Lords Sitting of 16 July 1953

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock. The Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Earl of Cromer—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE REGULATIONS, 1953
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (NORTHERN IRELAND) REGULATIONS, 1953

    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS, 1953
    2.36 p.m.
    THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lord Lloyd): My Lords, the principal effect of these Regulations, which amend the English, Scottish and Northern Ireland Representation of the People Regulations, 1950, is to alter in each part of the United Kingdom the last day for applications to vote by post, or to appoint a proxy, or to vote by post as a proxy, or to cancel such application, at elections for the Parliament at Westminster. The Regulations do not apply to elections for the Northern Ireland Parliament or for local authorities in Northern Ireland, which are a matter for the Government of Northern Ireland. But with that exception, all three of these sets of Regulations are in similar terms.
    Under the 1950 Regulations the last day for the applications I have mentioned is the last day for the delivery of the nomination papers—that is, at a General Election, the ninth day; and, at a by-election, a day fixed by the returning officer, from seven to nine days before polling day. I understand that this date was chosen after consultation with the chief Party agents and representatives of the registration and returning officers as the latest date which seemed practicable, and on the understanding that it would be subject to review in the light of experience.
    634
    Experience at the 1951 General Election showed that the day fixed by the 1950 Regulations was, in fact, too late, having regard to the great number of postal voting applications, which in England and Wales and Scotland increased by more than two-thirds, compared with the 1950 General Election. A large proportion of applications were received in the last two or three days allowed, and electoral registration officers found it impossible adequately to examine many doubtful applications, and extremely difficult to complete the absent voters list of those entitled to vote by post or proxy in reasonable time, and to check them properly, and inevitably there was some delay in getting all the postal ballot papers issued. It is clear that to obviate these difficulties the closing date for applications must be earlier; and, again after consultation with the chief Party agents and representatives of the registration and returning officers, it is proposed that the date should be altered to the twelfth day before polling day. Under the Regulations, of course, Sundays are excluded, so, in fact, that amounts to fourteen days before polling day.
    Regulations 1, 3, 4 and 7 of the English and Northern Ireland Regulations, and Regulations 2, 4, 5 and 8 of the Scottish Regulations provide accordingly. When the Regulations were discussed in another place last week, there was agreement on all sides that this change was necessary and desirable. Regulations 2 and 5 of the English and Northern Ireland Regulations, and Regulations 3 and 6 of the Scottish Regulations, require a registration officer to supply on request to every candidate or his agent a free copy of the list of absent voters. It was suggested in another place that more than one copy should be supplied. This may not be practicable in all cases. The lists are not printed, and while many registration officers have them duplicated, not all can do so. The Government do not feel, therefore, that we could place a legal obligation on all registration officers to supply more than one copy, but I can give your Lordships the undertaking that we will see what can be done to meet this point wherever possible by administrative action. No alteration is proposed in the last day for absent voters' applications at local government elections, which in England and Wales is already twelve days before polling day, and in Scotland the

    635
    third Tuesday before polling day. The requirement about the supply of free copies of the list to a candidate on request will, however, apply to local government elections in England and Wales and in Scotland.
    The only Regulations not concerned with the matters I have mentioned are Regulation 6 of the English and Northern Ireland Regulations and Regulation 7 of the Scottish Regulations. These Regulations merely make drafting corrections to the 1950 Regulations, consequential on the abolition of National Registration and of the office of Central National Registration Officer. I do not think I need add anything to this brief explanation I have given, and I beg to move that the Regulations be approved.
    Moved, That the Representation of the People Regulations, 1953, the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations, 1953, and the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations, 1953, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday the 11th of June last, be approved.—(Lord Lloyd.)
    VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, we offer no objection to these Regulations, which are in accordance with the agreement which was entered into.
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

