Sitting of 9 November 1944

Preamble
The House met at Eleven o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  EXPORT INDUSTRIES (MANPOWER)
  Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that the U.S.A. has doubled its exports during a recent period whilst our own have declined by 75 per cent., he intends to consider before the war in Europe ends the man-power position, more especially in relation to our export industries, so that the percentage of persons mobilised for the Fighting Services to the total population shall not be higher in Great Britain than in the U.S.A.
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): The man-power position in this country is under constant review in the light of all the changing factors of the war situation, but I should deprecate strongly any attempt to estimate the relative contributions of ourselves and our Allies to the war effort on the basis of simple arithmetic.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: Why should the right hon. Gentleman deprecate comparisons between this country and America? Will he not consider whether he is not, by carrying on this process, bleeding our nation white beyond recovery?
  Mr. Bevin: I am carrying out the decisions of this House and the decision of the Government to bring this war to a successful conclusion. I do not accept the view of my hon. Friend that we should lose it.
  Mr. Graham White: Is there any reason to believe that each of the United Nations is not doing its best?
  Mr. Bevin: We have worked in a spirit of co-operation, each trying to play the role allotted to it. The unity that has existed among the United Nations is unprecedented.

  MERCHANT SEAMEN (REINSTATEMENT)
  Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that conscientious objectors, desiring to serve in the Merchant Navy, have been refused permission to do so on the ground that it is not a non-combatant service; and if, in view of this ruling, he will reconsider his decision not to treat merchant seamen as members of the Forces for the purposes of reinstatement in civil employment.
  Mr. Bevin: I am aware that conscientious objectors are not accepted for service in the Merchant Navy. The decision referred to by my hon. Friend is not one given by me; it is consequent on the provisions of the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act recently passed by Parliament.
  Mr. Driberg: But can the right hon. Gentleman not do something more for those who have been in actual action against the enemy througout the war? Is it not rather unfair that, because of some technicality of status, they should be debarred from the rights of other Servicemen?
  Mr. Bevin: The issue is not quite so simple as that. Those responsible for the men in the Mercantile Marine are absolutely averse to their being classed as military forces at all, and desire that the Merchant Service should be retained as a civil employment. It is difficult for me, or for the Government, to go against the considered opinion of those who are responsible.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Does that mean that my right hon. Friend is not going to do anything in the way of reinstatement?
  Mr. Bevin: Those who have gone into the Forces or into the Navy or on what is called P.124, have reinstatement in the Mercantile Marine. All their rights

  1511
  are reserved. If we open this question for one type of civilian employment, I can assure hon. Members that we open it for every type of civilian employment in the country as regards reinstatement, which would be adminstratively impossible.
  Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this view is not acceptable to the National Seamen's Union or the Officers' Union? While I appreciate the difficulties that beset him on this matter, may I ask him to bear in mind that men serving on merchant vessels are not always in a non-combatant position and that they very often have to bear arms?
  Mr. Bevin: Men who are in a combatant position under Navy discipline are guaranteed rights of reinstatement. When my hon. Friend says that the National Seamen's Union is not in favour of the course which I am pursuing, I would advise him to ask them again. In negotiation, and as recently as yesterday, I was asked not to change this situation.

  DISTRIBUTIVE TRADES (JOINT INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS)
  Mr. Leslieasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the distributive workers would welcome legislation to fortify the joint industrial councils and buttress their decisions so as to prevent a return to the pre-war chaos, which resulted in low wages in many sections of the retail trades; and what action he proposes to take in this direction.
  Mr. Bevin: I am aware of the views of the representatives of both employers and workers in the retail distributive trades on this question. As I informed my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Balham (Lieut.-Colonel Doland) on 26th October, I am at present considering what further provision should be made to meet the requirements of the post-war position, but I am not yet able to make a statement on the subject.
  Mr. Leslie: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind what happened during the Armistice period after the last war, when thousands of shopworkers were paid such low wages that disputes occurred all over the country? Attempts were then made
  1512
  to set up trade boards but, unfortunately, those attempts failed.
  Mr. Bevin: Yes, I will bear that in mind. As I say, I am studying the problem, and I hope at an early date to be in a position to make an announcement.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: While we are glad that the right hon. Gentleman is considering this very important problem, may I ask that he will bear in mind also that a larger proportion of distributive workers than of workers from almost any other industry are in the Forces?
  Mr. Bevin: I am aware of that fact.

  MILITARY SERVICE (MEN OVER 35)
  Mr. Moelwyn Hughesasked the Minister of Labour whether any men aged 35 or over will now be called up under the National Service Acts.
  Mr. Bevin: In general, I do not propose to call up any more men born in 1909 or earlier, except in so far as this may be necessary to meet the demands of the Forces for tradesmen and specialists, or for other special reasons.

  EDUCATION

    Further Education and Training Scheme (Awards)
    Miss Rathboneasked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider arranging that the grants available under the Government scheme for further education and training of those whose professional training has been interrupted by National Service should be available for such persons now employed in the N.F.S. but about to be released on grounds of redundancy, without requiring these persons to await general demobilisation.
    Mr. Bevin: At present only men and women who have been discharged from their war service through disablement or on medical grounds are entitled to apply for awards under the Further Education and Training Scheme. An extension of these awards at the present time, to cases such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend, is a matter of some difficulty, particularly as regards the effect it might have on the opportunities likely to be available for others later on, but I have

    1513
    the matter under consideration in consultation with my right hon. Friends the Minister of Education and the Minister of Agriculture.
    Miss Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend remember that later on, when general demobilisation takes place, there will be people crowding into universities and other educational centres, and that if persons who have finished their training can be got out of the way, it will facilitate the training of demobilised persons at the end of the war?
    Mr. Bevin: It does not quite work out like that. I cannot at the present moment release personnel to teach them. These two things, in the re-creation of university facilities, have to go together.
    Mr. Edmund Harveyasked the Minister of Education whether he has considered representations from a number of ex-Servicemen undergraduates of the University of Durham with regard to the delay in the award of further education and training grants to ex-Servicemen; and whether steps are being taken to expedite awards in future in order to avoid the inconvenience and hardship involved to students who have to commence their university courses without financial aid.
    The Minister of Education (Mr. Butler): I have received representations on this matter from seven students, and I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of my reply. I fully appreciate the need for avoiding hardship to applicants, and my hon. Friend will no doubt see, when he reads my reply, that every effort is made to obviate delay both in deciding applications and in making payments when an award has been made.
    Mr. Harvey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that applications made in June last year were not finally dealt with by the Ministry until December; and should not delays like that be avoided in the future?
    Mr. Butler: I would not like it to be assumed that there are avoidable delays in the administration of this scheme. The cases of these students are gone into with great care, in the interests of the students themselves, but I would not accept the suggestion that there is any avoidable delay.
    Miss Rathbone: Would the right hon. Gentleman ask his people to have regard
    1514
    to the period when the university term begins, because if these matters are not dealt with some time near the beginning of the university session, decisions may be delayed for the whole year?
    Mr. Butler: I will certainly see that nothing of that sort happens, because it would upset one of the objects of the scheme.

    Schoolchildren (Social and Recreative Training)
    Mr. Astorasked the Minister of Education whether he has received the report of the Committee on the Spare Time Activities of Children between 11 and 14 years of age; and what action he is proposing to take.
    Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I have read the report with interest; and propose to issue a circular to local education authorities drawing their attention to the need for more adequate facilities for the social and recreative training of schoolchildren aged 11 to 14, both as a permanent service and especially during the coming winter months.
    Mr. Astor: Will the right hon. Gentleman put a copy of that circular in the Library of the House?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

  HOUSING

    Unfinished Houses, Weston Rhyn
    Major Leightonasked the Minister of Health whether he will now take steps to get completed the houses at Weston Rhyn, near Oswestry, which were left unfinished at the outbreak of war.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): A great deal of work remains to be done on these houses, which, on average, are not above ground floor window-sill level, and in view of the overriding present need for concentrating available labour and materials on the repair of war damage, I should not yet feel justified in agreeing to their completion.

    Requisitioned House, Luton (Rent and Rates)
    Mr. Guyasked the Minister of Health (1) whether he is aware that Mr. J. McCormack, a transferred war worker from Glasgow to Luton, is occu-

    1515
    pying requisitioned property at 24, Chapel Street, for which he is paying 31s. per week rent and 22s. per week rates; and whether he proposes to take any action with a view to lowering these charges;
    (2) who are the owners of the requisitioned property at 24, Chapel Street, Luton; and what compensation they are receiving by way of rent from the Luton Town Council.
    Mr. Willink: Mr. McCormack and his family were placed in occupation of the house at 24, Chapel Street, Luton, under the power delegated to the Town Clerk to requisition premises for the occupation of families inadequately housed. The payments required from him are correctly stated by my hon. Friend, and I have no reason to think that the amounts are excessive. The owner of the house is Miss Elizabeth A. Smith, of 4, George Street West, Luton, and the compensation rent payable to her is £80 per annum.
    Mr. Guy: Is the Minister aware that this case has been going on for some considerable time, and does he not think that to ask a war worker who has been transferred from one town to another to pay such an exorbitant amount is a shameful thing on the part of a local authority?
    Mr. Willink: No, Sir—it is not easy for local authorities to find the exact accommodation that people want at the moment. The hon. Member should realise that there are four wage-earners in this family, and they are paying no more for the house than the owner is getting for it.
    Mr. J. J. Lawson: Does the Minister accept these figures; and does he say that those figures are reasonable for a working man to pay—31s. per week rent and 22s. per week rates?
    Mr. Willink: No, Sir, but as I pointed out a moment ago, there are four wage-earners in this family.
    Mr. George Griffiths: What is the size of the house?
    Mr. Willink: The size is one for which £80 is being paid. [An HON. MEMBER: "How many bedrooms?"] I am afraid I have not the details. Small houses are not plentiful nowadays and, so far, it has not been possible to find for this family just what they want.
    Mr. Guy: Does the Minister appreciate the fact that Mrs. McCormack has stated before the assessment committee, as has Mr. McCormack, quite definitely that there has been plenty of property requisitioned in the Luton area at a rent much below that which Mr. McCormack has been asked to pay? Will the Minister not look into this matter again?
    Mr. Willink: I am quite prepared to ask the local authority if they can meet the wishes of this family; but the charge being made for the house, taking into account the fact that there are four wage-earners in the family, is not, in my view, really burdensome.
    Mr. Guy: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Departmental Responsibility
    Sir Irving Alberyasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the proposed transfer to a Minister of Social Insurance of many of the functions of the Minister of Health, it is now proposed to give the Minister of Health overriding responsibility for housing; and if he will consider designating this Minister in future as the Minister of Health and Housing.
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has no changes in the structure of the Government or the arrangement of Ministerial responsibilities to announce to the House this morning.
    Sir I. Albery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is desirable that there should be some Minister fully responsible to this House?
    Mr. Shinwell: If the Prime Minister has no announcement to make this morning, if a Question is put down this day week, would the Prime Minister then indicate what his intentions are?
    Mr. Attlee: There is no harm in trying.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS
  Mr. Tinkerasked the Minister of Health if he will give the figures showing how many are getting supplementary old age pensions; and what is the average amount to each person.
  Mr. Willink: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply to a similar Question put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Darwen (Captain Prescott) on 19th October when the latest available figures were given.
  Mr. Tinker: Could the Minister repeat them for my benefit?
  Mr. Willink: At the end of September there were about 1,325,000 supplementary pension cases current, covering the needs of 1,550,000 old age pensioners. The average payment per case was 15s. 10d.
  Mr. Tinker: Does the average benefit figure include what is given in kind for clothing or not?
  Mr. Willink: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down. I thought his question related to payments in money.

  INDIA

    Service Personnel (Tropical Kit)
    Miss Wardasked the Secretary of State for India (1) whether the additional £5 Indian allowance for the purpose of purchasing tropical kit has been paid to the officers of the A.T.S.;
    (2) whether he is aware that the amount allowed for the purchase of tropical kit does not provide adequate changes of clothing for either men or women, and, in view of the need for providing the highest possible degree of comfort for serving personnel, will he consider the position.
    The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): The position requires some clarification. Officers proceeding to India, including those of the Auxiliary Territorial Service, receive the tropical kit allowance which is admissible under War Office regulations to officers going to any other tropical country, i.e. £10. If my hon. Friend wishes to pursue the general question of the adequacy of the allowance I must ask her to approach my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, whose Department is responsible for the regulations. As regards those officers of the Auxiliary Territorial Service who have been lent to the Government of India to assist them with the Women's Auxiliary Corps (India), I am in telegraphic correspondence with the Government of India and on receipt of their reply will communicate again with my hon. Friend.
    Miss Ward: Would it not be a good thing for my right hon. Friend as Secretary of State for India to advise the Secretary of State for War that the allowances are not sufficient? Is it not a fact that he is supposed to know the conditions in India, and would be the suitable person to give advice?
    Mr. Amery: As I said, I think this is a matter in which my hon. Friend should deal with the Secretary of State for War.
    Mr. Astor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend refused point-blank yesterday to say what clothes were needed, what was the purchase price of these clothes in India or London, or whether the amount given covered the purchase price? Is it not a most unsatisfactory situation?
    Mr. Amery: I cannot answer my hon. Friend on that point.

    British Troops (Welfare)
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for India when he expects to receive the Report of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department on welfare conditions in India and Burma; and what arrangements he is making to enable the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to give continuous co-operation and consultation in the improvement of those welfare conditions.
    Mr. Amery: I expect that my Noble Friend will return to this country about the end of this month and will report to me very shortly thereafter. By permission of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department I shall consult him as and when necessary in following up the recommendations which he makes.
    Mr. Turton: Arising out of the second part of the reply, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance to this House that the one Minister who has now firsthand knowledge of the conditions in South East Asia should continue to work out with him a policy for the improvement of the welfare of the troops in that Command?
    Mr. Amery: My Noble Friend will certainly report to me fully, and will be in the closest touch with me in the implementing of his recommendations.
    Mr. Buchanan: In view of the very great importance of this matter—it is much more important than some people think—could the right hon. Gentleman see that the report is made available to the House, and also state what action he proposes to take? Will he at least make that information available to the House at the earliest possible moment so that we may know not merely what is in the report, but what steps will be taken to improve conditions?
    Mr. Amery: I have already said that I must consider the question of the publication of my Noble Friend's report when I have received it, but in any case the fullest information will be given to the House of the action which is being taken, or which it is proposed to take.
    Mr. Astor: Is my right hon. Friend aware how much Members who have taken an interest in this matter regret Lord Munster's transference from the India Office after the experience he has gained there; and will my right hon. Friend see if there is some way in which his services and experience cannot be made available to the India Office?
    Mr. Amery: As I say, his experience will continue to be available.

    Currency
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for India whether full consideration has been given to the effect of increased currency in India due to the expansion of Anglo-American Armies; and what action is being taken to deal with the economic problem involved.
    Mr. Amery: The expansion referred to by the hon. Member is undoubtedly one of many contributory factors in the increasing economic strain upon India. The Government of India and His Majesty's Government have, for a long time, been engaged in measures to offset this strain. I refer in particular to the efforts made to remedy the shortages in India of transport and mining equipment, of food grains and of consumer goods generally. The success of these efforts is evident from the considerable degree of stability which has been maintained for more than a year past.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that many specialists in these matters are very apprehensive regarding the future, and will he not
    1520
    take further steps to try to offset the danger of inflation in the months to come?
    Mr. Amery: I also am naturally apprehensive and concerned about the future, and we are doing all we can to avert the difficulty.
    Mr. Colegate: Does not my right hon. Friend recognise that the only real solution is the release of further exports from this country to India?

    U.N.R.R.A.
    Miss Rathboneasked the Secretary of State for India whether, following the decision at Montreal that U.N.R.R.A. is competent to undertake work in India, any request for assistance from U.N.R.R.A. has been made by the Government of India; and whether, if that Government is unable from its own resources to cover the minimum food programme recommended by the Central Food Advisory Council, a request for assistance from U.N.R.R.A. will be made without delay.
    Mr. Amery: No such request has so far been made. The hon. Member will appreciate that the supply of goods to India through the machinery of U.N.R.R.A. would not increase India's total imports as the limiting factor on these is the shipping available.

  REMAND HOMES AND APPROVED SCHOOLS (CORPORAL PUNISH MENT)
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will revise the regulations respecting the infliction of corporal punishment in remand homes and approved schools; how many lads over 15 years of age have been punished with 12 strokes of a cane for a particular offence during the past year; for what offences that punishment has been or can be given; and whether he will increase to two the number of managers who must be consulted before punishments are given.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): During the twelve months ended on the 30th September last 34 lads aged fifteen or over were punished in approved

  1521
  schools with 12 strokes of the cane. The regulations do not specify the offences for which this maximum penalty may be inflicted, but the offence in 25 of the 34 cases was absconding with aggravating circumstances; in 3 cases breaking, entering and stealing, and in 1 case false pretences, no court penalty having been inflicted for any of these offences. In the other 5 cases, the offence was gross insubordination in 2 cases, striking other boys in 2 cases, and indecency in 1 case. The question does not arise in respect of remand homes as the maximum penalty is 6 strokes of the cane. As regards the revision of the regulations, there is nothing which I can add to my answer to my hon. Friend on 26th October.
  Mr. Sorensen: May I take it from the right hon. Gentleman that he will look into this matter still further? Is he aware that such penalties would not be imposed on these boys if they were taken to court, and will he do something to prevent this mania for flagellation in these homes?
  Mr. Morrison: It is a matter for consideration. Sometimes the courts are in great difficulty to know what to do. It may well be that the penalties imposed in this way are less than those the courts would impose.
  Mr. Thorne: Does my right hon. Friend think that the mentality of the children will be improved by the use of the cane?
  Mr. Morrison: I do not want to go too far into the merits of this highly controversial subject. One day, in quieter times, the House might find time to discuss the theory of the cane both ways.
  Mr. McGovern: Could not the right hon. Gentleman encourage the system which is employed in the Navy, and provide the boys with a boxing ring, so that they can settle disputes?
  Mr. Morrison: I believe that they go in for boxing in approved schools.
  Mr. Sorensen: Could the right hon. Gentleman not consult specialists in these matters, especially probation officers, with a view to drawing attention to the fact that such penalties are not imposed for misdemeanours in the courts of this country? In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

  PUBLIC HEALTH

    Industrial Dermatitis
    Mr. Cocksasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give, for the last 12 months for which figures are available, the number of cases of industrial dermatitis, certified as such by the certifying surgeon, which have occurred in Nottinghamshire; and the number against which appeals have been lodged by the employers.
    Mr. H. Morrison: The figures for 1943 were 272 and 160 respectively.
    Mr. Cocksasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state, for the last 12 months for which figures are available, how many cases of industrial dermatitis, certified as such by the certifying surgeon and sent on appeal to Dr. Airey, the medical referee at Leicester, have been decided in favour of the worker, and how many against.
    Mr. H. Morrison: During the 12 months ended 30th September, 1944, 453 cases, certified to be due to the scheduled disease—dermatitis produced by dust or liquids—were sent on appeal to Dr. Airey. Of these 140 were decided in favour of the workman, and 313 against.
    Mr. Cocks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that after some of these cases have been rejected, doctors have again examined the men, and have certified that they are suffering from industrial dermatitis? As the workers have no confidence whatever in Dr. Airey, will my right hon. Friend take that fact into consideration and appoint someone else in his place?
    Mr. Morrison: I have made inquiries, and I have really no evidence that this doctor is incompetent or not impartial. I do not think that I should take steps such as my hon. Friend has indicated.
    Mr. Cocks: Do not the results of appeals show that he rejects more cases than he accepts, even when other doctors have certified that the men are suffering from this disease? Does not that indicate that there is something wrong?
    Mr. Morrison: Doctors frequently disagree. I think it would be wrong to assume that, because decisions by a majority are of a certain character, there is something wrong with this particular doctor. Doctors acting for the men may take a different view.
    Mr. Bowles: Would it not be sufficient to accept a certificate from a doctor, showing that the man is unable to work, without all these inquiries?

    National Nutrition Policy
    Mr. Saltasked the Minister of Food whether he proposes to consult the War Cabinet Scientific Advisory Committee and the Scientific Food Policy Committee on the subject of a post-war scientific policy for national nutrition.
    Mr. Willink: I have been asked to reply. The Government have every intention of securing the best possible scientific advice in connection with their policy for national nutrition and whenever necessary will consult the appropriate one of the two bodies referred to by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Saltasked the Prime Minister whether, as a complement to the White Paper on Social Insurance, a statement can be published outlining the Government's policy in relation to post-war nutrition.
    Mr. Attlee: No, Sir, not at present.

  SERVICE CASUALTIES (NOTIFICATION)
  Mr. Cocksasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the police have been instructed, on being notified that a Serviceman has been killed in action, to inform the next-of-kin immediately, even in the middle of the night; and whether he will give instructions that they should wait until sunrise or later before breaking the news.
  Mr. H. Morrison: It is not the function of the police to notify the next-of-kin of Service casualties, and no instructions of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers have been issued. If, however, he will be good enough to let me have particulars of the case which he has in mind, I shall be glad to make further inquiries.
  Mr. Cocks: In view of the fact that, in some districts, the police are under the impression that it is their duty to act in this way—so I have been informed by the British Legion—will my right hon. Friend take steps to inform them of the nature of his answer to-day?
  Mr. Morrison: They will, no doubt, see it. My information is that there are no instructions to the police. I believe that, in a limited number of cases, the police have conveyed the information, at the request of the military. It is because of the exceptional character of those cases that I have asked my hon. Friend for particulars, so that I may look into them.
  Mr. Cocks: My point is that two o'clock in the morning is not a good time to awaken a woman to tell her that her husband has been killed.
  Mr. Morrison: I quite agree that it is a good case for consideration.

  CORONERS' INQUESTS (PUBLICITY)
  Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the refusal by a coroner and by the police to communicate to the Press the verdict in an inquest which was held at such short notice that Press representatives were unable to be present; and if, for the information of the public, he will instruct that particulars in such cases should be available to Press representatives through the police.
  Mr. H. Morrison: I am making inquiries into the circumstances of this case. In the meantime, all I can say is that a coroner's court is an open court, and I have no reason for thinking that as a general rule representatives of the Press are not given an opportunity to attend at an inquest. If, in any particular case, for special reasons an inquest has to be held at such short notice as to make it impracticable for the Press to attend, it is, in my view, reasonable that the Press should be given adequate particulars upon request, either by the coroner or, on his instructions, by the coroner's officer. That officer may happen to be a policeman, but the police have no responsibilities or duties in the matter, and are not necessarily aware of the proceedings at an inquest.
  Mr. Driberg: Will the right hon. Gentleman convey his view in this matter to the people concerned, and especially to the coroner, who seems, in this case, to have behaved in an unnecessarily high-handed and insolent way?
  Mr. Morrison: I cannot express opinions about that. I have asked for the observations of the coroner on the reports which have reached me.
  Earl Winterton: In view of the constant criticisms in many quarters, and the questions asked in this House, concerning the actions of coroners, will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether he has sufficient power over coroners to see that their proceedings are in accord with common sense and justice?
  Mr. Morrison: Of course, they are judicial officers; but I think that one day, when there is time, the whole proceedings of coroners might be the subject of discussion here.

  DETAINEES (RELEASE)
  Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the 18B detainees whom he has released have been released unconditionally; and how many under such conditions as were imposed on Sir Oswald Mosley, or under other conditions.
  Mr. H. Morrison: Eight hundred and nineteen persons were released unconditionally, and 934 were released subject to conditions appropriate to the circumstances of each case. Of those released conditionally 204 have had their conditions cancelled after subsequent review of their cases at a later date.
  Mr. Driberg: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether the person referred to in Question 30 comes under the "conditional" or the "unconditional" category?
  [30. Mr. PRITT to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that certain professed Fascists are organising a league of ex-Service men and women and are conducting propaganda for this league in Hyde Park on a basis of anti-Semitic agitation; that one of the principal propagandists has recently been released from detention under Regulation 18B; whether this person was released conditionally or unconditionally; and what steps he proposes to take to check the anit-Semitic and other Fascist activities of this body.]
  Mr. Morrison: Question 30 was not asked Perhaps my hon. Friend will read
  1526
  it and the answer to it carefully in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Miss Rathbone: Did the conditions imposed include a condition that the persons concerned were not to take part in anti-Semitic propaganda, likely to lead as it generally does to bloodshed, such as the propaganda now going on in Hyde Park?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot ask a supplementary on a Question which was not asked

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    University Students (Income Tax)
    Mr. Edmund Harveyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the position of students who can only proceed with their university careers through the aid of loans, and to the burden which the repayment of these loans involves on a limited income; and whether any relief from Income Tax is allowed in respect of such annual repayments.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): The repayments to which my hon. Friend refers are repayments of capital, and no relief from Income Tax is allowable in respect of them.
    Mr. Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the position in his next Budget, as the amount involved will be very small?
    Sir J. Anderson: I should be very sorry to hold out any expectations that the well-recognised distinction between income and capital, which is the foundation of our Income Tax law, will be departed from.

    Income Tax (Post-War Credit Certificates)
    Captain Sidneyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the present position in regard to the issue of Income Tax Post-War Credit Certificates.
    Sir J. Anderson: The issue of Post-War Credit Certificates has been practically completed for the years 1941 and 1942, and it is estimated that some 12,500,000 taxpayers now hold certificates showing the amount to be repaid to them after the war in respect of those

    1527
    years. The issue of Post-War Credit Certificates for last year, the Income Tax year 1943–44, may be delayed in many cases, for, owing to the great pressure of work involved in working out the cancellation of tax under "Pay-as-you-earn" and to the shortage of man-power, it will be impossible to issue the certificates at as early a date as in previous years.
    Sir Joseph Lamb: Does the Chancellor's expression "after the war" mean after the war in Europe, or after the war generally?
    Sir J. Anderson: That is a matter of law, but I should have thought it referred to the war generally.
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: Will these payments be made out of taxation, or by the issue of new money?
    Sir J. Anderson: That is an entirely separate question.
    Mr. Buchanan: Is it the intention to repay these credits in lump sums, or in some other way?
    Sir J. Anderson: That is a matter still to be determined. It will be within the control of this House.
    Mr. George Griffiths: If people leave these credits later than the time when they are due, will they receive 2½ per cent. from the Post Office?
    Sir J. Anderson: There is no specified time at which they are due.

    Pay-as-you-earn (Coding Notices)
    Sir Alexander Russellasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed to issue coding notices for next year to all taxpayers coming under Pay-as-you-earn.
    Sir J. Anderson: Taxpayers under Pay-as-you-earn for the current year have received notices showing the code number by reference to which their tax under Pay-as-you-earn is calculated, and it is the intention normally to issue notices for every year to all taxpayers even though there may be no change in the code. Owing to the great pressure of work now prevailing in the Inland Revenue Department and to the shortage of man-power, it has been decided to issue notices for next year only in those cases in which a
    1528
    change of code number is being made, and accordingly this year's code number will continue in force for next year unless a new coding notice is issued. If, by reason of change of circumstances, any taxpayer thinks that his existing code number is incorrect, he can, of course, apply to the tax office to have it corrected.
    Mr. Thorne: May I ask the Chancellor whether he is satisfied with the method of Pay-as-you-earn as it is being done weekly?
    Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir, I think it is working very well indeed.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    France (Business Visits)
    Mr. Quintin Hoggasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department how many applications have been received by his Department for permission to proceed to France on business grounds; how many have been granted; and how many individuals have in fact been able to travel.
    Mr. Harcourt Johnstone (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I will, with the permission of the House, make a rather longer statement on this Question than is normally given in an Oral answer.
    The grant of exit permits is made by the Passport and Permit Office on behalf of the Home Office, after consultation in each individual case with a number of Government Departments. It is a fundamental condition that every application shall be sponsored by a Government Department, and, in the case of journeys to France for business reasons, this sponsorship is usually a matter for my Department. Such support is not, however, a guarantee that an exit permit will be granted, since other factors have to be taken into account. For instance, the Foreign Exchange Control must be consulted. In addition, visas must be secured by the applicant from the French Consul-General, who must refer practically every case to Paris. Finally, arrangements must be made with the Ministry of War Transport or the Air Ministry for a passage, again usually on the recommendation of the original sponsoring Department.
    As stated in my answer to the Noble Lady, the Member for Hemel Hempstead

    1529
    (Viscountess Davidson), on 10th October and confirmed in the announcement appearing in the Press on 23rd October, persons desiring to proceed to France on urgent business of national importance were asked to make preliminary application to my Department so that it might be determined whether there was prima-facie evidence that their journey would comply with this condition. No exit permits or facilities to travel could be accorded to business visitors until after the declaration of the "interior" zone published on 23rd October. Up to 8th November, 383 preliminary letters intimating desire to visit France have been received by my Department. Of these, 48 cases were either rejected or referred to other Departments. The remainder were invited to submit formal applications and 76 have done so. My Department has sponsored 51 of these cases. It is understood that approximately half this number of applicants have since applied to the Passport and Permit Office for exit permits. Examination of applications in that Office has been concluded, and exit permits issued in seven cases, five of whom have left for Paris.
    Mr. Hogg: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I, in view of the necessity and advantage to both countries of trade with France, ask him to give an assurance that only military security and transport difficulties will hinder the natural intercourse between the two countries?
    Mr. Johnstone: So far as is possible, I will certainly do that.
    Mr. Petherick: As it appears likely, from the life-work to which we have just listened, that trade relations will not be resumed before 1980, will the right hon. Gentleman get the necessary Departments together and consult with the French Government to see if it is not possible to do something instantly?
    Mr. Johnstone: Consultation with the French Government has already been undertaken, and this is the result of it.

    Departmental Responsibility
    Viscount Hinchingbrookeasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will define the division of responsibility between his Department and the Department of Overseas Trade; and with what industries and with what countries, respectively, each is concerned.
    Mr. Johnstone: The Board of Trade is responsible for formulating and carrying out industrial and trade policy. The main function of the Department of Overseas Trade is to provide assistance to exporters within the framework of that policy. The two Departments work in close collaboration and there is no division of functions by industry or by country.
    Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate what assistance is being afforded to exporters at the present time?
    Mr. Johnstone: If my hon. Friend will put that question down, I will be very glad to answer it.
    Mr. Shinwell: It has been put down.
    Mr. Speaker: The supplementary question is not relevant to the original Question.

    Non-Utility Cloths (Samples)
    Captain Prescottasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the large amount of utility cloth available in the country, he will grant permission for mills to spin some quantity of non-utility, that is in general, non-standard yarns in order further to assist the weaving of experimental and sample cloths for future exports.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): As my hon. and gallant Friend has already been informed, my right hon. Friend is anxious to do all he can to assist the weaving of experimental and sample cloths. I am advised, however, that the spinning of fancy yarns would result in a disproportionate loss of output, and, in view of the very great shortage of cotton yarns for essential purposes, including production of utility cloth, I regret that my hon and gallant Friend's suggestion cannot be accepted for the present. But the possibility will be borne in mind.
    Captain Prescott: As the number of spinning mills involved is very small, will not my right hon. and gallant Friend reconsider this matter, because the advantage that would be gained would be very great?
    Captain Waterhouse: Both my right hon. Friend and I are most anxious that these samples should be made, but, unhappily, at the present moment, we are so very

    1531
    short of labour in Lancashire that it is quite impossible to use any of it for this purpose.
    Captain Prescott: Is not my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that no increased labour would be necessary if the suggestion outlined in the Question were adopted?
    Captain Waterhouse: No, Sir. On the other hand, I am informed that increased labour would be necessary, and that that labour would be disproportionate to the small number of samples which could be used. We hope to be able to do it shortly, but we cannot do it yet.

  SCOTLAND (HOUSING, GREENOCK)
  Mr. McGovernasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that there are 180 persons as squatters in Waverlie Lane, Cross Shire Street, Greenock, who have no other dwelling and are requested to leave; and if he is making arrangements to have these persons provided with housing accommodation elsewhere in Greenock.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): My right hon. Friend is informed that Greenock corporation have obtained court warrants for the eviction of some 27 squatter families, but that no evictions have so far been carried out. He has no power to intervene in the enforcement of these decrees, but he has asked the corporation to take all possible steps to ensure that, as the cases come to be dealt with, undue hardship will be avoided.
  Mr. McGovern: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if, in view of the circumstances of these 180 persons, the Secretary of State could not encourage the local authority to set up up some temporary houses to accommodate these families, many of whom are war workers?
  Mr. Westwood: We shall certainly do anything we can to help the local authority to meet this particular set of circumstances, so far as their powers enable them to do so.
  Mr. Buchanan: Is the Minister aware that this is an exceptional case, and that the Secretary of State has power to re-
  1532
  quisition and to see that these people are housed? Is he also aware that some of them have relations who are now in France with the Forces, and would it not be a terrible thing for these soldiers to find their relatives turned out into the street? Will the Secretary of State not exercise the powers he now has?
  Mr. Westwood: These powers of requisition we have delegated to the local authorities. They have the power to acquire any premises available which they require for the housing of these people, and they will have the support of the Secretary of State in taking any action in their power to avoid undue hardship in these cases.
  Mr. Stephen: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that these people will not be put out in the street?
  Mr. Westwood: We have no power to interfere with a decree of the Court, but we are asking the local authority to take what action they can, with a view to avoiding undue hardship.
  Mr. Stephen: Will the right hon. Gentleman not give us an assurance that they will not be put out in the street in this cold weather?
  Mr. Westwood: I can give no assurance other than that which I have given—that we will take any and every step to assist the local authorities to avoid undue hardship.
  Mr. Buchanan: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland has power to requisition? He may have delegated it, but he can use it if he cares. Will he use those powers now, in order to see that innocent children and other people arc not turned out, in weather like this in Scotland, into the street? In the name of humanity, I ask the Minister if he will exercise his power of requisitioning.
  Mr. Westwood: I have already pointed out that this power has been delegated to the local authorities in Scotland. Under any power we have delegated to them, we will endeavour to support them in any action they might require to take.
  Mr. McGovern: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

  BUILDING INDUSTRY (CONTROLS)
  Mr. Craven-Ellisasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works whether he will give favourable consideration to withdrawing all controls affecting the building industry and introducing price control of all building materials until such time as these supplies have been built up and are able to meet all demands.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hicks): So long as there is a shortage of building labour, it is necessary to retain a control of the building industry in order that the available capacity may be used where the national interest requires. The prices of the more important building materials are already controlled, either statutorily or by means of voluntary arrangements with the industries concerned.

  OCCUPIED COUNTRIES (BRITISH ASSISTANCE)
  Sir Leonard Lyleasked the Prime Minister how many of the Governments or Forces of the Occupied Countries we are supplying with arms, food, clothing and finance.
  Mr. Attlee: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has no statement to make on this subject beyond what is already well known.

  KING'S BADGE (N.F.S. AND CIVIL DEFENCE)
  Sir I. Alberyasked the Prime Minister if a decision has now been taken as to the issue of the King's Badge to personnel discharged from the N.F.S. and C.D.
  Mr. Attlee: This matter remains under consideration.
  Sir I. Albery: As this Question has now been on the Order Paper three times, and the same answer has been given every time, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he can now give some indication of when a reply may be received?
  Mr. Attlee: I am afraid that I cannot give any indication. The matter is under very close consideration.
  Sir I. Albery: Can my right hon. Friend say, for general information, when a
  1534
  matter is under close consideration, roughly how long it is necessary to wait for an answer?
  Mr. Attlee: My hon. Friend has had a long experience in this House and is as well able to judge as I am.
  Mr. McGovern: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether President Roosevelt and Marshal Stalin will be required to be consulted in this matter?

  NETHERLANDS (GERMAN DEVASTATION)
  Sir Ralph Glynasked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to make a statement concerning the serious economic loss sustained by the Netherlands through the flooding of large areas of valuable agricultural land; and whether, in view of the statement recently published by the Netherlands Government, a joint reply by the United Nations can be made without undue delay.
  Mr. Attlee: His Majesty's Government have received from the Netherlands Government an official communication reserving the right of the Netherlands to claim, in compensation for the damage and destruction wrought by the Germans, a suitable part of adjoining Prussian territory, which should either be ceded or brought into the dominion and economic orbit of the Netherlands in some other manner, on a provisional or permanent basis.
  The whole world has been shocked by the devastation and destruction wantonly wrought in Holland by the German invader. So far as His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are concerned, I can say that all just claims for territorial compensation at the expense of Germany which the Netherlands Government may eventually decide to put forward will be given energetic support.

  AGRICULTURE

    Milk Production
    Sir Joseph Lambasked the Minister of Agriculture whether there has been a reduction in milk production during September and October; and, if so, what are the causes.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. Tom Williams): My right hon. Friend is very glad to have this opportunity of removing a widespread misapprehension on this subject. Supplies of milk in England and Wales during September and October, so far from showing a reduction on the corresponding months of 1943, showed in each case some increase. They were substantially greater than pre-war supplies in those months.
    Sir J. Lamb: The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned the figures for England and Wales; can he give the figures with regard to Scotland?
    Mr. Williams: I am afraid that the hon. Member will have to put that question to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Wing-Commander James: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the non-priority ration has been reduced, particularly in view of the not very good quality of the forage crop this year?
    Mr. Williams: I am afraid that that Question will have to be put to the Minister of Food. I repeat, however, that the output in England and Wales was increased in September and October of this year.

    Attested Herds (Fencing)
    Wing-Commander Jamesasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that in some areas divisional inspectors are demanding the double fencing of farm boundaries as a pre-requisite for herd attestation; and if he will make it clear there is no authority for this demand, and no need for it, where fences are strong and well maintained.
    Mr. T. Williams: The rules of the Tuberculosis (Attested Herds) Scheme require that boundary fences shall be maintained in such a condition as to prevent the infection of an attested herd by cattle on adjoining land. I am not aware that additional fencing is being demanded by my Department's officers where existing fences fulfil this requirement.
    Wing-Commander James: Will the Parliamentary Secretary bring that reply to the notice of divisional officers in view of the fact that they are, in many cases now, demanding some increase automatically?
    Mr. Williams: This Question and the reply will again bring the point to the notice of the officers referred to, but if my hon. and gallant Friend has any particular case in mind and will let us have particulars, we will gladly look into it.
    Earl Winterton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us are put to quite unnecessary expense by the way that these regulations are carried out, and that it is most desirable for him to go into the matter very carefully and make it clear that, provided the fence keeps the cattle out and they cannot communicate through the usual channels, the fencing is perfectly all right?
    Mr. Williams: If the Noble Lord or any hon. Member will bring any particular case to our notice, we will gladly look into it.
    Mrs. Tate: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that there is really any point in having T.T. herds, when we indulge in the disgusting practice of pasteurising milk?

    Farmers (Working Capital)
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that the agricultural industry in this country is under-capitalised and a large number of small farmers require additional working capital, will he consider making a pronouncement regarding the provision of further capital for the purpose of assisting the farmers and, additionally, to create a home market in which our industrial goods can be sold.
    Mr. T. Williams: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend gave him to a similar question on 20th July last.
    Mr. De la Bère: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that there is an unprecedented need for further capital in the agricultural industry to-day, and will he take up the matter seriously with his right hon. Friend?
    Mr. Williams: There may be a need for more capital but at the moment we are more concerned with farmers' credit balances.
    Mr. De la Bère: Surely my right hon. Friend will realise that that is by no means a satisfactory answer.

  BRITISH ARMY (NEWLY-JOINED SOLDIER, LEAVE)
  Mr. McGovernasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Private McDonald, H.L.I., whose home address is at 1,097 Shettleston Road, Glasgow, has been in the service for 10 months, during which time he has never had a home leave, was sent to France without embarkation leave in spite of a letter from his O.C. stating that he was a good soldier and would receive embarkation leave; and, as this boy is only 18 years of age, if he will take steps to have him brought home.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Tom Smith): I have been asked to reply. Every endeavour is made to give privilege leave to newly-joined soldiers. But this man joined up in January and did not become eligible for ordinary leave before the general stoppage on leave was imposed on 6th April. For security reasons it was, I regret, not possible to grant embarkation leave to troops of 21 Army Group. As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware men over 18½ may be sent overseas. I understand that this man was born on 20th December, 1925, and so was over 18 years and 8 months old when he went abroad on 2nd September, and I regret that he cannot be brought back to this country.
  Mr. McGovern: Will the hon. Member convey to the War Office the information—it has not come from the War Office—that this man has now been wounded in Holland, and will he ask the Secretary of State for War to give consideration to this case to see if the boy can be brought home; and is he further aware of the terrible state of affairs in many homes where young lads are sent abroad and do not see their families before they go abroad perhaps to die, and that this is causing very grave concern, and will that state of affairs be remedied?
  Mr. Smith: I will convey that information to my right hon. Friend.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: May I ask the Leader of the House what will be the Business for next week?
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): The Business for next week will be as follows:
Tuesday—Committee and remaining stages of the Ministry of Social Insurance Bill.
Wednesday—On the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, there will be an opportunity for a Debate on release from the Forces after the defeat of Germany.
Thursday—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Town and Country Planning Bill. We expect to receive the Amendments from another place during the course of Tuesday, and they will be printed and made available in good time on Wednesday.
If all the necessary outstanding Business, including the Lords Amendments to the Town and Country Planning Bill, has been disposed of, the Government will propose a short interval from Friday, 17th November, to Tuesday, 28th November, so that final preparations may be made for the new Session. Hon. Members are aware that, under existing powers, the House can be recalled at short notice should this prove necessary.
Mr. Tinker: Would my right hon. Friend consider extending the time for to-day's Business, as yesterday quite a number of hon. Members could not speak, and I think Mr. Speaker is in difficulty in accommodating all who wish to speak in the time given?
Mr. Eden: I understand we did well yesterday and got in a lot of speeches. From information which has reached me, it is hoped that we shall do equally well to-day.
Mr. Turton: With regard to Wednesday's Business, will my right hon. Friend consider having a Motion on the Paper to debate the White Paper, in order to allow the discussion to be wider than it could be on the Adjournment?
Mr. Eden: With respect, I think my hon. Friend is on the wrong tack there. I do not think that would have the effect he wants.

