretary of State to require an alteration in the charges or that the activities shall be stopped altogether. That is the object of this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 38, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD MORRISON: I said on Second Reading that it was the intention of the Government that the provision of these facilities and services should be self-supporting and not a charge on public funds. The difference between the noble Lord and myself is a very small one.
554
He says that he would like this put into the Statute, but I feel it is better to leave it as it is, with the very firm assurance that has been given. I hope I shall be able to convert the noble Lord to my point of view. We are, anxious not to increase central control over local authority administration, particularly in matters of detail. The noble Lord's Amendment would require detailed central examination of revenue accounts for each individual block of flats or hostels in which meals or laundry facilities were provided. I suggest, therefore, that his Amendment is a long way from Conservative policy as eloquently announced last week-end. It would be difficult for the Secretary of State to prescribe by Order a particular period over which local authorities should balance their accounts for providing these services. We are all, on both sides, agreed that the services should be self-supporting, but local authorities may take a little time in making them pay. There is also the possibility of unexpected expenditure for repairs and replacements of plant. The circumstances of individual hostels and blocks of flats are so varied that it would be unfair to put anything in the Bill that would make it a duty of local authorities to balance their trading accounts over any particular period.
I would also draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that local authorities are spending their own ratepayers' money and must be expected to look after the interests of their rateprayers in what are, relatively speaking, very small financial operations. I do not know whether the noble Lord has in mind the words of the Civic Restaurants Act, 1947, but the comparison is not entirely appropriate. Civic restaurants are for the use of the public at large and compete with other restaurants open to the general public. The meals and laundry services mentioned in this Bill are only for the residents of hostels and blocks of flats where commercial enterprise is not providing or cannot provide the necessary services. Everything points to a strong administrative direction on the matter to local authorities. I hope that what I have said may have satisfied the noble Lord.
LORD POLWARTH: Obviously, this is not a point on which we ought to go any further. I am grateful for what the noble Lord says and for the assurance he has given. I believe it is the case

555
that the net results of operations under these headings will be shown in the borough or county accounts for the year. That being so, perhaps we can leave it to the local ratepayers. In my part of the world the ratepayers are fairly zealous in this matter and will express their opinion if, in fact, losses are incurred.
LORD MORRISON: If losses were made there would be no question of hiding them.
LORD POLWARTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First Schedule [Amendments of the Housing (Scotland) Acts, 1925 to 1946, deleting references to the working classes]:
LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment to repair an omission. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 13, column 2, after ("substituted") insert ("the").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.
House Resumed by the Lord Chancellor.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 13), Bill reported with Amendments; Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered and agreed to.

DARTFORD TUNNEL (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL
SALFORD CORPORATION BILL
Reported, without Amendment.

ASHDOWN FOREST BILL
Reported, with Amendments.

BARNSLEY CORPORATION BILL
HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL
SWINDON CORPORATION BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SOUTH MOLTON) BILL
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CHICHESTER) BILL
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (MORLEY) BILL
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (MACCLESFIELD) BILL
Reported without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.

MARRIAGE BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House; Bill to be printed as amended.

BOLTON CORPORATION BILL
Proceedings of this day ordered to be vacated.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before six o'clock.