MARSHALL AID COMMEMORA TION BILL
2.40 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, it is a somewhat novel experience for a representative of the Foreign Office to find himself in charge of a Bill, but I will undertake not to let it go to my head, nor to seize the rare opportunity to indulge in a lengthy and elaborate speech. For nothing of the kind is needed on this occasion, since the subject matter of the Bill has the cordial approval of all Parties, whilst the form of it is designed on the simplest lines for the express purpose of giving all possible flexibility to the application and, if necessary, adaptation from time to time of this new and, I am sure, most welcome scheme.
636
When he was Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Morrison, to whom I would venture to offer, on behalf of your Lordships on all sides of this House, our sincere condolences at his recent grievous loss, conceived the idea of marking in a permanent and fruitful manner the debt of gratitude which this country owed to General Marshall, in particular, though also to his colleagues in the United States Administration, and to the American people in general, for the inauguration and subsequent execution of the European Recovery Programme. The origin, the extent and the significance of that wide and generous gesture of benevolence, in the most literal meaning of that word, are too fresh and too firm in all our memories to require from me any dissertation upon their value to us, both moral and material, at a most critical period in our post-war history.
Mr. Morrison's admirable plan was to establish at British universities a small number of scholarships tenable by citizens of the United States and to be known as Marshall Scholarships. This project happily found favour with General Marshall himself, whose consent to allow his name to be associated with it was most readily given. Admittedly such a recognition of General Marshall's contribution to this country's recovery is not, and could not be, on a scale commensurate with the full range of our gratitude. It can be only in the nature of a token return, but it is a token that will at least survive into the far future and will help to promote that good will and good understanding between Britain and America which are not only so dear to General Marshall's heart, as they are to ours, but so profoundly essential to the preservation of liberty and peace. I hope and believe that General Marshall himself, during his recent visit as leader of the United States Delegation to the Coronation of Her Majesty, came to realise the affectionate and admiring respect in which he is held by the British people for his services to his own country and to ours, and, indeed to the whole free world, both in peace and war.
When Mr. Morrison launched his proposal it was at once warmly received by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on behalf of the then Opposition, and when in due

637
course that Opposition became Her Majesty's Government my right honourable friend proceeded on the 31st July last to announce the decision to give effect to it. In May of this year a Command Paper, No. 8846, was issued, which sets out the administrative structure of the scheme; and the Bill which is now before the House, having already obtained the full assent of another place, is intended to give such statutory force as is necessary for its effective operation. It is perhaps not easy to view the Bill itself properly except against the background of the White Paper, which not all your Lordships may have had the time or, indeed, the impulse to read.
May I therefore give, as concisely as possible, the main points of the scheme? It is intended to provide twelve scholarships tenable at any British university which a selected candidate may choose, provided always, of course, that the necessary vacancies exist. Candidates must be American students, either male or female, of not more than twenty-eight years of age on the 1st October of the year in which they take up their residence here, and must be graduates of an accredited degree-granting university or college in the United States. The value of a scholarship will be from £550 to £600 a year, except in the case of married scholars, when the amount will be increased by £200 a year, in each case free of United Kingdom income tax. The scholarships are tenable for two years, but an extension to a third year may be given in appropriate cases.
We hope that the first scholars will take up residence in 1954 at the opening in October of the academic year. It is not possible to give an exact figure of the cost, but the best calculation is that it will be in the neighbourhood of £41,000 a year, £37,000 of which will be spent in this country and the remainder in the United States on journeys to and from the ports of embarkation and administrative expenses. The necessary funds will be carried on the Foreign Office Vote and thus subject to annual renewal.
The method of selection will involve the establishment of five bodies in the United States. There will be an Advisory Council in Washington, over which Her Majesty's Ambassador will preside. The first task of that Council will be to assist the Ambassador in selecting members of
638
regional committees. One of these regional committees will be formed in each of four regions, centring on New York. New Orleans, Chicago and San Francisco, into which the United States has been geographically divided for this purpose. Each committee will consist of Her Majesty's Consul-General as an ex-officio member and four United States citizens.
These Committees will receive applications from candidates from their respective regions, and each will in due course recommend a short list of six candidates to the Advisory Council, who will in their turn make the definitive selection of twelve names, three from each region. At the same time, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will nominate not less than seven or more than ten members, two at least being persons of standing in the academic world, to constitute in this country the Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission. The original Bill contained a fixed figure of seven members but was amended in another place to its present form to include a maximum of ten and a minimum of seven. That body, the Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission, will in its turn concern itself with the placing of selected candidates in British universities, supervise their general welfare and administer the money voted each year for this purpose by Parliament. The machinery which I have described is, I suggest, simple, comprehensive and likely to prove entirely efficient for its task. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom has promised its full co-operation in ensuring the success of the scheme.
As to the Bill itself, Clause 1 deals with the finance, whilst Clause 2 sets up the Commission to which I have referred and defines and regulates its functions. It may perhaps have been unnecessary to give this Commission a legal status, but as it is placed under a duty by subsection (6) of Clause 2 to make an annual report to the Secretary of State, and by subsection (7) to prepare and submit to him annual accounts, which will subsequently be audited and laid before Parliament, it was thought to be at least a wise precaution to incorporate Clause 2 in its extended form in the Bill.