ASSASSINATION OF LORD MOYNE
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): On Tuesday last, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister undertook to inform the House as soon as fuller details about the assassination of

1539
Lord Moyne had been received. It has now been reported from Cairo that the two prisoners have made the following confession:
"We are members of the Fighters for the Freedom of Israel organisation and what we have done was done on the instructions of this organisation."
The organisation is that known as the Stern Group. The prisoners stated that they were sent down by this group for the express purpose of murdering Lord Moyne. The reason they give is that he was head of the political department of the British Government in the Middle East, and was carrying out a policy which was against that of the Jewish Nationalists. The Stern Group, therefore, decided to kill him. The identity of the prisoners is still not established, but they have given their names as Mosche Cohen Itzak and C. Salzmann.
The facts of the murder, so far as they can be established, are these. Lord Moyne was returning in his car to lunch at his house at, approximately, 1.15 p.m. In the car with him were his lady secretary by his side, and, in front, his A.D.C. and driver. As the car entered the short drive leading to the front door, two men were noticed outside the gate. When the car drew up at the door of the house, Lord Moyne's A.D.C. got out to open the door of the house, and the driver to open the door of the car. It appears that the two men had followed the car up the drive. They shot the driver dead as he passed behind the car to get to the right hand door, and then fired through the door at Lord Moyne, hitting him three times. They then fled, mounted their bicycles and rode away. Neither the A.D.C. nor the lady secretary was injured. The former gave immediate chase to the assailants, while the latter summoned help which arrived within ten minutes. Medical assistance was on the spot within a quarter of an hour. The A.D.C. informed a police station close at hand, and the police from this station pursued the criminals, stopping a passing car for the purpose. Meanwhile, however, a passing Egyptian police constable on a motor bicycle was warned of what had happened, and promptly gave chase on his motor bicycle. He overtook the criminals at the entrance to the Bulak Bridge, where they opened fire on him, firing 15 rounds. He returned the fire,
1540
wounding one man, and then riding the other into the kerb. With the aid of other police who came up, he effected the arrest of both men. For his very gallant conduct this police constable has already been decorated and promoted, by order of King Farouk.
At one time Lord Moyne was regularly escorted by Egyptian police in a car which accompanied his own, and a police guard was stationed at his house by day as well as by night. Some months ago, however, the police escort car, and the day guard at the house, were dispensed with on Lord Moyne's direct instructions.
The investigation continues, and is being conducted with all vigour by the Egyptian authorities, in full co-operation with the Palestine police. Senior officials of the Palestine police are now in Cairo. Both King Farouk and the Egyptian Government have been most sympathetic and helpful throughout.
Earl Winterton: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will give consideration to publishing a White Paper on the full extent of the terrorism in Palestine, in view of the fact that malicious rumours are being put about in London that the Government have not dared to publish such a Paper, for fear of fomenting anti-Semitism here and affecting our relations with America; and also in view of the attempt recently made on the Governor of Palestine?
Mr. Eden: I think that all the information we have had has been made public in the Press. I would like to consider with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Colonial Secretary whether a White Paper could be published.
Mr. Shinwell: May I ask whether the Government have considered making representations to the Jewish Agency in Palestine to take upon themselves the primary responsibility of rooting out this gang of terrorists?
Mr. Eden: My hon. Friend will understand that the Jewish Agency cannot take upon themselves the primary responsibility which is that, of course, of the governing authority of Palestine, but my right hon. Friend has already called for their co-operation in this work,
Major Markham: Have any steps been taken to arrest leaders of the Stern Group, pending investigation?
Mr. Eden: My hon. and gallant Friend knows this is a secret organisation.
Mr. Mander: Is my right hon. Friend aware that no body of citizens will more whole-heartedly condemn this brutal outrage than the Jews throughout the world?
Commander Galbraith: Could my right hon. Friend say whether he is receiving full collaboration from the Jewish Agency?
Mr. Eden: My right hon. Friend saw the representatives of the Jewish Agency recently, and full collaboration was promised by them.
Miss Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend give full publicity, for the benefit of the general public who do not follow these things, to the fact that not only the Jewish Agency, but all the responsible Zionists and Jewish bodies throughout the world, deplore deeply these terrorist activities of the Stern Group?
Mr. Eden: I have no doubt that the statements that have been made by these organisations will be fully published, but I think I ought to add that what we hope for from these organisations, and from all who have such sentiments at heart, is not only statements but active co-operation.
Mr. McGovern: Is it not the case that this terrorist organisation is a small organisation that has waged war even on the Jewish organisations in Palestine which speak for the Jewish people; that the crime itself is of a revolting character and that every intelligent person throughout the world will condemn the introduction of such methods into the political field?
Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, I am in entire agreement with the hon. Gentleman.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I think we had better get on to the next Business.

LONDON STREET LIGHTING REGULATIONS (RELAXATION)
Mr. H. Morrison: By leave of the House, I wish to make the following state-
1542
ment: The Government have decided that the higher standards of street lighting which have been allowed in all other parts of the country, except in certain special coastal areas, may now be used in the London area. Lighting authorities may, therefore, instal the improved standards of street lighting and they will be so informed as soon as possible. In view of the interest which has been taken in the matter in the House—as well as in the Press—hon. Members and others who have advocated this change will, I think, be glad that it has now been possible to take this step, but they will understand that, in view of the number of local authorities involved, it is not to be expected that uniformity can be secured throughout the whole of the London area.
Special consideration has been given to the London area, not only because it is the area which has been most attacked, but also because of the special problems caused by the existence of the large number of separate lighting authorities—nearly 100 in the London region. The House will realise that permission to use the higher standard of street lighting does not indicate that all danger of attack by piloted aircraft on the London area has disappeared. It appears likely, however, that we shall be faced with another winter of war and, bearing in mind that the recent action of our armed Forces has greatly reduced the probable weight and frequency of attacks by piloted enemy aircraft, the Government have, on balance, decided that a relaxation permitting London to use the same street lighting as other parts of the country is now possible.
Sir Harold Webbe: Will the Home Secretary permit full pre-war lighting inside omnibuses and other public vehicles, such as can be turned off by a single switch? This would be an advantage to the public.
Mr. Morrison: That is a matter for consideration. It is rather a serious proposition, but I am examining it. I think, however, that in this matter it is better to move by stages and not by leaps.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  INDUSTRIAL INJURY INSURANCE
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [8th November],
  "That this House welcomes the intention of His Majesty's Government, declared in the White Paper presented to Parliament, to replace the existing system of workmen's compensation by a new scheme of Industrial Injury Insurance."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]
  Question again proposed.
  12.5 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): For seven hours yesterday the House was engaged in its traditional task of harmonising what is thought to be good for the people of this country, with what they want, and what they will stand. I hope the House will permit me to say that I have never known an occasion when such a wealth of first-hand information on the problem facing it was placed before a Government. If I may be allowed to take one example from the county and the coalfield I know best, I should like to refer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), whose force, eloquence and kindly wisdom captured us all, and showed most clearly to the House the problems of his own industry. It might, therefore, be useful if I commenced by summarising the points on which there was almost complete agreement with regard to this scheme, and with regard to the desirability for departing from the traditional procedure of the last 50 years, and then to deal with some half-dozen points on which there was general questioning, and about which difficulty was felt.
  The points which I have selected—and I hope to be able to pick up points made by my hon. Friends in all quarters of the House—were, first, the question of why there should be a difference between an industrial injury and any other injury; second, that the rate of compensation should be without reference to the loss of earning power; third, that the removal from the courts is justified; fourth, that our system of administration proposed in the White Paper, is fair and practicable; fifth, that the retention of the words, "arising out of and in the course of," is necessary, and, sixth, some aspects of the
  1556
  amount of compensation. I think it will be convenient for the House to have these heads in mind, and I hope I shall be able to consider all the points that were raised by my hon. Friends and then, quite shortly, to summarise the reasons for the change. I think the first and foremost reason, which was put by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Colegate) and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince and many others, is that the old Workmen's Compensation Acts led to a worsening of relations between employers and employed, because the insurers were bound to adhere to the letter of the law. Henceforward, the disputes will no longer be between workmen and employer. I think it was considered right in all our views that the matter should cease to be the employer's liability, and if I may add a footnote to that, it is peculiarly inappropriate that it should be the employer's liability when one considers industrial diseases. There you have the gradual onset and the recurrence of the disease, and if it is the employer's liability, not only is the result going to be difficult in administration, but it will be difficult for the man who has the disease, to get a job under the present system. The positive corollory of that is to make it a matter of social insurance. Again, I think the vast majority of us agree that that is the proper form. This involves meeting the cost from the tripartite fund, explained yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir W. Beveridge). That is to say, we have a pooling system based on the identity of the interests of industries, an identity which is equally applicable to employers and employed. That removes the doubt of complete security of payment of compensation, which all of us have seen in our individual experience in many cases, and it also removes the difficulty of the workman who has not got trade union support. I have seen many hundreds of these cases in the past.
  The next point on which there is general agreement is the complete removal of the lump sum payment from all except the smallest and most trumpery cases, where it is a matter of only a few pounds and, lastly, there is the absence from the present set-up of any provisions for medical and post-medical rehabilitation. We are all agreed that that must be changed, and in this scheme we have, on the one hand not only grants for maintenance in hospitals,

  1557
  treatment and constant attendance, but the medical treatment and rehabilitation of the injured workman, and the post-hospital rehabilitation and training, will be provided as part of the general medical and post-hospital rehabilitation services organised by the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Labour. There will, in addition to that, be a duty on the Ministry of Social Insurance to co-ordinate these activities with the activities of that Department, to assure free information, and to see that the most efficient and best services of rehabilitation and training are obtained. As I say, on these points I think the House will agree. He would be a bold man who would attack the desirability of the changes that we have made.
  But it is only right, after what we heard yesterday, that one should meet the various difficulties which were present in the minds of hon. Members. One of them was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), who wanted to know why there should be a difference between an industrial accident and an ordinary accident—why it should make a difference if a man falls and injures himself inside a factory gate, instead of just outside it? There are three reasons, as I see it, for that. First, whatever changes are made, it is difficult entirely to disregard the historical background. For nearly 50 years before these other services came in, the special needs of the workers in industry have been recognised. Secondly, a man who is disabled during the course of his employment has been disabled while working under orders, and it is our whole basis that there must be a causal connection between the employment and the injury. In these circumstances he is entitled to special terms. Thirdly, I agree with the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed that if we are to continue recruitment, especially for the more hazardous industries, in which accidents largely occur, then we must give special terms to them. These are the reasons which have influenced my mind, and I ask for their consideration—I do not ask for their immediate acceptance—by my hon. Friends and those who take a different view.
  So I pass to another point that gained considerable attention yesterday, that the rate of compensation should be without
  1558
  reference to the loss of earning capacity. It is an attractive argument that is put against us on this point. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) put it in a graphic sentence—"Forty shillings is inadequate for a worker who was earning £6." My hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) illustrated it by cases which are particularly within his knowledge. I agree on that point with the answer that was made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. M. Hughes). Looking at the matter by and large, these are the exceptional cases. That argument ignores the fact of the greater total amount devoted to compensation and coming to compensation. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford did not ignore it, he certainly did not stress the better position which does obtain in so many cases where there are children and special circumstances such as unemployability.
  I should like the House to consider the particular arguments used against the relation of compensation to earning power. Most of us who are here to-day, have spent great portions of our lives dealing with the administration of workmen's compensation, and I want those arguments considered as practical arguments and to see whether the experience of my hon. Friends agrees with mine. If it does not, I will be very pleased to hear the points of difference. I have always found that the calculation of earnings is, in itself, overwhelmingly difficult. The calculation based on a period is not representative, because it produces the result that one man has compensation based on a period when wages were good, and going up, and therefore his compensation is exaggerated, while another man has it based on a bad period and his compensation is depressed. I do not know what my hon. Friends found when they have had to administer this matter between men inside their unions, but I have always thought it was a very difficult situation, and one which needed to be changed. It might be said: "Take a hypothetical basis of earnings." I have always found—whether or not my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) agrees—that when we walk into the realm of hypothesis, it generally means that we descend at once to guess-work, and again there is injustice and dissatisfaction. Then it is suggested: "Take a standard rate."

  1559
  I answer—again I want to be corrected if I am wrong—that a standard rate does not exist in industry. We cannot find it, and when we consider all the hundreds and thousands of cases we have dealt with of partial incapacity we must ask ourselves how many disputes, differences and difficulties has this system caused?
  Those are the arguments on the practical difficulties; but I would remind the House of the far more serious question of light work. We have all seen light work used as a method of stopping compensation, and that is completely wrong. It offends us all and, worst of all it destroys the real thing that work can do, which is to restore and rehabilitate. I suggest that it is a real point that if we want to make light work truly restorative, we ought to abandon this system, as these proposals suggest. The Government's proposals eliminate the idea of deciding how far a workman has recovered his earning capacity; they eliminate the grievance that an increase in earning capacity results in an automatic reduction in pension. How many of us have seen the great mental harm that that has caused to our friends and clients in the past. The proposals also remove the suspicion I have mentioned that the workman is being pressed to undertake unsuitable work so that his compensation can be reduced, with the effect that he hesitates about rehabilitation and his speedy recovery is retarded. Our system, again, meets, to some extent at least, the complaint that there is no compensation for mutiliation, and disfigurement, except in strict relation to earning capacity and it gives the workman a right to his pension whatever work he may do. That is really a valuable right because we have seen, as during the war, how extraordinarily adaptable people can become.
  I want to face the general results, because I think it is right—and my hon. Friends who are not entirely with me will agree that it is right—that these points should be put publicly and firmly before the House. We say that it is impossible to reconcile what I have called "compartmental compensation" with flat rates of contribution. We say, again, that it is difficult to find any uniform grades that are recognised, and we make the point, which I have made before, that although the Government system is not so favour-
  1560
  able to higher paid workmen, in the great majority of cases and in the amount coming into the fund and available for disposition, it is more favourable. I ask my hon. Friends to consider what was said by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary yesterday, that in a number of cases, if we postulate that we are dealing with the higher-paid workman, there is a field of private insurance where he can make provision for his special difficulties. I do not myself see how the things are mutually exclusive, and I suggest that my right hon. Friend's proposition might be further considered.
  Mr. Buchanan: I wish the hon. and learned Gentleman would face the question of how the workman could manage to do that. How can he pay this contribution, and his contribution to his union, and then pay for voluntary insurance out of an ordinary wage?
  The Solicitor-General: I think my hon. Friend shows by his very words that he has not got my point. He said "out Of an ordinary wage." I was dealing only with the special position of those who get high wages. I was contemplating a wage of £7 to £10 a week, which was the sort of case that was put to me yesterday. I would be the last to pretend to the experience of my hon. Friend, but I have had considerable experience of working conditions in Lancashire and North Wales, and some experience with regard to the industries of South Wales, and I should think that if a man were getting between £6 and £10 a week he could pay his trade union subscription, his 4s. 10d. and his 3d. whatever it is, it would come to somewhere about 6s. 6d. a week. A figure of 6s. 6d. would cover it completely, and out of £6 to £10 a week, it would not be impossible for him to make some private provision. It is certainly contrary to my experience that it is impossible to do so, but as I say, I would be the last to put my experience against that of my hon. Friend. I simply ask him to consider that possibility.
  Mr. George Griffiths: In the mining industry in Yorkshire the maximum for everybody working on the surface is £4 10s. a week.
  The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) will appreciate that the man who

  1561
  has been getting about £4 in wages, will be getting a pension of 40s., with whatever additions there may be for wife and children and unemployability, and getting that irrespective of whatever other work he can do. Again I ask hon. Members to take their own experience into account. I find in my experience that there is an extraordinary amount of adaptability—to the extent that men can do some work; it may be much less important work and much less pleasant, but the British workman has an amazing power or finding some work to do, and with his pension he will, in the case quoted by the hon. Member, be better off under the scheme than he would be under compensation related to his earning capacity.
  The other point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford was with regard to his own "double-decker" system. He frankly admitted that that re-introduced the principle of dispute between the workman and the employer. He admitted there would have to be double administration. He said in answer to that point that it was no more difficult than the suggestion of my right hon. Friend for private insurance. I respectfully, but very strongly disagree with him on that point, and I submit that, having got rid, with general agreement, of contention and dispute with employers, to go back to it for this purpose, or even for the purpose of giving additional insurance based upon earnings, would be retrograde and undoing a great deal of the good which we think this scheme will bring about.
  The next point, which I want to deal with very briefly, is the question of the removal from the courts. The House expects, and I hope gets, complete frankness from me. This system was the training of my own young manhood. The county courts of Liverpool, Wigan, Leeds and Wrexham not only taught me my trade, but gave me an insight into the problems on which I am venturing to address the House to-day. Say What you like about it, but the men who worked the system, my friends and colleagues of 20 years ago, were men Who brought to it not only knowledge of the law, but truth and common sense, which is more than knowledge. I could give examples, and so could anyone in any quarter of the House, of compensation solicitors whose names were household words over
  1562
  wide industrial areas, of counsel whose pride was their knowledge of the industry with which the case was concerned, and of judges who thought gravely over the economic results of their administration—just as gravely as they did over the law applicable to the case. Therefore, I would be the last to dismiss that work with a light word.
  I confess to the House that for a long time I thought that the system did work well, and I have, as my hon. Friends will remember, defended it in this House and elsewhere. But I have considered the situation in the light of our general social outlook and the social insurance proposals put before us, and I have changed my mind. I would like to give to the House the reasons—again quite shortly—which have induced me to take this view, and I would ask my hon. Friends who differ from me to consider whether they are not reasons of weight. The main reason is that I am convinced that the present system is not good for the relations between employers and employed. Secondly, I have been convinced of the litigation bogy. I do believe that it does frighten certain workmen, and especially those who have not a trade union, from pursuing their claims. Thirdly, I accept this position: The Trades Union Congress and the Miners' Federation—I mention them specially because of the high proportion of accidents in the mining industry—have said that the removal of the litigious aspect is one of the most important facets of the new scheme, and I think it would be wrong and illogical when one is trying to find a new scheme to deal with injured workmen, to disregard the views put forward by the leading bodies representing workmen in the country. I hope and it is our expectation, that the tribunals will operate in the same friendly atmosphere as the joint committees in Durham and West Cumberland, and while I firmly adhere to the view that settlement by litigation is appropriate when the matter at issue is somebody's civil rights, I think that it is inappropriate when the question is the administration of a social security scheme.
  We have now achieved the domestic forum, which was the ideal of the Attorney-General who moved the first Bill. The Holman-Gregory Committee made a similar recommendation. We

  1563
  have adopted the system of committees representing employers and employed, with a legal chairman, for dealing with industrial disease, and I am told that these committees have worked well. I am just as stiff-necked as my fellows, and it takes just as much to make me change my mind, but I think that anyone who views fairly these considerations which I put before the House ought to come to the same conclusion as I have come, and to suggest that the removal from the courts is justifiable.
  Mr. A. Bevan: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that the sort of arbitrations that have occurred and still occur in the courts of referees throughout the country are always just and equitable to the persons who appear before them, which is what is being suggested in the White Paper? Is it not perfectly apparent that they will develop under this new scheme of arbitration all kinds of precedents and case law which will have to be collected at some central source, and made available to everybody, if uniformity of administration is to be established?
  The Solicitor-General: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for raising that question. The point to which I was just passing, will, I think, answer it. My proposition is that the system of administration proposed in the White Paper is fair and practicable. I will consider his point because the origin of the system is, as he indicated, the Unemployment Insurance Act, but I would like the House to consider with me what has actually happened, and then make up their minds whether they think justice will be achieved, and whether there will be coordination of decisions which, I agree, is a point we must bring about, and we must have the best system for bringing it about.
  Let us look at what actually happens. First we deal with the pensions officer. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford said he would be in an equivocal position, that he would be serving two masters. I do not agree. He is there to see that the scheme is properly worked out and that compensation is paid in accordance with it. With a social insurance scheme he is not in the same position as a claims manager of an insurance company who has to protect its assets. We
  1564
  cannot blame him; his whole future depends on the way he settles his claims.
  Mr. Buchanan: Would my hon. and learned Friend look at unemployment insurance and see how the insurance officer looks at the number of claims he is going to grant, and the effect on the fund?
  The Solicitor-General: I am going to consider that. It is an analogy and we have to make up our minds about it, but I think most hon. Members will agree that there is a great difference between the insurance officer and the claims manager. That is my first point. Governments may come and go. There may be an economic blizzard, and then comes a different "slant" from the man above—that is a possibility, I agree; but we must approach a new departure and a new scheme with the idea that the people who administer it will try to do their best and make the scheme good, and interpret it in the spirit we are trying to put into it today. Therefore, I do not agree—
  Mr. A. Bevan: Human motives are never good machinery.
  The Solicitor-General: If my hon. Friend can find a piece of machinery which will eliminate entirely human motives, then my view of his intelligence will be even greater than it is now. I say the inspiration of the pensions officer should be in the region that we want, and that it is not an impossibility to consider that he will be able to give the assistance, and at the same time to do his duty with regard to claims. The procedure which we have in mind, is that the workman notifies him of the accident; there is confirmation from the employer, and the workman will send the certificate of the doctor who has examined him for the injury. It is possible that there might be a dispute about whether the injury was caused by the accident or natural causes—that is the sort of possibility that one envisages—and then there would be an appeal to the local appeal tribunal, or the pensions officer can refer it to the appeals tribunal, and for that sort of appeal the tribunal would be strengthened by having additional medical members as assessors. That is the position, and I think we ought to contemplate the possibility of getting pensions officers of the kind who can do that work.
  Mr. E. J. Williams: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree,

  1565
  and most Members too, that the cause of most of the friction has been the fact that the onus of proof was always placed on the injured workman. Do I understand that the onus of proof will now be placed upon the State?
  The Solicitor-General: At that stage I had not thought that onus came into it very much, because it is so purely administrative that the real test is what view the insurance officer takes of all the facts. It is not like coming into court and proving a proposition. If there is notification of an accident with confirmation from the employer, and the medical report, I cannot imagine a pensions officer deciding it on that strict ground, but I think it is a valuable point and I would like my hon. Friend, to whom I am obliged for raising it, to leave it with me with the assurance that when we come to draft we shall bear it in mind. It is always a valuable point, because I know that sometimes what is regarded as the plainest case rests on the question of onus.
  Then we come to the local appeal tribunal. It has a chairman with legal qualifications, a representative of the workmen, a representative of the employers, with the medical addition which I have mentioned. Again I will leave the House to draw their own conclusions on how the courts of referees have worked under the Employment Insurance Act. I had the pleasure of being cross-examined on this point by my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark some years ago when he was on the proper side of the gun, and I was on the wrong side of it. I gathered that there was, among the trade union representatives, as a whole, satisfaction with this as a form of procedure. That was the point of view that was put forward to the Royal Commission very strongly by the Miners' Federation, and I confess that that has weighed with me, because they had, unfortunately, the very serious grounds for knowing whether it would work or not. But let me take the main point. The main objection to the county court has been the litigious and legally misty atmosphere. That has been said time and again. My hon. Friend will remember as I do the Debates we both attended before the war because we usually spoke in them. It is hoped that we shall get rid of that litigious atmosphere, that unwarranted atmosphere, by the appeals tribunals.
  Mr. S. O. Davies: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether at the time the scheme becomes law the present workmen's compensation law will be repealed or will become null and void? Will the Ministry of Social Security issue instructions both to the pensions officer and to the appeals tribunal as well as to the Commissioner, or lay down a set of clear principles which shall be used in the decision of all cases that may arise, or will it fall back upon those doubtful precedents which have been laid down in workmen's compensation law? An answer to these questions will satisfy many of us who are very dissatisfied now.
  The Solicitor-General: The position of the new scheme is that it applies prospectively. It does not apply to past cases. That is the answer to the hon. Member's first point. With regard to the second, I cannot obviously bind the ultimate views which will be expressed in the Act, but I agree with the view put forward yesterday by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen that it should be possible to give clear directions to the tribunals as to how they are to approach it. I am not by-passing the point on the question "arising out of and in the course of." I am going to deal with that separately. I am now dealing with the machinery, but, while accepting the retention of "arising out of and in the course of," that is, accepting the causal connection of the employment and the accident, I think I could get out clear working instructions which will cover the vast majority of cases. I cannot, and I do not believe anyone on earth can, cover every borderline case. We have all tried it and found that a line must be drawn somewhere, and over that line there may be a hard case but, on general marching orders, I think it can be done.
  Mr. McEntee: Will all these directions be available to Members of Parliament, or will there be as many secret issues as there are at present?
  The Solicitor-General: The question of publication is a matter for the legislation. The House generally, when it gives rule-making powers, insists on publication. It must be a matter of drafting. I do not think I could at this stage commit the Government on that. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Leeds (Mr. Craik Henderson) asked about the medi-

  1567
  cal question. I have dealt with the preliminary medical questions which will arise. When one comes to the change from allowance to pension, the question of disability goes to a medical board, whose decision is appealable to the local appeal tribunal, differently constituted, with the same chairman but with medical instead of ordinary members. I should like to deal with the question which was troubling the hon. Member for Nuneaton yesterday about the likely types of cases which will come to the tribunal. My experience in the 11 years in which I was constantly in county courts was that the vast majority of cases concerned medical issues, such as the question of recovery. The Accident Officers' Association said before the Royal Commission that out of 758 cases 465 concerned questions of recovery and the like and only 100 were matters of entitlement in the sense of problems like "arising out of and in the course of." There was the Section 19 procedure in which the question whether the disability was due to the accident was one of the matters referred to the Medical referee, whose decision was final. That is one of the points that the Trades Union Congress put to the Royal Commission, and also one of the points that I myself put. Therefore, I think our procedure will be a considerable improvement in getting rid of that one-man decision, which has not been popular. That is the general set-up.
  In regard to the Question put by the hon. Members for Gorbals and Ebbw Vale, bearing in mind our experience under the Unemployment Insurance Acts with the courts of referees, "Is that tribunal likely to work as a tribunal of first instance?" my view has been largely formed by the desire of the Trades Union Congress and the Miners' Federation to get away from the litigious atmosphere. I think this tribunal could introduce an informal procedure. I should very much welcome the views of those who choose to give them on the question of representation. My natural inclination is that a man should have all the assistance that he wants, though I realise the argument against it—the reproduction of the litigious atmosphere. Our minds are open on the point until we have heard the views of hon. Members.
  I come to the next stage, which deals with co-ordination; there is an appeal on
  1568
  matters of law to the Industrial Injury Insurance Commissioner. The hon. Member for North Southwark said he did not like the one man set-up. I would ask him to note this difference, that this is not an appeal on a question of fact, as in the case of the medical referee under Section 19. There a man was sent to the medical referee and it was one doctor's view. It left an uncomfortable feeling that a different view might have been obtained from another doctor. This is an appeal on law to a man who will be of high legal calibre and who will have deputies sitting with him. My right hon. Friend will consider very carefully the suggestion as to assessors, but I would ask hon. Members to consider whether, on a point of law, when he has deputies whom he can consult, there is really the same objection. The other objection that is made is quite a different one, that one ought to have an appeal to the courts. Again, on this basis which we are trying to work out, of avoiding a litigious and contentious atmosphere, do we really avoid it if we can go to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords? I have always been as keen on winning a case in the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords as before a judge of first instance, but most people have that attitude towards it. One must remember the high proportion of workmen who are not trade unionists and have not the assistance of a trade union, and without a trade union I should have thought it virtually impossible for them to go to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. That is my own difficulty on it. I now face again the question, will you get sufficient co-ordination?
  Mr. Stephen: I notice that there is a proposal to have a deputy. I suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that he should allow, at least, an appeal from decisions of the deputy to the three Commissioners themselves. It does not happen in connection with unemployment insurance.
  The Solicitor-General: I will certainly consider that point. We have to consider the question of co-ordination. I am told that they are satisfied in the Ministry of Labour with the co-ordination of decisions of the courts of referees. [Interruption.] That is a very appropriate comment, but what else can one do? What I am more impressed with is that

  1569
  after 20 odd years of working there is general satisfaction with the working of the court of referees, and it has been taken as a model by the Trades Union Congress and the Miners' Federation. It is the only system which can prevent a litigious atmosphere and I ask hon. Members to give it a chance. We will consider all the suggestions that have been made for its improvement and, if it does not work out, we will reconsider it.
  Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman propose to say nothing about the suggestion that I made, as to the chairman of appeal tribunals?
  The Solicitor-General: All I can say in the time at my disposal is that I was personally very impressed by my hon. Friend's argument. I think that we want to get competence, efficiency and sympathy with the people—
  Mr. Hughes: And independence.
  The Solicitor-General: Certainly, independence.
  Mr. Buchanan: He is always independent against the workman.
  The Solicitor-General: I do not accept that, but I will not pursue it. I will carefully consider what my hon. and learned Friend said when we come to the drafting. May I, in deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), detain the House on the question of "arising out of and in the course of"? In my opinion, some such words are necessary. Even the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Foster) to use the words "attributable to or aggravated by" still raises the question of causation. We have to have some words that raise the question of cause or connection between the employment and the injury. These words have been well defined by decisions. May I give one example of how they have been extended and canalised in their extended form? One of the last cases I did before the war was that of a miner who had heart disease and who, walking up an incline in the pit at the end of his shift, dropped dead. I think that my hon. and learned Friends will agree that 25 years ago his representatives would not have recovered, but in 1937—
  Mr. S. O. Davies: Forty years ago probably they would.
  The Solicitor-General: In my time, before the war, they recovered because the physical change inside the man caused by his work, was considered to be an accident arising out of his employment. I take that as an example of the stage to which we have got, and the House will agree that the position has changed in favour of the workman. Whatever form of words is taken, it is impossible to avoid the difficulty of applying them to the border line case. That has got to be so. The words have to express the causal connection. Therefore, I suggest that we should keep the words that we know and which have been extended in that way.
  There is one point on which I hope the House will not expect me to tie the Government, but on which I, personally, have the greatest sympathy. That is the case of transport. We want to consider that very carefully. There was the case of Hewitson and the St. Helens Colliery Company in which a workman was offered transport but was not bound to take it. I have always disliked that case, but my opinion is only one, and it is a point which we will have to consider. I have tried to deal with what is the minds of every one who is interested, in this matter, and I do not propose to deal with the complicated differences in the quantum of compensation, because my right hon. Friend if desired will deal with that later.
  I would like to deal with one or two points which have a legal flavour with regard to the quantum and composition of compensation. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin raised the question of rent allowance. I must say that the arguments against it put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince, on grounds of complication, seem to me very appealing. I would also remind the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, in considering this matter, said that here we had not only the problem of basis of equal contribution, but we had the fact that there was a variety of tastes between different people, and, because of that variety, it might well be argued that this was a voluntary matter and a question for voluntary insurance. I agree that there are strong arguments in favour of the rent allowance, and my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin advanced them, but, on the whole, I submit that the arguments to the contrary are such as to

  1571
  compel us not to take that point into account.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ince raised two points. Why, he asked, should there be a difference between the allowance and the pension. We are not binding ourslves to the 13 weeks, but his point, broadly, was, why should there be any difference in the first period? The basis is the civilian injuries scheme and the optimistic view that a man's condition is relatively easier in the first period. There is also the point, which was developed yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. I see my hon. Friend's attitude, but this is a well-accepted procedure, which has been tried in other regards. My hon. Friend's other point was whether the pre-1924 cases got the 10s. for unemployability, irrespective of age or injury without waiting for the 13 weeks. I think they will. That is my view of the scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver) dealt with the difficulty of those who were receiving pensions getting other work in the provinces owing to the lesser number of industries. I hope that this is really a matter for consideration in another connection, though, if we get better allocation of industry, we have, on the other hand, certainly gained greater adaptability during the war, and I hope that the difference which exists between London and the provinces will be lessened.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brighton (Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe) raised a question of interim payment. The proposal under the scheme is that the first payment will be at the end of ten days. In the meantime, pending a decision, the workmen will get a payment at the rate of sickness benefit to which he will be entitled under Part I. That seems to remove the chance of real difficulty and of being left absolutely short, but if my hon. Friends have any improvement to suggest, the Government will be pleased to consider it. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Leeds asked whether a workman who pursued his remedy at common law and succeeded should not also get his 3d. a week back and get the benefit of his five-twelfths contribution. The whole question is being considered by the Committee of which Sir Walter Monckton is chairman, as mentioned in paragraph 52
  1572
  of the White Paper. It is entirely without prejudice to what that committee suggests, but it seems to me that if some one goes to common law, he then gets damages on the basis of full reparation for his injury. Of course, money can never compensate for an injury, but that is the basis. As near as money can be calculated it gives compensation for the injury. If a person has full financial compensation, he should not, in my opinion, be in a better position than the ordinary workman who has paid his contributions and never had an acident at all. The contributions do not seem to come into it, because the man has full financial compensation for the injury so far as the law can give it. Therefore, I disagree with my hon. Friend on that point.
  I am very conscious of the time I have taken in addressing the House, but I have made an attempt to deal with the points that were made yesterday, which I found of absorbing interest. The whole matter is one which I have lived with all my working life, and I hope that, after a full examination, the House will feel that we are doing something to remove a sore from the industrial body and to put workmen who are injured in the continual battle of industry in a position in which they will not only receive a reasonable contribution for the injuries they have suffered, but be able to look forward to rehabilitation, training and fitness with greater hope and with greater strength of mind and heart than they have ever had before.
  1.12 p.m.
  Mr. Bowles: I think, in order to be on the safe side, that I should explain that when my Parliamentary duties permit, I do, on occasion, give certain advice of a legal nature on matters of workmen's compensation. We all congratulate the Solicitor-General on his wide and sympathetic survey of the Debate yesterday, and I only hope that the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply later will be able to give as assuring a speech in winding-up as was that of the Solicitor-General. I find myself, perhaps, in a minority of one in the House in that I do not agree with this distinction between workmen's compensation—
  Mr. Buchanan: Why in a minority of one?
  Mr. G. Griffiths: There is one there, the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen).
  Mr. Bowles: It is, then, a minority of three. I believe that a large number of people in the House accept the position that you must have invidious distinctions between treatments depending upon the ability of a man to prove that his incapacity arises in a certain way and in the course of certain walks of life. I would put this proposition to the Government. Where a man is unable to work, whether it is because he is too old, or because he has been injured, or because he has had an accident arising out of his employment, or an accident arising in the course of his employment, or an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, or because he is ill, or because there is no employment for him in the district, he should be treated in exactly the same way as an industrial casualty. If he were so treated, all the difficulties that my hon. and learned Friend has been trying to face this morning would disappear. In national health insurance all that is necessary is for a man to produce a doctor's certificate that he is unable to work, and on that he gets his national health insurance benefit. When it comes to workmen's compensation cases, there is almost always a fight. I interrupted the Home Secretary yesterday to suggest that something like 99 per cent. of the cases arose on the question of entitlement. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes) said yesterday that in a book I have here, of no fewer than 1,400 pages—Willis's—there are references to 3,400 reported cases. These are the only cases that went to the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords. These are leading cases which established a new principle, and for that number to arise out of an Act of 50 to 60 Sections seems to me to be completely ludicrous.
  The Solicitor-General has referred to the number of cases that are heard year by year in the county courts, and he tried to draw a distinction between cases relating to a man's condition and involving the question of whether he has ceased to have an industrial injury and is therefore no longer entitled to workmen's compensation, and the cases in which a man is entitled to go on receiving compensation, because he is still suffering from an indus-
  1574
  trial injury. For the life of me—and I notice that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir W. Beveridge) and the Home Secretary have gone out of the Chamber—I cannot see why the Solicitor-General should try to justify the proposition that a man, because he has been injured in his work, should receive the higher compensation. The Solicitor-General said that anybody who challenged his argument would be a bold man. His first reason was that he could not disregard history. I do not know what that means. I know that it is very difficult for a lawyer to disregard history, but it is easy for a legislative Assembly to do so. It can do so with the greatest possible ease. The Solicitor-General then said that there must be some causal connection. In the old days, when the employer paid the compensation, one could say it was necessary to have a causal connection between the order given by the employer and the injury of the workman. His third reason was that special consideration had to be given to the hazardous occupation. Surely that is not true. I do not see that argument.
  The Solicitor-General: My second point was that the injury would be sustained when the man was under orders, and that brings in the special position. The third point referred to hazardous industries.
  Mr. Bowles: The whole question is whether the three or four shillings extra of workmen's compensation would encourage people to go into those industries.
  Mr. A. Bevan: It is the same in the hazardous as in the non-hazardous industries.
  Mr. Bowles: I cannot see any logic in those arguments. I would like to give, by way of illustration, two cases which came to my notice when I was in my constituency recently. One was of a miner—a shotsman, I think is the right word to use in Warwickshire—who, in 1936, was conscious of the fact that he had got a little piece of coal or dust, or perhaps of shot, in his eye. He did not do anything about it. The employer was notified, but the man did not stop work. He went on seeing through the other eye, and he did not know that he was going blind in one eye. He claimed no compensation and did not stop work. In

  1575
  1939, he got the same kind of thing in the other eye. He received compensation for a little while, but now I find that a large number of doctors in Birmingham all agree that this man, who has had to be taken to hospital in Birmingham by his wife at least 86 times, sometimes in the black-out, is suffering because of a predisposition to blindness. He is receiving no compensation, because the blindness is not regarded as arising from his occupation.
  The other case is that of a man employed by a certain factory in Coventry from 1919 onwards. At the beginning of the war he was given orders to unload machinery at this factory. Such machinery generally arrives covered with oil. Although the man was perfectly fit when he began, within three or four weeks of starting this job, being soaked in oil, he got dermatitis. They stopped him, and he acted as a cloakroom attendant for a little while. Then he went back to the job and again got dermatitis. Why people go back I do not know. Perhaps it is the attraction of higher wages. I have the certificate of the medical referee that it is the same dermatitis as the man had in 1939 or 1941, whenever it was. I must not mention these cases in too much detail, because I have not quite made up my mind what I am going to do with them. Now the doctors have managed to show that the dermatitis was caused in some other way. When the man came to see me, his whole arm was bound up down to his fingernails. He has been working for 16 or 18 years in the same factory. When he went into the part of the factory where he had to unload the machinery covered in oil, he twice got dermatitis, yet he is having the greatest difficulty—or perhaps it may be impossible—to get doctors to certify that the dermatitis was caused by his employment, and not by some predisposition to dermatitis.
  I am aware of the argument used by the Government that if the man met with his accident in a way arising out of and in the course of his employment, he should get compensation; if he did not, then he goes on to White Paper No. 1 and gets the miserable benefits to which the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) referred yesterday. There are hundreds of cases in the country, like those mentioned yesterday, of men who are anxious
  1576
  to go back to work, and not only in order, as the Home Secretary said, that the nation should keep its factories going. Where on earth are the logic and the consistency in this matter? I say quite frankly that there is a subtle reason for this which I shall try to explain in a little while.
  I interrupted the Home Secretary yesterday to say that 99 per cent. of the cases were questions of entitlement. The two cases mentioned were questions of entitlement. The law cases are questions of interpretation. The number of cases on what "accident" means is quite fantastic. Murder is an accident, if it happens to you. There are 152 pages of this book devoted to Section 1 of the Workmen's Compensation Act and 700 pages devoted to the Act of 1925. My hon. Friends who are lawyers will know that the book is full of half-sentences and that there are two or three cases on every line of the book. It is no use saying that those cases are anything but legal decisions based upon the findings of doctors. I have had the pleasure of being present on occasions when, before a trade union meeting starts, the branch secretary, say of the A.E.U., has handed a cheque to a member in respect of compensation. It has meant that here, at least, the trade union had managed to secure for an ordinary member his proper rights. What an appalling commentary on the present situation. Why have we all these questions of how the accident arose, and whether it is personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment? Why cannot we just say: "Is this man able to work?" If not find out whether he is unfit, or too old, or had an accident, or let the local employment exchange give a certificate that there is no work for him in the district.
  Judges are giving poor regard to the amount of compensation that is paid. As the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) said, it is now becoming more and more popular for solicitors to take action at common law where a workman who is injured can get general damages for his pain and suffering. Hon. Members who are in the junior branch of the profession know quite well what they put in the statements of claim on such occasions. The courts are awarding substantial sums by way of damages, and are becoming more and more ready to find

  1577
  that an employer has been negligent. I am sure that the Solicitor-General knows perfectly well that that is the case. It is a commentary on his own profession that here, side by side and for exactly the same accident, if you take one action the man gets a miserable 35s. a week and if you take another action he may get £700, £2,000 or £5,000. I do not understand it at all. There must be some reason for it.
  Why cannot society afford to raise the benefits which are proposed in the White Paper? I find that the increased cost of the Government proposals will be £224,000,000. It is important to find out who pays that money. My case is that the workers are paying for their own social insurance. Hardly anything comes from the richer classes. The workers find, by increased contributions, no less than £109,000,000, which means that half the additional cost of the scheme will fall on the workers. The employers' contribution amounts to £35,000,000; who pays that money? We all know that it is easy for a body of employers, even including coalowners, to get together and pass their contributions on to the consumer. Since the great mass of the workers are also consumers, and the great mass of the consumers are also workers, the workers are, again, paying pretty well the whole of that £35,000,000. When I say "workers," I mean people getting £500 a year or less. The Solicitor-General referred to people getting from £7 to £10 a week, which is about £500.
  There remains £78,000,000 which has to be found by the Exchequer. One would think that by this time some of the richer people would have to dig their hands in their pockets, but that is not so. What happens is this. In 1938–these are the latest figures I have been able to get—the total tax revenue was £888,000,000, of which £371,000,000 was raised in indirect taxation. In other words, 40 per cent. of the total revenue was found by taxes which increased the prices of goods consumed very largely by the poor people of this country. Therefore, again the workers were caught. About 60 per cent. of the taxpayers' contribution is left. At last it seemed to me that the rich might be called on for this very small contribution, but they managed to dodge it again somehow. The Minister-Designate of Social Insurance stated in the recent Debate that of the remaining 60 per cent. one-third was
  1578
  found from incomes of less than £500 a year in present conditions of taxation. That actually shows who is paying Part I of the whole social insurance scheme.
  If the House will bear with me for a moment I would like to point out that in 1938, the total amount of our social insurance expenditure, including that for workmen's compensation, was £320,000,000. At that time, it was estimated that the national income was £4,600,000,000. It will be seen that social insurance expenditure amounted to about 7 per cent. of the national income. Now when the national income has risen to £8,000,000,000, partly due to the rise in prices we find that the cost of social insurance comes to 8 per cent. I say quite frankly that even if it was the desire of the Government to raise the ordinary benefits under Part I of the social insurance scheme even to the miserable level of workmen's compensation that would still be paid by the workers on the basis of what has gone before. Therefore the time has come—I state it from these benches—to challenge the Government to "soak the rich" a bit more, instead of the people who produce the wealth, people getting £500 or under a year. We demand from these benches that instead of so much money being paid into lawyers' pockets year after year in workmen's compensation cases, we should unify the system, and not be led away by shallow arguments like those used by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed as well as by the Home Secretary and the Solicitor-General. Those who sit on these benches and who have given this matter quite a lot of thought demand that in future we should go elsewhere for the rest of the cost of social insurance, if not social security. I have a very shrewd idea where we have to go, it is, to the supporters, very largely, of the majority in this House.
  1.32 p.m.
  Mr. Erskine-Hill: This House is always at its best when there are cross-currents of opinion within the parties, and when those of experience, and many hon. Members opposite have had great experience in this matter, can speak from their hearts what they believe to be true. The speech to which we have just listened I found somewhat difficult to follow because at first it looked as though the hon. Member was making the point that we ought to do away with the test

  1579
  "arising out of and in the course of the employment." As the speech developed it was apparently an attempt to put everyone injured in the same position as a worker would be under this scheme. Then the hon. Member gave us an interesting argument about how difficult it was to "soak the rich" in these matters. If the hon. Member will consider his own argument he will have to admit that if, in fact—as he says inevitably happens—poorer people have to pay, too much of a burden would be put on the people if any such expensive device as he suggests were adopted.
  I want to raise an interesting point mentioned by one or two speakers, particularly the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), dealing with the question of comparative advantages of a flat rate benefit, as against a rate dependent on the workman's previous earnings. I take the view that the Government are entirely right on this point. I think it is of very great importance to have a clear-cut right, which is understood by all. Under the old system, no doubt a sum was worked out which depended on a workman's previous earnings, but in every case there was a ceiling beyond which he could not go, and if one looks at the White Paper and the Appendix at the end of it, it is clear for all to see that the actual flat rate which the Government are suggesting is more than the workman would get under the maximum ceiling of the Workmen's Compensation Act. In the circumstances, I think a great deal can be said, from the point of view of the welfare of the workman himself, for having a rate he can fully understand, and for there being no anxiety about what he is to get. It simply depends upon a percentage, according to his injury, on the flat rate. I think that is a system which can be well defended. When the Home Secretary was asked what happened in the case of those earning large wages, he gave a reply with which, for once at any rate, I entirely agreed—that where people were getting high wages they should, in the interests of their family, insure themselves. I can see every advantage in having what after all, if one looks at the past, is a generous rate, which is a flat rate, anything over and above that being paid by the workman concerned having insured himself.
  Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that facilities for this voluntary higher insurance should be tendered to the workmen as a part of this scheme?
  Mr. Erskine-Hill: I intended to deal with that point. What I think we should ensure is that, where a workman is trying to insure for his family over and above this benefit, the terms are reasonable. The suggestion I intended to make was that the Government should approve certain rates by insurance companies as reasonable, and if the workman cared to select any other insurance company, which did not give the rates accepted as fair by the Government, he should do that at his own peril. I think all the disadvantages of the flat rate are got over when one realises that it is within the capacity of the workman who is earning larger wages to insure, particularly if the Government can see to it that the terms on which he insures are approved as reasonable and proper terms. I think the Government should be most careful in the method they adopt to see that there is a fair and reasonable way in which the workman can insure himself. That, I think, gets over the main difficulty.
  I am sorry that Sir Arnold Wilson, who took such a great part in this House and outside in this matter, is not here to have the satisfaction of knowing that many of the foundations he laid have been built on by the Government in this scheme. Where I do agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford is on the method by which issues which are raised under this scheme should be decided. For myself I cannot understand the connection he finds between the point which I have just been arguing about—the rate of benefits—and the particular form of court to decide the merits of each case. There are bound to be questions of the utmost importance to the workman, in which I can see every advantage in having an impartial tribunal. I think that the King's courts are better tribunals than Ministers' tribunals. There is a tendency to constitute far too many Ministerial tribunals. Particularly is it important to have the King's court, an impartial tribunal with no interests at all in the matter, to try cases fairly for the workman, when one recognises that now the State has taken the place of the employer and that the State is one party