639
Those of us who, in our own university careers, had first-hand experience of American Rhodes Scholars—and if I refer only to Americans it is because I am concentrating upon them in this context—will recall how widespread, how valuaable and how lasting was the influence of their alert and mature outlook upon our own more casual and callow minds. But I am confident that, even without those direct and vivid personal contacts of that kind, every member of your Lordships' House will eagerly welcome this scheme for the most laudable purpose which it is designed to achieve, and for the auspicious association with it of the name of one of the greatest soldier-statesmen of our time. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Marquess of Reading.)
2.53 p.m.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, should first like to thank the noble Marquess for offering, on behalf of noble Lords in all parts of the House, sincere condolences to Mr. Morrison on his sad loss. The words of the noble Marquess will, of course, be recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but it may meet the desires of noble Lords if the noble and learned Earl, the Leader of the Opposition, conveys to Mr. Morrison the expression of sympathy which has been made.
My Lords, we on these Benches join in giving a warm welcome to this Marshall Aid Commemoration Bill. It is a small Bill with an admirable purpose. Its subject matter, as the noble Marquess claimed, has the cordial approval and support of all Parties. Its purpose is to enable effect to be given to the Marshall Scholarships Scheme, the details of which are set out in the White Paper to which the noble Marquess referred. It seems to me singularly appropriate that the idea of the project should have originated with Mr. Morrison when he was Foreign Secretary, and that the Bill to give practical effect to the idea should be presented to your Lordships' House by the Foreign Under-Secretary on behalf of Her Majesty's present Government. The result of this collective effort is a truly national expression of our sincere gratitude to the Government and the
640
people of the United States for what can only properly be described as an unsurpassed example of constructive generosity, the central purpose of which was to assist nations to surmount their grievous economic difficulties following the war, and to speed up recovery of their economic health and strength. It was a noble enterprise, and we recognise it as such.
This country has to its own credit a fine record of financial and economic assistance on a large scale to other countries, and we can therefore the more readily appreciate the massive generosity of the United States through Marshall Aid, of which we were one of the principal beneficiaries. Mr. Marshall's name will always be associated in history with the magnificent European Recovery Programme, but I believe that that programme will always be popularly known as "Marshall Aid." I am confident, therefore, that not only noble Lords in all parts of the House, but also the British people as a whole, will agree that it is both right and fitting that our deep sense of gratitude should find practical expression in an appropriate permanent form, and that Mr. Marshall's name should be intimately associated with any British commemoration of an enlightened act of statesmanship for which he was so largely responsible.
I agree with the noble Marquess that our gratitude can be given only a token form; but it seems to me that an act of commemoration is to be judged not by any material standards, but rather in the spirit of thankfulness which inspires it. I have no doubt that the Marshall Scholarships Scheme will be so regarded in the United States by the Government and the people, and by Mr. Marshall himself. The American people have a high sense of spiritual and moral values, and I think we may be certain that the scholarship scheme will be welcomed by them as a new symbol of close friendship and firm understanding between great democratic allies.
The noble Marquess has explained concisely but adequately the main points of the scheme which is set out in detail in the White Paper and which, as I have said, has our support. There are only two observations which I should like to make. The scheme provides that, for the purposes of the Marshall Scholarships Scheme, the United States will be divided