  1581
  to the litigation against the workman's claim.
  What is wanted, and what this House should insist upon, is a complete and impartial court, not composed necessarily of a division of opinion between workers and employers with an independent chairman, but one which is quite impartial about the whole business, which can weigh the evidence that is put before it. If the present system of the workman putting his claim before the arbitrator first and going on to the courts is thought to be unsatisfactory, there are ways in which expenses could be reduced. In Scotland the arbitrator is always the sheriff. There can be greater simplicity in the proceedings—I use that word instead of informality, because informality may lead to much greater litigation—which would result in a much cheaper and better way of proceeding.
  The point I wish to emphasise to the House is that if we allow courts to be set up by the Minister to deal with these cases, we shall be jeopardising to some extent the absolutely essential rights of the workman. Whatever may be the position as regards these courts, and I know there have been a great many criticisms of delay and uncertainty and the large numbers of cases which the hon. Gentleman opposite mentioned, I wonder if he really regards those cases as being so very numerous when one takes into account the enormous number of cases that have to be dealt with. Some cases no doubt have been taken which it would have been better not to have taken, but I think there is every advantage in knowing that one case governs a lot of cases. Case law establishes clearly to those operating the scheme, and the workman himself, what the law is on a particular matter. That is a very considerable advantage.
  Mr. Bowles: In roughly 42 years we have had 4,200 reported cases under an Act of something like 50 Sections; these are reported cases taken as far as the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords, and the Court of Session as well. It is art appalling total.
  Mr. Erskine-Hill: I draw the hon. Member's further attention to this: A great many of the cases have not arisen out of the Act at all, but out of Orders which have been made since the Act was
  1582
  brought into force, and Amendments which have taken place in the Act from time to time. The Act of 1897 was materially altered in 1906 and 1923, and these, with other alterations, were incorporated in the codifying Act of 1925. They all make changes which raise questions which the courts have to decide As regards the actual words "injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment," I am not particularly wedded to those words. I think they might be improved upon but whatever words are used, their meaning must be ascertained, and I think there will undoubtedly be a certain number of questions which are most important for the workman and which should be decided by the courts of law. Certainly if the initial stages are left in the hands of this Committee or another Committee which is set up by the Minister then I think it becomes even more important that any appeal from that Committee should not be decided by just a single person, who has been appointed by the Crown and who may have more or less qualifications for the job. No doubt the Crown is advised by the Minister immediately concerned. So much is going to depend, for the workman, on the particular man who is chosen, that for his sake, I would infinitely rather have the appeal to the courts, as at present. After all the Minister himself is going to consult the courts on questions of insurability and liability and I am convinced the workman's interest would be best served by having an appeal to the courts of the land.
  I wish to say one word about lump sum payments, because I feel the Government have taken a great and proper step in doing away with lump sum agreements. All my experience has gone to show that where anything has gone wrong after a lump sum agreement has been reached, there is bitterness in the mind of the workman, because he feels that he has had a raw deal. It is inevitable that where there are many accidents, and where there is a source of infection lying dormant and later breaking out, there would be countless cases where a lump sum settlement would prove to be entirely unfair and unjust. The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Foster) was inclined yesterday to blame the insurance companies for taking too hard a part against the workmen. I want to say to hon. Members opposite that the insurance

  1583
  companies, in enabling the smaller type of employer to carry out his duties to his workmen in the way of insurance, have played a most important part, when the State itself was not willing to undertake the responsibility.
  Mr. Foster: And they have been paid for it.
  Mr. Erskine-Hill: Hon. Members opposite have had, in many ways, much nearer personal experience of these cases than I have had, but I have acted in a number of such cases, sometimes for the workman and sometimes for the employer. I can remember two cases—and, in particular, one in the House of Lords, where I personally conducted a test case which was going to have the effect of governing a great many other cases. In that case as in the other I found it very easy to persuade my clients, who were a mutual insurance company, when it became apparent that judgment was going against the man, to make a very generous ex gratia payment to the man, because it seemed hard on the individual whose case was being taken, when the law had been interpreted in one way for a long time, that he should suffer. It is only fair that that should be said to this House, when such harsh criticisms have been made against insurance companies.
  There are in the mutual insurance companies and in other insurance companies a large number of worthy people who have given faithful service to their employers. I hope that the Government will make it their responsibility to see that when those insurance companies, mutual and otherwise, are done away with, those employees shall be absorbed into the general scheme. I support the Government scheme because I think it will make for a better relationship between employers and their workmen. I support it because I think that the certainty established by the scheme will make it easier for the workman to get out of that complex which so often has retarded his recovery and delayed the time when he would be able to work again.
  I find it much more easy on this occasion than on many occasions recently to say that the Government have my wholehearted support. If they will bear in mind what I regard as the vital matter, in the workmen's own interests, of having impartial tribunals, where the work-
  1584
  man can produce his certificate, or whatever other evidence he has, before an impartial court, I shall be able to give my wholehearted approval to the scheme. It would be a dangerous situation if developments along the line of national insurance were to bring into being a State medical service, under which it would be difficult or impossible for the workman to get a decision which would not have been influenced by those in control above, if, in fact, he had to go to a Minister's court, set up by the Minister, where, no doubt, rough justice would be done, but where he would not have the same assurance of fair play. If the Government will consider these factors, they will have my entire support, and I will support in every way every action which is taken to improve the lot, as I really believe, of the workmen of this country.
  1.51 p.m.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: This Debate has been conducted in a more or less philosophical atmosphere so far. During the time I have been in the House we have had a number of Debates on workmen's compensation. Each of them has been exciting, and many have been bitter. I do not think anyone would charge me with having been unduly complimentary to the Government over their proposals for workmen's compensation in the past. But one thing which is outstanding in this Debate is that the old system of workmen's compensation stands condemned root and branch. Everybody in the House so far has condemned it completely. It is true that the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) rather retracted a little in what he said yesterday, but in one part of his speech he said that it must go altogether, and reinforcing myself with the little blue pamphlet which has been issued. I find there also a wholesale condemnation of the present workmen's compensation system. This gives a chance of looking, for the first time, at workmen's compensation in an objective way.
  Here is a new start. We are to have an entirely new type of structure. I hope that criticisms from this side will not be resented. I hope, further, that the new structure will be essentially the work of the House of Commons. I have no objection at all to adequate consultations taking place outside this House, but nothing that is done outside should limit our contribution to the erection of a new

  1585
  structure. If we can approach the new structure in a constructive spirit, in my view, we can get a system of compensation, or industrial injury benefit, in this country arising out of the proposals in this White Paper, that will lead the world, and of which we can be proud. I have never complimented the Home Secretary on the workmen's compensation system in the past. He has had what little lash I can give with my tongue. On this occasion, I congratulate him on ending the old and giving the House an opportunity of building anew. It has been obvious that there is certain common ground among us all. It is common to all of us to believe that it is in the best interests of the nation and of the injured workman that he should be restored to full bodily vigour as soon as possible. That is desirable in the interests of the nation; it is desirable in the interests of the employer; and it is desirable in the interests of the workman. I do not want to enter into the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) as to the right of an injured workman to a higher rate of compensation than is received by the person injured outside industry. The hon. Member for Oxford trotted out the case of the man who breaks his leg by falling off a bicycle on his way to work, and of the other person who does so on the way to Llandudno. Later, he seemed to recant, but in the little book he said that he accepted the Beveridge conclusions, and that there is a case for giving the injured workman a higher rate than is given to the sick person or anybody else. On that there is common ground.
  If we are to get this desired result, three conditions must be fulfilled. The first is that there must be adequate maintenance for an injured workman and his family while he is injured. The second is that he must have the best medical attention that is available. The third—and it is not the least important—is that there must not be in the mind of the injured workman the fear that highly-paid insurance managers, supported by highly-paid doctors and highly-paid lawyers, are waiting round the corner to twist him out of his rights. That is very important in dealing with the injured workman. I hope that I shall have the support of the House on these three tests that must be applied to any structure that we may
  1586
  erect. In my view, this scheme of the Government, on its administration side, passes the third test.
  I have heard all this talk to-day about county courts and the impartiality of the judges' courts. For ten years I went to a number of county courts in South Wales every month. I do not want to generalise from one court, but at one court to which I went we used to meet in the lawyers' room before the court started. We always arranged to have four cases at each court. We knew that we should win two of the four and lose two; and we would have a sweep on which two we would win and which two we would lose. Invariably, the two that we expected to win we lost, and the two that we expected to lose we won. I am not enamoured of the county courts. I know the terrible effect on a man of feeling that he has got a wrong decision, and the difficulty of taking cases to higher courts. How many times my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and I have sat in the miners' executive to decide whether or not we could afford to take a case to the High Court or to the House of Lords. The end of the law court will be welcomed in every mining valley in South Wales. At last we can get justice. It may not be panoply justice, but it will be justice which it will be easy to obtain, from people who live in the area and who know the industrial conditions of the area.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) does not like this new system. My hon. Friend's experience in the court of referees led him to think that this new structure, according to the description given by the Solicitor-General, is a replica of the court of referees arrangement. Let me say this. I have attended a very substantial number of courts of referees in my life. I have attended nearly as many county courts. If I have to make a choice to get justice for a workman, give me a court of referees.
  Mr. Buchanan: Well, it is a very fine choice.
  Mr. Edwards: Whether it is a very fine choice or not, it certainly is a lesser evil.
  Mr. Buchanan: As long as my hon. Friend admits that it is an evil, I am in agreement with him.
  Mr. Edwards: I do not think that meets my point. What my hon. Friend wants is to go back to the county courts.
  Mr. Buchanan: No, I never said so.
  Mr. Edwards: But that is the alternative.
  Mr. Buchanan: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will deal with my alternative when I speak.
  Mr. Edwards: In this matter, there can be two alternatives. One is a court of law, and the other is the administrative court set up by the scheme. The hon. Gentleman criticising the claims officer under this scheme, said yesterday that this man cannot be impartial. He will be a dozen times more impartial than the colliery clerk, who is paid to see that the workman does not get more than his legal right, and who very often gets promotion because the costs of the colliery are very much lower than they would otherwise be. I think my hon. Friend is wrong in assuming that the workman will get better advice from the insurance manager than he does from the national service officer. At least, he will not be cheated by the national service officer, and too often he was by the insurance manager.
  How does this scheme face the situation? I think it passes two tests. First, the fear of being legally robbed is taken out of the mind of the worker. I think that, in the general scheme for rehabilitation proposed in the White Paper, questions of adequate medical attention are also raised. Now we come to the third ground of adequacy. I am very enamoured of the scheme, but I do not think the Home Office has played square with us in demanding the price that we have to pay. The present compensation cost, the pre-war cost, is estimated to be £17,000,000.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peake): My hon. Friend said "prewar cost," but I imagine he is thinking of the cost at the present time, with the war addition.
  Mr. Edwards: I am much obliged. Of this £17,000,000, which is now borne entirely by the employers, £8,500,000 is to be taken over as a workmen's liability. The workmen are being asked to pay 3d. a week. They are being asked to save the employers £8,500,000 a year. With
  1588
  the cost of administration of this scheme, employers in this country are going to save somewhere about £10,000,000 a year. Who is to supply that money? The State and the workers. I say that is wrong. I say it is a retrograde step that, in a great scheme of social reform of this sort advantage should be taken of the situation, to make a present of £10,000,000 to the employers of Britain, mainly provided out of the pockets of the contributors. That is my main criticism of this scheme on its general finances.
  When we are considering the question of adequacy under an insurance scheme, adequacy has to be related to the contributions. I appreciate all that, but why chuck away £10,000,000 that you already have? We shall make the most violent criticism of this side of this new scheme. There is inadequacy in this new scheme for the injured workmen because the employers have been saved £10,000,000. If that £10,000,000 had been kept in the pool, and if there had been added to it the £8,500,000 of the workers' contributions, these rates of benefit could be raised by one-third. They might even have exceeded the rates demanded by the hon. Member for Oxford. I think that much of my hon. Friend's argument yesterday dealt with adequacy, and that that was the real burden of his argument. There are one or two things that I want to put to my hon. Friend. He was in favour of abolishing workmen's compensation. Let us see how much he was in favour of abolishing. The first thing he wanted to retain was the law court—the most pernicious element attaching to workmen's compensation. The next thing was that he wanted to keep workmen's compensation as a contractual obligation, between the employer and the employed.
  Mr. Quintin Hogg: Not contractual.
  Mr. Edwards: Well, an obligation.
  Mr. Hogg Mr. Hogg indicated assent.
  Mr. Edwards: But the present principle of workmen's compensation relates to loss of earning capacity and he wants retention of that. My hon. Friend went one step further and suggested subsidising the employers in his proposed structure by letting them have counted off their liability the workmen's national health

  1589
  insurance rates. I am following my hon. Friend's pamphlet and his speech. My hon. Friend went even this far: that, if a workman's national health insurance, and his allowances, and two-thirds of his earnings less insurance, exceed his pre-accident average, he would reduce the amount the employer had to pay by the excess. Then my hon. Friend went on to say that there should be no ceiling. But why does the "baby blue book" carry a ceiling? This product of the "Blue Seven" says, on page 23:
  "It should be possible to apply a ceiling"—
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman, I think, is quoting from the wrong page. He will see, if he reads the whole report, that, although I said it was possible, it was not a course that was actually recommended.
  Mr. Edwards: Shall we see whether it is recommended or not? It states:
  "It should be possible to apply a ceiling, and it is important to remember that, in many cases, a man's needs and expenses are actually greater when incapacitated than when he is fit and able to work."
  But that is not the end of it. My hon. Friend suggested that, if a man is going to get more than he did when working, there should be a reduction of the employer's contribution at the expense of the social fund. However, all I want to say on this question of adequacy is that my mind goes back to last November. What is 40s. to a man earning £6? My hon. Friend said that yesterday. Does he remember that, when he wanted to get 40s. for a workman under the last Act, he made an outburst by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) as an excuse to vote against it?
  Mr. Hogg Mr. Hogg indicated dissent.
  Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend says no. Does he want me to quote the paragraph in HANSARD?
  Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend can quote anything he likes.
  Mr. Edwards: I do not want to misrepresent my hon. Friend, who made an effective speech yesterday on general principles. I want to deal with this matter in a fair way. The gravamen of his case was that workmen's compensation ought to be tied to earnings; that, in fact, compensation should be so
  1590
  related to earning capacity as to give the highly-paid man something which bore some relation to his earnings. I take the view that we have to make a choice. The hon. Gentleman also referred to an injured miner who had lost his hand, and who, under the Government scheme, will get 8s. a week as a pension for life. In 1925, 1926 and 1927, I should have been glad to get 2s. for a man like that.
  We have to decide whether there shall be compensation for loss of earning capacity, irrespective of injury or need, or compensation for injury, irrespective of earning capacity. Those are the two principles—compensation either for loss of earnings or for injury. I do not think there can he any choice in this matter. My hon. Friend who represents North Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) has quite rightly seized upon the case of a man who loses the tips of his fingers. Let me give one classic case. The man, whose appearance was a nightmare, because he had a great gash across his head, was at a colliery in Wigan. He dare not go about the street in the daytime without pulling his cap over his eyes. He did not lose any earning capacity, but this miner will get no compensation. While you want to see that your man who has lost the tips of his fingers is compensated, you will cast into outer darkness thousands of men of this type. My hon. Friend says that is over-stating it. Let me give another example. My own brother worked in a pit until nine months ago. He sustained an injury and was fully incapacitated for something like five months. He was given notice that he was fit for light work. His own doctor agreed to light, sedentary work. He was in receipt of compensation, but he will never be able to work underground again, as the muscles of his heart have collapsed. Last week, he went to work, and he will earn more money at Glascoed in a sitting-down job than he earned in the pit. Away go his compensation and his rights.
  Take the man in the mining industry, whose pre-accident average was determined when we had short working time and when wages were low. Take the men who lost legs, who lost hands or the sight of their eyes, but who have become fit for light employment. Wages have gone up, work has become more regular, and post-accident earnings are greater than the

  1591
  pre-accident earnings, while the liability of the employer has departed for ever. We had the case yesterday of the engine driver with one eye, but the miner who loses an eye is always sent back to work. There is no compensation. The engine driver who loses a leg gets no compensation, because he can still drive his engine, even without his leg. Where is it to stop? Are all these men to be thrust out, in order that we may catch the man who loses the tip of his finger?
  Mr. Isaacs: I am sure that my hon. Friend must have unconsciously misunderstood me. We want all this to remain, but we wish too, consideration to be shown to the effect of the man's injury.
  Mr. Edwards: I accept that completely. I admit that there is a case, but what I do not admit is that compensation as a principle must be related to loss and incapacity. That is my case. I am sure that my hon. Friend and I are in agreement. I would ask the hon. Member for Oxford to consider our industrial experience in this matter. He would do a grave injustice to a very substantial number of injured workmen by abandoning the principle that is now contained in the White Paper. I admit all that can be said about the small border-line cases but I hope the tribunals to be set up will be able to take that into account, instead of having a fixed schedule that has no relation at all to industrial experience as contained in the war pensions scheme. I congratulate the Government on having got rid of the medical referee.
  Mr. Buchanan: Has he gone?
  Mr. Edwards: In my opinion, he has gone. It is not clear that the certifying surgeon has gone but it is clear that the medical referee—as such—has gone, the one man. Now the decision is to be a decision of two doctors sitting with a chairman, and a workmen's representative is to have the right to go there and argue the case before them. That, surely, is something superior to sending the man round as we do now. A man can go down to Cardiff in the morning and be rejected, but if he goes in the afternoon, when the old man is in a better temper, he is all right. This White Paper does many things for us, but on the question of adequacy I am not satisfied.
  1592
  I was very interested in the speech made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir W. Beveridge) yesterday, but I thought he was embarrassed in what he had to say. It must be difficult to argue for a proper subsistence wage, when 35s. is offered instead of 24s., but why have the Government inherited this lucky number of the hon. Gentleman— "13." What is the reason for 13 weeks at the lower rate? Is there any historic condition for it? It does not go further back than the Beveridge Report. Is there any equity in it? Must a man be half-starved for the first 13 weeks in order to enable more to be given afterwards and at the same time £10,000,000 to he given to the employers in this country? It is admitted on all sides that under the family allowance scheme the 5s. is to be a contribution. Why, then, is 5s. only provided when maintenance has to be the test in the case of the injured workman? That is less than the present unemployment assistance scale. There is no excuse, with all the money that is now available in the workmen's compensation pool, for these wretched rates.
  The miners are very anxious to have this scheme and are very anxious for the change. On matters of detail, we are prepared to be very compromising, but I ask the Government not to exploit our desire to get a better system by forcing these rotten rates upon our working people. The Home Office has done a great job of work. Do not spoil it. The Home Secretary has ended the old order We now have to have the new order built. It may be something of which we can all be proud and to which the injured workman can turn with confidence. I beg this House to improve this White Paper, and give it a fair chance to establish the reputation of this country throughout the world.
  2.21 p.m.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am one of those who do not agree with the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) that the old Workmen's Compensation Act should be condemned root and branch, but I am one of those who, generally speaking, welcome the proposals in the White Paper. One of the chief criticisms in the past has been the conflict of interests very often between the employers and the insurance companies, as to how a workman should be treated,

  1593
  and I am glad that under the new proposals, that conflict will disappear. It must be within the experience of many of us that, where an employer, perhaps, wishes to admit the case where liability could not be strictly established, or where it may be in his interest to do so, he has not been able to do so because of the insurance company with whom he is insured. One has experienced in some cases good treatment by the insurance company and in some cases bad. I am very glad that that conflict will drop out of the picture.
  I am also extremely glad that all these questions of lump sum settlements will go for good. I had an instance brought to my attention recently, in the small village where I am now living, of an agricultural worker who lost an eye while working. There was no doubt at all about the accident "arising out of and in the course of his employment." He had to employ a solicitor to put forward his claim. He had not the advantage of being a member of a trade union. What happened? There was a serious risk of his losing the sight of the other eye. If he did not lose the sight of the other eye, he could go on being an agricultural worker. He did not lose the sight of the other eye and went back to work, and there was no question of any further compensation being paid to him at that time. The insurance company then offered him £60 or £70 in satisfaction of any possible claim he might have and a contribution to his costs. I advised him that it would not be in his best interests to accept that and should press for a declaration of liability. He pressed for that, and ultimately, after considerable correspondence, it was granted to him. They acceded to it but they said, "You would not accept our offer of settlement, so we will no longer contribute to the costs you have incurred." I am glad that sort of meanness of attitude will cease to exist when this proposal is put into effect. That is one good thing which this will do.
  I do not go all the way with the hon. Member for Caerphilly in his condemnation of the courts. I think that a lot of that which is referred to as hostility to litigation has been due in the past to the fact that you have had on the other side the insurance companies and their representatives. I do not believe myself that, if you went back to the courts now under this new plan, you would have the same
  1594
  bitterness of feeling and the same hostility as you had in the past. Therefore, I am not at one with him in his condemnation of that part of the insurance proposition. I am glad, also, that the burden of the increased risks of those who are engaged in the hazardous industries shall be borne by the community at large. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, West (Mr. Higgs), who spoke yesterday deprecating that. We all benefit from the efforts of those engaged in these industries and we should share in the insurance of the risks that they have to run. A chief and radical change of this White Paper is that it really ceases to be workmen's compensation and becomes an insurance scheme. I cannot for one moment agree to the proposal that one workman, because he is drawing a higher rate of wages should get higher compensation than another workman paying precisely the same contribution. That seems to me to be quite untenable and as this is an insurance scheme, I am in favour of equal benefits for the same contribution. Therefore, I am in favour of the flat rate which is put forward, but that does not mean that there should not be an opportunity for a higher remunerated workman to secure for himself increased benefits. There is not the conflict between the flat rate and the increased benefits the hon. Member for Caerphilly indicated. I think you can combine both.
  The White Paper appears to be modelled on the war pensions scheme, and I am sorry that in the course of those many tributes which the Horne Secretary paid yesterday he did not find time to pay tribute to the Minister of Pensions and the Parliamentary Secretary in respect of his scheme. The war pensions scheme, I would remind the House, while proceeding on very much the same lines as the White Paper, does have regard to earnings. You cannot group, I agree, civilians into ranks, but there is no reason why you should treat every workman as a private in industry. I would like to see the Government add on to the White Paper a Government scheme whereby a highly-paid worker could voluntarily insure for an increased benefit. That might mean—I do not know—that an increased contribution would have to be made by the employer in respect of it, but I cannot believe it to be beyond the ingenuity of man and beyond the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir W Beveridge)

  1595
  to devise some scheme for alleviating the loss that a man who has been earning high wages will suffer, and is bound to suffer, if he suddenly meets with an accident. It is most important that that should be done and I hope that the Government will give the closest possible consideration to that branch of this matter before the Bill is introduced.
  I want to come to the question of whether we should have these local appeal tribunals or still have recourse to the courts. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Caerphilly thought that human frailties would cease to exist if you had these appeal tribunals with a number of individuals. He referred to a county court judge, to a referee and a doctor, but human frailties are bound to exist in any court you set up. We want to get the fairest and most impartial court possible. I rather doubt—and I say this with some trepidation—whether the local appeal tribunal as outlined in the White Paper will be the fairest court. It is going to have representatives of workpeople upon it and employers, and it may be that that to some extent cancels itself out. But suppose the injured applicant is a trade unionist, and there are three members of a trade union on that court, they are bound to be affected by natural sympathy towards him. I think that is irresistible. If I were brought before a police court, and I found half a dozen of my friends sitting on the bench, I should be much more optimistic of my chances —perhaps wrongly—
  Mr. Hogg: Quite wrongly.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: My hon. Friend says "Quite wrongly."
  Mr. G. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman belongs to the strongest trade union in the world.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: It is a very well organised one.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: They have a closed shop.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am not endeavouring to speak on this point as a representative of my trade union at all, but to get the best possible tribunal, and it seems to me, taking the converse position, that if you have a non-trade unionist applying before such a tribunal, there
  1596
  may be an unconscious or conscious prejudice against him. I would much prefer to see this question as to whether the accident arose out of or in the course of employment remain in the courts, because I do not believe that under this new White Paper you will get the same amount of legalistic manoeuvres as you had in the old days with litigation between the workman and the insurance companies.
  The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) referred at great length to the number of cases of workmen's compensation. I believe that the number of cases was decreasing very considerably in the years before the war, and I believe that workmen's compensation, as a whole, was being pretty well cleared up. This seems to me to throw the whole thing open again. You may change your wording, you may have decisions in different tribunals in different parts of the country, you may have a new code of law growing up very fast which will take a lot of untangling and, bearing in mind that the only real issue which is likely to arise in the future is whether the accident "arose out of or in the course of employment," and bearing in mind the judicial interpretations already given to that phrase, I feel that there is a lot to be said in the interests of the workman in maintaining that, and I hope the Government will give full consideration to that matter.
  There is one other question I would like answered. Workmen's compensation payments at present are not liable to tax. Persons who are in receipt of disablement pensions under the war pensions scheme do not pay tax on those pensions. Are the amounts to be paid under this White Paper to be included for tax purposes, or are they to be treated as tax free?
  Mr. G. Griffiths: They are not large enough.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: They will have to be taken into account or left out of account, and we ought to know what is the proposal with regard to that. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) that we want to raise the general level. I think there should be a flat rate and regard should be had, by an optional insurance scheme, to the increased earnings. If you increase the flat rate now you will, in some cases, be making it more profitable for a man

  1597
  if he is not working. At the present moment an agricultural worker earning 65s. a week with a wife and one child will, if 100 per cent. disabled, get 67s. 6d. Therefore you have to be careful to keep your wage rates and your insurance benefits in line.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that they must all be kept down?
  Mr. James Griffiths: Lift the wages.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller:.You must keep them in line. Otherwise you might tempt people to put forward frivolous claims in the hope that they would get benefits which, to a considerable extent, will come out of the pockets of their fellow workers.
  2.34 p.m.
  Mr. Buchanan: I have not intervened unduly, and I thought I should have got in much earlier, but I am glad to rise now, because I have been attacked by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards), who not only had the presumption to argue against me, but actually started to say what I was going to say before I said it. I have also been criticised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General, who, if I may say so, made an extremely competent speech, in contrast to the Home Secretary, who spent half his time flattering people. I do not want to hear from the Home Secretary about his Under-Secretary. When he comes here, I want him to explain the Measure and not to flatter the hon. Member for Caerphilly in the hope that the hon. Member will support him later on. One of the worst forms of seduction in this House is the flattery of one Member by another. I wish the hon. Member for Caerphilly had stayed so that I might have had the courtesy of a hearing from him. I was going to say that his speech was not altogether relevant to the issue we are discussing. Anybody could get up and attack workmen's compensation; the general scheme could be riddled from end to end. But we are not discussing that to day. What we are discussing, and I wish people would recognise it, are the new proposals of the Government. I would also say to the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Moelwyn Hughes) that before he makes speeches in the House he ought to think about the effect of his speeches. He criti-
  1598
  cised the woodworking trades. I am the chairman of the union of a not unimportant woodworking trade. He started to say that because you lost fingers, you could still do your work. When we go to the next workmen's compensation case, that speech of his will be quoted against us in the settlement of that case. I wish he would think of that.
  I remember going to settle my own case of workmen's compensation when I lost a finger, and I remember the chap saying to me, "It is off your right hand, so you should get less than you would get if it were off your left hand." I succeeded in getting £25 at that time. May I say one word in passing? I shall certainly be the only hon. Member to say this in the House of Commons. Everybody has condemned lump sum payments. The Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day talked about lump sum payments which are accruing to workmen as credits for Income Tax. It is dangerous to argue that workmen cannot be trusted with lump sums. That is why I asked the Chancellor to-day if the credits would be repaid in lump sums, because if you cannot trust a man with lump sum payments because he cannot spend them rightly, then you cannot trust him with rebates of Income Tax. I know something about the lump sum and its waste but I will not take the view that working class people cannot spend a lump sum payment with as much care and skill as any other section of the population. I do not want to hear that my class is not as capable of handling money as other classes. I utter that warning because I think there has been a good deal of exaggeration talked about lump sum payments.
  Let me come to the two or three points in which I am interested. One is the criticism of the courts. I have been in this House many years—for a man who is not too old yet, possibly too many years—but I have never thought I would almost see the red, white, and blue flags out, in cheering admiration for courts of referees. I thought I would see many a change—indeed I have changed myself—but I never thought I should see that Courts of referees to-day are not bad, but why are they not bad? I ask hon. Members to consider their history.
  May I say a word in passing, however, in fairness to the county court judges?

  1599
  I am sitting on a committee on rent control. I hope the Government will never put me on another one, for it consumes time as no other body I have been on. The property-owners there are criticising the county court judges for being too kind to tenants, and they want the matter taken from the county court and put into another court so that evictions can take place more quickly. Is that a bad thing for our side? Does that show the county court judges unsympathetic, mean, and wrong? The worst anti-social decision which rocked our party and the strong Baldwin Government in 1929 was a decision not given by the courts, not given by this House of Commons, but given by the same kind of tribunal, on the question of "genuinely seeking work." What is fairer than to say that a man who is not genuine should not get benefit? Is there anything wrong in it? I took the view of the hon. Member for Caerphilly that this court would be a humane court, that it would not have the approach of the lawyers and the county court judges, that it would be kind and tolerant. I did not oppose it, because I took that view. What happened at Rotherham in Yorkshire? An innocent man put a test case and appealed against a "not genuinely seeking work" decision and he was turned down.
  Let me give the House an example of the kind of thing they do in these courts of referees. They used to bring their innocent victim in front of them and ask, "Where were you looking for work on Monday?" The fellow would say, "John Brown's." "Where on Monday afternoon?" "Fairfield's." "Where on Tuesday?" "Harland and Wolff's." And so on. Then the chairman would ask again, "Where were you on Monday?" The poor fellow would forget and say "Weirs" on Monday instead of Wednesday, and the court would say he was not genuine. That is the kind of thing of which I am told to be proud. I used to run a class in Gorbals because I could "tell the story" much better than the poor prospective victims. So bad did the position become that Miss Margaret Bondfield, to her credit—and I say that as, possibly, one of her severest critics—tried to correct it by appointing another body called an advisory committee, which advised her to keep the cases going before that court.
  1600
  We are told about the kindly insurance officer. I do not think he is either bad or good; I do not judge him in that way; I judge him by the way he has to work. What did insurance officers do then? They drew on another Section of the Act, of which I have no knowledge, and which referred to a man as being in "not normally insurable employment." In 12 months the cases under that head had increased almost 20 times. I am told that these new courts of referees will be fine and grand. The truth is that I do not like them, and that I do not like the ordinary courts; I hate them all. I have worked with them all. I have fought the county courts, but I do say that on the whole, if the Act was properly framed, I would prefer the judge. I want to say that frankly to my hon. Friends. They may not agree, but I back my statement with the experience I have had of acting for non-unionists as well as unionists.
  I do not think we can afford to leave the non-unionists out of consideration. We ought to try to bring them within the union fold, but I cannot bring a man into the fold by repressive action. The curious thing is about the law that the higher you go, the better chance you have of fairness. You have always to judge, in dealing with these cases, not whether the man is a trade unionist or not, or whether he is a Catholic, Protestant or Jew. You have to deal with the case on the basis that a man has been injured. I know that mining districts are very different from mine. In my division there are 50,000 to 60,000 voters, and you could put them all into a small car park. What has happened? A lawyer asks a few questions, and never once is there a Pressman present. Here, may I say that one of the most valuable correctives in court proceedings is publicity. There is never a member of the public present. The hon. Member for Caerphilly asked what is my alternative. I say that so long as you leave in the words, "arising out of and in the course of his employment," there is no solution. We have to find other words to take their place. It is not the courts that are to blame; we are responsible for finding other words. The Solicitor-General said he thought he could find other words, but I have not yet met a lawyer who could not make the same claim.
  The fact is that we have to make clear beyond a shadow of doubt, to any type

  1601
  of court, what are the intentions of Parliament. Courts of referees and county courts vary. I am not anxious to get a decision in my favour, because there is a good court of referees in Caerphilly and a rotten one in Glasgow. I want justice for everybody. Of course, the system of doctors is a bad thing. Once, in the West of Scotland, out of five doctors, one had passed 80 per cent. of his cases and another had passed only 15 per cent. Is the substitution of one doctor by two going to make things better? I seem to have spent a wasted life in arguing for lost cause—
  Dr. Morgan: My hon. Friend is not the only one.
  Mr. Buchanan: I am disillusioned now. What is revolutionary about putting in courts of referees? They have been working for a long time. I have had experience before another kind of court—appeals in connection with old age and widows' pensions, where you have arbitration usually by an advocate who is not a solicitor and who is frequently a King's Counsel. Here I want to say in passing that to a King's Counsel named McClure, we in Scotland owe a debt of gratitude for his human and decent administration in the early days of widows' pensions appeals. What is the difference between accident and accident? I am a pattern-maker and our trade has not a great accident list, but only a few months ago, in a good firm, a man met with an accident to his finger. He was a decent man. He did not report the accident on the Saturday morning but by the evening his finger looked worse and he was attended by doctors until, on the Monday night, his hand had to be amputated. The court said, "It cannot be proved that the accident arose out of his employment." Frankly, we could not prove it, although we spent a lot of money on the case, because we had not one witness to corroborate the man's evidence. All we knew was that the man had lost his hand.
  What about this sort of case? A man of 45 or 55 is a moulder, working in sand day in and day out, making his castings. His legs become twisted with rheumatism and, of course, it cannot be established that this arose out of his employment, because it has been going on for 40 years. Then the man dies and because it cannot
  1602
  be proved that his death was due to his employment his widow gets only Part I benefit. But a man 26 years of age, in the same foundry, is hit and killed by the crane and his wife, who is also 26, gets £1 per week for the rest of her life. Can anybody defend that? What does it matter to me, or the widow who has three children, whether the husband is killed while cycling to his work or is killed, say, at the coalface? What does it matter whether he is a printer, pattern maker, miner or railway clerk? The facts are that he leaves a wife and children, and that all ought to be treated on the same level. Cases under Part I and Part II should be treated alike. Who can tell where the dividing line is in such a complex community as ours? The whole thing is interwoven. We ought to set up decent social standards. I want rehabilitation not only for the miner who has been hurt, but also for the stonemason with tuberculosis, who has no workmen's compensation. I want it for all. Let us do the thing in a big and new way.
  3.0 p.m.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) at the beginning of his speech referred to a Parliamentary compliment as the most seductive form of flattery. I hope he will not think I am indulging in that when I say that I enjoyed his speech enormously. When he speaks he brings in a breath of fresh air, and I thank him for it. We have listened to experts, lawyers, miners' representatives, and to former miners. I cannot claim to be an expert, but some few years ago I did have the honour and privilege of sitting in this House as the Member for Morpeth representing miners, and I would tell my honourable opponent the present Member that that is the greatest privilege I have ever had in my life. I hope he appreciates that privilege now.
  Mr. R. J. Taylor: I do not think it necessary for the hon. Member to ask me whether I realise the privilege. I am among people whom I have lived with all my life.
  Mr. Nicholson: When I was the Member for Morpeth, I had the chance of doing something for compensation legislation. The impression left on my mind in those four years was that workmen's

  1603
  compensation questions are the most frequent source of irritation, friction and suffering in the whole mining industry. I have always looked forward to the day when I should have the chance again of pleading the cause of the injured workman in this House. After that experience I should be wrong and foolish if I failed to recognise the great advantages that the proposed Measure must bring to the mining industry. It must bring a lessening of friction, an easing of hardship, and an easing of financial stringency also. But surely it is easy to do that when more money is put into the pool. It is easy to do that when we levy money from every single worker in the country largely for the mining industry. Do not let us make any mistake about it; this is mainly a mining problem. As I have said, I am not going to deny the benefits. I am not going to deny the great attractiveness of simplicity and comprehensiveness—of taking it out of the atmosphere of litigation. I am not going to do that.
  But in spite of recognising the advantages, I feel in my heart that there is something very wrong indeed with this scheme. I feel that the attractions are meretricious and that though it is a broad and easy road to cut through all the difficulties, I feel also that it is a road from which, sooner or later, we shall be forced to retrace our steps. It seems to me that there are two great principles of social insurance which are mutually incompatible. The principle that we have adopted in this country, that of the flat rate, has many of the advantages of simplicity. Against that there is the principle adopted in almost every other civilised country, the principle of a rate adjusted according to the previous standard of living of the recipient, whether he is an injured man, an unemployed man or a sick man. I prefer the Continental system, for I think that we are not doing enough in this House if our aim is restricted to seeing that there shall be no actual want or starvation. I should like to see us set a higher target which would involve the minimum of hardship. That would mean grading both the contribution and the benefit according to a man's standard of life. We must have one scheme or the other. We are doomed to failure if we try to get the best of both worlds at the same time. My main reason for criticising this present White
  1604
  Paper is because that is what it attempts to do.
  A very good case may be made out for a flat rate, and a very good case may be made out for a differential rate for injured workmen, but I contend there is no case made out for trying to do both through the same system of social insurance. In fact I claim that industrial injury is not a fit subject for social insurance. With the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) I am in complete agreement, and also with the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen). I do not see why any workman should have to pay an insurance subscription for injuries caused solely by his employment. If anyone comes as far as that with me, I contend they have knocked the bottom out of the present system.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: The hon. Member is assuming that the workers have got to pay now. I am suggesting that the miners for the last 20 years have had to pay more.
  Mr. Nicholson: I do not think it is a very valid point because, even if I admit it, it still contributes to my case. My case is that the cost of injury in an industry should be borne by that industry and should be passed on to the consumer by way of the price of the commodity. All that this present scheme will mean is that all the other workers and the State will subsidise the mining industry to the tune of at least 1s. 3d. a ton. I think it would be more honest and practicable to see that that 1s. 3d. was passed on to the consumer of coal. As I have said, there is a very good case for placing the responsibility for injury on the particular industry. I feel that that is the only way that we can work industrial compensation. It is perfectly simple, and all this business of constant litigation against the owner, the feeling of bitterness and the friction could easily be done away with. A compulsory insurance scheme could be brought in for compensation liabilities and the insurance need not be done through an insurance company. It could be done through one single organisation. It could be a poundage levied on wage bills in every single industry, or the industries could be pooled.
  I beseech the House not to make the fatal mistake of linking up industrial injuries benefit with the rates for social

  1605
  insurance. The hon Member for Gorbals asked for the raising of the benefit payable for non-industrial injuries to the level payable for industrial injuries. But it will not happen like that; it will happen exactly the other way round. I am sure we are going on the wrong lines. I am sure the scheme is misconceived and the result, while a great improvement on the present situation, will not be anything like the improvement that it ought to be. I sat on the private committee which the hon. Member for Caerphilly rather sneered at. We came to the conclusion that there were two elements in industrial injury insurance. In the first the worker, the employer and the State contribute. I call this Beveridge benefit. Let that be the bottom storey of your industrial injury scheme. I do not see why the worker or the employer should be deprived of the benefit of those contributions. I do not see why, just because a man suffers an industrial injury, the benefit previously paid for by the worker and the employer should go back into the common pool. Let the Beveridge benefit be the bottom storey of the structure. Let the second storey be the result of a comprehensive, universal, compulsory insurance scheme—if you like, a Government insurance scheme—to which all employers are forced to contribute. It must have relation to the man's previous earnings.
  It is sheer humbug to make the workers contribute to industrial insurance and I refuse to stand for it. I do not pretend to be an expert, but I have thought much about this and feel very deeply upon it. I beg the Government to think again before they introduce legislation along these misconceived and hybrid lines. The Solicitor-General simply assumed that the whole House agreed to the main philosophical principles underlying the scheme. He takes it for granted. As far as I am concerned he cannot, and the more the scheme is considered the more I think hon. Members opposite will see the many disastrous consequences which will follow from it. There is only one certain ray of hope that I have detected in the last two days, that there is no division on party lines and no desire to make party capital out of it. We on this side are just as anxious to see justice done as hon. Members opposite. I beg hon. Members not to be led away by the obvious benefits
  1606
  that must ensue when a lot more of other people's money is put into the pool. I beg them to try to think out a more rational basis for industrial insurance. It is not the worker's responsibility, and he should not be asked to pay for it if he suffers injury in the mine. It is the responsibility of the industry. In the long run it is the responsibility of the person who buys a ton of coal. I am very disappointed with most of the arguments which have been adduced in favour of the scheme.
  3.15 p.m.
  Dr. Morgan: One hesitates to approach a subject of this complexity. I have always been in favour of workmen's compensation reform, having regard to the deplorable situation at present, but though I view this scheme with good will, hoping for reform, at the same time I do so with a considerable amount of misgiving and foreboding. Why this particular scheme was chosen by the Home Office I do not know—or rather I think I do, but I will not mention it. It is unfair for one who knows the inner workings to make any comment on that score. The Home Secretary said yesterday this was a revolutionary change. I have never conceived him with a halo of revolution around his head. When I dreamt of this scheme last night and of the Debate and thought of the Home Secretary with the halo of revolution around his head, I wondered whether it was Dante's Inferno or the Vale of Gehenna or one of Disney's macabre and grotesque fantasias of the new Resurrection that I was witnessing.
  What are the good points in the scheme? There is, first, the common central workmen's compensation fund, but there could be a common fund without having it of this nature—tri-partite. It could be in line with the various schemes in Canada and the United States. I should prefer to take the Ontario scheme as a model. There is the minimum of legal wrangling. Then there is the pensions officer for the preliminary inquiries, and later the local bi-lateral appeal tribunal, and even the advisory council. I know no more damaging evidence against medical tuition than is to be found in the Workmen's Compensation Acts. I have seen so-called doctors and specialists go into the witness box and make the most mendacious statements against the workmen. I have wondered where was the General Medical

  1607
  Council and why some of them were not struck off the roll. It could easily be proved, from the medical point of view, that their statements are quite inaccurate and grossly unfair. Not only that, but doctors have not in the past been taught anything about the assessment of injury and, if they had, they would have to know something about the industrial occupation of the workmen before they could assess it properly. Yet they have to make assessments without knowing the nature of the occupation and how the workman has been affected in his occupation by the injury. From the point of view of industrial diseases doctors are not taught anything at all. There is not a Lectureship on Industrial Diseases in this pioneer country of industrialism in the world. I am not saying that against the profession as a profession. I know that it is really sound at bottom, but there are a few who are employed by certain insurance companies who are not a credit to their profession.
  What are the bad points in the scheme? The liability of the employer in case of injury to his workmen runs through the whole course of our common law. That is going to be removed. It may be a good thing, but I have grave doubts whether it is right that a workman injured through no fault of his own, in the environment provided by an employer working for a profit, under conditions over which the workman has absolutely no control, should be forced to contribute to some scheme under the disguise of social insurance, and that the taxpayer also should be brought in to contribute. As the schemes abroad have it, I think that this common pool should not only be the individual liability of the employer, but that it should be subscribed to wholly by industry for this special purpose. I agree that workmen's compensation should be treated as a special branch of social service, but it should be something entirely different though buttressed basically by the general social insurance scheme.
  This scheme will relieve employers of a great deal of expense. They will have no urge for prevention. Take the case of dermatitis, which a man gets by coming into contact with certain irritant substances during his work. It is a scheduled disease under the Act—in a restricted way
  1608
  —and there should be proper preventive measures for the protection of the workmen. If a workman gets a sensitive skin from an industrial irritant it may last him all his life. What happens now? There are barrier creams known which can protect the workmen, not one general barrier cream for every form of irritation, but specific barriers for specific irritants. Are they ever used? Are the officers of the factory department able to say that this or that is the best barrier cream? No, because they are afraid of the rival firms. Certain firms are producing barrier creams which, if used universally, would reduce the rising incidence of dermatitis to a low figure. It may be said that I am arguing about things that are past and the present but is this scheme going to change them? What about the procedure in regard to industrial diseases?
  Regarding accidents, the use of the words "arising out of and in the course of employment" is to be retained, with all their difficulties of different interpretations. A disease is a national accident. Is the whole procedure of the past with regard to the scheduling of diseases to be continued? This proposed change, which is supposed to be revolutionary from the point of view of diseases in industry, appears to make no change at all. Take the case of the nurse, that Cinderella of our health services. If she goes into an infectious diseases hospital, she cannot help her environment. If she goes to a sanatorium, she is liable to infection. If she gets tuberculosis, she cannot get compensation because it is not in the list of scheduled diseases. We cannot get tuberculosis scheduled as something specific to the risk that a worker is running in a particular industry. The same applies to scarlet fever with all its complications. The only remedy for the nurse is to fight a common law action. The same applies to the whole gamut of so-called social diseases.
  The late Sir Thomas Legge, my predecessor at the T.U.C., who had so long an association at the Home Office as Chief Medical Factory Inspector, was one of the authors of the third test, which means that a disease must be proved to be specific to the employment before it can be accepted for the Schedule. He said that, after considerable experience, he thought that the third test should be changed, but nothing has been done. We