641
into four regions. None of the regions can be awarded more than three scholarships in any year. This arrangement will ensure that the twelve scholarships will be awarded on a fair basis of distribution, and it will avoid any appearance of geographical preference. That seems to me a very sensible arrangement, and one that should commend itself to both students and academic centres throughout the United States. I welcome also the organisations proposed to be set up both in this country and in the United States to do the practical administration involved in operating the scheme. The composition of the Advisory Council under Her Majesty's Ambassador in Washington, and of the regional committees, each of which will include as an ex officio member Her Majesty's Consul-General in the centre concerned, and the related functions which they will perform, should enable the work of selection in the United States to be done in a way that will give general satisfaction and confidence.
It is only with regard to the Commission to be set up in this country that I feel some slight reservation. The Bill provides that the Commission shall consist of not less than seven and not more than ten members appointed by the Secretary of State. While the Bill does not specify that all members must be British subjects, the White Paper says so in terms. I realise, of course, that the Commission will be responsible for administering the funds provided by Parliament and it may, therefore, be necessary that all should be British subjects. On the other hand, the Commission will also be responsible, as the noble Marquess has said, for the placing of the selected American students in British universities and will supervise their general welfare. In view of these responsibilities, is there not something to be said in favour of having a suitable United States citizen as one of the Commissioners? Otherwise, this will be the only body connected with the Marshall Scholarships Scheme without an American member. I have no wish to elaborate on the point and I do not intend to press it unduly, but I hope the noble Marquess will consider it sympathetically, and see whether it is not possible to provide for the inclusion of a suitable American member of the Commission in this country. Having made that one suggestion, I will
642
only repeat that we wholeheartedly welcome the Bill, and we shall be very happy to see it on the Statute Book as speedily as Parliamentary circumstances will allow.
3.2 p.m.
LORD LAYTON: My Lords, I cannot let this Occasion pass without adding some words of support for the admirable scheme embodied in the White Paper and in the Bill now before the House. The last speaker observed that Marshall Aid is the most far-sighted act of national generosity in history, and it is fitting that we should record, in appropriate and permanent form, our appreciation of this fact. But Marshall Aid was much more than that. It was an act of great generosity; but it was also a great political fact. It was the most important action of the American people—an act of the highest significance, and an unprecedented act—on taking up the heavy international responsibilities which recent events have laid upon the shoulders of the most powerful nation in the world. It is for that reason that Marshall Aid has been the most encouraging thing that has happened since the war; and it has, in fact, dominated the history of the past six years.
Let me explain why I say that. Consider for a moment three things of the first importance that immediately flowed from the Harvard speech of June 5, 1947. First, and most directly in line with the theme of the speech, a single economic recovery programme came into operation, instead of the chaotic series of appeals to Washington. Combined planning which had played such art important part in the war had fallen into disuse, but with the Harvard speech it was re-created and taken up again—not this time for war, but for reconstruction. Secondly, the American people found that they had taken position on the very vital political problem of the unity of Europe. Four days after the Marshall speech, Mr. Marshall himself wrote to Senator Vandenberg approving the Fulbright Resolution in favour of a United States of Europe by making it quite clear that America does not desire to impose on Europe or any other country any particular form of political or economic organisation. Nevertheless, American policy was given an impulse in the direction of pressure towards unity; and

643
this has found expression year after year in the Preamble to the Recovery Acts passed by Congress. Thirdly, this act of Mr. Marshall was the signal for the East to withdraw more definitely behind the Iron Curtain. Within thirty days of the Harvard speech, Mr. Molotov announced that Russia would not participate in the recovery programme; and from that time on, withdrawal became more complete.
These three things, the policy of a common recovery programme, pressure for the permanent political and economic unification of Europe, and the closedown between East and West, have been the outstanding features and characteristics of the years that have followed since then. No one can say what the next five years will bring. The pattern has changed. Certainly we shall not go on depending on charity, and sooner or later it may be that a change may come in the relations of East and West. But Marshall Aid will leave many permanent marks upon international relationships, for it is founded on the recognition to a far greater extent than at any previous time of the interdependence, politically and economically, of all parts of the world. In these five years, the philosophy of mutual aid has taken shape and been put into practical effect. It is against that background that I want to make a brief comment on the scheme itself.
The scheme, as has been observed, is a very modest one. The total cost is £40,000. Marshall Aid amounts, for all countries, to 13 billion dollars, and the whole gifts and loans of all kinds since the war in one form or another amount to 30 billion dollars. Or take the number of students. Twelve scholarships is not very many. It was said in another place that very nearly 300 students come to this country each year from America. An hour ago I looked at the figures of graduations and I found that nearly 500,000 American students come out with a degree from American universities every year; so twelve is not a very great proportion. Nevertheless, the influence of twelve studentships in this country may be very considerable, if applied in the right way and at the right point. This scheme differs from most other schemes in regard to studentships in the fact that it is a scheme of scholarships for post-graduates.
644
This is a vital characteristic of the scheme. It is a scheme for scholarships for American men and women who are approaching the stage when they can influence university opinion if they return, as many will do, to university life. Or, if they go into other walks of life, because these are research students, their research work will have an immediate effect on American opinion. From this point of view, I wonder whether the scheme is not too restricted in regard to the age limit and, further, whether it does not leave the field of research too wide and undefined.
I suggest that the impact of twelve research students a year might be very great, and much greater than it otherwise would be, if it were concentrated on the social sciences, on political philosophy and on economic problems. The world is seething with problems of that type—many of them new problems, which have arisen just because the situation has changed under Marshall Aid conditions. If we are to operate as one world it is of vital importance that we should understand the characteristics and methods of operation of one another's Constitutions. If comparative studies of constitutional practice were better known in each country, it would facilitate greatly the better understanding which is so badly needed. I myself was in Washington two years ago, and I discovered how very different the operation of the American Constitution is from the Constitution as described in the textbooks. Much to my surprise, I discovered the tremendous importance of the unwritten characteristics of the American Constitution. That is not what the textbooks tell you, but the research student would discover that sort of thing. I suggest that the impact of research work would be much greater if it were channelled into a limited field, instead of over the whole field of learning.
I do not propose to suggest that the House should at this stage make amendments to this scheme, though some were proposed in another place. But I should like to suggest that the Commission, which, as has already been stated by the noble Marquess, can to some extent modify the terms of the White Paper, should seek, as it begins to feel its way, to move in the direction of guiding the research work by students from the other side of the Atlantic on problems which