  1609
  have had to fight the Home Office Committee time and time again before many diseases were scheduled. Chronic carbon monoxide poisoning is scheduled in Australia, but not in Great Britain. Vibrational diseases contracted in boot factories and road repairing are scheduled in Germany, but not in Great Britain. I may be told that these matters are too technical to be dealt with by the politician, but they are comparatively simple and form the whole basis of disease compensation. If a person goes to work and is damaged by his particular environment, his disability should be made compensatable. Nothing is changed in these matters under this scheme.
  I want to make representations on behalf of the seaman. Is there anything in this scheme that will benefit him—the seaman whose workshop is his home, who works under bad conditions, facing the elements all the time and with the restrictions of the Merchant Shipping Act constantly before him? He may get an accident or disease abroad and there are no means of treating him. The Board of Trade, which is responsible for seamen, has never Yet had a permanent medical officer attached to the Department like the Ministry of Labour, the Home Office and the Ministry of Health. We have been careless about the requirements of the seamen. If a seaman gets injured his pay ceases the moment he is off his vessel. What is to happen to him then? Is he brought under the social insurance scheme? What special arrangements have been made for him? Do the Government intend, between this Debate and the introduction of the Bill, to have separate negotiations with the seamen's organisations? Take the question of rehabilitation. Some seamen get compound fractures, and sometimes a man lands with three inches of bone jutting from his leg after having been in plaster for months. Does the House realise that if a seaman who has been in hospital abroad is conveyed to another ship in order to get to Great Britain and has an accident when he is in transit from shore to the departing ship his dependants get no compensation?
  It is really a pathetic and wonderful tale. I listen sometimes to the speeches made about the magnificent work of the seamen in the war, and I wonder whether we are not shedding crocodile tears over them in view of the fact that, after all their bravery and heroism, they cannot, when it comes
  1610
  to workmen's compensation and questions of industrial disease, get the services of a certifying factory surgeon abroad, or some adequate procedure cannot be devised. Think of the seaman, braving the elements of rain, storm and sea, who is flung overboard in the course of his work. He cannot get compensation. If he loses his life, his widow cannot get compensation either because she cannot prove that an accident occurred, the theory apparently being that the seaman always wants to throw himself overboard and commit suicide. I see the Solicitor-General making a remark. I assure him that this is not hanky-panky and that if he will read the evidence given to the Royal Commission on Workmen's Compensation he will find a special part devoted to seamen and many points covered, some which I have mentioned.
  This may be a revolutionary scheme and a wonderful scheme. It may have good in it, but it will need more thorough revision and recasting than we have yet conceived. I could tell terrible things about what has happened under workmen's compensation. I have done workmen's compensation work for 25 years and I have seen the end results not only of ordinary accident and industrial disease, but of neurosis—men neglected, frustrated, degraded, and down to the bottom, with nobody helping the bottom dog. It is unfair not to provide against that in this scheme, which seems almost to divide the Labour Party into two; I hope not. There are very different opinions about this scheme. I ask the Home Secretary to give it further consideration and to see whether, especially in industrial disease and in the terminology in regard to accidents, he can give more safeguards for the worker who is injured in an occupational environment over which he has no command of any kind.
  2.33 p.m.
  Mr. E. J. Williams: I am sure that the Solicitor-General and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will have been impressed by the speech which we have just heard and I hope that nothing that may have been said by way of criticism of the scheme will deter them from considering seriously what my hon. Friend has said about industrial diseases. I propose to leave out of my speech that aspect of the matter, with which my hon. Friend has dealt substantially better than

  1611
  I could hope to do. Unlike him, I welcome the Government scheme because it is a radical departure from the past. For at least the reason that was mentioned by the Solicitor-General I think it will create a new atmosphere in industry. Like so many of my colleagues, I have been a practical miner for years, and a miners' official for many years. Within my province I have had to attend collieries where there had been fatal accidents such as explosions, involving the lives of many men, as well as accidents that concerned individuals, and ultimately coroners' courts and post-mortem examinations.
  In relation to the latter I could talk much, particularly if I linked them up with industrial diseases such as silicosis, now termed, of course, pneumoconiosis. From the historical aspect of the matter we can see how practically impossible it has been for the dependants of persons who contracted silicosis to obtain compensation. I have attended many postmortem examinations where the lungs were actually like fossils, but the dependants were not entitled to compensation because they could not prove that the man had worked in the process or that his work was in hard ground or that, if he had there was 40 per cent. of silica in the rock. Sometimes the rock has had to be sent to a geologist to be analysed before the fact could be established that the dependants were entitled to compénsation.
  I merely cite that in order to bring out the point. I hope that the Solicitor-General will very seriously consider the interruption I made in his speech. In this matter my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) is quite right; we must tackle the question of proof. So long as the onus is placed upon the individual to show that he sustained the accident while in the course of his employment he is the victim of circumstances for ever. While the onus is placed upon him to show that he has not recovered from the accident, he will be a victim too. That onus must be lifted from the shoulders of the injured person. I am certain that if that is done the scheme will work well.
  I welcome the scheme for an additional reason. I see no reason why the injured workman should have to go to the employer's premises each week to receive his compensation. Why should there be
  1612
  that attachment? In this matter my colleagues, particulary those from the mining industry, could give many instances of the real, petty tyranny that has obtained for years in the industry. A colliery cashier paying compensation to an individual, perhaps because of his position, will ask the individual whether he has recovered and whether it is not time that he got back to work, worrying him from week to week just at the time when he requires every bit of encouragement to recover from the accident. Psychiatrists are employed on many jobs; it would seem as though colliery cashiers and the small bosses were creating problems for them. Obviously this matter must be taken away from the employer.
  I do not know how we can run a scheme of this kind unless there are flat-rate benefits, or how we can hope to comply with the wishes of persons who would like to have varying payments of compensation and still maintain an insurance scheme. I want the contributory scheme, but I want to avoid a repetition of the very general experience we had in the mining industry from 1921 to 1936, and from 1936 almost up to the outbreak of war, which is that, when periods of depression took place in the industry, concerns went into liquidation. Persons should be entitled to payment for physical damage sustained by way of accident regardless of the assets of the firm. I could mention scores of cases of men who are walking the streets to-day as cripples because the colliery went into liquidation. They were not first preference creditors. Ultimately, when the assets had been realised, the colliery paid 2s. or 3s. in the £. There are hundreds of cases such as these, walking the mining villages of South Wales and other places to-day. When this insurance is made a social service, such a situation should not be allowed to recur. I cannot see how it could recur, for the obvious reasons that the man would be entitled to this compensation as a right quite independent of the business, quite independent of the employer, and I think that is really a very good thing.
  Although we support this scheme and the flat rate of benefits, we are obviously not satisfied with the rate of benefits, and frankly the Government must face up to that. In the last 12 or 13 years when we have been discussing compensation we have never had such an attendance in

  1613
  the House as we have had yesterday and to-day, and I am very pleased to find that. I have never heard such a favourable response from my political opponents on the other side of the House. I suggest it is just the war. [An HON. MEMBER: "They get rid of their liabilities."] I think myself it is the war. I think they realise that labour in war-time is really the boss, that labour can dictate terms, and that because it is impossible for them to get the necessary labour to run the mining industry and other essential industries, they must create a better atmosphere, they must take all these irritants out of industry as far as possible, and must endeavour as far as possible to meet the claims of the trade union movement, including the Miners' Federation and the others. They are endeavouring to do that under this scheme. But we are not satisfied with the rate of benefit.
  There can be no reason why the employers should be relieved of about £8,500,000, so that while we welcome this scheme we are not prepared to make a present to the employers of that fabulous sum of money. There is no reason why retrospective claims back to 1924 could not be met out of that £8,500,000. There is no reason why we could not increase the flat rate fairly substantially—the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir W. Beveridge) said 50 per cent. above Part 1. There is no reason why it could not be increased to 50 per cent. above Part 1. I am hoping that the Government will face up to the major criticism of the rates of benefit within the scheme.
  I welcome this scheme as a social service. 1 am a little dubious about the machinery. I do not know exactly how to substitute another kind of machinery for that which was suggested by the Solicitor-General. Frankly, I am prepared to try it out. I have had experience, like my colleagues, of the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Acts. I realise that things are substantially better than they were in the old days, and I think most of my colleagues would he prepared try it out as an experiment, and if ultimately something is found to need modification I trust the Government will face up to it. But if we have to take this matter out of the courts, if we are to free the men from the suspicion they now hold about doctors, solicitors, court procedure, the wrangle
  1614
  of prolonged litigation, and so on, the only substitute for the court is the body that is proposed within the scheme itself. I can think of no other and I am prepared to try it. But obviously the success of that tribunal will depend upon its terms of reference, the rules and regulations and how simple they will be, whether they are understandable, whether the man feels, when he appears before that tribunal, that he is prejudiced by the regulations or rules or advice that is given to that body. I am sure that if onus of proof is taken from the shoulders of the individual he will feel all right, but if he is to appear there a victim of circumstances, pleading his own case as an individual, with the weight of evidence thrown against him, I am certain we shall have a substantial measure of dissatisfaction. I put it to the Solicitor-General that if he will meet the point I put in my interruption this scheme will work reasonably well.
  I say this in conclusion: Being attached to the mining industry, I am very much concerned about its future. We on these benches differ substantially from our political opponents on the other side of the House as to what should be done. I do not know whether they can believe me if I tell them that I feel that, regardless of politics, we shall have to take control of the mines as a matter of pure business, that is, if we require coal produced, and want persons coming into the industry as miners to make good the wastage from year to year. Though we may differ politically as to the future of the mining industry, I am certain that we shall never be able to attract youth to the mining industry unless we substantially improve the conditions of that industry, and in that respect compensation payments will be a major factor. The benefit must be increased, not as an inducement but as a right. Something must be produced as a right that is substantially better than the men in the mining industry get to-day. I am putting that purely from the mining aspect, but obviously it applies to other industries too. But that is an industry radically affected by the accidents of industry in which substantial improvement is required at the present time.
  3.48 p.m.
  Mr. S. O. Davies: I propose to confine the few remarks I intend to make to one matter. I also must plead guilty to having interjected while the

  1615
  Solicitor-General was making, may I say quite respectfully, an excellent contribution towards the subject matter of the Debate of to-day and yesterday. I want to thank him for his clarity in dealing with what is obviously a very complicated matter. I interjected on the very point I now wish to raise, because I am extremely disturbed by what is regarded as the scope of the scheme, and it is found largely in paragraph 33. First we are told:
  "The scheme will apply to personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment. …"
  That worries me and has worried me from the moment I saw it in the Report. The Solicitor-General could not satisfy me this afternoon, in answer to my question, whether the interpretation to be placed upon this sentence under the new scheme was an interpretation that would be determined by the precedents laid down in the present law of workmen's compensation. I am very much afraid that is just what will happen. If that is so, I am absolutely confident that this scheme will never operate to the satisfaction of the workers.
  I speak about the legal side of this matter as a layman. It is not my desire to reflect on those who practise law, but I respectfully suggest to the Home Secretary, who like myself does not claim to be a lawyer, that he might spend a few hours with our great old friend Willis's "Workmen's Compensation." It has been a friend to all of us who have been pitchforked into representative positions in the trade unions, and I always feel profoundly indebted to Mr. Willis for that great work. Last Monday I spent nearly three hours reading Mr. Willis on the judgments that have been given on this very subject. As one who has had a lifelong experience in the mining industry, I defy anybody to say that there is agreement that principles have been laid down which are satisfactory, clear and understandable, and which can help us to decide whether an accident has arisen out of, or in the course of, employment. Mr. Willis, who must be regarded as an authority, tells us, in the 1943 edition:
  "In respect to the meaning of the words 'arising out of employment'"—
  1616
  and that is only half of the phrase—
  "there is room for divergent views on the same facts. No principles of general application can be gleaned from the cases, which can only be regarded as illustrations of the operation of the words of the Act upon a particular set of circumstances."
  My experience has led me to regard Mr. Willis as being one of the great authorities on workmen's compensation in this country, and I say that this description of the state of the law on workmen's compensation is as perfect a description as could ever be put into words. Mr. Willis's statement that there is room for divergent views on the same facts is based on hundreds of cases that have been decided in the higher courts. The facts may be identical in relation to accidents to two persons; but one person may be paid compensation, and the other not. That is what has happened in many cases which are known to us personally. Mr. Willis tells us:
  "No principles of general application can be gleaned from the cases. …"
  Is this to be a legacy? Is this to be the atmosphere in which this scheme will be wrapped? There is no agreement in law with respect to hundreds of cases that arise under the present Workmen's Compensation Acts. All that the costly litigation has produced is chaos.
  I profoundly hope that the Government do not intend to rear their new structure of workmen's compensation on a basis of that kind. In some instances we find that compensation is paid when the accident occurs to a workman on his way to work, and in other cases, where the physical circumstances are as identical as they possibly can be, and accidents occur to persons on their way to work, no compensation is paid. Further, there are fine and baffling distinctions drawn as to the meaning of "continuous" and "intermittent" employment. Although these are quite ordinary words, of which the workers know the meaning, the law, in its practice, apparently can come to different conclusions about when work is continuous and when it is intermittent. Who can tell us, in the light of the present law, when employment begins and when it ends? The law cannot tell us. I have looked it up. My colleagues here and I have had experience of cases in which it has been perfectly clear to the worker that his employment had commenced when the accident happened, but the claim has failed because it was

  1617
  held that his employment had not commenced. I must not take up time in going over these cases, but I should like the Government to consider the matter, in order that this scheme may not be ruined in its inception.
  I welcome the scheme as a pointer in the right direction. I cannot put it higher than that until I see how it is to be clothed, what the machinery for its administration is to be, and on what principles these questions will be decided. The effect of these distinctions on the mind of the worker has been detrimental. They have crowded his mind with suspicions, but he knows very well that his contract of service implies a direct and immediate obligation on his part to work for his employer. He gets up in the early hours of the morning and proceeds to the place of his employment, but, 500 yards from his home, he meets with an accident and finds that he has no claim for compensation. If the accident had happened to him 501 yards from his home, he might, perhaps, have succeeded in his compensation claim. Again, I hope the Government will avoid those other fine calculations in estimating time and space under the present law of workmen's compensation. Fancy a workman coming across a statement of this kind, made by an authority on the present law:
  "There must, in all cases, be an interval of time and space in going to, or returning from, the scene of his labours. during and in which the employment of the workman ceases."
  Why is language of that kind necessary? The workers of this country are ordinary mortals, but, really, the language of the law has reached such a state of stultification that one cannot read it without getting extremely exasperated. One is forced to wonder what nice abstract speculations occupy the mind, say, of the collier, working in a temperature of 90 to 100 degrees, in a cramped and confined position at the coal-face, or of the blast-furnace man, keeping his furnace and controlling the flow of molten steel, or of the machinist, tied to his machine for eight hours and victimised almost to the point of idiocy by a minute detail, one of the many required before the finished article sees the light of day.
  May we express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman who will be putting some thought into this scheme will drop com-
  1618
  pletely these stupid and often metaphysical speculations that are associated with the law of workman's compensation to-day. I must appeal to them, because they will be people who will have had a great deal of experience. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman who will reply to the Debate has had a very close and intimate knowledge of colliery work. I hope he will remember the language that the workers in our industry speak, and the language they understand. I hope Ministers will for the first time clothe their directions and lay down principles in language which our people can understand and in which they will have the necessary confidence.
  4.5 p.m.
  Mr. Sloan: I am one of those who must give this White Paper a very mixed reception. I can understand the desire to lift compensation out of the arena of heated controversy and remove it from what the White Paper terms a disputable issue between employers and workers. It would be unfair, I think, to say that we have not gained something by our compensation law, but it would be quite fair, I think, to say that we have lost much by our continuous strife and litigation. Any attempt to reduce this irritation and secure compensation for injury as a right should be welcomed. It will eliminate the body-snatching insurance companies and lawyers, and should restore some measure of confidence to employees. The willingness of the Government to pay some regard to the criticisms levelled at this White Paper will prove whether or not we are to have fundamental changes in our compensation law.
  I represent a large working class population of miners, agricultural and factory workers, who are prepared to respond to the Home Secretary's appeal to discuss these proposals in a spirit of co-operation, mutual respect and good will. It would not be correct to blame entirely the employers for the unhappy state that exists in regard to compensation. It has been due to the state of the law and to the evil consequences that arise from it. Those of us who have intimate knowledge of the system know that, for every compensation case contested in the law courts, hundreds, even thousands, have been settled and paid without any difficulty at all. Indeed, it is difficult for

  1619
  the ordinary trade union official to keep pace with them, because the men are injured, are off work, receive compensation and are back to work before we know anything at all about it. Therefore, we do not attempt to claim that our compensation laws are all bad, but we do think that, now that they are in the melting pot, and it is agreed on every hand that they have overstayed their welcome and outlived their usefulness, we should take care that we make a good job of what we erect in their place.
  This has been a long-drawn-out struggle. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir W. Beveridge) talks about this as his baby, but I do not know whether he claims to be the father or the mother. The compensation baby was born some 50 years ago, but has taken an unconscionably long time to grow up. I suppose it has been afflicted with all the ills known to children, and is now afflicted with infantile paralysis. I must say that I was tremendously disappointed with the speech of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, because he is a Scotsman who came to us with a great reputation and with a halo round his head, and his Report had become a household word. And why? Because what the people of this country have been searching for, more than anything else in this world, has been security. That is fleeting and visionary, and is too conditional for us ever to contemplate. I am afraid my hon. Friend has lost his éclat and can no longer be classed as a glamour boy. He was a supporter of the view of the Government that 35s. was sufficient for the first 13 weeks. What reason did he advance? It was that if we gave too much for a short period, there would not be sufficient to go round.
  Here we have the case in a nutshell. Here is a pool, and if too much is paid out of it somebody has to go short. If that is the method of the administration of this pool, someone is going to suffer very seriously, and it savours so much of the unemployment pool that we shall have to be very careful before we accept it. It originated from the champion of social security. Ninety per cent. of the cases are short period cases and the proposal is, therefore, that 90 per cent. of the workers of this country who are injured are to be palmed off with what is
  1620
  termed the "subsistence level." It is a horrible term. We have had reference to a subsistence wage among pit-head workers, and we are now adopting the same scheme in these White Paper proposals. I will let it go at that.
  I must apologise for returning to the question of adequacy. This is a crucial test of our sincerity. If, at this stage, we are not prepared to insert in the scheme fair rates of compensation payments for hundreds of thousands of industrial workers, it will not be unfair to accuse us of humbug. What value can be placed upon our declarations of freedom from want? Why should we attempt to deprive our injured workers of this very elementary justice? According to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed it is because of lack of funds. That was an extraordinary statement. It was difficult to believe that it was made in cold blood, but I will be generous and give the hon. Member the benefit of the doubt by saying that he made that statement when he was overexcited at speaking in these strange and bewildering surroundings.
  Let us look at the finances of the scheme, on page 25 of the White Paper. The Government are now proposing to take over a scheme which, we were told, has cost £17,000,000. They are going to pay very little. Instead of the employers bearing the whole cost there is now to be a tripartite payment by employers, workers and the Treasury. Whereas the employers themselves should find £17,000,000, the amount to be found by the whole crowd of us, from the domestic servant to the employer of labour, with the assistance of the Treasury, is £20,000,000. A remarkable feature of the proposal is that the employers are to be relieved of the payment of £8,500,000. It is about Christmas time and Santa Claus is coming along and we are going to put £8,500,000 into their stockings. Surely, such a generous gesture has never been heard of since we handed over the ships at a nominal figure to the shipowners after the last war. What excuse can be offered for asking the employers to pay less? It was stressed from the benches opposite that they were wholeheartedly with us. I would be surprised if they were not. The scheme is offering their friends £8,500,000 and I would be surprised if they did not accept it with both hands.

  1621
  What is the reason given for making them this handsome subsidy? This £8,500,000 has become part of the cost of industry; it is a cost on wages and is passed on to the consumers in the price of commodities, and now we are calmly proposing to relieve them of responsibility and leave them with £8,500,000 in their possession.
  It is a satisfactory state of affairs for the employers, but such magnanimity will be very sadly misunderstood by the workers who will be asked to pay their weekly premium. They will place their own construction upon a device that asks them to pay their own insurance while the employers walk away with the swag. If there were any weaknesses hi the pool before, this is the one for which the Government ought to answer. To the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, who is concerned about the finance, and to the Government I would say that, if this £8,500,000 were placed in the pool, it would enable more generous treatment to be given to injured workers. Do not let us deceive ourselves; the people are watching us more keenly than they have ever watched us before. If the benefits of this scheme are typical of the bright new world that is before us and this is the standard we are prepared to set for freedom from want, if this is the foundation on which we are to build homes for heroes and the line on which we are to redeem our promises to the men in the Services, then I can say, in the words of our national poet, it is "dark and drear."
  The point has been raised whether there is to be relation between cost of living and the benefits. There has been no answer, as far as I have heard, from the Government in regard to this matter and I hope, whatever Minister is to reply, that he will not ignore the fact that that point has been put from these benches. Is there to be any provision made in the fund for violent fluctuations in prices or are these figures to be static or flexible if inflation should hit us? Section 47 (2) assumes that wages will fall to 25 per cent. in excess of their level in 1938. That, if true, would be a most horrible prospect, and I am genuinely surprised that the Government have placed it on record. Such a state of affairs would bring the wages of the Scottish miners down to the region of £3 a week. I wonder if the implications of what is stated in this White Paper is understood? It means that if the pits were able to
  1622
  work every day in the week, miners would be earning something like £3 a week. That would be a policy of starvation. I would point out that the miners have an agreement for a minimum of £5 a week. Does that mean, if the language of the White Paper means anything at all, that this will drop to 25 per cent. above 1938? Does that mean that we are only "kidding ourselves" in discussing this White Paper, and that even its limited provisions are not to be implemented? Or are we to look forward to 1947, 1948, 1949 or whenever wages have fallen to 25 per cent. above 1938 and peace-time conditions prevail?
  We really ought to have an answer, and we ought not to be asked to discuss this White Paper until we have had it. When the monetary storm breaks lose anyone is an optimist who thinks we shall be free from inflation. We are living in a fool's paradise, an ice palace that will melt with the heat of the summer sun, if we imagine that we shall ride out of this storm quietly and with dignity, with no inflation and no trouble, and that the compensation benefits in this Paper will be sufficient to meet the needs of our industrial casualties.
  I would have liked to say a word about rehabilitation but I think, like the compensation laws, I have overstayed my welcome and I do not like to be forcibly ejected. Under these circumstances, I would ask if it is the intention to prepare a Bill to implement the promises in the White Paper, that some regard will be paid to the criticisms levelled from these benches that these figures are quite insufficient, and that medical attention and rehabilitation will have to play a very important part in the future. There is nothing worse than poor people who have been injured. I have been injured and I know something about the mental strain. What we want more than anything else, when people are injured, is to get them to take a normal interest in their lives, and we can do this by paying attention to rehabilitation. I hope, therefore, that this will play an important part in any compensation laws of the future.
  4.25 p.m.
  Mr. Barstow: It is not my intention unduly to prolong this Debate. The many speakers who have taken part in it have travelled all round the world, and they have brought forward every

  1623
  possible argument for and against the White Paper. Therefore it would seem that there is not much more to be said on it. I want to put it to the Minister that this White Paper is the most unsatisfactory document yet produced by this Government. It does not provide for any reasonable standard of social security. The Home Secretary said yesterday that he was anxious to have the whole system of compensation properly cleared up, but this does not clear it up properly.
  A great deal of attention has been directed to the position of miners, but I want to direct attention to railwaymen. In this House I represent at least 400,000 railwaymen. The policy of the railwaymen's union is not 35s. a week for a single man for 13 weeks. Their policy is that as an accident is incurred by a workman in the course of his employment, by an act which is for the benefit of his employer, he is entitled to 100 per cent. compensation. After all, when we come to analyse the subject, we have all to admit that there is a fundamental difference between a man who develops a cold from sleeping in a damp bed and has to go off work because of influenza or bronchitis or some other kindred disease, and the man who meets with a physical accident when working on behalf of his employer. There is no direct relationship between those two. In the one case the man is selling his power to labour to an employer in order to get the means of livelihood, but he is only employed by the employer because he is necessary in the process of producing the commodities which are being manufactured. He is, therefore, a part of industry just in the same way as a machine is a part of industry. If a machine fails, it has to be scrapped and a new machine put into its place, and we do not ask the social security firm to come along and replace that machine or make it good, for it is owned by industry. We say that the worker in industry is just as important and more important than the machine, and if he meets with an accident, then he is entitled to full compensation.
  This scheme certainly does not give full compensation; it does not provide an adequate living margin for the injured workman. Let me give a concrete case. An engine driver, who may have an aver-
  1624
  age wage on mileage turns of £8 or £9 a week, has an eye damaged by a spark and is no longer fit for footplate work. What happens to him? He is not totally incapacitated from employment but he will be given a labourer's job at £2 10s. a week. Can it be argued that to pay him an industrial pension based on his present earnings of £2 10s. per week is adequate compensation for that injury?
  Certainly not. The Government, by their scheme, draw everybody into the vortex. Contributions from employers as a whole will be increased by several million pounds, because all employers will be brought in and not merely those engaged in the manufacturing industries. All workers, too, are being brought in, although many of them are not liable, by the nature of their industry, to meet with an accident. Ultimately, the Government's proposals mean an average increase in compensation of from 2s. 6d. to 3s. 9d. a week. For that increase there has to be a contribution of 6d. per week. No one in the House has made any attempt to defend the existing compensation law. It has cost my union, the National Union of Railwaymen, hundreds of thousands of pounds to establish cases before the House of Lords, and help to put the present compensation law into the position it is in to-day.
  The present compensation law is not satisfactory, and this White Paper does nothing fundamentally to alter it. I want the Government to take this Paper back, and reconsider the whole question. I know that if they bring in legislation embodying the proposals of this White Paper we shall pass it, but I beg the Government not to try to force this scheme on the House. Give us an opportunity of looking at the question again. Bring in all the people with expert knowledge of compensation law, and let us see if we cannot find a better basis. For instance, this White Paper perpetuates some of the evils of the present Compensation Acts. If a man is injured he is told, "For the first three days of the month there is no payment for you." The compensation rates, even under the latest scheme, are not adequate. In my union we have certain provident funds, and if a man who pays 1d. per week to these funds is injured he receives 10s. a week. The Government's scheme provides for an average weekly increase of 3s. 9d. in compensation. I do not wish to oppose

  1625
  an insurance scheme, but I am against forcing down the standard of living of tens of thousands of men in the railway and other industries. You are catering here for the lower paid men and not the higher paid men, and you have no right to plunge men who are living in decent social conditions into the lowest depths of poverty.
  The Home Secretary yesterday asked for suggestions which would amend this scheme. Whether he seriously meant that I do not know, but at any rate I now ask the Government to take back this White Paper, bring in a new White Paper and avoid any further cutting down of people's benefits. There is a suggestion in the White Paper with regard to common law. Why is that there? Why did the Government refer that to Sir Walter Monckton, unless it was in the hope that compensation cases could be cut away from the common law? During the last few weeks my union established a case in the appeal court and obtained £2,900 damages because of an act of negligence by the employer. We do not want that to be removed; we want the Campbell Act to remain. If the Government want to supersede that by means of a scheme of social insurance such as this, they will create hostility throughout the trade union movement. Therefore, let them bring in something complete and final in all its details.
  4.37 p.m.
  Mr. Murray: I want to thank the Solicitor-General for the statement he made this morning. It was one of the best statements I have heard for some time. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Barstow) has not misrepresented the Miners' Federation of Great Britain. He said that the railwaymen were not satisfied with 35s. a week and I want it to go on record that the federation, which represents over 750,000 members, are not satisfied with 35s. a week and that they are only prepared to give a blessing to this scheme because there are higher rates of benefit. Anyone who knows anything about the mining industry, knows that once upon a time it was quite easy for a workman to get in touch with his employer. But to-day things are quite different. There have been established in the industry, and in many other industries too, huge combines, in which the
  1626
  workers are not able to get in touch with their employer. They do not know who he is, and to a large extent I believe that has been responsible for the lack of confidence there is in the mining industry to-day, and the suspicion in the minds of the workers in that industry.
  It is claimed that this scheme is a break with the old, and I hope that is true. The compensation of miners has always been a nightmare. Whenever a man has had an accident, the amount paid to him for a bruised and broken body has been an insult. Immediately following the accident, the first thing he must do is to rearrange his mode of living. If he has a good Cavil and is a pieceworker he may earn £6 or £7 a week. If an accident happens, the first thing he says to his wife is that they must of necessity cut down their expenditure. The whole gamut of their life is changed. His wages will be reduced by £4 to £5 per week under the new scheme to £2 3s. 9d. per week compensation. He wants to get back to work long before he is ready for it. What is he offered? As I understand it, the rate for a married man with no children is 3s. 9d. higher than he receives now, and he pays no contribution. He is going to be asked to pay 13s. a year whether he has an accident or not. I want the Bill put through before the next election, but I want increased rates of benefit. The mining industry will pay between £9,000 and £10,000 a week to this fund.
  I want to mention another matter, the case of the young man who is totally disabled. I have always felt, when working in the pit, that if you can keep the young men right, you have a good chance of keeping your wheels going all the time. The trouble usually starts with the young men. Under this scheme, a young man who is totally disabled is offered 17s. 6d. a week until he is 18, because he pays half contributions, I suppose, but assuming that his wage is £1 5s., the present rate of compensation is £1 1s. 10d., so he is asked to pay contributions for a reduction of 4s. 4d. a week for the first 13 weeks. The whole thing is ridiculous to my mind. After 13 weeks he still pays his contributions but gets 1s. 10d. less. If you want trouble in the mining industry, operate that. If his wage is £1 7s. a week the Government say, "Seventeen and six for the first 13 weeks and £1 afterwards. "The present compensa-

  1627
  tion is £1 3s. 7d., so that he is paying a contribution for a 6s. 1d. a week reduction, and after 13 weeks it will be a 3s. 7d. reduction. If his wage is £1 15s., compensation at the present rate is £1 6s. 3d., so that he will be paying increased contribution for a reduction of 8s. 9d. a week for 13 weeks. After that he would still suffer a reduction of 6s. 3d. for total disablement. If his wage is £2, the Government will give him the present rate of 17s. 6d. and £1 while compensation is £1 7s. 6d., so that he will be paying a contribution for a 10s. a week reduction, and after 13 weeks the reduction will be 7s. 6d. a week. Will this give satisfaction to the miners? The answer is inevitably in the negative.
  I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) on the question of the lump sum and of the medical referee. It is all a question of the man. I have had men who received lump sums and I did not like the owners chasing round, to try to make a bargain with the men for their broken bodies. They visited them in their homes offering them a price—a ridiculous system. No matter what we advised some would accept it. They were prepared to sell their bodies. I have had men who have had £500, and I have gone with them to the bank and invested it for them, in war savings certificates. I have had others who have wasted their money, but I am glad to say they have been in the minority. I have known men who said they were going to start a business, but did not do so, and the money has gone. I am glad that the lump sum question is being got out of the way altogether. I would rather feel that the wives and the kiddies had something coming in every week. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider what I have said and have these things removed, because, if he does not, there will be left a spark which will set fire to the mining industry.
  4.47 p.m.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: The Solicitor-General spoke of the wealth of information which found expression in yesterday's proceedings. I want to endorse that, and to say that to-day has provided more evidence of that wealth of information. We have had a good Debate. It reminds one of pre-war days. It has done credit to the House. I wish the Debate
  1628
  could have been broadcast. If it had been heard by our people throughout the country, particularly in the industrial centres, it would have given great satisfaction. It would have let the world hear British democracy functioning in the national Assembly in the sixth year of the most terrible war mankind has ever faced. There seemed to be some ambiguity yesterday about the attitude of my hon. Friends and, in order to remove it, and to make our position clear, I want to quote extracts from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) yesterday. He said:
  "We welcome the scheme, and when we see the whole plan we hope it will be a little more attractive than it is at the present time … I would now like to supplement a plea that has been made about the rates of benefit. They are not good enough … We are not going to try to wreck this scheme now by pressing for the last ounce, but we ask for something materially better than is proposed."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1944; Vol. 404, C. 1448.]
  We hope that to-day marks the beginning of the end of one of the blackest chapters in British industrial history. In the past, workmen who have been injured through no fault of their own, or who have suffered from industrial diseases, have been treated like criminals. For the second time in my life, our people have toiled to save their country, and they have now a right to expect that the country will save them when they are in need in the future. The misery and suffering caused to families by industrial injuries and diseases cannot be assessed. The dominant factor in industry has been, and is, at the present time, "Get rid of the injured as quickly and cheaply as possible." Clever lawyers and plausible insurance officers are employed to play upon a man's eagerness to return to work. Their attitude has been, "Never mind a declaration of liability; leave it to us, and we will look after your interests." Many broken-hearted men and women have spoken to me about their tragic experiences through taking notice of people who have given advice of that kind.
  From 1922 to 1933, for every £100 paid in premiums, the compensation paid was £56 10s., or only 11s. 4d, out of every £1 paid in premium. That included the legal and medical charges. Management and profits took 8s. 8d., and we hold the view that that represents exploitation by finance capital of both employers and em-

  1629
  ployees. When representatives of the Trades Union Congress gave evidence before the Inter-departmental Committee, it was my privilege to be present. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir W. Beveridge) and Mr. Epps carried out a severe interrogation, and it was made clear that under capitalism workmen's compensation should be the direct responsibility of the employers. Those of us who have been brought up in industry and have suffered from the lashes of it during the last 20 years, are bound, if we are worthy of our fellows, to have a certain amount of bitterness. Industry is carried on for profit, and in the main that determines industrial policy. It is true that enlightened employers are now beginning to realise that it is a business proposition to embark on a big scale policy of welfare. Nevertheless, the main motive power behind industry is profit, and we cannot lose sight of it. I have not time to reason this out in a detailed way because I want to deal with the merits of the scheme before us. I felt bound, however, to place these observations on record.
  So anxious are we for improvement that we accept this White Paper as a basis for discussion. We cannot forget that our people have suffered and have waited long enough for improvements, and we are bound to have regard to that. A new foundation is laid by this White Paper, and it is the desire of my hon. Friends to build upon it a satisfactory scheme of industrial injury insurance. Let me remind the House that we have been promised fundamental improvements in workmen's compensation before. We had a promise in 1917, and I shall never forget the report of the commissioner who investigated industrial unrest in that year. Like many more promises that have been made, that promise has never been fulfilled. We were also promised improvements in 1938, 1942 and 1943, but they have never materialised. Anyone from an industrial area could build a terrible indictment against the way our people have been treated for generations. Therefore, we are bound to accept proposals that have for their object improvements in general.
  In our view, these proposals will pave a way to a new approach and a more humanitarian method of dealing with those who suffer through no fault of their
  1630
  own from industrial injury and diseases. All the people of this country look upon war casualties with the greatest amount of sympathy, and it is time that they looked upon industrial casualties in the same way. We welcome these proposals, and I do so in particular, because they will assist in the elimination of legal quibbling and legal bullying and of the insurance blackmail from which we have suffered so long. Introducing this Debate yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary used these words, which should be emphasised and to which my hon. Friends desire to tie the Government:
  "A social question so important as the welfare of the workman and his family should not be, in my judgment, a matter of argument between him and his employer, with litigation as the machinery for resolving disputes between them."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 8th November, 1944; Vol. 404, c. 1390.]
  We welcome my right hon Friend's statement that the Government proposals are not final, that they were put forward as a basis for discussion. For the first time, he said, it was proposed to transfer to the community as a whole the responsibility for the casualties of industry. What is an injury? When is a person suffering from an industrial disease? The White Paper makes no change in the present definition. I hope that the best legal advice will be pooled, in order that we can try to find a new definition before the Bill is drafted. The trade unions have spent thousands of pounds on litigation on this question. I would like to ask the Minister to consider the phrase "in connection with the employment," or some other basis of entitlement that will improve the position of the injured worker.
  With all the emphasis I can use, I want to say how heartily I welcome the proposal to terminate lump sum settlements. I admit at once that the allowances are an improvement on the Beveridge Report, but the Government seems to start from the present inadequate low standards. Is it a fact that 90 per cent, of the injured workpeople return to their normal employment within 16 weeks and that 65 per cent, return within four weeks? If so, the 13 weeks proposal should be reduced to four weeks and the three days waiting period should be abolished for those who are injured and lose employment for six or more days. We are very concerned about the proposed injury allowance. I am glad that the

  1631
  word "allowance" has been used, because that is all it is. I shall never forget a spokesman for the Government saying that it was the policy of the Government to ratify all the Conventions of the International Labour Office. Therefore I want to remind the Government of the evidence that was given before the Royal Commission, by representatives of the International Labour Office. I am quoting from their document:
  "On May 1st, 1939, the International Labour Office was requested to prepare for submission to the Royal Commission a survey of the workmen's compensation legislation in certain States of industrial importance. The workmen's compensation minimum scale recommendations, 1925, lay down the general principle that in case of incapacity for work, or death, the wage loss should be indemnified to the extent of two-thirds. It refers also to the desirability of instituting measures for vocational rehabilitation."
  It is now nearly 20 years since that Convention was agreed upon; is it the intention of the Government to ratify all I.L.O. Conventions, and are they prepared to ratify this 20-year-old Convention in the Bill when it is brought before the House? This evidence goes on:
  "In the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, different rates of benefits are provided for adults and young persons, for miners and other workmen, and for permanent and temporary workmen. Here is the compensation payable for temporary incapacity in the U.S.S.R.: Under two years"—
  that is to say, those who have been employed for less than two years—
  "fifty per cent.; miners, 60 per cent. Those who have been two years or more in their employment, miners, 100 per cent"—
  and so it goes on. I invite the Government to give consideration to that evidence. On another page, it sets out information about the different States in America. In California, for total incapacity, 65 per cent. of the wages is paid; in Massachusetts, 66 per cent.; in New York, 66⅔ per cent., and so on. The fact of the matter is that during the past 30 years we have been held back to such an extent that we have lagged behind the world in regard to treatment of injured workmen. The time has arrived when the Government should, at least, seeing that we have been fighting for the retention of British democracy, produce more instalments of democracy so that this country can take the lead in social development throughout the world.
  1632
  I happen to have been employed in the engineering industry. For certain skilled workers in that industry, the prewar wages were £3 2s., and their earnings were £3 16s. Their wages at present are £5 2s. and their earnings are, on the average, £6 a week. Are the scales proposed in the White Paper considered adequate for men injured in that industry through no fault of their own? For the second time, those engineers have provided the basis, with the tool fitters making jigs and patterns and providing drawings, for making the mighty effort that we have made in the world-battle for freedom. After all that sacrifice and all that effort, are these scales satisfactory to the Government—after the great efforts made by the men whom I have the honour to represent?
  Mr. Bowles: My hon. Friend has accepted the White Paper.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: I have not the time to go into that matter. We can have a party meeting where we can hammer out those things. If we are to do justice to ourselves in this House, we should be prepared to hammer those things out outside, and to come here united to present our arguments to those who are supposed to be against us. Some people have been critical of the Coalition but one cannot fail to notice that they are members of another Coalition of which some of us refuse to be members.
  Mr. Bowles rose—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): This private conversation must be carried on outside.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: To return to my subject: the married men's allowance should, in my view, be increased by a substantial amount. Rents at the present time are between 12s. and 15s. per week. We live in an ordinary working class house and we have to pay 15s. 4d. a week. That is typical of the rents of houses in that locality. How can we be expected to maintain ourselves adequately, if we have to be satisfied with the scales laid down in these proposals? Those who are responsible for the White Paper should go to the Exchequer and say that they want a very substantial grant, in order to do justice to the people. Let me make it clear that our movement will never be satisfied with the scales of benefit laid

  1633
  down in Part I or Part II of the White Paper.
  Can we have an unequivocal answer to three questions which I wish to ask? The first is: Is it intended that the Government will be guided by this Debate, in the preparation of the Bill and will the Bill be carried through in the next Session? Our people have suffered so long that the time has arrived when substantial improvements ought to be introduced, in a Bill that will guarantee them to our people, before this Parliament breaks up. Secondly, will consideration be given to the need for substantial increases in benefit and to an increase in the Exchequer grant? Will industrial diseases, and especially pneumoconiosis, be dealt with in this Bill? In my view, the employers' contribution to the new scheme should be increased, to guarantee at the very least £10,000,000, in order to make a greater contribution than they are doing to increasing the benefits.
  Mr. David Eccles: Would it not be fair to regard the finance of Parts I and II together? Is it not a fact that the additional amount put upon the employers in Part I very much exceeds the £8,500,000 of which they are being relieved in Part II? In fact, would not the wage-earners of the country be unwise to put too much on costs?
  Mr. Ellis Smith: In regard to the latter point, if the scheme is carried through on the present basis, it will be a good proposition from the employers' point of view. We can see great possibilities of improvement in the new methods. We have had such a sickener of legal quibbling, and of the insurance people, that we want to take it out of the courts. Therefore, we look upon this as a basis upon which to build a satisfactory scheme. In regard to the first part of the hon. Member's question, if the hon. Member accepts that reasoning, he brings it to this, that the employers ought to make the same contribution to the scheme as they are making at present. I do not think there is any analogy between Part II and Part I, because Part I deals with the whole of the people, while Part II deals only with people who run a greater risk than the average citizen. In running that risk, particularly when the motive power of industry is dropping, these people should be more adequately compensated when they suffer injury through no fault of
  1634
  their own than is the average citizen when he is suffering in any other way.
  A terrible story can be told by my hon. Friends who are familiar with the miners' lives, and I do not wish to go into that. Within the few minutes at my disposal I wish to make a special plea for those who are suffering, through no fault of their own, from the deadly industrial disease better known in the country as silicosis. Our present methods of dealing with this are disgraceful. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) has reminded us, we are years behind some other countries in our compensation and treatment of people who suffer, and I plead for a new approach to this problem. No one would suffer from one of these diseases unless he or she was engaged in a certain industry. The logic of that is that those who suffer from industrial diseases should receive special benefits and special treatment. Silicosis is a deadly industrial disease which is very difficult to diagnose. The least we should do in an enlightened community is to give the person who thinks he is suffering from it the benefit of the doubt, instead of turning against him any doubt there is. The people of the area from which I come and have the honour to represent have suffered from this disease, relatively speaking, more than any other section of the community in this country. Anyone who doubts this should go to the Blue Books which have been published in this country in the past 100 years. Then they will be convinced.
  Industrial disease is brought about through no fault of the workpeople. It gradually saps the vitality of the individual. Their manhood or womanhood is gradually undermined, and all this brings about a greater danger of tuberculosis, bronchitis, asthma and consumption. Hundreds of people are suffering from these deadly diseases because they have been employed in particular industries. Therefore I wish to plead with the Government to change the phrases used on page 19, where it states:
  "It is proposed to adhere generally to the principles at present recognised in extending the Acts to diseases due to industrial employment."
  There will be no difference between us on this—that the prevention of accidents and the prevention of industrial disease is more desirable than compensation. There is