645
are closely associated with Marshall's own work. If the efforts of this small group of students were thus concentrated, the results might be very far-reaching indeed and would help to bring to full fruition the ideas that George Marshall himself threw out on the campus of Harvard University six years ago.
3.12 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, Mr. Marshall has given the world yet another example of a great accomplishment of peace by a great man of war. In Europe, the effect of Marshall Aid was even more decisive than it was in this country, because here the Empire as well came to our rescue. But we owe much—how much can never really be ascertained. The cold figures cannot tell the story, because they cannot tell what would have happened if there had been no Marshall Aid. I, for one, am extremely glad that Her Majesty's Government have chosen this very fitting method of commemoration of this great act. I go even further and hope that one day there will be found some additional method of keeping alive the memory of that great man, so that future generations may realise the great benefits which his thought conferred upon our present generation.
3.13 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to those noble Lords who have taken part in this discussion for the support which they have given to the purpose of the Bill, and to the machinery devised for its execution. The suggestion that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, made as to the inclusion of an American member in the Commission in this country is, superficially, I agree, an attractive one. It has been very carefully considered, but the difficulty about it is that, although we might desire to do it for the purpose of including an American among those who are to supervise many of the students, the Commission supervises other things as well. It supervises the expenditure of money voted by the Parliament of this country, accounts of which have to be submitted to Parliament. The view is that those two circumstances make it difficult to have the Commission composed of any but purely British subjects.
646
As regards what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Layton, I said, in the remarks that I addressed to the House in opening, that I recognised that twelve scholarships was a small number, and that it could be described only as a token return for our indebtedness. I am afraid that the same thing would apply to any number of scholarships which it was within the power and the means of this country to offer for that purpose; but twelve scholarships, offered with the sincerity and the measure of gratitude with which we offer these, is perhaps not altogether an inadequate token of the value that we attach to the aid which we have received.
I suggest, too, that it would be unwise to channel these students coming from the United States, and conning from all over the United States, into the restricted field which the noble Lord, Lord Layton, suggested. They come from all over that wide country, and there will be people of different backgrounds and different ambitions, with different careers opening before them. It seems to me much more appropriate and much more helpful that we should throw the whole field open to them and let them make the choice, with the assistance of the appropriate committee, of what they want to study when they come to this country, than that we should impose any limit from the outside and say, "No, you shall only be research students, and you shall study this subject and that subject." We should much prefer, as I say, to give them the fullest opportunity of selection, and to put at their disposal for their benefit, when they come, the complete resources of our universities and our university colleges.
Those were, I think, the only points raised. I repeat that I am grateful that the House has given such general approval to a scheme which, although I agree that in scale it is not outstanding, at the same time has behind it so great a measure of appreciation of the help that we have received, and of the indebtedness to the great figure who inspired in the first place the provision of that aid.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUS- TRIAL INJURIES) (No. 2) BILL
3.19 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, the Bill which I have the pleasure of commending to your Lordships to-day was described in another place as "a good little Bill." There was some difference of opinion about how little the Bill is. Some thought it not so little at all, and others thought that it might have been bigger. But I am happy to say that there has been no dispute about the essential merits of this measure. That illustrates the broad measure of agreement which prevails nowadays on these questions of social security. There may sometimes be differences on details and method, and there may occasionally be differences of emphasis, but our aims are in harmony. It is perhaps as well to stress that fact.
The history of compensation for injuries at work is in many ways typical of what has been happening in this sphere. In a sense, the Workmen's Compensation Act marked the beginning of our modern schemes of social security. Yet, for half a century, they gave rise, as noble Lords will remember, to much bitterness and much contention. They bred disputes between employers or the insurance companies, and the work-people, and these disputes were reflected in the tone of the Parliamentary debates on compensation. Then, as your Lordships will remember, in 1942, a Liberal, Lord Beveridge (as he now is), recommended in his famous Report that the old system which had engendered so much bitterness and which in so many ways had failed to meet the needs of injured workmen and their families, should be swept away, and that industrial compensation should be built into the new schemes of social insurance administered by the State. This recommendation was accepted and embodied in the Coalition Government's White Paper of 1944. The first Industrial Injuries Bill was published by a Conservative Government in June, 1945. The electoral misfortune which followed later that year interrupted the process only momentarily, and the incoming Labour Government at once
648
introduced a similar Bill which passed into law with the agreement of all Parties in 1946.
This new scheme of State insurance against industrial injuries has now been in force for five years. It is already apparent that its main aims have been achieved. The benefits are more nearly related to social needs and are more clearly integrated than was workmen's compensation with the other social services. Above all, the old atmosphere of suspicion and bitterness has very largely disappeared. Nevertheless, it could not be expected that so novel a scheme would be wholly free from teething troubles. These it is the object of the present Bill to remedy. This Bill does not seek to change in any way the fundamentals of the new scheme, and it is not concerned with the rates of benefit which were dealt with in last year's Family Allowances and National Insurance Act. The Bill, as it were, undertakes running repairs. It is designed to remove isolated difficulties which have become apparent in the administration of the new scheme, thereby giving a better chance to judge the essentials of the scheme itself. Most of the Amendments were decided upon by the last Government, and should therefore meet with general acceptance.
I am afraid that the proposals, being designed to remove technical difficulties in the original Act, are themselves somewhat technical. The most important that I should refer to are those in Clause 3 (1) about disablement benefit. I am sure your Lordships are aware that a man injured at work can receive injury benefit as long as he remains incapable of work, or until six months after the accident. If he is still disabled at the end of this injury benefit period, as it is called, he may claim disablement benefit, and perhaps some of the supplementary allowances which go with it. At present disablement benefit can be paid only if the disablement remaining at the end of the injury benefit period is either substantial—that is, assessed at 20 per cent. or more—or likely to be permanent; indeed, in some cases, it has to be both substantial and permanent. Clause 3 (1) removes these restrictions, and enables the benefit to be paid whenever there is an assessment of at least 1 per cent., whether or not the disablement is permanent. At present some 8,000 men a