  1635
  nothing the people of this country desire more than health and strength to continue in employment as regularly as they can possibly get it. The war has proved that no one in this country can point a finger at the industrial population with regard to their contribution to this war. Surely they should be treated differently from the way they have been treated in the past if, in future, they suffer through no fault of their own.
  Therefore, not only do we want to consider these things, but we ask the Government whther they intend to carry on maximum consultation after the war through production committees and workshop committees, as has been the case during the war, so that those representing the workpeople will be taken into consultation with regard to safety first. At the present time I am having electric short-wave treatment. That has stimulated me to desire to understand the value of this kind of treatment better than I have done in the past. I have been surprised at the benefits that can be derived from electric short-wave treatment and from radiological treatment, now being administered to a small section of people only. If that scientific treatment is good for some it ought to be good for the whole of the people. Those suffering from industrial diseases should receive regular medical attention and regular medical examination in order that these new scientific ideas can be applied to them as soon as possible.
  A few weeks ago I went to a new rehabilitation centre run by the R.A.F. in Northern England. As I went round tears of joy came to my eyes when, thinking of how men had suffered in the past, I saw the treatment which sufferers in the Royal Air Force were now receiving. My hon. Friend the Member for North Islington (Dr. Haden Guest) outlined his experiences yesterday. We say that if this rehabilitation treatment is good for our men injured in the war, it ought to be applied to industrial casualties to minimise suffering in the future.
  5.16 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peake): I should like to associate myself with what the hon. Member said with regard to the quality and interest of the Debate which we have had for the
  1636
  last two days. It has been a fascinating Debate, and hon. Members on all sides have made their contributions in the true spirit of a Council of the Nation. Divisions have not been, as so often in the past upon this thorny and difficult question, upon party lines. In fact, some of the most strenuous arguments in the course of to-day's Debate have been between members of the party opposite. That of course is a welcome change to His Majesty's Ministers, who have so often sat here in workmen's compensation Debates and been roundly abused from all quarters of the House.
  My hon. Friend asked three questions, which I had better answer straight away. First he asked whether the Government would give close attention to what had been said in the course of this Debate. To that my reply is an unqualified affirmative. One of the great difficulties we have had in framing this White Paper has been that we have had to do it in secret. In the preparation of all the workmen's compensation proposals with which I have been associated in the past five years, and have presented to the House of Commons, we have had the advantage of consultations with representatives of both sides of industry, and from the insurance interests which have great experience in this field. On this occasion, we have not been able to follow that course. We have had to proceed and draw up our White Paper without the benefit of such consultations. In the light of this fact, it is remarkable that no hon. Member has been able to point out any inaccurate statement of fact in the White Paper. It may have its imperfections; it may in some respects be, as the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) suggested, incomplete. But we wish to have an opportunity first of considering everything that has been said in the course of this Debate, and in the second place of having consultations with the great interests concerned in this difficult question, before the Bill embodying these proposals is presented to the House.
  Next, my hon. Friend asked whether we were going to introduce the Bill next Session. My answer to that is that if it is humanly possible this course will be taken, but nobody, can tell when the General Election will come upon us. I shall do all I can, and I am sure my right hon. Friend will also, to get these

  1637
  proposals through before this Parliament dissolves, and for this reason: I think we have in this Parliament an absolutely unique opportunity of dealing with this thorny and difficult question. I have been in this House for something like 15 years, and I have sat through many Debates upon this subject. They have been extremely bitter—which one can quite understand—and very little real progress has been made. There is an opportunity in present circumstances, with Members of all parties welcoming these proposals, of getting a really big reform carried through, with a very large measure of general agreement.
  These proposals have been, in the main, supported by hon. Members. They were supported by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark (Mr. Isaacs), whose knowledge of his subject is so profound, the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), who made a very excellent contribution, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards), with whom I have crossed swords on this subject very frequently, the hon and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes), whose speech I should like to commend to hon. Members who were not here last night as an admirable contribution, the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver), and the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. J. Williams), who is too little heard in this House in these days. Good Conservative Members of my party have supported these proposals. They include the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine-Hill), whose views carry so much weight in my party, and the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Colegate). I am sorry that there has only been one speech from the Liberal benches, but it was a very good one. The opponents of these proposals are drawn from the extreme wings, I think, to some extent, of each party—perhaps I am being a little unfair to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) in saying, that. The hon. Member for Oxford and my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. G. Nicholson) were the two critics on this side. On the opposite side, the critics were the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen). This reminds
  1638
  me of the opposition to the proposals for the totalisator, when bishops and bookmakers were found in close association.
  It is a matter of considerable satisfaction to me personally to be privileged to take part in this Debate. I have spent a long time at the Home Office, and certainly no week has ever passed—and very few days—without this subject of workmen's compensation coming under consideration. The hon. Member for Gorbals criticised my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for dishing out one or two compliments in the course of his speech. I am going to disregard the advice of my hon. Friend, and to pay one to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He has been a very good man to work with in the preparation of these proposals. He is a man of courage and he is a man of conviction. We have agreed upon these proposals, and he has been a worthy protagonist of the cause of the injured workman, for which on occasion he and I have had to fight within the ranks of His Majesty's Government. I shall enter into no competition with my right hon. Friend in claiming authorship for these proposals. He, quite rightly, accepted full Ministerial responsibility. He has said that when he came to the Home Office he had certain misgivings as to how he was going to get on with me: I also had misgivings as to how I was going to get on with him, and how he would accept the plans that we already had in mind for the future handling of workmen's compensation.
  In 1940 a Bill, which many hon. Members will have forgotten, was introduced into this House, and subsequently, on the formation of the present Government, was withdrawn. That Bill introduced allowances into workmen's compensation, not only for children but for wives also. There was a Debate, in the course of which the hon. Member far Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan)—whose silence in the course of the last two days has been as eloquent as many of his contributions on this subject have been in the past—made a speech, from which I would like to quote one passage. Amongst all the oratorical sparks that fly from the anvil of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale there are sometimes to be found flashes of political insight. When that Bill was before the House, in 1940, the hon. Member spoke of the desire of the Government to bring workmen's compen-

  1639
  sation into line with the general body of social services. He said:
  "We are witnessing, therefore, an attempt to embody that principle of bringing workmen's compensation into conformity with the rest of the social legislation by means of a long-range policy. The right hon. Gentleman—"
  that was the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—
  "dare not do it at once. If he did we would see through it, and there would be too much row about it, and so he is doing it slowly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th April, 1940; Vol. 360, c. 621.]
  We had an idea at that time that workmen's compensation ought to be dealt with on social insurance lines. The subject matter was, therefore, included in the reference to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir W. Beveridge). I should like to pay a tribute to my hon. Friend—if I may so call him because we had some exchanges outside the House before he came here—for the magnanimity of his speech yesterday. Whilst being a little sad, I think, that we had abandoned the special levy on the hazardous industries, he said, in regard to the principle of the abandonment of the basis of earnings, that he approved of it entirely, and that he wished he had thought of it himself. I acknowledge with gratitude the attitude of the hon. Gentleman. I have always found architects particularly difficult to shift, once they have drawn up their plans. You can sometimes influence them before their plans are drawn, but he is a very broad-minded architect who can adapt his plan after he has presented it. I thank the hon. Gentleman for taking the broad view, and acknowledging that in some respects we have been able to improve upon the proposals in his Report, which has become a household word. This subject has been for too long the sport of party politics. I do not think that any unilateral solution of the problem could ever have been achieved. It is a remarkable thing that, when party conflict is once more starting to rear its head, there has been such a large measure of unanimity about the proposals contained in the White Paper.
  I want to deal, quite shortly, with one or two of the main criticisms which hon. Members have made. Apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford and the hon. Member for Gorbals and one or two other Members whom I have
  1640
  named, there has been widespread acceptance of the general structure of the new scheme. Hon. Members have criticised rates of benefit and so forth on individual, scheme seems to have received a large points, but the main structure of the measure of acceptance. I am particularly sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford is not able to go with us in this matter. Had I not been in office, I should myself have liked to have been one of the group of progressive young Conservatives with which my hon. Friend is associated, of which he was one of the principal promoters, and of which he is now the chairman. I received, indeed, a complimentary copy of the booklet—
  Mr. Hogg: It was intended to be complimentary.
  Mr. Peake: Not complimentary? I did not pay for it. I should say very complimentary. I received a copy of the booklet "Forward by the Right," which I read with both interest, and pleasure. The second sentence is as follows:
  "The Committee was originally formed in November, 1943, with the object of encouraging the Government to take constructive action on the lines of the Beveridge scheme."
  Therefore, it is a matter of some disappointment to me to find that on one of the main proposals, and, I think, the most revolutionary, of the Beveridge scheme, my hon. Friend is unable to support its thesis, and, indeed, desires to retain in its main outline the bad old scheme whose faults have been condemned on all sides of the House. I think that, had I become what is called a financial member of the Tory Reform Committee in its early stages, I might have had some complaint with my hon. Friend, and might be demanding my money back, and asking the appropriate political authorities to try to tighten up the law in regard to political prospectuses.
  The four main lines of criticism have been on these points. First, the retention of the words "arising out of and in the course of the employment." Secondly, the ousting of the jurisdiction of the courts. Thirdly, the new and revolutionary method of assessment in relation, not to the loss of earnings, but to the disability. Fourthly, that the benefit rates in the scheme as set out are too low. May I say a word or two on each of these matters in succession?

  1641
  With regard to the words "arising out of and in the course of the employment," we have given a great deal of thought to this matter. It is perfectly clear, in the first instance, that, if you are to have a separate scheme with special rates of benefit higher than that laid down in the general scheme, you must have a clear line of demarcation between an industrial accident and misfortunes giving entitlement to sickness benefit. It is said that these words have been the major cause of litigation under the old Workmen's Compensation Acts. That, as my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General pointed out, is not the case. Out of all the cases which come before the courts under workmen's compensation, so far as we can ascertain, only about one case in eight is concerned with the construction to be placed on those words. The great majority of the cases that come before the courts are concerned with two issues, which, under the new scheme, will disappear altogether. These are the extent to which the workman has recovered, and the connection between his loss of earning capacity and the original accident. Under our proposals, these two matters will disappear altogether as matters for contention between injured workmen and the fund.
  May I also say, in regard to these words, that we have heard much criticism of them in the Debate in these two days, but only the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Foster) has suggested any alternative. It is very easy to criticise these words, but it is very difficult to find a good alternative for them. The hon. Member for Wigan suggested that we might adopt the words used in the Royal Warrant for Service pensioners, that is, the words: "attributable to or aggravated by." There is one very obvious difficulty about the adoption of the words "aggravated by." "Attributable to" would, in my opinion, by itself, be very similar to the words "arising out of and in the course of the employment," but, when you come to include the words "aggravated by," you obviously open up a completely new field.
  These words are perfectly appropriate in the case of a man disabled in the course of service in the Armed Forces. A man entering the Armed Forces is subjected, on joining, to a rigorous medical examination; he serves His Majesty dur-
  1642
  ing the 24 hours of the day, and it is, therefore, a perfectly legitimate deduction that, if his condition is worse on leaving the Forces than it was upon joining, his condition is attributable to or aggravated by his war service. But, surely, it must be clear to my hon. Friends in all quarters of the House that these conditions are not applicable to industry, where a man spends, perhaps, only one-quarter or one-fifth of the time in the factory or in the mine, and the hazards of the home and the street, and even of the public-house, are, of course, quite outside the purview of the scheme.
  Mr. Sloan: That is not a hazard.
  Mr. Peake: I only say, in regard to these words, that, if any hon. Member can suggest any good alternative, we are perfectly prepared to consider it. The reason why we finally decided to include them in the White Paper was that they had, at any rate, been the subject of a great deal of construction by the courts and that they are, at the present time, pretty well understood. As I say, however, if practical alternatives can be suggested, they will be welcomed and considered.
  Mr. Foster: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, may I ask whether he has taken into consideration the point, which I made in my speech, that there are hundreds of workmen, not necessarily in the mining industry alone, but in other industries, who are suffering from disabilities which they may have had before, but which have been aggravated by the conditions of their employment? I gave instances in respect of the mines, and I cannot for the life of me understand why the provisions of the Royal Warrant applying to the members of the Forces, cannot apply to workmen in industry.
  Mr. Peake: We will certainly look carefully at what my hon. Friend has said, with a view to considering whether any improvement upon those words is possible.
  May I come now to the question of the ousting of the jurisdiction of the courts? May I remind the House that the initiator of the scheme of workmen's compensation, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, had in mind that there should be a friendly and informal hearing before a tribunal consisting of representatives of workmen and employers? That was what he had in mind,

  1643
  but it has only been in the Durham and West Cumberland coalfields that his hopes have been realised. In the second place, Mr. Chamberlain, although he hoped that the great majority of disputes would be settled in this way, wisely provided, as you must provide in a scheme where liability rests upon the individual, an ultimate recourse to the courts of law. Methods of settlement of claims which are appropriate, and, indeed, necessary, to the enforcement of civil rights as between one citizen and another, are not necessarily appropriate to the settlement of claims as between the individual and a fund administered by the State. We have provided in the scheme that the pensions officer can refer cases to the local appeal tribunals without himself giving any decision, and if a difficult case on this question of entitlement should arise, and there should be doubt of any sort or kind, the pensions officer will be instructed to refer the case to the local appeal tribunal and not give a decision himself.
  As far as the second stage of appeal is concerned, there is going to be an Industrial Injury Insurance Commissioner, and at that stage the decisions of the local appeal tribunals will be co-ordinated, so that we have provided a reasonably good machine for the settlement of disputes. But, here again, we shall welcome constructive suggestions for the improvement of this machinery. Let me say on this point finally, that we really must have regard, in a scheme for the benefit of injured workmen, to the views of those bodies that represent them; and I would remind the House that in their evidence before the Royal Commission, not only the Trades Union Congress, but the Miners' Federation of Great Britain both gave considered evidence urging that the recourse to the courts should be done away with. The Trades Union Congress said:
  "Furthermore, we submit that the litigious atmosphere of the courts is altogether unsuited to this class of case. Much injustice results from the absence of facilities for an inexpensive and an informal method of settling claims."
  And the Miners' Federation said:
  "We are strongly of the view that this method of dealing with cases should be entirely abolished."
  If these are the views of the great organisations of interested workpeople, where a trade union is at the service of the in-
  1644
  jured workman to render him assistance, how much stronger is the objection to the method of recourse to courts of law in the case of the workman who is not a member of a trade union and who has no funds at his disposal for briefing counsel and proceeding, if necessary, to the high court of appeal. I am sure that it would be wrong, in a scheme of the character we propose in the White Paper, to retain the machinery of the ordinary courts of law.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot (Glasgow, Kelvin-grove): If it is a dangerous thing to allow recourse to the courts in the case of a person who is a member of a trade union, and who has therefore got a representative on this tribunal, I do not follow the logic of the proposition that it is still more dangerous to allow recourse to the courts in the case of a man who is not a member of a trade union, and is therefore not represented on the tribunal.
  Mr. Peake: I think that my right hon. and gallant Friend must have misunderstood my point, but I regret that I have not the time in the few minutes remaining to me to make it clear to him. I think that the great majority of hon. Members followed the point I was endeavouring to make.
  As regards method of assessment, here we make a revolutionary change. Let me say at once that there is no such thing as a perfect method of assessment. All we claim for the method we propose is that it is infinitely superior to the old method of basing compensation on loss of earnings. As long as compensation was based on loss of earnings, the man was afraid to get well for fear of losing his compensation; he was afraid to undergo rehabilitation or re-training for fear that his compensation might be reduced. Moreover, the old system, as one or two hon. Members opposite pointed out, gave nothing whatever in cases where the worker suffered mutilation or disfigurement arising from industrial causes, which prejudiced the chances of the injured person and very often took half, or more than half, of the pleasure of life away. It seems to me all wrong that a man should lose an eye, or an arm, or that a girl should be facially disfigured, and that no compensation of any sort should be given. I do not pretend that there will not be some cases, such as that of the compositor

  1645
  to which my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark has referred, where possibly our method may give rather less than the old method did, but those cases will be exceptional. They will be rare and, frankly, we do not see any way of taking account of the skill of the workmen without looking to the question of earnings. After all, skill, in this imperfect world, is measured very largely in terms of earnings. There again, we shall welcome suggestions but we have given close attention to this matter for many months, and it is a problem which we are unable to solve. We feel that, by and large, the new system of assessment will confer great benefits upon the injured workmen, and that if individual hard cases arise, they should be dealt with by voluntary methods outside the State Insurance Scheme.
  I come to what is perhaps, the most important of all the criticisms which have been made, and that is in regard to benefit rates. We might have brought a scheme before the House without putting into it any pounds, shilling or pence at all. We might have used x and y and all sorts of algebraical symbols which, I am afraid, would not have been very enlightening to hon. Members. What matters about the scheme of benefits is that they should be balanced, and should bear the right relation to one another. Nobody can say what the cost of living is going to be after the war, when this scheme will come into full operation. Therefore, to enter into argument upon particular benefit rates, on the assumption that those rates are going to be fixed and permanent, is, at the present stage, a little premature. Let me take two examples, because I think there is a certain amount of misunderstanding about the benefit rates. First I take the rate of 40s. proposed for the single man, which was criticised as a basic figure in this scheme by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford. To take that rate without mentioning any of the supplements or any of the services which are to be provided in addition is, I think, a little unfair.
  Mr. Hogg rose—
  Mr. Peake: I really cannot give way.
  Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that I did that, is he?
  Mr. Peake: Yes, as far as I am aware my hon. Friend did not mention the supplementary benefits or the free services to be provided. If I made a mis-statement I am prepared to withdraw it.
  Mr. Hogg: I hope that the withdrawal will be absolute. It is a most untrue statement indeed.
  Mr. Peake: Hon. Members must remember that under this scheme there are going to be very considerable supplements, and very considerable services. In the first place, there will be free hospital treatment and no workmen will be badgered, as in the past, to make a subscription or payment in respect of his treatment in hospital. In the second place, there will be rehabilitation and retraining, and a special allowance at that stage. In the third place, there is an unemployability allowance if the man is unemployable. There is also a completely new feature in the allowance for a dependant other than a wife, which has been asked for by hon. Members opposite for many years, and which we have never been able to introduce into workmen's compensation. There is, moreover, an allowance where constant attendance is necessary.
  Let me, therefore, explain how these allowances work out in two cases. Take a single man with no dependant who has a pension assessed at 100 per cent. The Ministry of Pensions have found that seven out of every eight men assessed at 100 per cent. pension are capable of substantial earnings, so seven out of eight of these men will either have wages to supplement their 40s. pension, or they will have some provision made for them out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund, out of the general social insurance fund, in addition to their pension. In the cases where a man is neither in work and earning wages, nor in receipt of unemployment insurance benefit, there will be this 10s. supplement for unemployability, of which I have spoken; and it will be seen that supposing a man is so badly crippled that he needs constant attendance, he will get an additional 20s. on top of the 10s. supplement for unemployability. That means that a single man with no family responsibilities may, if he is badly knocked out in an industrial accident, be in receipt of 70s. a week

  1647
  under the proposals we have put before the House.
  Let me take one other example which is very relevant to the case which the hon. Member for Gower made early in the Debate yesterday. Let us take the kind of case which excites our greatest sympathy, the married man with three children, who is working, let us say, in a mine, and who is completely crippled, perhaps with a broken spine, from a fall of roof, or blinded in both eyes by explosion. That is the sort of case which excites deep feeling and sympathy. The hon. Member for Gower said that the benefits proposed in our scheme were no better, taking into account the change in the value of money, than the benefits provided by Mr. Joseph Chamberlain in 1897. Let us follow through from 1897 and see what such a case would have received at different stages.
  In 1897, wages were very much lower than they are to-day. I know a man, wholly disabled, upon the railways in the year 1898 whose compensation payment was half his wages and amounted to 8s. 9d. a week. A man wholly knocked out in industry in 1897 with a family drew only 9s. or 10s. a week, as a general rule, by way of Workmen's Compensation. In 1938, 40 years later, that payment was, at a maximum, 30s. All those associated with the mining industry know that the average payment was less than 30s. because it was related to wages, and you might have a man completely crippled needing constant attendance, with a wife and three children, receiving a payment of 25s. or 26s. a week. That is only six years ago. What is the position under the additions we have made since the war? Such a man would get 50s. for himself and his wife, and three children's allowances, which would be 65s. at the present time. What is the position under the White Paper? Such a man under the proposals in the White Paper would get basic pension for himself and his wife, 50s.; 7s. 6d. for the first child, 10S. for the other two children, making another 17s. 6d.; 10s. on account of employability; and up to a further 20s. on account of the need for constant attendance, making a total of £4 17s. 6d. That is a very big advance, and we are dealing, I think, not unfairly with the most serious cases. When the hon. Mem-
  1648
  ber for Gower says that these payments compare unfavourably with the provisions made in 1897, I think he would have great difficulty in making out his case. What we have tried to do has been to devote the greatest amount of money to the hardest cases which excite the greatest amount of sympathy.
  I must pass on as I have only a few minutes left. One or two hon. Members have mentioned the subject of contributions. It is a great step forward, in my view, to get a complete pooling of risk. It is a great thing that those in the safer industries should be paying a little more, in order that those in the dangerous industries should receive a little more. In my view, that is a great step forward. As regards the shares in which contributions are borne, that, again, was a subject to which we gave a great deal of thought, and finally we came down in favour of the view that employers and work people should make equal contributions. That was the view taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed—he provided, of course, that some of the money should be raised by a special levy on the hazardous industries, but after that he came down in favour of one-sixth contribution by the Exchequer, which the Exchequer has accepted, and that the remainder of the contribution of cost should be divided equally between the workman and employer. This is a very difficult question, indeed, but we take the view that rather than pay a penny a week less, in order that the employer should pay a penny a week more, the workpeople would like to feel that they stood in on an equal footing at all stages of this scheme. One of the big ideas underlying this scheme is a new attitude towards industrial injury, to treat it not in conflict but to treat it in partnership. We thought, therefore, that the House at any rate would like us to put forward a proposal in which both partners came in on an equal footing. There again, however, that is a matter to which further attention can be given, and upon which further Debate will take place.
  In conclusion, I should like to say that in the past workmen's compensation has, inevitably, been a cause of bitterness and ill-will in industry, not because of the vices of the parties, not because of the wickedness of the employers or the obstinacy of the workpeople, but because the system itself has been a bad one. We

  1649
  have had this system under which, unless the employer insured, there was no security for benefit to the workman, and if the employer insured, the insurer stood in the shoes of the employer and conducted the whole of the negotiations. Any system in which somebody, whose object is mainly financial, stands in the shoes of somebody else, who is concerned with questions of good will, is, in my view, bound to be a bad one. A system under which an insurance company could conduct litigation up to the highest courts in the land, taking all sorts of technical points and issues against the workman in the name of the employer, is a system which is bad for industrial relations.
  Mr. Collindridge: The right hon. Gentleman is condemning the coal-owners now.
  Mr. Peake: Our new scheme, in our belief, will lead not to ill-will but to harmony. It will give a completely new concept to the status of the injured workman. Instead of appearing, cap in hand, at the employers' office to draw his payment, he will have a new status, much more comparable to that of the "boys in blue" who have been disabled in the service of their King and country. May I finish by saying that, in my view, the new scheme will remove workmen's compensation from the atmosphere of controversy and conflict with which it has been surrounded, and place it, for the future, on a happier and sounder foundation.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved:
  "That this House welcomes the intention of His Majesty's Government, declared in the White Paper presented to Parliament, to replace the existing system of workmen's compensation by a new scheme of Industrial Injury Insurance.

  GERMANY (POST-WAR TERRITORIAL ARRANGEMENTS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]
  6.1 p.m.
  Captain Cunningham-Reid: There is one thing upon which the majority of the people of the world are agreed upon, and that is that Germany must never again be able to plunge the world into war. But just how we are
  1650
  to achieve that desirable objective is anybody's guess. There are plans and suggestions by the score for its attainment; they range from mass sterilisation to mass education, but none of these can guarantee success. Some feel that there can be only one absolutely certain way of preventing Germany from making war on mankind again, and that is to annihilate every German. Although many people would readily agree to that drastic solution it cannot be advanced as a civilised or practical proposition. Yet there is a practically certain method whereby Germans can be made war impotent, without calling upon the firing squads and without unduly disturbing the tender susceptibilities of the most fervid humanitarians.
  In a sentence, it is the absorption of Germany by its neighbouring States. This is something entirely different from, and much more feasible than, the plan for carving up Germany into a lot of small German States. The defect of that carving up plan is that the geographical expression, Germany, is merely divided into a number of small components. So long as you have that situation you have the ever-present danger of "unification moves," with their potent appeal to Germanism.
  The mistake many are inclined to make is in believing that a common language is an affinity that binds people. What about the American Wars of Independence, or our relationship with Southern Ireland? Germany, in spite of Goebbels' slogans and Hitler's rantings, is not, and never has been, "one folk and one State," except in the pursuit of war. The antagonism of the Northern and Southern Germans is classical. Early on, the various tribes of Germans were brought together by warlike activities, in the course of which one group—the Prussians—acquired supreme command. These Prussians—and not so long ago—in the face of all protests, transformed the geographical term, "Germany," into a political, concept. This political unification was developed by Bismarck and carried to its peak of fanaticism by Hitler and his gang.
  Clearly then splitting up Germany into separate German States is no solution. Neither is the idealistic suggestion that the German people can be re-educated by "foreigners." The Germans recently

  1651
  found to their cost that they were unable to do that to the vanquished French though they tried their best. The only people who could re-educate the various German groups into a new way of life are those who live on the present perimeter of Germany, who already have much in common with their German neighbours, because of the economic, geographical, climatic and other factors which condition them all. Therefore it is suggested that those nations that lie on Germany's border should be allocated the adjacent German territory, which would give them the essential authority for the necessary "education." To show how all this is feasible I have had a special map prepared by experts, and I should be very pleased to give a copy to any hon. Member who would like to have one. The proposed frontiers, as shown on this map, have been arrived at after careful consideration of such human factors as tastes, religion, temperament, culture, habits and such like—the same language has been a secondary consideration.
  Under this plan the absorbed peoples, hitherto German, would not become Stateless. They would form part and parcel of the nation within whose borders their former land was now merged, and within a generation or two, as has been so often shown in history, what with deaths and inter-marriages, they would lose their identity as a separate people. Yet they would not be controlled, re-educated and absorbed by hosts with whom they had nothing in common, as would be the case if the British, Americans or Russians were to attempt to do any such thing. Quite the contrary. They would have found a better way of life, with people not fundamentally different from themselves but politically dedicated to democratic principles and so able to guide them away from the false gods of dictatorships. The new grouping would be biologically, economically and ethnographically compatible. Look at the position to-day. It is well
  1652
  known that the food, architecture and costumes of the Bavarians are hardly distinguishable from those of their Austrian neighbours.
  The austere Protestant culture of North Germany is almost identical with that of the Danes, and the similarity of geographical surroundings gives them the same philosophies and foods. I think that having the same tastes in food is important because we so often find that those who appreciate, for example, steak and onions, get on very well together, in the same way as do those who habitually enjoy goulash, or macaroni, or, for that matter, hot-dogs. Coming from food to glass, I merely want to point out as another example of what I am attempting to demonstrate, that the great glass industries of Central Europe and the people who work in them, are similar in Saxony and Bohemia. One could amplify these examples ad libitum.
  Thus, starting from the belief that the continued existence of Germany, whole or sub-divided into German States, as a political unity is undesirable, we see that there are very strong biological and ethnological reasons for absorbing the present Germany into her neighbouring States. There are few valid historical arguments against such a course. Economic considerations may give rise to some minor objections, but the most potent problem to be faced is that some of Germany's neighbours may be reluctant to have parts of the Reich plus their inhabitants thrust upon them. In 1918, nations were anxious to have the size of their countries increased, but to-day in some instances, I have no doubt that there are nations that would have to be persuaded to do this. But it would be their duty as their contribution to the maintenance of European security.
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and, 40 Members not being present, the House was adjourned at a Quarter after Six o'Clock till To-morrow.

DEMOBILISATION
  Civilian Employment
  Civilian Employment
  Higher Education (Facilities)
  Higher Education (Facilities)
  Women's Occupations (Training)
  Women's Occupations (Training)
  Teachers
  Teachers
  BOMB DAMAGE REPAIRS (SERVICE MEN)
  BOMB DAMAGE REPAIRS (SERVICE MEN)
  EVACUEES (BILLETING ALLOWANCES)
  EVACUEES (BILLETING ALLOWANCES)
  WAR DAMAGE (LONDON BOROUGHS, RATEABLE VALUE)
  WAR DAMAGE (LONDON BOROUGHS, RATEABLE VALUE)
  GERMAN INVASION PLANS (PHOTOGRAPHS)
  GERMAN INVASION PLANS (PHOTOGRAPHS)
CIVIL DEFENCE
  Fascist Organisation (Propaganda)
  Fascist Organisation (Propaganda)
  Surplus Vehicles (Disposal)
  Surplus Vehicles (Disposal)
  SOCIAL SECURITY (FINANCE, ESTIMATES)
  SOCIAL SECURITY (FINANCE, ESTIMATES)
  ORPHANAGES (SECONDARY EDUCATION PUPILS)
  ORPHANAGES (SECONDARY EDUCATION PUPILS)
AGRICULTURE
  Smallholdings
  Smallholdings
  Agricultural and Veterinary Education
  Agricultural and Veterinary Education
  Demonstrations and Experiments
  Demonstrations and Experiments
  Agricultural Improvement Council
  Agricultural Improvement Council
  SCOTLAND (IMMUNISED CHILDREN)
  SCOTLAND (IMMUNISED CHILDREN)
  GERMAN AND BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR (TASKS)
  GERMAN AND BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR (TASKS)
  INDIA (EMERGENCY COMMISSIONED OFFICERS)
  INDIA (EMERGENCY COMMISSIONED OFFICERS)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Post-War Credits
  Post-War Credits
  Post Office Workers (Tax Deduction Cards)
  Post Office Workers (Tax Deduction Cards)
  JAMAICA (SHIPPING PASSAGES)
  JAMAICA (SHIPPING PASSAGES)
  DIPHTHERIA RETURNS (CORRECTIONS)
  DIPHTHERIA RETURNS (CORRECTIONS)
BRITISH ARMY
  Vitaminised Chocolate (Holland and Belgium)
  Vitaminised Chocolate (Holland and Belgium)
  A.T.S. (Demobilisation Allowance)
  A.T.S. (Demobilisation Allowance)
  Convalescent Camps (Italy)
  Convalescent Camps (Italy)
  Polish Forces (Requisitioned Premises, London)
  Polish Forces (Requisitioned Premises, London)
  Entertainments
  Entertainments
Preamble
The House met at twelve of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

  THE MURDER OF LORD MOYNE.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE) (Lord Cecil): My Lords, on Tuesday last I undertook to inform the House as soon as fuller details about the assassination of Lord Moyne had been received. It has now been reported from Cairo that the two prisoners have made the following confession: "We are members of the Fighters for the Freedom of Israel organization, and what we have done was done on the instructions of this organization." The organization is that known as the Stern Group. The prisoners stated that they were sent down by this group for the express purpose of murdering Lord Moyne. The reason they give is that he was head of the political department of the British Government in the Middle East, and was carrying out a policy which was against that of the Jewish Nationalists. The Stern Group therefore decided to kill him. The identity of the prisoners is still not established, but they have given their names as Moshe Cohen Itzak and C. Salzmann.
  The facts of the murder so far as they can be established are as follows: Lord Moyne was returning in his car to lunch at his house at approximately 1.15 p.m. In car with him were his lady secretary by his side and in front his A.D.C. and driver. As the car entered the short drive leading to the front door, two men were noticed outside the gate. When the car drew up at the door of the house, Lord Moyne's A.D.C. got out to open the door of the house, and the driver got out to open the door of the car. It appears that the two men had followed the car up the drive. They shot the driver dead as he passed behind the car to get to the right-hand door and then fired through the door at Lord Moyne, hitting him three times. They then fled, mounted bicycles and rode away.
  1008
  Neither the A.D.C. nor the lady secretary was injured. The former gave immediate chase to the assailants, while the latter summoned help, which arrived within ten minutes. Medical assistance was on the spot in quarter of an hour. The A.D.C. informed a police station close at hand, the police from which pursued the criminals, stopping a passing car for the purpose. Meanwhile, however, a passing Egyptian police constable on a motor bicycle was warned of what had happened, and promptly gave chase on his motor bicycle. He overtook the criminals at the entrance to the Bulak Bridge, where they opened fire on him, firing fifteen rounds. He returned the fire, wounding one man and then riding the other into the kerb. With the aid of other police who came up he effected the arrest of both. For his very gallant conduct this police constable has already been decorated and promoted by order of His Majesty King Farouk.
  At one time Lord Moyne was regularly escorted by Egyptian police in a car which accompanied his own, and a police guard was stationed at his house by day as well as by night. Some months ago, however, the police escort car and day guard at the house were dispensed with on Lord Moyne's direct instructions. The investigation continues and is being conducted with all vigour by the Egyptian authorities, in full cooperation with the Palestine Police. Senior officials of the Palestine Police have paid a special visit to Cairo. Both His Majesty King Farouk and the Egyptian Government have throughout been most sympathetic and helpful in every way.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL.
12.14 p.m.
House again in Committee (according to Order):
[The LORD STANMORE in the Chair.]
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON moved, after Clause 48, to insert:
Provisions as to ecclesiastical property.
"( ).—(1)Where the fee simple in any ecclesiastical property is in abeyance it shall treated for the purposes of a compulsory purchase of the property authorized under this Part of this Act as vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and any notice to treat shall be served, or be deemed to have been served, accordingly.
(2)Where under this Act any notice is required to be served on an owner of land, and the and is ecclesiastical property, a like notice shall be served on the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
(3) In this Act the expression 'ecclesiastical property' means land belonging to any ecclesiastical benefice or being or forming part of a church subject to the jurisdiction of the bishop of any diocese or The site of such a church, or being or forming part of a burial ground subject to such jurisdiction."
The right reverend Prelate said: The new clause which I propose relates to ecclesiastical property of the Church of England—that is, the site of a church or consecrated burial ground, or the site of a parsonage, or glebe belonging to the benefice. The definition of "owner" in Clause 58 of the Bill is that an owner is one "who is for the time being entitled to dispose of the fee simple of the building or land." There is a sense in which an incumbent is the owner of these ecclesiastical properties, but he can dispose of them only under certain statutory provisions, and the guardian of those statutory provisions is the Ecclesiastical Commission. It appears right, therefore, that notice should be served both upon the Ecclesiastical Commission and upon the incumbent of the benefice, as they are both directly concerned. That is secured by subsection (2) of this new clause.
There is, however, another case which may arise, where the incumbency is vacant for the time being; and at present, owing to war conditions, some benefices are being kept vacant for a considerable time. In that case there would be nobody to protect the interests of the benefice or to give a discharge as temporary owner of the ecclesiastical property. Subsection (1) of the new clause, therefore, secures that where there is no incumbent the property shall be regarded for the purposes of this Bill as being vested in the Ecclesiastical Commission. In other words, it clears the way for the appropriate action in relation to ecclesiastical property. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 38, at end insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): I would advise the Committee to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 49 [Notification of purchases of war damaged land to War Damage Commission]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert at the end of subsection (1):
"Provided that this subsection shall not apply to a notice to treat deemed by virtue of the Sixth Schedule to this Act to have been served, but when the purchasing authority under a purchase order providing for expedited completion notify the fact that the order has become operative to the proper officer of a council mentioned in Section sixteen of this Act for the purpose of the registration of the order in the register of local land charges, or, if the purchasing authority are such a council, when the order is so registered by their proper officer, they shall notify the Commission of that action having been taken."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is really the transfer of a provision which is now to be found in the Sixth Schedule, and is therefore merely a rearrangement. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 3, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 50:
Service of Notice.
50. Any notice or other document required or authorized to be served or given under this Act may be served or given either—
(f) if it is not practicable after reasonable inquiry to ascertain the name or address of a person on whom it should be served or to whom it should be given as being a person having an interest in land, by addressing it to him by the description of "owner" of the land (describing it) to which the notice or other document relates, and by delivering it to some parson on the land or, if there is no person thereon to whom it can be delivered, by affixing it, or a copy of it, to some conspicuous part of the land; or
(g) where it is a notice or other document that should be served on or given to a person as being an occupier of land, by addressing it to him by the description of "occupier" of the land (describing it) to which the notice or other document relates, and either posting it in a prepaid registered letter addressed as aforesaid and marked in such manner as may be prescribed for securing that it shall be plainly identifiable as a communication of importance or delivering it in a letter addressed and marked as aforesaid to some person on the land.
12.21 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out paragraphs (f) and (g), and insert:
"Provided that a notice or other document that is required or authorized to be served on or given to a person as having an interest in, or being an occupier of, any premises shall be deemed to be duly served on that person;—

(i) where he is a person having an interest and his name cannot be ascertained after reasonable inquiry, or where he is an occupier, if it is addressed to him by the description of the owner' or 'the occupier' as the case may be, of the premises (describing them) and delivered, left or sent as mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of this section;

(ii) where he is a person having an interest and his address cannot be ascertained after reasonable inquiry, or where he is an occupier, if the notice or other document (addressed to him either by name or in accordance with paragraph (i) of this proviso, and marked in such manner as may he prescribed for securing that it shall be plainly identifiable as a communication of importance) is sent in a prepaid registered letter to those premises and is not returned to the authority sending it, or is delivered to some person on those premises, or is affixed conspicuously to some object on those premises;

and where a notice or other document is required to he served on or given to all persons having interests in, or being occupiers of, premises comprised in any land, and any of that land appears to the authority required to serve or give the notice or other document to be unoccupied, it shall be deemed to be duly served on all persons having interests in, and of all occupiers (if any) of, premises comprised in the land so appearing to the authority (other than an owner who in accordance with the provisions of this Act in that behalf has furnished the authority with an address for service of the notice on him) if it is addressed to 'the owners and any occupiers' of the land so appearing (describing it) and marked as aforesaid and is affixed conspicuously to some object on that land."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment deals with an important matter, although in one sense it is a matter of detail. It arises, as the Committee will see, in connexion with the clause which provides the method of notification. There is obviously a special difficulty in some of these cases when we are dealing with "blitzed" land, because there will be cases where it will be extremely difficult to find the interests concerned. There is the further difficulty that in some cases the effect of the war damage will have been to obliterate boundaries, and it will be difficult to know who is the person
1012
to whom the intentions of the authority are to be communicated. There is only one way to meet that, and it is to provide that in necessary cases the notice shall be put on the land. That is the method which is regularly followed in many branches of the law. This draft, which has been very carefully prepared, will be found to deal with the matter quite satisfactorily. I need not read it through, for it is one of the Amendments which convey their own meaning by being read. If we kept paragraphs (f) and (g) as they are now in the Bill that really would lead to some very capricious results, and the attempt we have made here—I think it is a successful one—is to provide a better and more logical machinery. I do not think anything more can be done than what is provided for here, and of course the cost of notice on the ground will only arise where you cannot find the owner.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 34, leave out paragraphs (f) and (g), and insert the said proviso.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD AMMON: May I ask the Lord Chancellor's advice on this matter? I have an Amendment following this and the point it deals with seems to me to be already met in the concluding words of this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I had noticed that my noble friend had his Amendment down. Indeed the same point had been raised in the Commons and a promise had been made to meet it. It is met in the Government Amendment and the only note I had written down on Lord Amnion's Amendment was "Government Amendment covers this." I feel no doubt that that is so.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 51:
Definition of "local planning authority"; and joint committees.
51.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, in this Act the expression a "local planning authority" means such a council as is mentioned in subsection (1) of Section two of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The first Amendment on this clause is a purely drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 9, leave out ("Subject to the provisions of this section").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after subsection (1), to insert:
"(2) Subsection (2) of Section two of the said Act (which empowers a county district council to relinquish any of its powers and duties under that Act to the county council) shall apply as if the powers and duties of a county district council under Section one of this Act were powers and duties under that Act, and—

(a) in relation to an application under the said Section one made by a county council, references in that section to a local planning authority and to the area of a local planning authority shall he construed respectively as references to the county council and to the area of the local planning authority by whom the power of making the application has been relinquished to the county council;

(b) the reference in paragraph (b) of subsection (i) of Section two of this Act to an order made on the application of the local planning authority therein referred to shall include a reference to an order made on the application of a county council to whom that authority has relinquished the power of making the application; and

(c) the references in subsection (5) of Section two of this Act to the authority on whose application an order was made shall, where the order was made on the application of a county council, be construed as a reference to the local planning authority by whom the power of making the application was relinquished to the county council."

The noble and learned Viscount said: In moving this Amendment I trust it will not be opposed in any quarter. The County Councils' Association have asked for a provision under which the powers of the local planning authority to apply to the Minister for an order under Clause 1 declaring land in an area of extensive war damage and associated areas to be subject to compulsory purchase, would be relinquished to a county council. That seems to be a desirable provision.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 12, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendments are consequential. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 56, line 23, leave out the second ("the") and insert ("all local planning authorities being")
Page 56, line 40, leave out ("the") and insert ("local planning authorities being")
Page 56, line 42, after ("authority") insert ("county council")
Page 56, line 45, after ("authority") insert ("of the authority by whom the power of making the application has been relinquished to the county council")
Page 56, line 45, leave out ("of the constituent authorities") and insert ("local planning authority being a constituent authority")
Page 57, line 5, leave out ("or") and insert ("of the authority by whom the said power has been relinquished as aforesaid or of a local planning authority being")
Page 57, line 13, after ("authority") insert ("of a county council to whom the power of making such an application has been relinquished by that authority").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert after Clause 51:
Provisions as to London.
" .Where an order has been made, on an application under subsection (1) of Section 1 of this Act, as respects land in a metropolitan borough, or authorization of the compulsory purchase of any such land has been given under any of the provisions of this Part of this Act, the Minister may, if an application in that behalf is made to him by the London County Council, by order direct that notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) of the last preceding section the council of that metropolitan borough shall, as respects all or any of the land, as may be specified in the application, he the local planning authority for the purposes of such of the provisions of this Part of this Act as may be so specified, and that the said provisions shall apply as if the application under subsection (1) of Section 1 of this Act had been made by the council of the metropolitan borough, or the authorization had been given to that council, as the case may be.
An order under this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order of the Minister made in accordance with an application in that behalf by the London County Council."
The noble Lord said: This, of course, is an important matter. The clause gives effect to an agreement reached between the London County Council and the metropolitan boroughs, and it is to enable a metropolitan borough council to become the local planning authority for the purpose of the acquisition and development of land, whether "blitzed" or blighted, in the metropolitan boroughs so far as may be agreed with the London County Council. It is just a co-operative clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 15, insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD LATHAN: I should like to commend to your Lordships this new clause, which will enable a wider measure of cooperation to be exercised between the London County Council and the metropolitan boroughs in regard to replanning and re-development than otherwise would have been the case. I should also like on behalf of the County Council and metropolitan boroughs to express my thanks to the Minister for the care he has taken in framing the clause and, if it would be in order, to extend the same thanks to the officers of his Ministry.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
12.29 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, after Clause 51, to insert as a new clause:
"In exercising the powers given to him under the Town and Country Planning Acts, including this Act, the Minister shall have regard to the distribution of industry and population and the social disadvantages and strategic dangers of congested or unduly extended building development, and to the necessity of securing a proper balance of population as between one area and another, and the decentralization of excessive concentrations of population and industry to the smaller towns."
The noble Lord said: I should like to make clear that I am not seeking by this Amendment to introduce any new principle into the Bill. The Government of course have already accepted the main ideas of the Barlow Report, which are decongestion of the great cities and a better balance of industrial population; and indeed under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1943, the Minister is already charged with the task of guiding the formulation by local authorities of planning schemes which will adequately reflect national policy for urban and rural development. So I very much hope that my noble friend will think that mere is no harm in putting in this clause, which does reflect the policy of national planning to which the Government are already committed. In the sincere and earnest and, may I say, confident hope that the Government will accept this clause, I say no more. I beg to move,
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 15, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I strongly support the Amendment which my noble friend Lord Balfour has just moved, and
1016
I sincerely hope the Government will accept it. I have very little to add to what my noble friend has said, but I think there is one thing which is overwhelmingly in favour of the Amendment. As the Bill stands, there is little or nothing in it to justify its title. It may be a good Bill, it may be a bad Bill; it may be necessary, it may be urgently required; but it is very difficult to see how it can properly be called a Town and Country Planning Bill. If the new clause which my noble friend Lord Balfour has proposed be inserted it would go a long way to justify the title of the Bill, and for that reason, if for no other, I hope the Government will accept it.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I would like to support the Amendment for exactly the same reason. Although the Bill may not be entirely town and country planning it will be known as the Town and Country Planning Bill and a hint of planning in such a Bill is not a bad thing.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I would also like to support the Amendment. It seems to me that we have to remember that there may be people hereafter who have forgotten all that has been said both in the other place and in this House, and it is just as well that they should be reminded throughout of the principles which should guide the Minister at some future date.
THE MINISTER OF RECONSTRUCTION (LORD WOOLTON): I wonder whether this is really wise. The noble Earl is not quite fair to the Bill when he indicates that, whether it is a good Bill or a bad one, it does not deal with planning. If he will be good enough to look at the introduction, he will see that Clauses 28 to 43 are explicitly stated as being planning provisions. That is by the way. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour, knows quite well that with the sentiments that he expresses in his Amendment, I find myself in complete accord, and so, indeed, does this House, because on a previous Motion on Land Control—when you will remember we had the various "D's"—decontrol, decongestion (I have forgotten what the other one was)—we did unanimously adopt it. We agreed on that and, therefore, there is no issue between us as to whether we are all in accord. But I ask you: Is it really wise to put this

1017
clause in this Bill at this place telling the Minister what his powers are—"The Minister shall have regard" to these particular things. You observe that it is limiting. I do not know why the noble Lord omitted to mention two most important factors—namely, agriculture on the one hand and transport on the other, both of which I should have thought were most important provisions for the Minister to have in mind.
I object to the clause because it is limiting. I object to it because it seems to me to be unnecessary to put in this Bill a clause which appears to me just to tell the Minister to do the things which he was appointed to do, and then to proceed at this stage to define what he was appointed to do and to define it inadequately. Moreover, constantly those who have been interested in town and country planning have regarded this as something which was a growing thing, and here we are proposing quite precisely to define it with limitations in this clause. It is for those reasons that I wish the noble Lord would not press this Amendment. It certainly is not because I do not want the Minister to have these things in mind. I go further and say that if he is doing his job properly he will constantly have these and other things in mind. I see no reason at all for introducing a clause in this Bill either defining or limiting his functions.
LORD LATHAM: I am a little disturbed about this clause from another point of view and that is as to whether the inclusion of this clause within the Bill might net lead to this, that an appeal from an order made by the Minister to a court—and there is power in the Bill to appeal against the confirmation of a compulsory purchase order within 28 days of its being confirmed—might incur the risk of the court taking the view that, in exercising his power to confirm the compulsory purchase order, the Minister had not taken into account the considerations specified in this proposed new clause.
If I may say so with every respect, we have seen some extraordinary decisions as regards the exercise of powers by Ministers—notably in regard to the acquisition of land for housing purposes. There was a decision some few years ago which held up for over two years the effective acquisition of land for housing
1018
purposes because the court, quite properly within its power and jurisdiction, took a certain view; and I am a little disturbed that some such danger might arise from the inclusion of this clause. With its affirmation of faith I entirely agree. I am not quite persuaded that it is a wise thing to incorporate affirmations of faith in a clause in a detailed machinery Bill of this kind, and I hope the noble and learned Viscount may be able to assure the House on the point I have made.
12.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: The observations which have just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Latham, are very much in line with my own opinions on this clause. It seems on the face of it a very unobjectionable clause, and in fact very advisable as a declaration, but the more one considers it the more one has to take into account its implications which do not, perhaps, at first sight appear on the surface. Let me say generally with regard to the objects in view in the clause that I, like the noble Lord, Lord Latham, am entirely in agreement with them. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, did me a little injustice in a recent debate in declaring that I was quite uninterested in national planning and cared only for little bits of useful planning here and there and in saving portions of the coastline. In another speech he said that I was the only member of the House who did not think that the existing cities were too big—that I was not in favour of decongestion of overcrowded populations. That is, of course, an entire misrepresentation, or it would be more polite to say a misapprehension of the position—which I have very frequently, perhaps too frequently, presented to your Lordships.
What I said in regard to the great cities was, that while in their present form and arrangement they were undoubtedly open to the gravest objection and animadversion, it might be that in the future they would be decentralized, reorganized and replanned in such a way as no longer to make it excessive to have a city of two or three million. The London plan, for example, for which the largest credit is due to the London County Council, and plans such as that of Plymouth which was mentioned yesterday, are such as would entirely transform the whole character of our large towns and might remove completely the objection to great conglomera-

1019
tion of populations of this kind. It might be that in future the public would approve and prefer to have cities of that character rather than small towns that did not present the same advantages from industrial and other economic standpoints.
Having made it clear that the purposes in view in this clause are, in my opinion, excellent, one has to remember, as has -been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Wool-ton, that the declaration leaves out certain very important factors and in particular the interests of agriculture and the improvement of transport. The character of our cities now depends almost entirely upon the development of proper means of transport. Unless we had tube railways such conglomerations as we have now in London would be impossible. If you have an immensely improved system of tube railways and also surface transport, you may entirely change the character of your towns. We are told now that a man is offered the choice either of living near his work and having a flat, or living a long way from his work with perhaps an hour's journey each way and having a family house. But if transport is improved he might go to the same district and have a proper family house and his journey would take not an hour but possibly twenty minutes. That would transform the whole situation. For that reason transport is intimately connected with all questions of planning. No reference is made to transport and indeed the Minister of Planning is not the Minister of Transport.
Similarly, many of these questions of planning affect not only one Ministry but several Ministries. The allocation of industry, which is here referred to, is something which must be considered, under present Ministerial arrangements, by the Board of Trade. Is the Minister of Planning the person to say whether or not the cotton industry should be developed in Lancashire or whether it should go to other places? Is he the person to say what should be the future development of the coal mines as regards districts? Further, what strategic considerations should be borne in mind in planning new cities or satellite towns? All these are really matters for the Cabinet and for a Committee or a group of Ministers, including the President of the Board of Trade, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Agriculture and, of
1020
course, the Minister of Town and Country Planning. That is the present lay-out of the Ministerial system. There is such a Committee of Ministers- now presided over by the Minister of Reconstruction. He also does not appear in this clause.
In creating a new Ministry of Town and Country Planning we were in danger of creating a very serious complication in the governing machine and of creating Ministers who might easily be brought into conflict with many important colleagues. When I mentioned Ministers just now I should have mentioned also the Minister of Health, who is concerned with housing. These Ministers all have their own points of view and are not to be overridden by a Departmental Minister on the same level as this—namely, the Minister of Town and Country Planning. Consequently we have to have a Cabinet Committee presided over by a Minister, I will not say of senior rank, but of wider scope and larger authority like the present Minister of Reconstruction. A declaratory clause in this particular Town and Country Planning Bill which deals with matters affecting all these other Departments, seems to me, on the whole, to be undesirable. Consequently I find myself in agreement with the Government and with the noble Lord, Lord Latham, in thinking that while the purposes of this clause are excellent, the procedure which it proposes is open to very serious objection.
12.45 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I need not tell your Lordships I am very disappointed with the reception which this clause has met with. I will say a word first in reply to my noble friend opposite Lord Samuel. I would like to say that I think, if I may say so with great respect, it was very wise on his part to take the opportunity which he has done to remove misconceptions which, again with great respect I say, were due to his own words in the debate that I made reference to and to which he has taken exception. It is perfectly true my noble friend said that he thought London, for instance, would be quite a nice place when my noble friend Lord Latham had done with it. The real point at issue between my noble friend Lord Samuel and me is that my noble friend is not willing to lend a hand in preventing London getting any bigger. That is the fundamental issue of policy.

1021
That is why I say he is not interested in national planning. It is a fundamental issue. However successful Lord Latham is in beautifying and cleaning up London, it still is against the national interest that London should go on getting bigger and bigger. That I conceive to be the real difference between those of us who are in favour of national planning and those who are not.
Lord Samuel also said that we were in danger when we set up a Ministry of Planning of bringing about overlapping and—I am not using his exact words—the possibility of difficulties between different Ministries. He said there is a Cabinet Committee now sitting to co-ordinate these differences. That is perfectly true; but what disturbs me about the position is that that Cabinet Committee, as far as I know, is of an ephemeral and transient character and one of the questions I put to the Leader of the House, to which I hope we are going to have an answer on Third Reading, is: What is the permanent machinery which is necessary to co-ordinate the development of all these different Departments? I think my noble friend Lord Samuel is now arguing against the setting up of a Minister of Planning because a Minister of Planning, without that co-ordination, is going to be in, and is in, an impossible position. The Minister of Planning, if he cannot do what my Amendment suggests he ought to do, ought never to have been created. There ought to have been a permanent Central Planning Authority which would have been an inter-departmental body. I did my best to argue that at the time, but I was defeated very largely by the influence a' the noble Viscount opposite who had a great deal to do with the setting up of the Ministry of Planning. Without such permanent inter-departmental arrangements this is going to prove a very great mistake.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: May I interrupt at this stage to say that I entirely support my noble friend's plea to the Government that on Third Reading they should make it clear to the House, and to the public, what constitution they have in mind for the Central Planning Authority? As for myself I would say that from the beginning I have on every occasion urged that there should be at one and the same time a Ministry of Planning dealing with a
1022
number of extremely important and specific questions which could only be handled by a Minister of Planning, and at a different level a Cabinet Committee which should be a permanent Standing Committee presided over by a senior member of the Government to co-ordinate the various Departments which are concerned. Indeed I have suggested on more than one occasion that the right model would be the Committee of Imperial Defence presided over by the Prime Minister himself, or by the Deputy Prime Minister. After the war I certainly think that should be a permanent character of our central administration. I apologize to my noble friend for having interrupted him at such length.
LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGH: I am grateful to my noble friend for having given that exposition and for having gone so far in agreement with my views, though he is not in complete agreement. If he would confess that he would like to stop the growth of London we should be completely ad idem; but I see he does not rise to that fly.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: It depends on the meaning of London. If it is to he the same London as now I agree there is a great deal to be said for avoiding congestion, but I do not want to tie the next generation to certain boundary lines when circumstances may render those boundary lines the wrong ones.
LORD LATHAM: I ask the noble Lord not to acid to the problems of London by collecting confessions.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am grateful to my noble friend for going some way to meet me, but I am still unrepentant and I still think that however much you may improve London it is already big enough. My noble friend opposite spoke about transport and said that everything depended on transport; that if transport could be improved that would revolutionize the whole situation.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: It was said in the time of Queen Elizabeth that London was impossibly large.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: But they had not tube railways in Elizabethan days. We have tube railways and the tube railway authorities themselves have said that they cannot improve on

1023
the present situation. They can go on extending the railways, but they have told us that at peak periods there will always be straphangers. Mr. Frank Pick gave evidence before a Committee—I I cannot name the Committee but I am positive of the fact—that at the peak hours there will always be undue congestion and there will always be straphangers. This is not a thing we can remedy by the extension of tube railways. We can, of course, make them longer, and my noble friend opposite seems to want people to have longer journeys. There have been great improvements in the efficiency of the tube and there have been great improvements in sporting guns. Since the days of the muzzle loader we have greatly improved them, and I think the double-barrel ejector gun is as perfect a sporting weapon as you can get. But I do not think, however much you may improve the tubes, you are going to get that pitch of improvement which will reconcile my noble friend opposite to a bigger London. Perhaps I am getting rather far from my Amendment, but it is not entirely my fault, and I think I was entitled to reply to what was said on that subject.
Now I will turn to what was said by my noble friend in charge of the Bill. He quite agrees with the sentiment of my Amendment but one of his objections is that it is' limited and that I have not said anything about transport and agriculture. There is a Minister of Transport and a Minister of Agriculture, and quite clearly if I had said anything about transport and agriculture that would give him an excellent reason for saying the clause was unacceptable. He was rather inclined to say it was too limited, but I have tried to elaborate the functions which the Minister of Planning really has to carry out. Finally, I beg my noble friend to reconsider his refusal. It is no use blinking the fact that there is a grave suspicion of Government planning policy in a very large section of the population. There has been so much hesitation, so much delay, so much failure to implement promises, that the public do not know where they stand. They do not know whether the Government mean business or not. It is common knowledge that there are a large number of people in high places in this country in the Government and out of it who do not believe in national planning.
1024
This hesitation, this refusal to accept what is really an innocuous clause, can do nothing but add to this suspicion and make people doubt whether the Government really are in earnest about this planning business. I cannot press the matter to a Division, but if my noble friend cannot accept the Amendment now I still beg him for everybody's sake, for the sake of the Government most of all, to think the matter over between now and the next stage and sec if a better form of words can be devised to affirm in some positive way the Government's faith in national planning.
12.57 p.m.
LORD JESSEL: I want to make one or two points about this matter. My noble friend Lord Balfour referred to Mr. Frank Pick's evidence about the extension of the tubes and he also talked about double-barrel guns. Surely some of the tubes could be duplicated. There is another important point about transport. We have heard something about the L.C.C. plan, which is a very good plan, and I should like to thank them for the concessions made to the borough councils. But when we are talking about urban development surely we must remember that probably by the use of the aeroplane some of our transport difficulties may be solved. The noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, pointed out some time ago that when motor cars started they were very few in number, but that number has greatly increased. Now, of course, owing to war conditions there are not so many motor cars on the roads, but before the war the number of private cars in London was one of the reasons for the great congestion of the streets. When I think of the question of planning there comes to my mind the question what is to be the future of the aeroplane in assisting transport in this great city. I hope that when these questions are gone into this consideration may be borne in mind.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Does the noble Lord suggest that suburban traffic is going to be carried by aeroplane?
LORD JESSEL: I do not say that at all, but I do say that although motor cars are not so generally used now owing to the shortage of petrol they will be greatly increased after the war, and I think there is no doubt that the aeroplane will help to solve the transport problem at distances from ten to fifteen miles out of London to

1025
a greater extent in the future than in the past.
12.59 p.m.
LORD HEMINGFORD: I would like to support the appeal of my noble friend Lord Balfour that this proposal should be reconsidered. The noble Lord, Lord Woolton, in his first reply, said it was inadvisable to define the duties of the Minister in this clause. I quite agree, but it is not proposed to define his duties. You do not define a man's duty to his neighbour by saying he has to be careful not to tread upon his neighbour's toes. Defining means something which is inclusive. A mere reminder of certain things which are the duty of the Minister is quite another matter.
I would like to say a word also with regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Latham, said. He seems to me to have given away the whole case against my noble friend's proposal. He suggested that these words might cause trouble because, if the matter came before a court, the court might come to the conclusion that the Minister did not take these things into consideration. Well, that is the very object, surely, which we have in view—to see that the Minister should not carry out this work without having these particular matters in consideration. Some of us, I am afraid, may have what 50311C people might call nasty, suspicious minds, and we are a little inclined to think that a Minister, occasionally, some time after the discussions in the two Houses have been forgotten, may himself forget some of the things with which he was charged, or which he was advised to do in the course of debates. I think that it is most advisable for that reason that these words should go in there, and if there is an appeal the main ground of which may be that the Minister has offended by not taking these matters into consideration the court should then have an opportunity of saving so.
LORD LATHAM: The noble Lord who has just spoken has, I think, entirely misunderstood what I said. May I first of all deal with the first part of his remarks? The words of this clause are almost mandatory upon the Minister. The clause says that in exercising the powers given to him "the Minister shall have regard". My point is that whether the Minister has had regard to these factors or not it would be unfortunate if that question should
1026
come within the jurisdiction of a court for a court to determine to what factors the Minister, in making an order under this Act, had had regard. That would I think be most unfortunate. It might be likely to lead to delay, and, in certain circumstances, new legislation might be required to remedy the state of affairs which might exist. I am not a lawyer myself, but I believe there is a legal dictum to the effect that "to specify is to limit." This clause has that additional defect.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I do not think that there is any very great weight, if I may say so without disrespect, in the point that the courts would be worried with evidence as to what the Minister really had or had not had regard to. Prima facie, the presumption would be that he had complied with all his statutory duties, unless in some way or other he had furnished evidence to the contrary—for instance, by writing a letter to show there was something he had declined to take into consideration which it was his duty to consider. I think that there is not very great weight in the argument which has been put forward in this connexion. I would venture to ask is there no way in which the Government can make some declaration, or some statement—not necessarily here, but somewhere else in the Bill—to show the general nature of the matters which the Minister ought to consider for the purpose of dealing satisfactorily with the matters that come before him?. If there is some way of putting that in—if it were put in in a preamble it would be good enough for my purpose—I shall be very glad if it can be done.
LORD WOOLTON: That is a point to which I have given consideration. I have discussed this clause very fully with a natural desire to put it in, but I am advised against accepting the proposal to insert it. The question that occurred to my mind was: could we put it somewhere else? I think the noble Lord does not really want to insist on having the clause in here; I am quite certain that he does not want the precise wording which he has advocated, if some other wording will indicate that the Government has the principle in mind. I am very willing indeed to consult with the Minister and with the Law Officers to see if we can meet the suggestion that has just fallen from the lips of my noble friend Viscount Maugham.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: In view of the undertaking which my noble friend Lord Woolton has just given, and for which I am very grateful, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1.6 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The next amendment need not, I think, take us very long, but one never knows. I did not think that we should have to spend much time over the last one, but sometimes storms spring up unexpectedly. I think that I had better read in full the new clause which I propose to insert after Clause 51. It states:
"A local planning authority may with the approval of the Minister and subject to any regulations made by him make arrangements with an authorized association within the meaning of Section thirty-five of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, for such association to acquire land carry out any development or redevelopment or do such works as the authority could themselves do under the provisions of this Act, and the Minister may in such case by order transfer to such association such of the powers of the authority as may be requisite and may make to the association any grants which would otherwise have been payable to the authority and the authority may make such payments to the association as the Minister may from time to time approve."
I think your Lordships all know what a housing association is. It is a form of either a non-profit-making organization or of an organization making a limited profit. It is a useful half-way house, if I may so put it, between full-blown private enterprise and operations of an entirely Governmental or local authority character such as my noble friends on the other side of the House favour. It does seem to me that this particular instrument might be useful, particularly in the case where there is need to set up some new community, to make a new town somewhere, or some large-scale industrial and residential extension to country towns. It would provide in a case where a local authority is purchasing a very large block an alternative to local authority ownership. With great respect to local authorities it is not a bad thing to have alternative ownership. Equally it may be no bad thing to have alternative ownership to private ownership. I consider that this suggestion has a great deal to commend it. Section 35 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, which is the one referred to, has specific reference to garden cities and it
1028
does appear that it might be very convenient to add these in this Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 15, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, on the proposal which he now makes. This clause leaves initiative with the local authority, and is, in general, a most desirable arrangement if it is within the financial structure of the Bill, as I hope it may be found to be.
LORD LATHAM: That is the only point that I wish to raise. I speak with some knowledge of the difficulties, having regard to the terms of the Financial Resolution passed in another place. The formulation of the new clause which I might conveniently refer to as "the London clause" gave the Minister and the draftsmen great difficulties, in order that a metropolitan borough council undertaking development under this Bill should be entitled to the grant payable under Clause 5. With all respect, I do not think that under the Financial Resolution there is power to say that the grant which would otherwise have gone to a local planning authority under the Bill may be diverted, even with the local planning authority's consent, or indeed at its instance, to an association such as is here contemplated. I have a great regard for many associations of this kind, and the London County Council has done what it could to encourage their efforts, but I gravely doubt whether this proposal would come within the terms of the Financial Resolution.
LORD HEMINGFORD: There is a great deal in that. I think that there is very considerable doubt whether it would come within the terms of the Financial Resolution. I am a newcomer here, and I speak, therefore, with very great diffidence on this matter, but my impression is that this is a matter which must really be decided in another place and not here. We all know, of course, that this House constantly passes Amendments which in another place are found to infringe the privileges of the Commons. If the Commons agree with the Amendments, they waive their privilege. In this case I gather that Lord Latham's only objection is this difficulty regarding the Financial Resolution, and I suggest that

1029
in those circumstances there is no reason why, if the Committee so desire, we should not make this Amendment, and leave it to the House of Commons to deal with the question of the Financial Resolution.
1.13 p.m.
LORD WOOLTON: This raises a question of principle, because the Amendment proposes to transfer powers from a local planning authority, in elected body, to a non-elected body by Ministerial order. It would seem that the electorate have a right to demand that whatever arrangements the elected body may make for carrying out specific development by a private body, the statutory powers ought to remain with the elected body. The underlying assumption of the Amendment is that in some circumstances an authorized association would carry out development better than a local authority. It is doubtful whether there is any evidence to sup fort that assumption, but that is by the way. In any case it is surely unnecessary for this purpose that the powers of the local planning authority under the Bill should be conferred on the authorized association and a direct grant paid to the association. The grant under the Bill is only in respect of the acquisition and clearing of land, and therefore, even assuming that it is desired that an authorized association should carry out the actual development, could not the same result be obtained by the local planning authority acquiring and clearing the land and then leasing it to the authorized association at a proper rent? I am sorry, but I am advised not to accept this Amendment.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Would not the Government consider the matter between now and the Report stage and suggest some alternative? It might be as well to have on the face of the Bill some reference to this matter, so that the people who are affected will know where they stand under the law. If a differently worded clause could be brought forward by the Government on the Report stage, carrying out what I think is the object of us all but free from any objections which might be raised to this Amendment, think it would be welcome.
LORD WOOLTON: Would not the leasing of the land to the housing association have the same result?
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I should like to say one word before the matter is disposed of. I derive some satisfaction from the fact that nobody—not even noble Lords opposite—offered any objection to the principle which I am seeking to insert in the Bill. I was not aware that there would be a technical difficulty, because I have here the Housing Act, 1936, and I thought that this arrangement was very similar to the arrangements made for housing associations there. I am sure, however, that my noble friend is right in saying that there are technical difficulties, but I would ask him to do what my noble friend opposite has suggested, and allow us to have some consultations to see whether we cannot put something into the Bill at a later stage. This principle of housing associations is very well established in our legislation, both in Town and Country Planning and in Housing Acts. I think that the Committee is in favour of it, and that with a little good will machinery might be devised. Is the noble Lord willing to take that course?
LORD WOOLTON: I shall be very glad to have a consultation.
LORD LATHAM: I hope that if consultations are to take place the noble Lord will bring into those consultations representatives of the local authorities.
LORD WOOLTON: There will not be much time.
LORD LATHAM: It is proposed to cast a duty on the local authorities. There is' no difficulty with regard to housing associations at the present time.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I suggest that this is a convenient time to adjourn for the luncheon interval, and that we should resume the sitting at a quarter past two o'clock.
House resumed.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past one o'clock and resumed at a quarter past two o'clock.
House again in Committee on the Town and Country Planning Bill:
[The LORD STANMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 52:
Assessment of compensation in connexion with acquisition of land for public purposes by reference to 1939 prices.
52.—(1) Compensation for the compulsory purchase of an interest in land by a Government Department or a local or public authority within the meaning of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, compensation to be estimated in connexion with such a purchase for damage sustained by reason of the severing of land the subject thereof from other land held therewith or otherwise injuriously affecting such other land, and compensation under Section sixty-eight of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, in respect of land injuriously affected by the execution of works on land acquired by such a department or authority, shall, except in the case of compensation assessed on the basis specified in rule (5) of the rules set out in Section two of the said Act, be assessed subject to the rule following, that is to say—
The value of any interest in land purchased pursuant to a notice to treat served at any time within the period of five years from the commencement of this Act, the amount of any damage sustained by reason of severance or other injurious affection compensation for which is to be estimated in connexion with a purchase of an interest in land pursuant to such a notice, and the amount of any damage sustained by reason of other land being injuriously affected by the execution of works which either is sustained or the amount of which falls to be ascertained at any time within that period, shall be ascertained by reference to prices current at the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, on the assumption that the interest had at that date been subsisting as it was in fact subsisting at the time of service of the notice to treat, and that the land in which the interest subsisted, and any such other land, had been at that date in the state in which it in fact wag at the time of service of the notice to treat.
LORD WOOLTON: The first Amendment on this clause is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Par 57, line 31, after ("Act") insert ("of 1919").—(Lord Woolton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
2.17 p.m.
LORD AMMON LORD AMMON moved, in the second paragraph of subsection (1), to leave out "within the period of five years from the commencement" and insert "before the expiration of the period of five years from the date appointed in pursuance of subsection (1) of Section one." The noble Lord said: This is a short point but one
1032
of considerable importance. This clause deals with the assessment of compensation in connexion with the acquisition of land for public purposes by reference to 1939 prices. The rule which is set out in subsection (1) is limited by the words "pursuant to a notice to treat served at any time within the period of five years from the commencement of this Act." Although it is true that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent an authority from putting forward an application for a declaratory notice immediately the Bill is passed, nevertheless there are a number of difficulties, notably the machinery which has to be set in motion, which will make it in some cases almost impossible, especially where there has been a tremendous amount of damage and demolition caused by bombs.
I might call your Lordships' attention to the fact that there will have to be the preparation of a scheme, including consultation with various interests, publication of notice of intention to apply for a declaratory order, application to the Minister, advertisements of the application, consideration of objections, and probably a local inquiry before the declaratory order is obtained. And even after that a compulsory purchase order has to be made and there will be the confirmation thereof by the Minister, advertisements issued and objections invited, and further applications for declaratory orders may be made within the period of five years from the appointed day. It will obviously not be possible for authorities to tackle all these schemes at once. What I am urging is that in those conditions it may be quite impossible for the authorities to get through all the necessary work and machinery within the limits imposed by this subsection, and it will help us to a certain extent if the date can be extended to five years from the appointed day. That will allow a little more latitude and probably make the working of the Bill easier.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 34, leave out from ("time") to ("of") in line 35 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Ammon.)
LORD WOOLTON: I am afraid I cannot accept this. As I understand it, there are two points at issue here. The point that the noble Lord has just dealt with is a very fair one; it is that there

1033
may be quite a long period after the time of the appointed day before this land can be purchased. The 1939 standard has been a very difficult issue for all parties to agree upon.
LORD AMMON: May I interrupt? It is not after the appointed day, it is after the passing of the Act.
LORD WOOLTON: I was just going to deal with that point. I am afraid I shall have to ask your Lordships' consideration this afternoon because as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, said yesterday, you have had a most excellent steersman and driver on this coach while I am a person who only toots occasionally behind. I am afraid that for the next hour or two we are deprived of the services of our most excellent steersman but I will endeavour to explain the provision as I see it. The provision under which the compulsory purchase of land can be made at 1939 prices was fixed for a period of five years. That period was fixed because we felt that during that time there was not likely to he any free market in land. It was very difficult to find what would be the proper price for the purchase of such land and so we have said that for this period of five years we will take the 1939 price. On that we have, not without difficulty, entered into a general agreement. What the noble Lord is proposing here is that there shall in fact be an extension of that time because of the difficulties that will arise owing to the local authorities finding it difficult to make their plans and so on. I am bound to say that to do that would in fact be extending the time in which the 1939 prices would be operated, and that is a matter which would be outside the agreement into which we have entered with all parties. I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD LATHAM: I am struck by the Government in this House being estopped by an agreement. It is a curious thing that the local authorities who will have to pay the money were not invited to become parties to that agreement. It will be the local authorities who will have to pay the money. The facts are these: When the Bill was first introduced the whole A the procedure dealing with war-damaged areas was to be limited for a period of five years from the passing of the Act, and it was pointed out that if
1034
that were the case the effective period that would be available to local authorities would be much shorter, because they really could not get on with the job, and the local authorities' submissions and the submissions of others in that behalf had the result that as regards the first clauses of the Bill the time was to run not from the enactment of the legislation but from the appointed clay. It seemed to me to follow that if that alteration were made there should be a similar alteration as regards the application of the 1939 price. I do not know to what general outside consideration the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, refers when he says: "Some have said" (presumably he means the Government) "that for this period of five years we will take the 1939 price."
If the Bill stands as it is the local authorities will have a shorter effective period than five years in which they will have the benefit, if any, of this limitation upon the price to be paid not only for land acquired under this Bill but for land for all statutory purposes, and whilst it would be the case that if the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Ammon were accepted, in actual time the limitation would apply for longer than five years, in practice it would be effective for much less than five years because of the wastage of time before the local authorities are in a position to operate it. In those circumstances I hope the noble Lord may find himself able, on behalf of the Government, to reconsider the situation.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Your Lordships must consider that the time mentioned is only a time within which a notice to treat has got to be served. It does not affect all the negotiations that may take place after the notice to treat. It seems to me that the effect of leaving the clause as it stands is only this, that it is possible within a few cases there will be a large number of notices to treat served just before the expiration of the five years. But if as a matter of fact it does turn out in the course of the third or fourth year, or the fifth year, after this Bill has come into force, that there is some congestion, and so on, we all know this measure is not a final Act and there could easily be introduced another Act extending the period for a year.
LORD AMMON: The point the noble Viscount has raised is of course accurate as far as the statement is concerned. I

1035
can think of several authorities with tremendous areas that have been badly bombed, all of which will require separate negotiations and separate treatment, which will mean a lot of delay. If these are taken up just before the expiry of the five years the possibilities are that they will never get them through, and to wait on the possibility of fresh legislation certainly looks as if it is going to hold up the thing indefinitely. Although this may not mean very much to put the date as the appointed day, it will mean a little extension that might be very valuable.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
2.29 p.m.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved to insert at the end of subsection (1):
"Provided that it shall be a direction to the arbitrator that he shall ascertain whether the person claiming compensation in respect of any interest purchased that interest as at a date later than the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, and if he did so, whether the price then paid for that interest was lower than the value of that interest as ascertained in accordance with Rules 2 to 4 of the Rules set out in the said Section two by reference to prices current at the said thirty-first day of March, and, if the price was lower than as aforesaid, the arbitrator in assessing the compensation to be paid in respect of that interest shall not award any sum greater than the price so paid unless that person proves to the satisfaction of the arbitrator that the interest was purchased by that person in connexion with the occupation or use of land by himself or a member of his family or a person employed by him."
The noble Lord said: This proposed Amendment, formidable as it may appear on the Paper, is designed to achieve a purpose which I venture to think will meet with the approval of your Lordships—that is, to prevent speculation. The Amendment is drawn sufficiently widely to include within the benefits of the legislation now before us persons who, whether for themselves or members of their family, are interested in land or interests which under the Bill will be purchased. But there is a grave danger in some districts—a danger which I fear is daily increasing—that the provisions of the Bill may operate for the benefit of speculators. It is with the intention of preventing that, so far as is humanly possible, that this Amendment is submitted by me. I would say that a similar Amendment was moved in another place and the Attorney-General then stated that
1036
the matter would be looked at with a view to something being suggested at a later stage. So far as I know nothing has been suggested and I am not aware that anything is likely to be suggested. I therefore beg to move the Amendment on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 4, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Latham.)
LORD CHESHAM: It was not my intention to intervene on this, but for once I am delighted to find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Latham, about the compensation clauses. The attitude that I had decided to adopt was to state, as I have stated before, that we accepted the compensation clauses as proposed by the Government, not with any satisfaction, but as they had been fully debated in another place I did not think there was any object in trying to amend them here. But this Amendment does go a long way to achieve an object which I have very much in mind, and that is to stop the speculator. If a speculator has bought land or property at what I might call knock-out prices—a price well below ordinary market values and well below the 1939 values—this Amendment will be very useful. Nevertheless, it fails to deal with another class of owner who has been more or less compelled to find a home for himself and to buy land above the 1939 prices. The whole of these compensation clauses are going to hit the property owner. We accept it as just another burden that we have to bear, but if the Government could see their way to accept this Amendment I think it would go a good distance to stop the speculator from obtaining a profit through disasters and calamities due to the war. I hope therefore that the Government will be able to accept it.
2.33 p.m.
LORD WOOLTON: I can tell the noble Lord that the Attorney-General certainly fulfilled his undertaking to give this matter consideration. He, the Lord Chancellor and I spent quite a long time last Friday afternoon considering this Amendment and honestly attempting to see what we could do to meet the situation to which the noble Lord, Lord Latham, has referred. We were not able to do so, not because of any opposition to the principle, but because of the enormous number of difficulties that arose when we

1037
got to tae drafting of something that would be adequate and equitable. Probably, as a result of the frequent warnings the Government has given since 1940 on the subject of the 1939 prices, the element of speculation has been considerably less than it otherwise would have been. To deal with this problem adequately and fairly seemed to us to involve a complicated code which would put a great deal of extra work on to the administrative machine and on to the arbitrators, without, when we had done it, leaving a loophole to the most astute and dishonest people who certainly would be able to find a loophole with the same ingenuity displayed by people who are tax evaders.
One very important factor which the Amendment disregards is the temporary depression in prices owing to the impossibility of building during the war. It is well known that no compensation is paid under the War Damage Act for the loss incurred during the period when the property destroyed cannot be rebuilt. An owner of "blitzed" property, desiring to sell it during the war to a purchaser, would probably be doing something that cannot give a return until some very uncertain date in the future. It would be quite unfair not to take this into account at a later date when building is possible or at au rate at a date much nearer to the time when building is possible. In such a case the original owner has passed on to the purchaser the loss which otherwise would have fallen on him. As to the mechanics of the procedure, we should have to provide for the case where the local authority buys part only of the speculator's purchase. It may be that part of what is not bought has already been sold and there would be a rather elaborate valuation procedure for fixing the amount of the original purchase which is to be attributed to the interest required. If the interest is leasehold it will have diminished in value by the time of the notice to treat, and if it is a reversion then it will have increased and new interests may have been created.
The Amendment takes a simple case where the interest to be acquired has been purchased and nothing has happened in the interval. The man who has sold and realized his profit is clearly outside the Amendment. The adoption of the Amendment would invite collusive trans-
1038
fers and it would be very difficult to detect and bring on to the scene at the date of the notice to treat someone who had, on the face of it, bought at the 1939 price or thereabouts. I know it is always difficult to make a case on the grounds of administration against a principle with which people find themselves in general agreement, but the Law Officers of the Crown, as I have indicated, have shown their anxiety by meeting together to try to cover the case. They have come to the conclusion that not only the form of drafting which the noble Lord has submitted, but any form of drafting they themselves have been able to suggest, would not be likely to be effective. The Government have consoled themselves somewhat by believing that the amount of speculation is rather small as the result of the warnings previously given and we do not advise your Lordships to accept this Amendment. I will say this, if I may—not with a view to postponing decision—that if after further consultation between the Attorney-General, the Lord Chancellor and myself we can find a way of dealing with this problem we will most certainly bring it before your Lordships on the Report stage.
2.40 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: This is a clause which superficially is extremely attractive and it goes without saying that we should all be glad to achieve the object which my noble friend opposite has in view not to allow the speculator to get away with his ill-gotten gains. I waited with some anxiety to hear what the reply of my noble friend would be to the proposal. Having heard it I am bound to say that I found it very convincing. The real fact is that you cannot distinguish between a speculative purchase and a purchase for investment. I can illustrate it quite simply by the purchase of quite another class of property, say stocks and shares. It might easily be that a most respectable investor—for example, some trust which deals in a class of investment which fluctuates on the Stock Exchange—might make an investment intended to be permanent but it might happen that there was such a rise in price as did not seem to be justified by circumstances. It would be quite legitimate to sell and take the profit. That trust would not thereby be transformed

1039
into a speculation. As my noble friend said—he did not put it in these words but I think it is what he meant—the machinery set up would cause a great deal of trouble to the righteous without really catching the evildoers. Consequently I hope my noble friend opposite will not press these Amendments. The difficulties illustrated by the purchase of part of a holding by a local authority are, I think, really insuperable.
2.42 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: The arguments used in the earlier part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, and those used by my noble friend Lord Balfour were precisely the kind of arguments which years ago were put forward to justify the Chancellor of the Exchequer in not taking certain steps to prevent tax evasion, but since then various Chancellors of the Exchequer aided and assisted by wise and capable Law officers of the Crown have within the last ten years very substantially narrowed the field of operations open to tax evaders. I really think it ought not to be regarded as beyond the wit of the Law Officers, especially the Law Officers., of this Government of all the talents, to protect the public interest from the depredations of speculators.
I find no evidence to support the optimistic view of the noble Lord that speculation is of a rather minimum order. I think there has been a considerable growth of speculation in the past few months, especially since the ban was lifted from the coastal areas. One of the pleas put forward to support the plea that the 1939 ceiling should not remain a ceiling notwithstanding the assurance of the Government, was that in the coastal areas which were subject to a ban, and subject to other very serious disabilities arising from the war, prices were depressed below the 1939 standard. That was one of the main reasons put forward for the variation from the ceiling to the standard. Now I think it is known to everyone that since the ban has been lifted prices have risen and speculation, I will not say is rife, but is active. I do think there is a case for the Government to look at the matter again and in view of the assurances given I am very willing to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF WARWICK THE EARL OF WARWICK moved to insert in subsection (1):
"Provided that where since the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, an interest in land or part thereof has been valued for Estate Duty purposes at a figure higher than the value ascertained as aforesaid, the value for Estate Duty purposes shall be deemed to be the value of the interest in land or part thereof purchased pursuant to a notice to treat served at any time within the period of five years from the commencement of this Act."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is designed to prevent an injustice occurring to the owner of land which is valued by the arbitrator under Clause 52 for compulsory purchase at a lower price than by the Inland Revenue for Death Duties should those Duties have been assessed after March 31, 1939. Under the present law, as your Lordships no doubt are aware, land is valued for the purpose of Death Duties at the current market price, which in a good many cases has risen since March, 1939. I do not think it is unreasonable to suggest that it will continue to rise. It is very well known that the Inland Revenue have had considerable difficulties in dealing fairly with the taxpayer over the question of Death Duties. Valuations of this nature have been very high and I do not think that your Lordships would wish to let an inoffensive party be aggrieved in a case where land is purchased and where Death Duties have been paid since March, 1939.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 4, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Warwick.)
LORD AMMON: Am I right in understanding that the value to be paid is the value for Estate Duties? If that is higher than the ordinary market price I am concerned to know why the local authority should be called upon to pay that.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I think the answer to that question is that it would be an obvious injustice, if Death Duties had been paid on a certain price which happens to be more than the 1939 price, that when the local authority makes a compulsory purchase the purchase price should be based on the 1939 price. We have great sympathy with the desire to get what would be an injustice removed and my recollection is that in another place the Chancellor of the Ex-

1041
chequer made a promise to deal with it. There is probably, I think, somewhere towards the end of the Amendment Paper, an Amendment to deal with it.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I say that I associate myself with what has been said by my noble friend Lord Balfour?
LORD WOOLTON: May I have your Lordships' permission to read what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in another place when this same issue was raised? His statement was made on October 25 and is to be found in Columns 294, and 205 of Hansard. An Amendment in similar terms to this one had been moved and that Amendment was subsequently withdrawn after the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made his statement. Although the statement is somewhat long, I hope your Lordships will allow me to read it because it is so important These were the words of my right honourable friend:
"I recognize the anomaly of an assessment, at more than 1939 values, of an interest which has passed on death and which is subsequently acquired by a local authority at a lower basis of compensation than that on which Estate Duty has been levied. But I do not think the Amendment is one that it would be proper to accept, because acceptance would mean that the local or other public authority which had to pay compensation, would be bound by something quite irrelevant, by something which had been done by some other authority operating under a different code of law. So I cannot accept the Amendment, but what I can and will do is this: I will give an assurance, on behalf of the Government that when such a case does arise, if, after Estate Duty has been assessed, there is subsequent acquisition, and the price at which the property or interest is assessed is less than the value taken for the purpose of Estate Duty, then I will provide for the reopening of that assessment, so as to get rid of soy inconsistency between the value on which the taxing authority has proceeded and the value under this Bill for the purposes of acquisition.
"I have only two points that I must safeguard in that connexion. The first is that I think it will be essential so to frame the appropriate arrangement, which will have to be embodied in the next Finance Bill, as to apply only in cases where there is continuity If ownership. If the interest has been played about with, so to speak, in the interval between the two transactions, so that it cannot be identified, then the relief I am proposing may not be possible. The other point that must be safeguarded is that the interest which has to be dealt with must be substantially the same in the two cases. For instance, a reversionary interest at the date of death is one thing, and two or three
1042
years later it is something different. I, therefore, propose to bring before the House in due course an Amendment which will substantially get rid of any inconsistency between the basis of valuation for Estate Duty and the kind of case which my honourable friend has in mind."
I hope that the undertaking that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given will dispose of the anomaly to which my noble friend has drawn attention and that he will be prepared to rest himself on the assurance of the Government.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Am I not right in thinking that the Chancellor of the Exchequer actually said that the Inland Revenue itself proceeded on that basis in cases which had actually occurred? I happened to be in another place on the occasion of that debate and my recollection is that that is what was said and that his instructions were that such cases should be sympathetically treated.
LORD WOOLTON: Thank you very much.
THE EARL OF WARWICK: I was aware of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I thought the injustice in the situation was important enough to be brought up here. In view of what has been said on behalf of the Government I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD WOOLTON LORD WOOLTON moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "and" ["and to dwelling-houses"] in order, after apply, to insert "and to agricultural holdings." The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment, dealing with agricultural crops, is that, unless such an Amendment were made, the Government when they found themselves acquiring land and having to pay for agricultural crops, would have to try to revert the value of those crops back to the 1939 basis, and that would obviously be something extremely difficult to do and not at all in harmony with the purpose of the Bill.
Amendments moved—
Page 58, line 7, leave out ("and")
Page 58, line 9, after ("apply") insert ("and to agricultural holdings").—(Lord Woolton.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 53:
Supplement to compensation in case of owner-occupiers.
53.—(1) Where the person entitled to compensation assessed subject to the rule set out in subsection (1) of the last preceding section for the purchase of an interest in land consisting of or comprising a building (not being agricultural property) or consisting of or comprising agricultural property (that is to say, agricultural land or agricultural buildings as defined in Section two or the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, or a farmhouse) is an owner-occupier, he shall be entitled to receive from the purchasing authority, as a supplement to that compensation, such sum, if any, not exceeding the maximum hereinafter specified, as may be reasonable having regard to the extent to which, in all the circumstances of his occupation, he is affected by the purchase of the interest.
(3) The maximum for the sum which may be paid under this section in respect of an interest in land as consisting of or comprising agricultural property shall he the amount (if any) by which—

(a) the value of the interest in the agricultural property ascertained by reference to prices current at the said thirty-first day of March, falls short of

(b) the value of the interest in the agricultural property ascertained by reference to prices thirty per cent. greater than those current at that date and on the assumption that that property had been at that date subject to a permanent restriction to use as agricultural property within the meaning of this section.