649
year have their claims rejected because the disablement is neither permanent nor substantial. These men will in future be able to qualify for benefit (usually a gratuity) under the new conditions, and perhaps 2,000 of them will also get a special hardship allowance for a time. The Second Schedule to the Bill enables those men who have had claims rejected in the past, but who are still disabled when the new conditions come into force, to claim again, from that moment.
Clause 3 (1) also re-defines the "injury benefit period"—the period during which injury benefit can be paid and disablement benefit cannot be paid. The present definition has been found too rigid, with the result that there is sometimes a gap between the two benefits. The new definition will avoid this difficulty. Other provisions of Clause 3 allow the rules about injury benefit to be varied for night workers, as is already done for sickness benefit under the main National Insurance Act; extend the hospital treatment allowance (which at present is limited to disablement pensioners) to men who have been assessed at less than 20 per cent. and have therefore been awarded a gratuity instead of a pension; and enable a widow who ceases to be entitled to a child's allowance when she is over forty, to retain the higher rate of widow's pension—at present the age is fifty.
I do not think that I need go through the remaining clauses of the Bill in detail. They are chiefly concerned with minor matters of administration and adjudication. They are fairly fully described in the Explanatory Memorandum at the front of the Bill. But perhaps I may just draw attention to two of them. Clause 1 deals with the insurance of mariners and airmen. It will enable the Industrial Injuries scheme to be extended, as the main National Insurance scheme already is, to certain classes of seamen serving on board foreign ships and aircraft. One example is the British radio officer who is employed by a British wireless company and is serving on a foreign ship. I think it will be generally agreed that such men should be covered against injuries sustained at their work.
The other provision, and the last that I wish to mention, is in Clause 6 (3). The 1946 Act made the unemployability supplement available, as an alternative to sickness benefit, to unemployable men
650
who were injured before July 5, 1948, and who are getting workmen's compensation; but it did not provide the dependency benefits, which normally go with the supplement or with sickness benefit. Clause 6 (3), by adding the dependency benefits, makes the unemployability supplement into the full equivalent of sickness benefit for men on workmen's compensation. My Lords, I hope I have not been too long in trying to explain this Bill. It is rather a technical matter but it is not in any way a dramatic Bill, nor is it really a Bill of the first importance. It is one of those workaday measures which are so necessary to the progress of our social services. We all, oil both sides of the House, have that progress a the art, and it is in that spirit that I commend the Bill to your Lordships. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Earl of Birkenhead.)
3.29 p.m.
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, I will not describe this Bill as a "good little Bill" or as a "good big Bill"; I will describe it as a good Bill. From that angle, the Bill is welcome—so welcome, indeed, that the discussions which preceded the Bill were very amicable and friendly, and the passage of the Bill through another place was expedited so as to get it placed upon the Statute Book in the quickest possible time. The noble Earl rightly referred to the changes which have taken place in discussions on workmen's compensation. These are most marked. I am grateful to him for his clear exposition of the Bill. As he rightly said, Clause 3 is the most important provision, in so far as it absorbs the larger portion of the expenditure from the fund, as compared with expenditure on the other improvements which are included in the Bill.
He rightly said that at the present time some 8,000 claimants, or nearly 10 per cent. of those who claim long-term benefit, fail to qualify because of the anomaly to which he referred. It is rather interesting to note that a large majority of the 8,000 are, workmen employed in the mining industry of this country. Indeed, it is significant that whilst the mining population contribute just 3 per cent. of the income of this Industrial Insurance fund, they take about 40 per cent. of the