(5) The person entitled to compensation for the purchase of an interest in land consisting of or comprising a building or agricultural property shall be deemed for the purposes of this Part of this Act to be an owner-occupier if any of the following conditions are satisfied, and not otherwise, that is to say—
(a) if he is in occupation of the building or property at the time of service of the notice to treat;
(6) For the purposes of the last preceding subsection—

(a) references to the person entitled to compensation shall, where that person holds as trustee or otherwise for the benefit of another or subject to the directions of another, be construed subject to such adaptations as may he prescribed by regulations made by the Lord Chancellor;

(b) references to occupation of a building or property include references to occupation of a part thereof;

(c) a person shall be treated as in occupation of a building or property if it is in the occupation of a person in his employment for the purposes of that employment;

2.55 p.m.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved, in subsection (1), after "entitled," where that
1044
word occurs for the second time, to insert "in respect of one building or property and one only of which he is the owner-occupier for the purposes of any business carried on by him and one building or property and one only of which he is owner-occupier for the purposes of residence." The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to bring the provisions of the Bill into some proper relationship as regards owner-occupiers with the generally accepted view of an owner-occupier. When the Bill was first introduced in another place the additional sum proposed to be paid over and above the 1939 standard was limited to occupiers of residential property within the limits of the Rent Restrictions Acts and to agricultural land and agricultural holdings. As a result of much coming and going in another place, all sorts of agreements apparently having been come to—some of which were kept—the term "owner-occupier" has been extended out of all recognition as compared with what had been generally accepted not only by lawyers but by the public. As the clause now stands it brings in property which can by no stretch of imagination be said to belong to owneroccupiers—property which has in fact been taken by the investing public and is held as an investment.
My Amendment will have the effect of really, and I think satisfactorily, protecting the actual owner-occupier, inasmuch as it would apply the provisions as regards supplements to him in respect of one residential property and one business property. This, I submit, quite fairly and equitably discharges the obligation of the nation towards the person generally known as the owner-occupier. I think it would be difficult to maintain that when the convenient term "owner-occupier" has been used in the past and quite recently, it was thought to include a multiple property owner of blocks of offices and other property of that character. What was always in mind was the small man—the "widow and orphan" have been abandoned in favour of the "small man." My Amendment will protect the genuine small man without conferring uncovenanted benefits upon the multiple property owner who in fact is an investor in property, although it may be that in the many shops and stores owned by the company in which he has invested a business is carried on.
Moreover, I wish to point out an administrative difficulty which will issue from the provisions of the Bill if it remains unaltered. Clause 53 (1) directs the arbitrator to have regard" to the extent to which, in all the circumstances of his" (the owner-occupier's) "occupation, he is affected by the purchase of the interest" Perhaps the noble Lord can tell us exactly what that means. Does it mean putting the owner-occupier on a means test? What are the circumstances of the occupation and the extent to which it has been fixed?
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Will the noble Lord give us the reference?
LORD LATHAM: Clause 53 (1), line 25. Those words were almost repeated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer speaking in the House of Commons on October 19, when he said:
"When we had to extend the scope of our provisior."—
I like the suggestion of compulsion—
"to cover the further classes of owners of shops, cinemas and factories and what not"—
most appropriate words!—
"we had to adopt—
I leave out one or two words—
"a somewhat different course, and we have proceeded by way of a maximum, leaving the discretion to the appropriate authority to award a supplemental compensation, within the maximum, according to the circumstances of the applicant."
Those last are the material words. This is to be determined by reference to the circumstances of the individual applicant. For instance, is somebody representing the board of a multiple store to come along and urge, on grounds of poverty or distress or otherwise, that his concern really should be treated in a favourable way an I that it should be permitted to have this supplement up to the maximum? What do the words "according to the circumstances of the applicant" mean? This, it seems to me, is a novel extension, or a potential novel extension, of the means test. Perhaps the noble Lord will throw some light on it, because the local authorities are very apprehensive that the machinery for ascertaining this supplement may become so confused and complicated as not to be understood by mortal man. Going back to the purpose of my Amendment, may I say that it is to protect the real owner-
1046
occupier and not to gather under his folds, as it were, property owners who by no reasonable interpretation of the accepted meaning of owner-occupier could be so regarded? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 21, after ("entitled") insert the said words.—(Lord Latham.)
3.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Perhaps I may be allowed to say a word on this Amendment. Frankly, I find it difficult to believe that the noble Lord, Lord Latham, has put it forward seriously. The suggestion that a man can only have a business in one building, or can only occupy one house, is manifestly untrue. Take first the case of a dwelling-house. As we all know, there are large numbers of people in this country who, quite bona fide, occupy two houses. They may have one in the country, where they have very important interests and also work to do, and another in London, where they also have work to do. It is impossible to say that one is a dwelling-house and the other is not. Take another case, a case which the noble Lord himself mentioned, that of the financial business concern—a bank for example. Would the noble Lord really suggest that one branch was a genuine place of business and that none of the others were genuine places of business but mere investments? I do not think that that is a suggestion which could possibly be upheld.
LORD LATHAM: That was the accepted view of the owner-occupier with regard to persons having two houses. May I remind the noble Viscount that there are hundreds of thousands of people in this country who have not got a single house?
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: That is utterly irrelevant. The only definition of an owner-occupier is a person who occupies a house belonging to him. If such persons genuinely occupy one house or two houses they are, equally, owner-occupiers. If they have a house which they do not occupy but let to somebody else they are not owner-occupiers. That is the clear definition of the term. The noble Lord also referred to the last words of subsection (1) of Clause 53:
"he shall be entitled to receive from the purchasing authority, as a supplement to that compensation, such sum, if any, not exceeding the maximum hereinafter specified, as may

1047
be reasonable having regard to the extent to which, in all the circumstances of his occupation, he is affected by the purchase of the interest."
I do not pretend to be a legal expert, and the noble Lord may very likely disagree with what I say, but I should have thought that it was clear that, as between two houses, in one case the owner does suffer a greater loss. For instance, he may be more injured in his business. There may be other circumstances which make the loss to him greater. In that case it is natural that the community should make up to him a rather higher scale of compensation than he would otherwise have. It is an elastic provision to allow maximum justice to be done in individual cases. In view of what I have said I am afraid that it is necessary for the Government to resist this Amendment.
On Quesiton, Amendment negatived.
3.6 p.m.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (3), to leave out "subject to a permanent restriction to use as." The noble Earl said: In Clause 53 there are two separate definitions of agricultural land. One is in subsection (1), which refers to land
"consisting of or comprising agricultural property (that is to say agricultural land or agricultural buildings as defined in Section two of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, or a farmhouse)."
Subsection (3) deals with the price which may be paid for agricultural land, and in paragraph (b) you find, at the end, these words:
"on the assumption that that property had been at that date subject to a permanent restriction to use as agricultural property within the meaning of this section."
I find it a little difficult to know exactly what is meant by the words "a permanent restriction to use as agricultural property." Presumably they must mean that land which is planned in some planning scheme as a permanent open space, either private or public, in which case it is not available, probably, for the purpose of this Bill, and, therefore, not a subject for compensation at all.
I cannot see why we should not take the definition of agricultural land which is in subsection (1). I therefore move that these words "subject to a permanent restriction to use as" should come out.
1048
The relevant passage in subsection (b) would then read:
"on the assumption that that property had been at that date agricultural property within the meaning of this section."
I think that that would make it quite clear, and there could then be no element other than agricultural in any valuation. Further, it will remove, so far as I can see, a somewhat anomalous position in that as the Bill stands now we have two separate definitions of agricultural land. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 10, leave out ("subject to a permanent restriction to use as").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
LORD WOOLTON: I think that there is really a misunderstanding here and, with respect, that the noble Lord's Amendment is misconceived. The wording of the clause is "on the assumption that that property had been at that date subject to a permanent restriction." What is the position regarding agricultural land when it comes on to the market? It is this: that it has inside its value two different and separate values. There is the value of that land as agricultural land, and there is the potential building development value in that land. Those two things make up the total price. Obviously, the building development value is something that varies quite considerably, and what we are proposing here is that we shall take as a basis the value of this land if it had no development value in it, but was restricted to agricultural land. Then, over and above that, there comes the question of the payment of a supplement. The whole idea of the payment of a supplement is because it is on agricultural land. What we are proposing is that we should pay the supplement on the agricultural value of the land, and not on the development value of the land. I hope that I have made the position clear, and that the noble Earl will not think that there is any confusion.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I entirely agree, and I approve of the view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, but I still do not quite understand what land will be covered by this, because the permanent restriction of land as agricultural land means that the land

1049
is planned as an open space, and therefore not available for the purpose of development.
LORD WOOLTON: Surely the land which is now going to be planned as an open space may have a development value in it?
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Yes.
LORD WOOLTON: Does not that answer your question?
THE EARL OF RADNOR: You are endeavouring to eliminate the development value from any question of compensation, and yet pay the supplement on the agricultural value?
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I think that that is right.
LORD WOOLTON: I think that the operative word is "assumption."
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.11 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM VISCOUNT MAUGHAM moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (5), after "he," to insert "or any son or daughter of his over eighteen years of age or his father or mother." The noble and learned Viscount said: The Amendment which stands in my name and in that of my noble friend Lord Warwick is a simple one, but it requires just a little explanation. As the Committee know, under the compromise arrangement which is embodied in the Bill there is to be a maximum extra payment to be given to an owner-occupier of land, and in the clause with which I am dealing, which is Clause 53 (5), there is a kind of definition of who is to be deemed to be an owner-occupier. In paragraph (a) of that subsection the first sort of owner-occupier who is mentioned is a man who "is in occupation of the building or property at the time of service of the notice to treat." What occurs to me, and what I want to put before the Committee, is that a man may be the owner and may have put into what may not be a very expensive house in the normal case his son or his daughter or his father or mother. That is not a very uncommon thing for a man to do who is in a position to do it, especially if his father or mother has no substantial means, or if for some reason
1050
or other his son or daughter can very conveniently occupy the premises.
The curious fact is that "occupier" is a very difficult word to define. I was prepared to cite some legal authorities to the noble and learned Lord Chancellor had he been here, but I shall abstain from doing so unless invited to do so by my noble friend Lord Woolton. The position is that if the owner puts (to take one person only) his mother into such a house as we are now considering, she may be in the position of a caretaker, and in that case the owner is the owner-occupier, because he is occupying the house by his caretaker. On the other hand, he may entirely disregard the provisions of this Bill, because he will be acting long before the Bill was introduced, and he may put his mother into the house with a promise that she shall be allowed to occupy the premises for the rest of her life. She will not then be either his agent or his caretaker. In that event, although there is no real difference between the two cases which I have just mentioned, the additional 30 per cent. will not be payable.
I venture to submit to the Committee that from the point of view of justice such an owner is every bit as much entitled to the additional sum, when he has put one of his near relatives into the house under conditions in which it cannot be said that that relative is there either as his caretaker or as his agent, as if the relative were in fact his caretaker. I agree that the arbitrator would be entitled to make use, in his discretion, of the provision which has already been referred to which empowers him to consider, with regard to the amount specified, whether it was reasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the case. It is one of the circumstances which the arbitrator may consider, but I suggest that members of the family in the position which I have mentioned are entitled to the same consideration as the owner himself. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 30, after ("he") insert ("or any son or daughter of his over eighteen years of age or his father or mother").—(Viscount Maugham.)
THE EARL OF WARWICK: If I may add a word, I think that this might be carried a little further. Some of your Lordships may have had experience of trusts and

1051
legacies entailing an obligation on some-one to find suitable accommodation for members of his family. I had hoped at one time that this provision could be extended to include some kinds of dependants, because often it is not only a man's family for whom he is charged with providing a house. Perhaps when the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, replies, he might care to give favourable consideration to this and see how it could be managed. There is the case of the old nurse or other retainer over a certain age. There are many cases which demand consideration, and in supporting the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, I would draw the attention of the noble Lord who is going to reply to the fact that this might be made a little wider.
3.18 p.m.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The object of this Amendment which has been put down by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, and the noble Earl, Lord Warwick, is obviously in itself a very desirable one. It shows a very proper sentiment for the relationship towards one's parents and one's children, and a desire to help them in any way that is possible; but actually I think that it is perhaps, if they will allow me to say so, rather an undue extension of the term "owner-occupier." The noble Lord, Lord Latham, has taken me to task for saying that a man could be described as an owner-occupier of two houses. This is going a little further. This is the case of a man who owns two houses, lives in one himself and hands the other over to one of his near relations. In fact, as it is drafted this goes even further, and it would, I think, include cases where the child or parent in question was paying a rent to the owner of the house. I am certain that that is not the intention, but I understand that it might include such cases. But even if it does not include those, and is really meant merely to cover cases where the house is provided rent free, surely the object might be attained if the owner took other steps in order to give the relative in question a legal right to occupation. He might give the house to his son, if he wished, or he might alternatively settle the house on his son or make some other arrangement with him.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Then he is not the owner.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My point is that if he wants to make proper provision for his parents or his children he has other means by which he can do it, and in that case, as he has other means of fulfilling this very desirable duty on his part, I hardly think there would be justification for giving him increased compensation because he did not take one of these two courses but preferred to adopt a third. I sympathize very much with the object which the noble Lords have in view, but I think—and I am sure it is the view of the Government—that the Amendment would be an undue extension of the meaning of "owner-occupier."
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: Would it be called an undue extension where, in such a case as Lord Warwick has mentioned, the owner is by trust law bound to provide these houses under the deed of settlement?
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: This matter has really got a little more in it than my noble friend the Leader of the House at the moment realizes. First may I say something about the nurse referred to by Lord Warwick? I have left the nurse out of the Amendment for the reason that the man who puts a nurse in possession of one of his little cottages for the rest of her life is in almost every case treating her as his caretaker. She is put there without any definite promise; in nine cases out of ten she has no right to be there, she is there at will. In those cases already the owner of the house is the owner-occupier and is entitled to the benefit of this additional sum. It was explained in another place by the Minister that the occupation for this purpose would, I think I may say always, or at any rate in most cases, be determined by the occupation for the purposes of the Rating Acts. There were many references to the question whether in these circumstances a person was an occupier or not. Therefore in the case of a person who is a caretaker for the owner there is no difficulty because the Act already applies. Such Van owner is an owner-occupier; he occupies by his caretaker.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: If the noble Viscount will look at the Amendment Paper he will see that there is a Government Amendment lower down to subsection 6 (c), which paragraph reads:

1053
"a person shall be treated as in occupation of a building or property if it is in the occupation of a person in his employment for the purposes of that employment."
To that there is an Amendment in the name of Lord Woolton adding:
"so however that a person stall not be treated under this paragraph as in occupation of a building or property by virtue of any occupation thereof by a person employed by him as caretaker of that building or property."
Therefore the fact that he is a caretaker would not, if the House accepts that Amendment, be a relevant argument with regard to the present discussion.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I am to blame; I am afraid I had not seen that. But I venture to think that the House ought to be chary of accepting it without some further information. Do I understand that it would have this effect, that if a man is at the date of the notice to treat away from his house for some reason, and is occupying it by a caretaker, then he is not an owner-occupier? I thought it was well understood that that was not going to be the case.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: It is a little difficult for me to argue an Amendment Which is not yet before the Committee. Would it not be possible to leave that until the Amendment comes on? If the noble and learned Viscount would do that then he could consider the Government reply and, if he is not satisfied, it is always open to him to return to the attack on the Report stage. I think that is the only way in which it can be dealt with.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I am some-what taken aback by what I have just heard, and I think I had better take the course which the Leader of the House suggests.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Does the noble and learned Viscount withdraw?
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LATHAMhad on the Paper an Amendment in paragraph (a) of subsection (5), to leave out "time of service of the notice to treat" and insert "date of the first publication of the intention to make an application for an order under Section one of this Act, or the making of
1054
the compulsory purchase order as respects land not included in an order under the said Section one or the date of other authorization of the purchase as the case may be." The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to prevent property owners who at a given date do not qualify, even within the widely extended and ample qualifications as owner-occupiers, do not take steps to qualify, having knowledge that compulsory acquisition of the property was impending. I think that the Amendment in the name of Lord Woolton on page 60, line 32, would meet the point perhaps less specifically than would my Amendment. Subject, therefore, to my being free to raise the matter on the Report stage if the noble Lord's Amendment be not carried, I do not propose to move now.
3.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM VISCOUNT MAUGHAM moved, in subsection (5), after paragraph (a), to insert:
"(b) if he can establish that he purchased the building or property for his personal occupation or for the occupation of any son or daughter of his over eighteen years of age or of his father or mother."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment is of a somewhat different kind, because it applies to a more general amendment of subsection (5). The point is this. The benefit of the 30 per cent., or some portion of it, is to be established prima facie by proof that a man is in occupation at the time of the notice to treat. My submission to your Lordships is that he is just as much entitled to the benefit in question if he proves that he took possession of the property for his personal occupation or for the occupation of a relative when he purchased. The whole point of the benefit for the owner-occupier is that you rule out the people who bought for speculation, and, because you cannot distinguish between speculation and investment, you rule out the people who bought for investment, hoping at some date or other to make something out of it or being quite content to let it for the rest of their lives at a rent.
The people I am pleading for are the people who bought for occupation, and who have been compelled by some circumstance beyond their control in many cases to go elsewhere. They may have gone into the service of the Crown, into some civil, military or other like employment, or they may have been compelled

1055
to earn their money by going to another part of the country. Then they have ceased to be in occupation at the time of the service of the notice to treat, but they are just as much genuine purchasers for occupation as people who have been so fortunate as to be able to continue in occupation till the date when the notice to treat was served. For my part I cannot see in justice that there is any difference whatever between those two cases. We have got rid of the purchase for speculation; we have got rid of the purchase for investment. We are taking the cases of people who have bought for occupation, in which I shall include occupation for a member of their family, and, that being so, they ought to get the benefit of the 30 per cent. or such part of it as the arbitrator thinks fit. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 31, at end insert the said paragraph (b).—(Viscount Maugham.)
LORD WOOLTON: I think it is clear—at least I hope it is clear; when I am dealing with legal provisions in this Bill I hesitate to say that anything is clear; but the intention certainly was that in so far as a person has bought a house with the intention of occupying it then he is covered for his personal possession, but not in so far as his family is concerned. If he has bought the house with the intention that his daughter should occupy it, then he is in fact an investor in property and comes under that heading. The clause as it now stands covers this case, I am advised, that if such a purchaser retained his right to resume occupation or, dealing with the war situation, if the area proved to be not so safe as it was supposed and the man had to leave because of the danger of the position, and so went away, he still has a right under paragraph (d) at line 40 in this clause to get the benefits. I hesitate very much to put a contrary view to that expressed by the noble and learned Viscount as to the proper interpretation of a clause; but that was certainly the intention of it. I invite him to consider whether, in so far as the owner-occupier is concerned, this clause does not meet it. I agree at once that it does not meet it in so far as members of his family are concerned—but that is a point I could not concede.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I will be content if the noble Lord will further con-
1056
sider the question of the actual owner. If he tells me he cannot help me on the question of the family I would say no more about it. I thought it a right point to bring to the attention of the Government. Speaking quite frankly I am not sure as to the effect of paragraph (d) of this subsection. Its construction is perhaps easier to understand by people who have had more experience of the law than I have. As I do not want to discuss it at length here and take your Lordships through my doubts, I would say that if he will see that the question is further considered as to whether paragraph (d) does cover the case of an owner who enters into occupation of the premises when he buys or buys for occupation and then becomes unable to occupy so that at the date of the notice to treat he is not in possession, then I shall be content.
LORD WOOLTON: And had the intention of coming back to the property?
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I do not think paragraph (d) says anything about the intention of coming back. He bought for occupation. He has left owing to circumstances beyond his control. Then comes the date of the notice to treat when he may have no immediate intention because he is engaged in business somewhere—it may be a hundred miles away—and he cannot at once go back.
LORD WOOLTON: He has five years.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Paragraph (d) says:
"the title under which the building or property is held at that time is such that he then has the right to enter into occupation thereof or will be in a position to obtain that right within five years from that time."
I am not sure what "that time" means here. All I was saying was that there is nothing about intention. There is something in paragraph (d) about his having the right to enter into occupation or being in a position to obtain that right "within five years from that time," whatever "that time" may mean.
LORD LATHAM: If the noble and learned Viscount will pardon me, is not the matter of intention dealt with in (d) (ii) at the top of page 60?
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I beg the pardon of the Committee. I had forgotten that for the moment, though it was in my mind five minutes ago:

1057
"it was at that time his intention…to enter into occupation…within the said five years."
It is rather obscure to me, but I think I had better leave it in the form which I first suggested, having regard to what has been said by my noble friend Lord Woolton, and ask him to look into it and see whether he is satisfied that it does carry cut substantially what he says.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.40 p.m.
LORD WOOLTON LORD WOOLTON moved, in subsection (5) (c), after "enactment," to insert "or by an authority by whom and in circumstances in which, possession thereof could have been so taken." The noble Lord said: Among the persons who are to be treated as owner-occupiers for the purpose of Clause 53 are persons who were in occupation but who then were displaced in consequence of possession being taken from them under statutory powers, mostly by requisition under Defence Regulations. Quite frequently it has happened that where premises have been required for war purposes the occupier has agreed to go out under an arrangement with the authority concerned without statutory powers having actually to be exercised, but in fact with a clear knowledge that if he did not agree to go out the statutory powers would be exercised. In fact he has not put the Government to the trouble of exercising them. Such cases are on all fours with those in which statutory powers were actually exercised and we think they should be covered. In Clause 42 a similar protection is given to persons from whom possession has been taken for war purposes. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 37, after ("enactment") insert ("or by an authority by mhom and in circumstances in which, possession thereof could have been so taken").—(Lord Woolton.)
THE EARL OF WARWICK: If the powers which the noble Lord mentioned in the last Amendment are applicable then Lord Maugham's Amendment surely also must be applicable to the circumstances the noble Lord is now dealing with. I rather feel that what is sauce for the goose should also be sauce for the gander, and that a little more consideration should he given to Lord Maugham's Amendment if those to whom the noble Lord has referred are to have special treatment.
LORD WOOLTON: I am sorry if I have been dense but I do not see the application of the five years to this. What this is seeking to do is to put the person who could have been turned out by statutory powers but did not trouble the Crown to exercise them in precisely the same position as he would have been in if the statutory powers had been exercised.
THE EARL OF WARWICK: Proving his occupation.
LORD WOOLTON: Yes.
THE EARL OF WARWICK: He can in any case prove his occupation under (d), can he not?
LORD LATHAM: The noble Lord's Amendment only puts those who have been dispossessed other than by enactment in the same position as others who have been dispossessed by such and seems to add certain other circumstances in which they may have been dispossessed and therefore should be given the same right.
LORD WOOLTON: That is all it is.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.45 p.m.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved to insert in paragraph (b) of subsection (6), "except where that part is occupied wholly or mainly in connexion with the management, supervision or control of the building or property as a whole." The noble Lord said: It would help those of us who are greatly perturbed about the extension of the rights of the owner-occupier if the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, could assure us that there was no agreement to include within owner-occupiers the unborn and the dead.
LORD WOOLTON: That was the intention.
LORD LATHAM: That seems to be the only limitation imposed. My next Amendment deals with the same kind of question and I do not know if I might deal with them both together.
LORD WOOLTON: I would rather they were dealt with separately.
LORD LATHAM: As regards the first I ask that these words should be inserted:

1059
"except where that part is occupied wholly or mainly in connexion with the management, supervision or control of the building or property as a whole."
The purpose of the Amendment is this. Where a part of a building is used for a subsidiary purpose the occupier should be not merely regarded as the owner of a building coming within the definition of owner-occupier. A number of cases come to one's mind. A caretaker is dealt with later on. He may be a caretaker of blocks of flats or dwellings in the employ of a business of estate management and may reside at the block of flats. I hope your Lordships will take the view that the exclusion of that type of building from the benefit of this provision is a proper thing in order to safeguard the public purse. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 16, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Latham.)
LORD WOOLTON: Will the noble Lord be satisfied if I accept the principle and not the drafting of this Amendment? I am in entire accord with the principle but I am advised that the drafting of the Amendment needs consideration. It ought to be made clear that a building the whole of which or the bulk of which is really occupied by its owner should not be taken outside of Clause 53 merely on the ground that a part of it is used for management purposes.
LORD LATHAM: I certainly accept the suggestion. I am not responsible for the chaffing. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved, in paragraph (c) of subsection (6), to leave out "for the purposes of that employment" and insert "as part of the conditions of his employment and the occupation is essential to the business carried on by the first-mentioned person." The noble Lord said: This deals with another aspect of the matter—namely, that of a person whose employment and occupation is essential to the business carried on. What we are disturbed about is this. You have a building, a store or a shop, which is a branch of a business. The business is carried on on the lower floor and above, for reasons of convenience or otherwise, the manager may live. The heredita-
1060
ment in which the manager lives may be separately rated. The fact that the manager resides over the company's premises without any separation of the two parts should not be held to mean that the whole building is in the occupation of the owner—that is to say, the branch shop and the fiat above. The purpose of this Amendment is to avoid such an extension of the conditions applying to owner-occupiers. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 19, leave out from the first ("employment") to the end of the line and insert the said new words.—(Lord Latham.)
LORD WOOLTON: I would like to accept the provision that the noble Lord indicated in his remarks because it seems to me to fall entirely within our intention, but if one takes the language of the drafting of the noble Lord's Amendment then I am advised that it goes very much further than we could approve. Take a farm for instance. A servant is living in a house that has been provided by the farmer for the purpose. In the event of the authority deciding to take that house then the farmer in order to carry on his business would be under an obligation to provide another house for the man who was dispossessed. It is proper therefore that such a person should get the benefit of the clause. I do not think the Amendment the noble Lord has moved would make that possible. That seems to be inequitable. On the other hand, the case he has propounded seems to me to be inequitable the other way. I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment as it stands, but if your Lordships will let me think about it I will see if we can get something which will cover the point I want to cover and exclude the point which the noble Lord wants to exclude.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I cannot help thinking there is great objection on a question of law to making the occupation "essential to the business carried on by the first-mentioned person." Why should it be essential? If it is the ordinary thing that any decent employer may do, though it may not be essential to his business it may be done in the ordinary course of business. I think the Amendment is most unwise, if I may say so.
LORD LATHAM: It was not the intention that the Amendment should operate unfairly in the case of the farm labourer

1061
and his cottage. In view of what the noble Lord has been good enough to say, I willingly withdraw.
Amerdment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.52 p.m.
LORD WOOLTON LORD WOOLTON moved to add to paragraph (c) of subsection (6) "so however that a person shall not be treated under his paragraph as in occupation of a building or property by virile of any occupation thereof by a person employed by him as caretaker of that building or property." The noble Lord said: It was pointed out in another place that the provision in Clause 53 might have the effect that an owner who does not occupy and has no intention of occupying property might be treated as an owner-occupier if he installed a caretaker pending letting. This would be outside the intention of the provision, which is intended to meet the case of occupation by an employee which is necessary in connexion with some business of the owner, as for example the case just mentioned of farm land and occupation of a cottage on it by a farm hand. This Amendment rules out the caretaker. The wording I am advised has had to be somewhat precise in order not to exclude, for instance, premises occupied by a watchman where the watchman's job is not to look after his own cottage but to look after business premises.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 19, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Woolton.)
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I am not quite clear how far this is to extend. Does it mean that occupation by a caretaker normally is not to be occupation of the owner? He is in occupation for the purposes of paying rates. He is rated and he is liable for all the liabilities in connexion with the house, but he happens at the moment not to be able to reside there himself and he has put in a caretaker in possession of the property. Is such a person not an owner-occupier? I am not quite sure how far it goes. It is an Amendment proposed, as I understand it, to deal with a very limited case (is it not?) with regard to occupation pending a letting.
LORD WOOLTON: Yes, I am quite clear as to the intention. It really is to draw the distinction between the investor and the owner-occupier. It is intended
1062
to avoid the possibility of a person who is a property owner saying "Well, I will put in a caretaker and that will enable me to claim that I intend to reside there and to get the consequent benefits that are limited to the owner-occupier and which exclude the investor in property." That is the sole purpose of the Amendment.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I must confess I am extremely doubtful whether it will not have an effect which is considerably more extensive than that. The real trouble is that the place where it comes in is so awkward. Paragraph (c) says a person shall be treated as in occupation of a building if it is in the occupation of a person in his employment for the purposes of that employment. I think the illustration was given in another place of a bank manager occupying premises over a bank, which is very common in some parts of the country. It is proposed by this Amendment that a person shall not be treated as in occupation of a building by virtue of any occupation by a person employed by him as a caretaker of that building. Would it have the same effect if we said "not being a mere caretaker in his employment for the purpose of that employment"? If that is what it means, why not say so? I understood the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, to say on my Amendment a few minutes ago that no occupation by a caretaker of a building quite apart from his being in occupation by virtue of his ordinary duties should entitle the owner to say," It is my occupation because I have put in a caretaker there while I am elsewhere." I am looking at this Amendment with some suspicion because I am afraid it might mean what I think he thought it meant.
LORD AMMON: May I draw the attention of the noble and learned Viscount to a statement made by the Attorney-General on this point in another place on October 26. His statement was reported in column 413 of Hansard, The Attorney-General said:
"It is not intended, for instance, if a man had twenty houses that by putting a caretaker in each he would be able to say he was in occupation of them all. So if my honourable friend will accept this assurance, we will look at that. It may require words which can be put in in another place."
I am more or less raising this point in the next Amendment.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Could we not insert the word "solely"?
"so, however, that a person shall not be treated under this paragraph as in occupation of a building or property solely by virtue of any occupation thereof,"
and so on. It is perfectly clear that if I have two houses, a country house and a town house, and if while I am in the town house I put a caretaker in charge of the country house, it would be disastrous that by reason of the employment of that caretaker I should lose the protection of the Bill.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I think the word "merely" would be preferable to "solely."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have only just returned to the House and have not followed the course of this debate, but I desire to point out that all experience seems to show that however good a suggestion may seem to be on the spur of the moment, there may, nevertheless, be something involved in it which was not considered at the moment. I do not want to increase the matters which have to be considered on Report, but if it would be of any service to the House I would undertake personally to see that the phrasing is looked into, and perhaps my noble friends would help in that respect. I do not want to alter the Bill unless I am quite sure what the effect of the alteration would be.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: The real question about which my noble friend and I are concerned is the following. As I understand it, a man may be an owner-occupier none the less because he has a caretaker in the house. That is the commonest possible situation. The person who pays the rates in nine cases out of ten has put in a caretaker because he cannot occupy the house at that moment. Therefore at the date of the notice to treat he may not be in physical possession of his country house because, let us say, he is attending the debates here in your Lordships' House.
LORD WOOLTON: He is covered for five years.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I am suggesting that such a person is prima facie the owner-occupier of that house, and unless something is put in the Bill to show that he is not, the law says that the man may
1064
occupy the house or his caretaker may occupy it, if he is no more than a caretaker, and that would be occupation. I understand, from reading the debate in another place, that that was not denied. When we come to this clause I quite understand that it is desired to say that in the case of a person who is in occupation of a house by reason of his duties in connexion with his employment—I have lost the exact words for the moment—the owner of the property then is not the owner-occupier. A man may have been put in simply because he is the fireman who is looking after the house and protecting it against fire. I do not in the least object to the Amendment if that is all that it implies, but it leaves the other wider consideration untouched as to the effect of the employment of a caretaker, as I understand it.
LORD AMMON: With a view to short-circuiting the debate, I would say that I should be very glad if the noble Viscount (the Lord Chancellor) would look into the matter, and if he would also take into consideration the next Amendment which stands in my name and which is bound up with it. I would remind the Committee that the Attorney-General promised to consider this point. If the noble Viscount will consider it, there will be no need for me to move my Amendment.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: It is very difficult to consider subsequent Amendments. I quite see the relevance of what the noble Lord says, and if he carries his Amendment the whole position would be changed, but it has not yet been established that the Committee approve of it, and therefore one is obliged, in considering Amendments as they come, to regard subsequent Amendments as not yet having been carried.
LORD LATHAM: I have some trepidation in intervening in this debate because the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, is an eminent lawyer. But when he talks of the owner of two houses in one of which he has to put a caretaker because he himself has to be in London, I do not think it is the case that under the proposed Amendment such a person would be disqualified. The point we are seeking to arrive at is that the person in question shall not be able to say that he has the intention of occupy-

1065
ing twenty houses because he has twenty houses in which he has put twenty caretakers. The case referred to by the noble and learned Viscount is amply covered.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hesitate again to intervene because I may not have understood the full effect of the debate. But generally it appears that as we all want to save time we had better make this Amendment on the undertaking that the Government will look into the matter, and if it appears, on reading the report of what has been said, that there is a gap or a mistake, we will undertake to rectify it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD AMMON: I will not move my Amendment to insert "other than in the capacity of caretaker or a similar character" after "employment" in paragraph (c) of subsection (6), on the understanding that the question it raises will be considered by the Government.
4.9 p.m.
LORD HEMINGFORD LORD HEMINGFORD moved, at the end of paragraph (c) in subsection 6, to insert "or is in the occupation of a tenant to whom he has let the building or property on terms binding the tenant to hold and use it for the purpose of benefiting the landlord and in a manner dictated by the landlord." The noble Lord said: I trust this Amendment will not give rise to the difficulties which we have encountered in dealing with the previous Amendment. It is very simple and deals with a point which I referred to on the Second Reading of the Bill. May I just try to explain it? Very briefly, we may take an example of two cases. Owner A has a number of licensed premises and sells his goods at each house through the agency of a manager whom he puts in. The house, in these circumstances, is an owner-occupied house, and he gets the benefit of this 30 per cent. The other alternative, in my opinion, and in the opinion of a great many, the preferable one from the point of view of those who are served by these houses, is that the owner lets the house to a tenant under a lease by which that tenant is bound to sell these goods, and to use the house for the purpose of the sale of these goods. If that is -he case he is a landlord and not an owner-occupier, and, therefore, he does not get the benefit of this extra 30 per cent.
It does seem to me an anomaly that one should get it and the other should not. But I would add still further to that that the one who at present does not get it is the one whom it is most desirable should get it. I hope that this matter has already received attention, and that the noble and learned Viscount will be able to tell me that this Amendment will be accepted. I trust that in this case there will not be even the difficulty of an alteration in wording being required.
Amendment proposed:
Page 60, line 19, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Hemingford.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a difficult case. I remember very well the matter being explained to the House on the Second Reading. Those who advise me have been examining it closely, and I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, has been good enough privately to submit to us proposed alternative words in the hope of finding a clearly defined solution. Frankly, we have not found one, and I doubt very much whether it can be done. It is quite true that there are the two ways in which a brewing company who own a lot of houses may secure the sale of their beer on the licensed premises, and one may have a preference for one way rather than the other. But I think that we must leave this matter to work itself out. Lord Hemingford has not suggested a way in which it can be worked out it seems to me. Frankly, we have not been able to find a formula—and I do not think that my noble friend has been successful in finding one either—which would limit the concession to the case of the tied house. It is a very difficult thing to do. Therefore, I am afraid that I am unable to agree that we should make this change in the Bill.
LORD HEMINGFORD: I had hoped that even if it did apply to some other case than that of a brewer, in such a case it would be as desirable as if it were the case of a brewer. It never occurred to me that it would be necessary, in order to get this accepted, to have it limited to the case of a brewer. There might well be other goods sold in the same way, and I should have hoped, therefore, that that would meet the case. I think I am right in saying that—for the reason I have just given—in suggesting an alternative

1067
formula, I refrained from suggesting one which is specially limited to breweries, persons carrying on a brewery business, or a wine and spirit business. I do not think I did submit that one. Therefore, if the noble and learned Viscount cannot see his way to accept any of those which I have already submitted, I shall venture to hope that between now and the Report stage he will give consideration to one limited to licensed houses, if I put that down before the Report stage.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Does the noble Lord withdraw his Amendment?
LORD HEMINGFORD: In the circumstances, if I am to take it that the Amendment will not be accepted in its present form, I will do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD WOOLTON LORD WOOLTON moved to add to subsection (6):
" (e) no regard shall be had to occupation or intended occupation of a building or property entered into, or intended to be entered into, with a view to rendering a sum payable under this section in a case in which it would not otherwise have been payable."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this is to exclude benefit to a person who enters into occupation of a place solely for the purpose of ensuring that he shall come under the heading of owner-occupier. I hope that your Lordships will accept this.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 32, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Woolton.)
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I entirely share the aim which Lord Woolton has put forward in this Amendment. Having tried not only to read but to understand this Bill, and having listened to noble and learned Lords throughout the Second Reading, it seems to me that the whole Bill is designed so that both landlords and local authorities should be butchered to make a lawyer's holiday, and I think that this particular Amendment in its present form is going to be the most litigious of all.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 54:
Supplement to compensation in case of improvements.
54. Where compensation assessed subject to the rule set out in subsection (1) of Section
1068
fifty-two of this Act (Assessment of compensation.) is for the purchase of an interest in land which, after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, and before the time of service of the notice to treat, has been improved in the interests of the war effort or under instructions from, or with the licence or permission of, a Government Department, by the erection thereon of a building or by improvments made to a building or to agricultural land comprised therein, the person entitled to the compensation shall be entitled to receive from the purchasing authority, as a supplement to that compensation, such sum, if any, by way of addition to the value, ascertained by reference to prices current at the said thirty-first day of March, of the purchased interest in the land so far as attributable to the improvements, as may be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, including in particular the cost of the improvements, any provision which may have been made for the payment of any of the cost thereof out of public moneys, and any recovery of any of the cost thereof by reason of increased returns or increased prices in respect of, or of products of, work done on the improved land.
4.17 p.m.
LORD WOOLTON LORD WOOLTON moved to omit the words "in the interests of the war effort or under instructions from, or with the licence or permission of, a Government Department." The noble Lord said: Clause 54 as it stands would limit the benefit of the supplement to compensation which may be given in respect of improvements "in the interests of the war effort or under instructions from or with the licence or permission of a Government Department." It was re-presented to us in another place that this limitation might become quite inapt in the course of the next five years during which the 1939 prices standard will be operative. Further, it was said that, even as regards improvements made during the war, the limitation was likely to be somewhat capricious. How can you possibly justify paying for a pigsty put up under Government control and refuse to pay for a pigsty, which may be a better pigsty, which a man has erected by using his own employees, and without bothering a Government Department to give him permission to do it, or even without bothering a Government Department to order him to do it?
The purpose of the limitation is to prevent the payment of supplement in respect of improvements of a kind which have not been undertaken in the interests of the war effort or which may be in the nature of luxury building. A promise was given in another place that this

1069
would be reconsidered, but it has proved impossible to devise a satisfactory formula in substitution of the words in the Bill. Further, having regard to the measure of control of building which has been enforced for some long time past it is unlikely that any considerable improvements of a luxury nature would form the basis of claim for such a supplement. The position is therefore that a limitation which is indefensible appears in the Bill for the purpose of excluding a number of cases likely to be very small indeed in proportion to the number of cases which would be wrongly excluded by the limitation, and that no reasonable substitute can be found. In these circumstances we propose that the limitation should be omitted.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 42, leave out from ("improved") ("by") in line 44.—(Lord Woolton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WOOLTON LORD WOOLTON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "recovery of any of the cost thereof by reason of." The noble Lord said: Clause 54 as it stands directs the arbitrator, in considering whether to award a supplement in respect of improvements, to have regard, amongst other things, to
"any recovery of any of the cost thereof by reason of increased returns or increased prices in respect of, or of products of, work done on the improved land."
The main purpose of this provision was to secure that an owner who has been a put, or has put himself, in a position to recover the whole or part of the capital cost of improvements out of the proceeds of the use of the improvements, by charging prices which include an element aimed at that object in addition to aiming at getting a reasonable income return on his investment, should not qualify for a supplement in so far as his capital expenditure has been replaced. It was, however, pointed out in another place that the existing wording did not sufficiently distinguish between the replacement of capital and the reasonable income return, and the wording proposed in this Amendment and in another which I shall subsequently move is intended to make the position clear.
Amendment moved—
Page 61 line 8, leave out from the first ("any") to ("increased").—(Lord Woolton.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I should like to thank my noble friend for these two Government Amendments. I know that they are in fulfillment of a pledge given in another place, and they will be greatly welcomed by the agricultural community.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WOOLTON: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 10, at end insert ("in so far as it appears that the increase was intended to make provision for recovery of capital applied in making the improvements apart from provision for depreciation").—(Lord Woolton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 55 [Supplemental provisions relating to the two preceding sections]:
LORD WOOLTON: The next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 18, leave out from ("1919") to the end of line 19.—(Lord Woolton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WOOLTON: I beg to move to leave out subsection (6). This is really drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 16, leave out subsection (6).—(Lord Woolton).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.
4.22 p.m.
LORD WOOLTON LORD WOOLTON moved, after Clause 55, to insert:
Ascertainment of compensation for purchase of land valued under the War Damage Act, 1943.
—(1) The provisions of the Eighth Schedule to this Act shall have effect as to the ascertainment of the compensation for the compulsory purchase of an interest in the whole of the land in a hereditament within the meaning of the War Damage Act, 1943, the value of which is required by that Act to be ascertained by reference to its state after war damage.
"(2) In this section, and in the Eighth Schedule to this Act, references to the compensation for the compulsory purchase of an interest shall be construed as references to the compensation payable apart from any supplement under Section fifty-three or fifty-four of this Act."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Woolton.)
LORD LATHAM: I wish to say that in not opposing this proposed new clause we shall not be prejudiced, I hope, with regard to our Amendment, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Ammon, to the Eighth Schedule.
LORD WOOLTON: I agree.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 56 and 57 agreed to.
LORD WOOLTON LORD WOOLTON moved to insert after Clause 57:
Powers of official arbitrator on references to him.
". An official arbitrator appointed in-accordance with the provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, to whose determination any matter is referred under this Act shall have the like powers with respect to procedure, costs and the statement of special cases as he has under that Act, except in so far as is otherwise provided by this Act."
The noble Lord said: Under the Bill, a number of matters on which dispute may arise are to be referred to the determination of an official arbitrator, and this new clause is a necessary part of the machinery to enable him to discharge his functions.
Amendment moved—
Page 63, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Woolton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 58:
Interpretation.
58.—(1) In this Act, except where the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby assigned to them respectively, that is to say—
LORD DARYNGTON: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of the Bishop of London to insert a definition in subsection (1).
Amendment moved—
Page 63, line 24, at end insert (" 'ecclesiastical property' has the meaning assigned to it by the section (Provisions as to ecclesiastical property) of this Act").—(Lord Daryngton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WOOLTON: The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 3o, at end insert:
("(3) Words in this Act importing a reference to service of a notice to treat shall be construed as including a reference to the constructive service of such a notice which, by virtue of the Sixth Schedule to this Act or of any other enactment, is to be deemed to be served.")—(Lord Woolton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
4.26 p.m.
First Schedule [Procedure for dealing with objections]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The first Amendment is to leave out the three words "to the Minister." They are really being lest out because they are unnecessary. I beg to move
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 20, leave out ("to the Minister").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MESTON LORD MESTON moved to leave out paragraphs 2 to 6 and insert:
" 2. If no objection is duly made by any of the persons upon whom notices are required to be served, or if all objections so made are withdrawn, the Minister may, if he thinks fit, confirm the order with or without modification, but in any other case he shall, before confirming the order, cause a public local inquiry to be held, and shall consider any objection not withdrawn and the report of the person who held the inquiry, and may then confirm the order either with or without modification:
Provided that the Minister may confirm the order without causing a public local inquiry to be held if he is satisfied that every objection duly made relates exclusively to matters which can be dealt with by the arbitrator by whom compensation is to be assessed."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to restore to an objector his right of public local inquiry by the Minister to hear and determine an objection. The First Schedule to the Bill as at present drafted materially restricts the right of an objector to the holding of a public local inquiry; in fact, the Minister is given what amounts to unfettered discretion to decide whether or not a public local inquiry should be held at all to hear an objection. The Amendment substantially follows the procedure laid down in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932. It is submitted that the amended procedure is in practice as speedy and simple as the procedure in the

1073
First Schedule to this Bill. The amended procedure is much fairer to objectors in every way, as it enables the whole matter once and for all to be discussed publicly at a local inquiry.
So far as expense is concerned, there is very little if any extra expense incurred by the amended procedure. I would draw the Committee's attention in particular to sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 3 of the First Schedule, which provides in terms that in so far as the Minister is satisfied, "after considering the grounds of the objection" that
"the case of an objection to an order authorizing a compulsory purchase of land as to which an order under Section one of this Act is in force, that the objection is made on the ground that the purchase is unnecessary or inexpedient"
the Minister may treat the objection as irrelevant.
I should then like to turn to paragraph 6 of the First Schedule, which provides:
"Notwithstanding anything in paragraphs 2 to 5 of this Schedule, if it appears to the Minister that the matters to which the objection relates are such as to require investigation by public local inquiry before he decides as aforesaid, he shall cause such an inquiry to be held."
The Committee will observe that everything seems to turn on whether the Minister is satisfied or whether something appears to the Minister to be the case. Let me put the matter in this way. There is a great deal of consideration in this Bill for the surgeon who is going to do the operation, but not the same consideration for the patient who, in his capacity as taxpayer and ratepayer, is going to undergo the operation, and incidentally is also going to pay the surgeon his fee. I believe I am correct in saying that on the Second Reading of this Bill in another place the Minister expressed himself as in favour of a public inquiry as a matter of right. However, since then the First Schedule has been introduced into the Bill.
There may be an idea in the minds of certain people in the country that public local inquiries are a waste of time and are of no value to anybody except the lawyers who stir them up and appear at them. That matter can easily be rectified, because the Minister can provide by regulation that no barrister or solicitor shall have
1074
any right of audience at one of these inquiries.
LORD LATHAM: That would be planning with a vengeance!
LORD MESTON: What I want is not to protect a perquisite of the legal profession, but to protect the right of the individual whose property is taken to the holding of a public local inquiry where everything can be discussed in public, instead of, as under the First Schedule, having a procedure whereby there is a long subterranean correspondence between the objector and somebody in the Ministry who, we can be quite sure, is not the Minister himself but somebody in a subordinate position. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 25, leave out paragraphs 2 to 6 and insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Meston.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: With some of the general principles which my noble friend has enunciated, I might not disagree, but I think he is not looking at this First Schedule quite in the right way. It does not deny anybody reasonable rights at all, but it is a procedure which is more flexible than the present extremely rigid procedure under which, as he very truly says, a local public inquiry has to be held willy-nilly. That is the difference. I noticed that my noble friend, on the Second Reading, when he called attention to this point, spoke as though the provision in paragraph 3 (b) of the Schedule gave the Minister what he called enormous and unlimited power and discretion, a power and discretion which even the Emperor Nero would have envied. If the Minister were within sight I might have observed him lolling on Nero's throne, but in fact that does not describe it at all, because I think my noble friend overlooked the fact that the provision which he thought was equal to throwing the Christians to the lions, only applies where a Clause 1 order has been made. Before a Clause 1 order could ever be made the need and desirability of the purchase has been established by a very full procedure. Therefore I do not think there is the slightest possibility of Nero being included in the present Government: I cannot of course speak with confidence about the future.