651
outgoings. That is a real indication of the dangerous nature of their occupations. I am not going through the advantages of this Bill; the noble Earl has rightly done that. All I am going to say of it is that it is a very useful Bill. One would fully expect, after four or five years' working of this scheme, which completely revolutionised our compensation law in this country, that anomalies would become manifest. They have become manifest, and the Government have rightly introduced this legislation to deal not with all the anomalies but with some of them.
The noble Earl briefly referred to the history of workmen's compensation. It is 56 years since, in 1897, the original Employers Liability Act was passed. This provided for the first time some compensation for injured workmen. Before that time, workpeople in this country had to depend upon the Poor Law and some voluntary organisations for their maintenance during their long or short periods of incapacity caused by accidents. I was in industry before the Compensation Act came into operation, and I have not very happy recollections of collecting my two shillings and sixpence a week out of a sick fund to maintain myself for about three months—that being the period during which I suffered from the results of my first colliery accident. What great improvements have taken place since that time!
The greatest of all was brought about by the Act of 1945. As the noble Earl has justly said, no one political Party can claim any credit for that Act; it was the work of the combined Parties in Parliament, inspired by the feeling that something should be done in this matter. And that "something," when it was done, brought about a marked and fundamental change, far reaching and desirable in its consequences in dealing with what was one of our great human problems. It was a great scheme of reform and, as I have said, it was made possible by the combined wisdom of all political Parties. That Act was a great improvement upon the one which it superseded, for under the old Act almost every industrial accident became a potential source of dispute and, in many cases, of litigation between workmen and employers. There were many features of that measure which were unsatisfactory, and they were a
652
constant source of friction and ill-will between the two sides of industry. The new scheme has cleared away much of the suspicion and bitterness created by the old one. On the whole, it has worked satisfactorily. As I say, it has had some anomalies, such as that with which this Bill is designed to deal. I would conclude by saying that, so far as we are concerned, we are going to expedite the passage of this Bill, and I hope that the Government will see to it that it is placed upon the Statute Book as quickly as possible.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

AUXILIARY FORCES BILL [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
LICENSING BILL [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).

INLAND REVENUE SURVEY OF HOUSES
3.36 p.m.
LORD RAGLAN LORD RAGLAN rose to ask Her Majesty's Government for what purpose surveyors of the Inland Revenue recently made a plan of his house; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, on June 18 of this year I received a notification from the Board of Inland Revenue that on June 24, if that was not inconvenient to me, an official of the Board would inspect my house with a view to its valuation. Accordingly, on June 24, two gentlemen arrived in a car, and stated that they had instructions to make a plan of my house. I offered to lend them a plan of my house, but this offer they politely declined. They then went round the house with a tape measure and notebook, and spent no less than an hour and a half in measuring up the place. I suppose this procedure was adopted under Section 60 of the Local Government Act, 1948, which provides that the official valuer has power to enter any hereditament for the purpose of surveying it and valuing it. But there is nothing in that clause, or elsewhere in

653
the Act—so far as I can find—which makes it necessary to make a plan of a house before valuing.
There are many houses, including my own, in respect of which, in my opinion, such planning is quite unnecessary. But even if it was thought necessary, under the provisions of the 1948 Act, to make a plan of the house—which I do not admit—the situation has surely been changed by the Bill which your Lordships read a second time on Tuesday. By that Bill, the Government changed provisions of the Act. The site of the house is no longer important. In fact, the site is no longer to be considered at all; valuation is to be based entirely upon the rent. For the purpose of ascertaining the rent of any house I should have said that a plan was quite irrelevant. I should have thought that what the Government could have done at that stage was to suspend this planning with a view to doing away with it altogether in the case of dwelling houses when this Bill becomes law. What I should like to learn is, what are the instructions given to the Board of Inland Revenue under the 1948 Act, and what are the instructions they have given to their subordinate offices. I should also like to be told of any instructions that may have been given by the Government to the Board of Inland Revenue since this Bill was drafted. That is the purpose of my Motion. I beg to move for Papers.
3.39 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies for the Government, may I add a word or two to show that this is by no means an isolated instance? Some two years ago, two gentlemen from the Inland Revenue Department came to my house in Sussex and said that they wanted to inspect it and to measure it. I asked them why, and they said: "We are from the Inland Revenue Valuation Department. Have you not had a letter from that Department?" I said, "No; I have had no letter." They said, very brightly, "Well, if you have not had it, you will have it very soon." So far, it has not arrived. I am not anxious to receive it, because I expect it will be perfectly futile and useless, oven if it does come. When I offered to provide them, as the noble Lord, Lord Raglan did, with a plan of
654
the house, showing the dimensions of every part of it, they refused to accept it: they set off with their measuring tapes, and spent about an hour measuring up the house.
I fail to see what good purpose anything of this kind can serve. It is true that under the 1948 Act houses built in 1918 or later have to be valued according to the measurements or the estimated cost of construction, but the house to which I am referring was built about 450 years before that date, and clearly those provisions do not apply. I am not surprised that the 1948 Act has broken down and that the whole process of valuation has fallen into chaos, if that is the way in which the Inland Revenue Department go about this business. I am very disappointed, because I was a supporter of the view that we were likely to obtain more expedition and accuracy if this job was placed in the hands of one independent, central Department, and not in the hands of a variety of bodies all over the country who might adopt different standards and arrive at conflicting results. Upon the face of it, it looks as if there is some cause for reviewing the procedure which evidently has been adopted in these cases.
3.42 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree that it is an essential part of the Parliamentary function to watch the manner in which the Executive carry out the statutory powers entrusted to them, and that is particularly the case when it might amount superficially to any form of invasion of private rights. Therefore, I am very glad to answer, so far as I can, any question which the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, may wish to raise in regard to this matter. I think it is common knowledge that we have raised taxes on residential and other property for much longer than 100 years, and it has always been necessary to make some examination of the property. So long ago as 1836, under the Parochial Assessment Act, arrangements were made for property to be examined, and authority was given, if necessary, for entry to be made for a survey or view of the property. Under the Act of 1948, to which the noble Lord referred, those functions were transferred to valuation officers appointed by the Inland Revenue, and

655
that is why two officers of that Department found it necessary to examine the noble Lord's house. Valuation officers are obliged to do two things: first, to carry their authority with them, to show if anyone asks them to do so. I do not know whether they did in this instance, but I take it that they had that authority with them. Secondly, they are obliged to give twenty-four hours' notice, and again, so far as I know, in this case that obligation was fulfilled.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: Not in my case. I had no notice whatever.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: If the noble Lord wished to bring, his case to the attention of the Government, he should have given notice. It is quite impossible to answer the noble Lord at a moment's notice. If the noble Lord wants to receive an answer—and I shall be only too glad to reply—he must give notice. I should be surprised if any valuation officer of the Inland Revenue did not completely fulfil requirements laid down in the Statute in this respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, stated that he offered a plan to the officers who visited his house. I am unable to say why it was not accepted. These officers do not seek to make a full survey, in any sense of the word; they merely make a pencil drawing of the outside of a house. so that they can make a fair valuation. The noble Lord stated that this position has been altered by the Bill which is now before Parliament. I do not think that is correct. The new Bill bases valuation of residential property on the 1939 annual valuation, and even for this it may be necessary for the officers to make an examination of property. I am afraid that such examinations are essential, in order that the new valuation lists, which have not been renewed since 1934, should be brought out, as we hope, in the course of the next two or three years. I hope that these officers did not cause the noble
656
Lord more inconvenience than was absolutely necessary in the execution of their duties, and I also hope that he will not be worried again, for decades, if not for centuries, by any similar invasion.
3.47 p.m.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I should like to say that I have no complaint to make against the officers concerned. They were perfectly polite and, so far as I know, acted entirely in accordance with the law. My complaint is of the complete waste of time in making this plan. They spent an hour and a half in finding out what half a dozen questions would have told them, and I think the answers would have been amply sufficient for all purposes connected with valuation. This survey is very costly and, in my judgment, a complete waste of public money. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

OXFORD CORPORATION BILL
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
WEST BRIDGFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
TEES VALLEY WATER BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

DUDLEY EXTENSION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before four o'clock.