1075
The other case which he apparently has not quite provided for is this. Under paragraph 4 of the Schedule the Minister need not investigate an objection further if he is satisfied that he is sufficiently informed about the matter as to which the objection relates to be able to come to a decision on it. It is not any dislike of publicity; certainly there is no desire to deprive any opposition of its reasonable rights. But we cannot altogether shut our eyes to the fact that there might be what we may call a professional objector, a gentleman who is entitled to his opinion but whose attitude is represented by that of the criminal who, asked if he objected to any member of the jury, said, "I object to the lot." That is not a good reason against a public inquiry—a person who in an imaginary case might oppose every project of the particular city council on the ground that "These fellows are already spending too much money." I do not think it is an unreasonable thing to have a more flexible procedure which does permit certain classes of case to be dealt with by the Minister without this extremely elaborate procedure. I must, in all candour, tell my noble friend that I do not subscribe to his proposition that it would be a good plan to exclude barristers and lawyers from local inquiries, for I think it is in the interests of both sides that the matter should be put forward with professional help. For these reasons I hope he will not persist in this proposal, because I think the view of Parliament would be that the more flexible procedure of the First Schedule is, within limits, better than a return to the old and more rigid procedure.
LORD MESTON: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for his courtesy in explaining the position. I am afraid I still remain dissatisfied with the First Schedule. I think that a public local inquiry as laid down in the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, would be more open and more satisfactory; but as I am not likely to get any support I must ask leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule [Procedure for authorizing compulsory purchase]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment to conform with the wording of a previous paragraph.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 45, leave out ("statement") and insert ("request").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third Schedule [Procedure for authorizing compulsory purchase of statutory undertakers' land]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment consequent on the changes made in the Commons.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 7, leave out ("Department") and insert ("Minister").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is drafting; it corresponds to an Amendment we made earlier in the Schedule.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 32, leave out ("to the Minister").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fourth Schedule:

FOURTH SCHEDULE.
  ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION TO STATUTORY UNDERTAKERS.

    PART I.
    Amount of Compensation.
    1. The compensation to be paid—
    shall in default of agreement be assessed by the arbitration of the tribunal constituted in accordance with the provisions of part II of this Schedule, and the amount of the compensation shall be an amount calculated in accordance with the provisions of the next following paragraph:
    Provided that, as respects compensation in respect of a compulsory purchase, if before the expiration of two months from the date on which notice to treat is served, or deemed by virtue of the Sixth Schedule to this Act to have been served in respect of the interest of the person by whom the statutory undertaking is carried on that person gives notice in writing to the purchasing authority that he elects that the compensation shall be assessed in accordance with the Lands Clauses Acts and the Acquisition of Land (Assessment

    1077
    of Compensation) Act, 1919, excluding Rule 5 set out in Section two of the last mentioned Act, and by the arbitration of an official arbitrator, the compensation shall be so assessed.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The first Amendment is drafting.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 71, line 8, leave out from ("served") to ("in") in line 9.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is also drafting.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 71, line 11, after the second ("that") insert ("as respects all or any of the land comprised in the purchase").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in the proviso in paragraph 1, to leave out "assessed in accordance with the Lands Clauses Acts and the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, excluding Rule 5 set out in Section two of the last mentioned Act and by the arbitration of an official arbitrator," and insert "ascertained in accordance with the enactments, other than Rule (5) of the rules set out in Section two of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation Act, 1919, which would be applicable apart from the provisions of this Schedule." The noble and learned Viscount said: Some doubt has been expressed as to whether the expression "doing work," which occurs in this part of the Bill, would cover the case of providing apparatus as part of what is called adjustment, and the object of the Amendment is to remove that doubt.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 7, line 12, leave out from ("be") to the second ("the") in line 15 and insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There are two more drafting Amendments.
    Amendments moved—
    Page 71, line 16, leave out ("assessed") and insert ("ascertained");
    Page 71, line 21, after ("land") insert ("providing apparatus")—(The Lord Chancellor).
    On Question, Amendments agreed to.
    Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
    Fifth Schedule:

FIFTH SCHEDULE.
  MODIFICATIONS OF LANDS CLAUSES ACTS AND ACQUISITION OF LAND (ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION) ACT, 1919, FOR PURPOSES OF PART I.

    PART I.
    The Land Clauses Acts.
    2. The following sections of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, shall be excepted from incorporation with Part I of this Act, that is to say,—

    (a)Sections one hundred and twenty-seven to one hundred and thirty-two (which relate to sale of superfluous land);

    (b) if the order by which a compulsory purchase is authorized so provides, Section one hundred and thirty-three (which relates to promoters making good deficiencies in land tax and rates); and

    (c) Sections one hundred and fifty and one hundred and fifty-one (which relate to access to the special Act).

    6. Where glebe land or other land belonging to an ecclesiastical benefice is purchased compulsorily, sums agreed upon or awarded for the purchase of the land, or to be paid by way of compensation for damage sustained by the owner by reason of severance or injury affecting other land so belonging, shall not be paid as directed by the Lands Clauses Acts, but shall be paid to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to be applied by them as money paid to them upon a sale, under the provisions of the Ecclesiastical Leasing Acts, of land belonging to a benefice.
    4.38 p.m.
    LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved, in paragraph 2 (b), to leave out "if the order by which compulsory purchase is authorized so provides." The noble Lord said: This is to preserve the position of authorities in London. It is a very complicated and technical matter, and I hope I may be able to make is sufficiently clear. As at present drafted sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 2 grants certain exceptions to land which has been acquired by a compulsory purchase order, and if the words whose omission I am proposing remain in it would limit the exception granted to land acquired by the planning authorities in London to that acquired compulsorily and they would get no benefit as regards land acquired by agreement. It is the case that in London, when lands are taken, the promoters of the scheme who take them have to make good any deficiency of the Poor Rate; whereas outside London, under the

    1079
    Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, which does not apply to London, the situation is different, because only one half of the deficiency of the general rate then falls upon the promoters.
    Rating authorities in London would be better off in certain circumstances financially if the deficiency of Poor Rate is paid than if the property were to remain liable to rates in the ordinary way. The London County Council, when promoting a Bill for street improvement and the like, normally secures protection against the anomalous position which exists as regards London by reason of the fact that London is not within the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925. I can also pray in aid the fact that the exception we are now asking for is provided for in the Housing Act, 1936. The Solicitor-General in another place, when his attention was drawn to this, said it would be looked into. I hope, therefore, that, inasmuch as it is following normal practice to meet a situation which is peculiar to London, the Government may be willing to accept, and your Lordships to approve, the leaving out of the words as indicated in my Amendment. I beg to move.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 74, line 6, leave out from ("(b)") to ("section") in line 7.—(Lord Latham.)
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord explains these matters so clearly that I feel almost tempted to accuse him of being a lawyer, but, wishing to preserve amity with him, I refrain from that possibly ambiguous comment. He understands it much more clearly than I do. It is a very technical matter. It has been looked at closely and not unsympathetically by those who advise the Government. Our feeling about it is that it is really a question of local government and the Minister of Health and his Department are, of course, necessarily concerned with that. I think it may very well be that consultations with rating authorities here would be necessary, and while I agree that we have adopted already, if I follow rightly, the course which my noble friend wants in the case of a previous Act—
    LORD LATHAM: The Housing Act, 1936.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: —still it is equally true, of course, that we have not got it at all generally. It may be
    1080
    that it ought to be altered more generally, but we are rather unwilling (I think you can appreciate why) to make a change here with the result that we should create contrast and anomaly in all the other cases. I am sorry not to accept the proposal, but I would like to urge my noble friend opposite to agree that it should not be dealt with here. The proposal was made in the Commons and, after discussion, I think it was withdrawn. It must be a matter—I hope it may be treated as a prompt matter—to be adjusted in connexion with the Ministry of Health on the law of local government. I think my noble friend will see there is some good reason in that.
    LORD LATHAM: Yes, I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. I cannot understand (I confess this is a very technical matter) why, on behalf of the Government, the noble and learned Viscount puts forward the suggestion that this is a general matter. As I understand it, this situation does not exist outside London. It is only because the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, which was originally intended to apply to London but was amended in another place during its passage, does not apply to London that this special situation arises. There is no question of general local government. It refers only to London. No one can be prejudiced. After all, the London County Council is not a rating authority. It precepts. It is a question between the London County Council and the metropolitan borough councils. That special position was recognized in Section 147 of the Act of 1936. However, I do not want to take up any further time. I know there is a lot to be dealt with on the Report stage. There is no controversy in this. It is a matter of doing equity to London in a difficult situation, and if you will look at it between now and then I shall be content.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    LORD DARYNGTON LORD DARYNGTON moved, in paragraph 6, to leave out "glebe land or other land belonging to an ecclesiastical benefice" and insert "land being ecclesiastical property." The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment on behalf of the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of London. This Amendment and the following Amendments are designed to secure the proper use, in acordance with the relevant ecclesiastical law, of moneys received upon

    1081
    the acquisition of any ecclesiastical property as defined. Such moneys will be paid to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, as the central Church authority for such purposes, to be applied by them as they would have been required to be applied if the transaction had been effected voluntarily (for example, under the Ecclesiastical Leasing Acts, the Parsonages Measure, the Union of Benefices Measures, the Reorganization Areas Measure, etc.).
    Amendment moved—
    Page 75, line 12, leave out ("gleae land or other land belonging to an ecclesiastical benefice") and insert ("land being ecclesiastical property").—(Lord Daryngton.)
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This has been looked into, and I would advise the Committee that the Amendment should be accepted. As my noble friend has just said, it is intended to secure payment to the appropriate statutory central Church authority in order that they may deal with the moneys received, rather than leave it as it is now in the Bill.
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    LORD DARYNGTON: The next two Amendments are consequential Amendments.
    Amendments moved—
    Page 75, line 16, leave out ("land so belonging") and insert ("such land").
    Page 75, Line 18, leave out from ("applied") to end of line 20 and insert ("for the purposes for which the proceeds of a sale by agreement of the land would be applicable under any enactment or Measure authorizing such a sale").—(Lord Daryngton.)
    On Question, Amendments agreed to.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is drafting. The words are superfluous.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 76 line 46, leave out from ("served") to the end of line 47.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    The Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
    Sixth Schedule:

  SIXTH SCHEDULE
  PROCEDURE FOR COMPLETION OF COMPULSORY PURGE ASE UNDER ORDERS PROVIDING FOR EXPEDITED COMPLETION.
  SIXTH SCHEDULE

    PART I
    Procedure for expedited completion.
    4.—(2) The earliest time at which such a declaration may be executed shall be the expira-
    1082
    tion of two months from the date of first publication of the notice of confirmation of the order required by this Act to be published:
    Provided that the order may provide for the substitution of a period longer or shorter than two months for the purposes of the operation of this sub-paragraph as respects any land, so however, that provision for the substitution of a shorter period shall not be so made in relation to any land unless the order as submitted or the draft of the order or the application there-for, as the case may be, made such provision in relation thereto.
    (3) As soon as may be after executing such a declaration the purchasing authority shall serve upon every occupier of any of the land in the area designated thereby a notice describing that area and stating the effect of the declaration.
    (5) Notwithstanding anything in sub-paragraph (1) or (4) of this paragraph, the following provisions shall have effect as respects land in an area designated by a declaration made under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph which is occupied under a minor tenancy or under a long tenancy which is about to expire, that is to say—
    (7) A copy of every notice served under subparagraph (3) of this paragraph on the occupier of any land shall be served, on the date on which the notice is served on the occupier or as soon as may be thereafter, on every other person who has before that date given information to the purchasing authority in relation to that land pursuant to such invitation as is mentioned in paragraph 3 of this Schedule.

  PART II
  Adjustments where provision for expedited completion made
  11. Where any of the land designated by a purchase order providing for expedited completion constitutes a part only of land comprised in a lease for a term of years unexpired. Section one hundred and nineteen of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, shall have effect subject to the modification that, for references therein to the time of the opportionment of rent therein mentioned, there shall be substituted references to the time of the vesting in the purchasing authority of the first-mentioned land under paragraph 4 of this Schedule.
  4.45 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The first Amendment to this Schedule is very nearly a drafting Amendment. As the Bill was introduced there was a procedure in the Sixth Schedule which was to expedite the completion of compulsory purchasing. I need not recite the details. We have amended Clause 16, subsection (3) of the Bill—or rather it was done in the other House—so as to enable that procedure to be applied to part only of

  1083
  the land designated by the order. The consequence of all that is that the Schedule will be easier to understand if the relevant references are worded throughout so as to relate only to the land, whether to the whole or part of the land, to which the procedure applies. It is one of those efforts intended to make this part of the Bill easier to understand.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 77, line 30, leave out ("designated by") and insert ("as respects which this Schedule applies by virtue of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next three Amendments are drafting Amendments.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 77, line 34, leave out from ("party") to the end of line 37 and insert ("in respect of any interest in land shall be the date on which the order is registered in the register of local land charges by the proper officer of the council mentioned in Section sixteen of this Act in whose area that land is situated.")
  Page 78, line 8, leave out ("order") and insert ("land in which the tenancy subsists,")
  Page 78, line 12, at end insert (", and that the landlord will exercise any option to determine the tenancy then or thereafter available to him.)").—(The Lord Chancellor).
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is to leave out paragraph 2. As things have now been reframed that paragraph 2 is unnecessary.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 78, line 13, leave out paragraph 2.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next two Amendments are consequential drafting changes.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 78, line 39, leave out ("designated by") and insert ("as respects which this Schedule applies by virtue of")
  Page 78, line 47, leave out ("designated by") and insert ("as respects which this Schedule applies by virtue of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  LORD AMMON LORD AMMON moved, in sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 4, to leave out "two months" and insert "one month." The noble Lord said: This is a matter of not very vital importance, but neverthe-
  1084
  less it has some importance in the matter of time. Sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 4 of the Sixth Schedule provides:
  "The earliest time at which such a declaration may be executed shall be the expiration of two months from the date of first publication of the notice of confirmation of the order required by this Act to be published."
  It is difficult to understand the reason for proposing the interval of two months and it is suggested it would be possible to execute the declaration at any time after the expiration of the period of twenty-eight days or one month. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 79, line 7, leave out ("two months") and insert ("one month").—(Lord Ammon.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend Lord Ammon gave of course a perfectly accurate account of the subparagraph which he is suggesting might be amended, but he did not add that there follows a proviso in the Bill as it stands, and the proviso is really designed to give the opportunity for a shorter time in such cases where it is possible. The question becomes a very narrow one really: Are you going to say one month in all cases or are you going to say two months with a proviso that you will get one month where it is practicable to do so? I am advised that there are cases really in which it would be necessary to have the two months, and I hope it is understood that there is this proviso which will shorten the time and that my noble friend will be content with it.
  LORD AMMON: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 4, after "thereby," to insert "other than any of the land therein in which a minor tenancy, or a long tenancy which is about to expire, is subsisting, and in every other person who has given information to the authority in relation to any of the land therein pursuant to such invitation as is mentioned in paragraph 2 of this Schedule." The noble and learned Viscount said: I do not know if it will be of interest to your Lordships to know the reasons why this Amendment is proposed. They are very long and when you come to the end of them you realize that the change is really a drafting change. I ask your Lordships to take

  1085
  that from me. I do not propose to give an explanation unless any of your Lordships feel you must have one. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 79, line 20, after ("thereby") insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 4, to leave out all words after "paragraph," where that word occurs for the second time, and insert:
  "in which a minor tenancy, or a long tenancy which is about to expire, is subsisting, that is to say—

  (a) in the case of a minor tenancy, the right of entry conferred by sub-paragraph (4) of this paragraph shall not be exercisable, and the vesting of the land in the authority shall be subject to the tenancy during its subsistence, but without prejudice to any power to require a tenant to give up possession exercisable by the purchasing authority by virtue of the Lands Clauses Acts;

  (b) in the case of a long tenancy which is abort to expire, the right of entry conferred ay sub-paragraph (4) of this paragraph shall not be exercisable unless or until the purchasing authority have served notice to treat in respect of the tenancy and they have thereafter served a notice upon every occupier of any of the land in which tie tenancy subsists describing the land to which the notice relates and stating their intention to enter on and to take possession thereof at the expiration of such period (not being less than fourteen days) from the date on which the notice is served as may he therein specified, and that period has expired, and the vesting of the land in the authority shall be subject to the tenancy until the expiration of that period or the cesser of the tenancy, whichever first occurs."

  The noble and learned Viscount said: This is really part of the change that I have already indicated and is also drafting. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 80, line 1, leave out from ("paragraph") to the end of line 22 and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next two Amendments are also drafting. I beg to move.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 80, line 27, leave out sub-paragraph (7)
  Page 80, line 33, leave out ("designated by") and insert ("as respects which this
  1086
  Schedule applies by virtue of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next four Amendments are drafting. I beg to move.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 81, line 46, leave out ("designated by") and insert ("as respects which this Schedule applies by virtue of")
  Page 82, line 6, leave out ("designated by") and insert ("as respects which this Schedule applies by virtue of")
  Page 82, line 17, leave out ("designated by") and insert ("as respects which this Schedule applies by virtue of")
  Page 82, line 27, leave out ("designated by") and insert ("as respects which this Schedule applies by virtue of")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in paragraph II, after the last "the" to insert: "leasehold interest in the". The noble and learned Viscount said: Paragraph II of the Sixth Schedule to the Bill deals with the position where a part only of land in lease is purchased and there is an expedited statutory vesting in the purchasing authority. The tenant must, of course, be relieved of liability for such part of the rent as is apportioned to the land purchased. Paragraph ii as it stands provides that the relief is to take effect from the time of vesting. But it may happen under paragraph 4 (5) of the Schedule that the tenant is allowed to remain in possession for some time after the freehold vests in the purchasing authority, and in that case the relief should take effect only from the time of vesting of the tenant's interest. The purpose of this Amendment is to secure that result.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 82, line 33, after the fourth ("the") insert ("leasehold interest in the").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next two Amendments are drafting. I beg to move.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 82, line 48, leave out ("Department") and insert ("Minister").
  Page 83, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (2).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  Sixth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Seventh Schedule [Application of rule as to assessment of compensation in certain special cases]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to the Schedule:
  "4. Where a person is in possession of a holding as defined for the purposes of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, having an interest therein greater than as tenant for a year or from year to year, then so far as the value of the interest is attributable to crops it shall be ascertained in like manner as in the case of the interest of a tenant from year to year, that is to say, without regard to the rule set out in subsection (1) of Section fifty-two of this Act."
  The noble and learned Viscount said: We have already passed an Amendment which makes it necessary to add these words to the Seventh Schedule. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 83, line 34, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Seventh Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  4.56 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert the following new Schedule:

EIGHTH SCHEDULE.

  ASCERTAINMENT OF COMPENSATION FOR PURCHASE OF LAND VALUED UNDER THE WAR DAMAGE ACT, 1943.
  Certified after-damage value of land to be taken in certain circumstances as its value for compensation on compulsory purchase.
  1.—(1) Where the subject of a compulsory purchase, the compensation for which is by virtue of Section fifty-two of this Act to be assessed subject to the rule set out in subsection (1) of that section, is or comprises an interest in the whole of the land in a hereditament within the meaning of the War Damage Act, 1943. the value of which is required by that Act to be ascertained by reference to its state after war damage and to an assumed sale thereof, the value of the said land for the purposes of the ascertainment of the compensation for the purchase shall be taken to be such amount as may be certified by the War Damage Commission to he the value of the hereditament as ascertained as aforesaid (in this Schedule referred to as the "certified after-damage value" of that land), subject however to the two next succeeding sub-paragraphs.
  (2) The preceding sub-paragraph shall not have effect if between the occurrence of the war damage and the time when the notice to treat is served the land in the hereditament has been brought into a state such as to make it capable of being as beneficially used while remaining in that state as it was immediately before the occurrence of the war damage.
  (3) If the land in the hereditament has not been brought into such a state as aforesaid, but there is any material difference either—

  (a) between the state of the land in the hereditament after damage by reference to which the value thereof falls to he ascertained under the War Damage Act, 1943, and its state at the time when the notice to treat is served; or

  (b) between the incumbrances, if any, to which the said land was subject immediately after the occurrence of the war damage and the incumbrances, if any, to which it is subject at the time when the notice to treat is served, being incumbrances of a kind required by the said Act to be taken into account in ascertaining the value of the hereditament,

  the value of the said land for the purposes of the ascertainment of the compensation for the purchase shall be taken to be the certified after-damage value thereof adjusted by adding, or by subtracting, as the case may require, the amount by which the value of the hereditament as required to be ascertained under the said Act would have been greater or less if that value had fallen to be ascertained by reference to the state of the hereditament at the time when the notice to treat is served, and if it had been subject immediately after the occurrence of the war damage to all in-cumbrances of any such kind as aforesaid to which it is subject at the time when the notice to treat is served and to no other incumbrances of any such kind.
  (4) Where this paragraph has effect as respects a purchase the subject of which comprises, but does not consist solely of, the interest in question in the land in the hereditament, compensation for the purchase shall be ascertained, and all statutory provisions relating to the ascertainment thereof or to the carrying out of the purchase or to matters connected therewith shall have effect, subject to any agreement between the purchasing authority and other parties concerned, as if the interest in question in that land had been purchased separately and separate notices to treat had been served accordingly, and had been served simultaneously.
  Compensation for compulsory purchase of several interests in land to be ascertained in certain circumstances by apportionment of certified after-damage value thereof.
  2.—(1) Where by virtue of paragraph 1 of this Schedule the value of the land comprised in a hereditament is to be taken for the purposes of the ascertainment of compensation to be its certified after-damage value (or that value as adjusted), and notices to treat have been served in respect of two or more interests in the whole of that land on the same date or within such period as may he prescribed under paragraph 3 of this Schedule as respects that land, the compensation to be paid for the purchase of each of these interests shall be ascertained in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
  (2) The amount representing the value of each of those interests as it would have fallen to be ascertained if this paragraph had not had effect in relation thereto shall he agreed,

  1089
  assessed or determined in accordance with the provisions of sub-paragraphs (3) to (7) of this paragraph, and the compensation to be paid for the purchase of each interest shall be the proportion of the certified after-damage value of the land, or of that value as adjusted, as the case may be, which the amount agreed, assessed or determined in respect of that interest hears to the aggregate of the amounts agreed, assessed or determined in respect of the several interests:
  Provided that if the interests in question do not include all interests in the land, an amount representing the value of any excluded interest, as it would have fallen to be ascertained if that interest had been purchased and this paragraph had not had effect in relation thereto, shall he agreed, assessed or determined in accordance with the said provisions and added to tie said aggregate.
  (3) If the values of the several interests in question and of any excluded interest are not otherwise agreed, the claimant in respect of each of the interests in question, and the acquiring authority as respects any excluded interest, shall cause an estimate of the value of that interest to be made and transmitted to an officer of the Valuation Office appointed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue who, after considering the estimates, shall take steps in accordance with rules for securing if possible agreement between the claimants, and, if there is any excluded interest, the purchasing authority, as to the value of each interest.
  (4) In default of agreement as to the value of any interest the said officer shall make an assessment of the value of that interest.
  (5) The costs of the employment by a claimant of a person skilled in valuation to advise or act for him for the purposes of either of the two last preceding sub-paragraphs on a purchase by a local or public authority within the meaning of the, Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, shall be paid by the authority.
  (6) If any claimant, or, if there is any excluded interest, the purchasing authority, is aggrieved by an assessment made by the said officer, the claimant or the authority may in accordance with rules require the value of the interest dealt with by the assessment to be determined by one of the panel of arbitrators appointed under Section one of the said Act of 1919.
  (7) If in respect of any of the interests in question no claim is duly made within the time prescribed by rules, an independent person skilled in valuation may be appointed in accordance with rules to act for the purposes of sub-paragraphs (3) to (6) of this paragraph in respect of that interest, and those subparagraphs shall have effect as if all things done thereunder by the person so appointed had been July authorized by all persons concerned in respect of the interest in question to be dons by that person as agent for them.
  (8) Where the last preceding sub-paragraph has had effect as respects any interest and the value thereof has been agreed or assessed under sub-paragraph (3) or (4) of this para-
  1090
  graph, if any person who would have been entitled but for this paragraph to have any question of disputed compensation in relation to that interest referred to arbitration in accordance with the said Act of 1919 shows in accordance with rules that the fact that no claim was made as aforesaid was not attributable to any default on his part, he may in accordance with rules require the value of that interest to be determined by one of the panel of arbitrators appointed under Section one of the said Act of 1919, and if the compensation on the basis of the value of the interest as so determined is greater or less than the compensation on the basis of the value thereof as agreed or assessed as aforesaid, the difference shall he recoverable by the person entitled to the compensation from the purchasing authority or by the authority from him, as the case may be.
  (9) The costs of any arbitration under subparagraph (6) or (8) of this paragraph, including any fees charges and expenses of the arbitration or award, shall be in the discretion of the official arbitrator, who may direct to and by whom and in what manner those costs or any part thereof shall be paid, and the official arbitrator may in any case disallow the costs of counsel.
  (10) The amount of any costs that an authority are liable to pay by virtue of sub-paragraph (5) of this paragraph, or of any arbitration under sub-paragraph (6) or (8) thereof, shall be determined by reference to scales to be prescribed by the Treasury, and in case of difference as to the amount of any such costs they shall, if payable under sub-paragraph (5) of this paragraph, be taxed in such manner as the Treasury may direct, or, if payable under direction of an official arbitrator, be taxed by him or in such manner as he may direct.
  Rules for giving effect to preceding provisions of this Schedule.
  3. Provision may be made by rules made by the Lord Chancellor, after consultation with the Reference Committee referred to in the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, for giving effect to the provisions of the two preceding paragraphs, for prescribing anything thereby required to be determined by rules, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by this paragraph,—

  (a) for the determination of any question whether land has been brought into a state such as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph I of this Schedule, of any question Whether there is any such material difference as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph, and, in a case in which there is any such difference, how the certified after-damage value ought to be adjusted;

  (b) for regulating the proceedings for the ascertainment of compensation, where the value of any land for the purposes of the ascertainment thereof is to be taken to he the certified after-damage value of the land (or that value as adjusted), so as to secure that the requisite certificate and particulars of any requisite adjustment may be rendered available for those purposes;

  1091

  (c) for fixing the period referred to in subparagraph (1) of paragraph 2 of this Schedule within which, where a notice to treat has been served as respects an interest in the whole of the land in a hereditament, such a notice in respect of any other interest therein must be or have been served in order to render the provisions of that paragraph applicable to the ascertainment of the compensation to be paid for the purchase of those interests, and for securing, so far as may be practicable, that all such notices intended to be given as respects interests in the whole of the land in a hereditament shall be given within the period fixed;

  (d) for specifying limits of time within which things required or authorized by paragraph 2 of this Schedule must be done, with or without power to persons designated by the rules to extend to such limits;

  and references in paragraph 2 of this Schedule to rules shall be construed as references made under this paragraph.
  The noble and learned Viscount said: Your Lordships have before you the Eighth Schedule printed in the Paper. I think it would be desirable to state both for the benefit of your Lordships who are following this discussion and others also what is the principle that is embodied in this Schedule. It looks very complicated but it really is simple. It deals with the appropriate principles regarding the compulsory purchase of "blitzed" properties as they stand after war damage. The principle of paragraph 1 is to accept the value of a "blitzed" property as fixed by the War Damage Commission or as fixed on appeal from that body for the purpose of assessing the amount of compensation payable for the compulsory purchase of interests in the property. That will secure two things. One result will be that it will avoid two separate valuations. Both valuations are with reference to the March, 1939, standard. It is obvious that it is most undesirable to make the machine go round twice when the question is the same. If the question has been correctly answered the answer should again be the same. The second point is it will secure that the owner receives a war damage value payment fixed on the value of his property as it stands. After the damage the property has a certain value and if that property has been compulsorily purchased the compensation is fixed on the basis that it is either of greater value or of less value. He has to stand by the amount whether it is above or below. Those are the two principles in the first paragraph.
  Whether you look at it from the point of view of equity or whether you look at it from the point of convenience I do not think your Lordships will doubt that it is right and ought to receive general support. Owners and others who have to act upon valuations and also those who have to pay the proper amount of compensation would probably prefer this procedure rather than have an immense number of cases dealt with. With a view to avoiding that it is indispensable that we should make a provision of this sort. Then the principle of paragraph 2 is this. It is to provide a means of fixing the compensation for several interests in a single "blitzed" property by negotiation instead of by independent valuation. I think everybody will agree with that principle. If that can be done it is I think a good thing to do. Under the compensation law a notice to treat has to be given not as to the property cited but as to the particular interests, and they may be like leaves in Vallambrosa. In some cases it will lead to great complication. You have three notices to treat, three separate sets of compensation proceedings, and the factors that will lead to the right compensation are the same in each case. Therefore it is quite foolish to have an arrangement under which that procedure would have to be gone through over and over again. It all arises because there is no one person who has jurisdiction to bring the parties together.
  If your Lordships will study paragraph 2 at your leisure you will see that it provides that the district valuer, the person who presumably is to be concerned in all separate valuations, should have, if possible, the owner or the owners of the various interests brought together and discuss with them the proper apportionment and settle the actual amounts due to each. It is thought that it would seldom be necessary to resort to compulsion. But this is obviously the most sensible thing to do and there is every reason to suppose that it will work well. District valuers generally will command the confidence of the owners and be accepted by them as impartial experts, but it is necessary to provide for compulsion and independent valuation in default of agreement and that is why paragraph 2 is of regrettable length. That, however, is what it means if I have explained it clearly. I could go on and give more detail.
  We have informed the associations of local authorities of the Government's intention to make this provision and the associations of local authorities do not feel in all cases satisfied that the valuation of the "blitzed" land by the War Damage Commission should be taken. It is right to inform your Lordships that the associations' acceptance of paragraph 1 is limited to cases where the valuation is made on appeal, from the Commission, by one of the referees. I only have to say that if that view were accepted it really would knock die bottom out of these proposals. I do not think we should be justified in doing that. I hope that the reasons of equity and convenience to which I have referred are going to prevail in the judgment of the Committee. It is not a question of getting everything perfect. We have got a very large piece of work in front of us and it is most important that it should be done promptly. I am convinced that if, for the sake of precision, we do not allow this grouping of claims so that a single judgment may decide the main figure payable we shall be sorry for it in the long run. I hope this now Schedule will be studied carefully before it finally and absolutely becomes law. I will not go into more detail because I do not think it is desirable at the moment, but it is on the Order Paper to he studied.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 83, insert the said new Schedule.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  5.4 P.m.
  LORD AMMONhad given Notice of an Amendment to the proposed new Schedule—namely, in paragraph 1, at end of sub-paragraph (1), to insert "and to a right in the acquiring authority to exercise, within one month of the service of the notice to treat, an option to require that, instead of the compensation being as aforesaid, the compensation shall be as determined by one of the panel of arbitrators appointed under Section one of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919."
  The noble Lord said: The noble and learned Viscount has, to a certain extent, answered in advance some of the points that I wish to raise, but I think they are worthy of more consideration. Before the Bill was introduced in another place the Minister of Town and Country Planning
  1094
  consulted the associations of local authorities on the subject of the ascertainment of compensation for the purchase of land valued under the War Damage Act, 1943. A reply was sent on behalf of the local authorities on September 27, 1944, from which I would like to read this extract:
  "Local authorities have a strong objection to being hound by a valuation fixed in proceedings to which they have not been parties…It is suggested, therefore, that the first of the three clauses should be restricted to cases in which the value of a hereditament has been determined by a referee under the War Damage Act, and that the second of the three clauses should be restricted to those cases and should provide for a direct reference to the official arbitrator in the event of disagreement between the parties concerned."
  Those views were rejected by the Minister and it is thought to be no good going over that ground again. As an alternative, it is suggested that there should be an option given to the acquiring authority not to accept the after-damage value as certified by the War Damage Commission and to refer the matter to the official arbitrator. This would be in accord with the recommendation of the Uthwatt Committee which is to be found in paragraph 186, page 76, of their Final Report.
  The after-damage value is settled by the War Damage Commission for the purpose of determining the amount of the value payment which is the difference between the value before and after damage. Therefore the greater the after-damage value the smaller is the value payment. It is not suggested that the after-damage value is not fairly assessed, but if it is known that the land is to be acquired by a local authority and if the intended Act is to provide that the after-damage value is to be the basis of compensation by local authorities in cases of purchase, it will be in the interest of the War Damage Commission to give as high an after-damage value without this affecting the total amount to be received by the owner. It is because of these possibilities that I am moving this Amendment. We are not against the proposed new Schedule, and we admit very readily that there are advantages to be gained by it, but I venture to suggest that it will be considerably improved by the insertion of the words which I have put on the Paper.
  Amendment to the proposed new Schedule moved—
  Paragraph 1, at end of sub-paragraph (1), insert the said words.—(Lord Ammon.)
  5.8 p.m.
  LORD LATHAM: This is a matter of very great importance to local authorities and I regret that it should need to be dealt with at this late hour. We do not desire unnecessarily to delay the proceedings, but I must point out that this new Schedule introduces quite a novel and indeed revolutionary method for determining the price which local authorities shall pay for land. It is to be determined as a result of negotiations to which they will not have been parties. I admit, and so do the local authorities, the substantial administrative advantages likely to be secured by the proposed new Schedule both as regards the avoidance of duplication of valuation which is important and the not less important point of having a global valuation rather than valuation of separate interests. That could make for an enormous saving in time and work.
  But there still remains the point that the local authorities are going to be bound, not before ascertaining, but before being allowed to ascertain, by a valuation come to by another party. The business of the War Damage Commission is to minimize the payment for damage. That is quite a proper thing. They are in charge of public funds and it is a proper thing to see that those funds are prudently expended. Therefore it is to the interest of the War Damage Commission to put after-damage value as high as possible because it is by deduction of the after-damage value from the pre-damage value that they arrive at the net amount of the claim. Therefore, in addition the local authorities not being parties to this ascertainment there is one party in whose interest it is that the ascertainment should be as high as possible.
  You may say, and it may be correct, that the owner of the premises will object to the War Damage Commission valuing the land too highly. That may be so, or it may not be so. But, of course, if the owner has got an inkling of what is going to happen—and in many districts, as soon as the war with Germany is over, it will not be impossible to get an inkling as to where development is going to take place, and the line of the development
  1096
  to be carried out by local authorities—and once he is satisfied that his property is likely to be acquired, he is unconcerned as to the figure at which the War Damage Commission may put the after-damage value of his property. He knows that he will have it deducted from his claim by the War Damage Commission, but will get it from the local authority as prescribed under the Eighth Schedule. That is really putting the local authority, if I may say so with every respect, in a position, in which they ought not to be put. The Uthwatt Committee, at page 76, were quite definite about this. They said:
  "The new provision should make it clear that, although the information obtained from returns, assessments, etc., in the case of those connected with the War Damage Act, 1941, must be taken into consideration, and in other cases may be taken into consideration, they are not necessarily to he the basis on which the award is made."
  The Report goes on:
  "They are to be treated as relevant facts, not conclusive tests."
  The next point I wish to make arises in this way. The proposal as I understand it is this: that the Eighth Schedule will be concerned with the basic valuation, that is the basic valuation made by the War Damage Commission, and then there may be another valuation made—namely, the valuation for the supplement. Who is going to make the valuation for the supplement? The War Damage Commission, at the moment, is not required to make valuation for supplement. It may be required to do so later on. An indication has been given that adjustments and amendments may be made, but, as I understand it, at the moment the War Damage Commission is not required to inquire whether or not the owner of the property is entitled to supplement. But the local authority will have to face that, and we may well have an imposed valuation—the War ,Damage Commission valuation—and the valuation by somebody else, who does not, necessarily, know the mind of the valuer who does the valuation for the War Damage Commission, assessing the value for supplement. That may place the local authority in the position of paying twice in respect of certain elements of the value of the property. In my humble submission, it cannot make for tidiness of valuation if you are going to have two

  1097
  bodies valuing different elements of the same property without necessarily coming into cot tact, and without either of them necessarily having information which the other may have. I could expand this point at considerably greater length, and, possibly with utility, but the hour is late. May I add that local authorities willingly admit that this proposal has great administrative advantages and may have cash advantages by reason of the global valuation rather than the valuation of the individual interests. If I were to say that this is revolutionary I would point out that the use of the word revolutionary is not hyperbolic. But, at any rate, this is perfectly novel.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Some revolutions are quite respectable.
  LORD LATHAM: I do not hesitate to—but there, I had better leave that, or I may get into another Schedule. I will only say that this is a very novel and revolutionary proposal that a local authority should have the price it pays determined by a body and by negotiations to which it is not party. Whatever may be the result of this Bill, I think it is obvious to anyone that the burdens local authorities have to bear under this measure, if they really seek to make it achieve some of the objects it is intended to achieve, are pretty considerable and pretty heavy. They should be permitted the option of saying whether they will be bound by a certificate of value which has been given in their absence.
  5 17 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord has made, if I may say so with respect, a perfectly reasonable and clear speech. It is true that to ask the local authorities to accept, and agree to act upon, a valuation made by another body, primarily for another purpose, and without the local authorities actually being there to argue it out, is not a thing that would be following in the ancient ways, and those persons who object to any form of revolution might be disturbed. But I think this is a good revolution, for the main reason which the noble Lord has frankly and fairly stated. I am quite convinced that if we do not do something like this there is going to be wholly unnecessary and most undesirable complication in working out a great many of these urban compensation matters.
  1098
  I must point out, with equal candour and, I hope, equal fairness, that Lord Latham, while he explains the objection very clearly, has not, I think, with equal clearness pointed out what this Amendment really does. It really gives the local authorities a soft option. They may ascertain what, in various cases, is the figure which the War Damage Commission has fixed for the purpose of a value payment, and they may then go through the list and say: "Well that is a nice low one, so we will have that. This one is a high one, so we will not have it," and they, therefore, to use a common expression, would get the best of both worlds. I do not see how you could give an equal option to the other side. Indeed, if you did it would only amount to saying: "You shall only use this information if both sides agree." We must either say that we must have this invaluable set of carefully fixed values, and use them for this purpose, or scrap the idea. It is quite correct to say .that in one sense the War Damage Commission when it is fixing the value payment may be supposed to be interested in not making it bigger than they can help. I do not think, if we look at it in a practical rather than in an unreal and, perhaps, ultra-legalistic way, that the War Damage Commission is, in practice, open to that suspicion. It is engaged, if I may speak quite strictly, not so much in distributing public money as really in distributing the fund which has been made by the contribution of all the people who have been affected.
  LORD LATHAM: As to only 50 per cent.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is a true and just counter. I will withdraw that particular observation. But there are cases, no doubt, where it would be most unreasonable to ask local authorities to accept a figure which they have taken no part in fixing. But it is a question here of all or none and what Lord Ammon's Amendment means is that he is merely going to give in individual cases an option to the local authority to say, "Yes, we will take Mr. Trustram Eve's figure." You cannot do that; you must accept it or not.
  LORD LATHAM: If I may say so, I do not think that that completely states what the Amendment of Lord Ammon would secure. It is an option not to say "I will not pay the price" but to say "I

  1099
  do not think that this price is fair; let it go to independent arbitration."
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly. I will say, if you like, that it is an option to get a second chance. But there is no option for the claimant. If the local authority under this Amendment says "Yes, let us all agree that that is the proper valuation," because they think that it is low enough, there is no provision for the claimant to say "I think that this is skinning me."
  LORD LATHAM: I am sorry to interrupt again, but I am sure that the noble and learned Viscount will forgive me. The claimant has already had an option to appeal under the War Damage Act itself. The local authority has not.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I see. It shows what a complicated thing this is. We both want to work it out properly, but I doubt whether we can do so across the Table like this. My present impression—I have not the authority of the Minister, and I do not know what my noble friend beside me (Lord Woolton) thinks—is that if this is persisted in it is a negation of the principle of the Schedule, and we should regretfully have to withdraw the Schedule if we decided that the view held by the noble Lord was correct. I should be sorry, because it means an administrative saving. As a matter of fact, the Committee is not at present very fully attended, and if we had a Division the result, if I recollect our Standing Orders aright, would merely be that the matter would be referred to the next sitting of the House. We should not decide anything here, whichever way the vote went. I think that that is correct.
  THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Yes.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I feel that I must take the responsibility of withdrawing the Schedule now, and warning noble Lords that that does not mean that the Government might not try to put it down again at a later stage, while doing anything we can to reach agreement behind the scenes, rather than proceed to a Division which, in view of our small numbers, would itself be ineffective; but I think that on other grounds that would be very unfortunate. I should like Lord Latham to say what he feels would be the best course.
  LORD LATHAM: We are all in a little difficulty. There is no question of conflict here; we both wish to secure that what is best shall be done. I will say quite frankly that I should regret the withdrawal of the Schedule. On the other hand, I am more than a little anxious about its alteration in the respects which I have indicated. If my noble friend behind me (Lord Ammon) were willing to withdraw his Amendment, I do not know whether it would be possible for officers of the London County Council to have a talk with officers of the Ministry between now and Tuesday.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sure that it would be.
  LORD AMMON: I am bound to say that I am very loth to withdraw my Amendment. On the other hand, as I said when I moved it, I see great advantages in this Schedule, and if, as my noble friend has suggested, some informal conversations can take place, I beg leave to withdraw.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

PROLONGATION OF PARLIAMENT BILL.
5.26 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of the Prolongation of Parliament Bill, but I do not think that it will be necessary greatly to prolong our own proceedings on that account. As your Lordships know, the Bill authorizes the continued existence of this Parliament for a further twelve months, but, of course, it does not in any way limit the possibility of a Dissolution occurring before the twelve months are complete. Your Lordships will all have in mind the speech which the Prime Minister made in another place when he himself moved the Second Reading of the Bill there, and how he then indicated his own anticipation that in the course of the year it was likely that we should have a General Election. I took short leave of absence from the House in the middle of the day in order to be present at the Mansion House, and there the Prime Minister in the course of his speech in substance re-

1101
peated that observation. In these circumstances, I cannot doubt that your Lordships, whose continued existence as members of Parliament does not depend on an Election, will be graciously pleased to give a Second Reading to this Bill, and I beg to move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I would advise your Lordships that it is desirable that we should meet on
1102
Tuesday next at twelve o'clock, instead of at the usual hour after lunch, in order to dispose of the concluding stages of the Town and Country Planning Bill.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the
Urban District of Ripley (Derbyshire):
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past five o'clock.