Sitting of 4 December 1945

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Housing
    Sir William Darlingasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if his attention has been drawn to the achievement of Professor Vladimir Zobolofsky, President of the Ukrainian Academy of Architecture, in the manufacture of china building bricks whereby 96,000 houses had been built in one year; and if he will consider similar plans to secure the same achievement for Scotland.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Buchanan): On the information presently before me I am satisfied that this method of building is not one which could be adopted in Scotland, but perhaps the hon. Member would let me have any further details in his possession.
    Sir W. Darling: Is the Under-Secrctary of State aware that in an official document from the Russian Embassy delivered to me at this House particulars were given of this great Soviet achievement?
    Mr. Buchanan: So far as we have examined it, we are not satisfied that this method is suitable for Scotland, but if the hon. Member has any further information I will be pleased to examine it.
    Mr. Malcolm Macmillan: Will the Minister assure us that he will take full cognisance of all the political associations of the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling)?
    Lieut.-Colonel J. R. H. Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland
    2070
    how many houses have been completed in Glasgow since 1st June, 1945; and how many have been started.
    Mr. Buchanan: Since 1st June, 1945, 239 permanent and 67 temporary houses have been completed. The numbers now under construction are 647 permanent and 164 temporary. Those started since 1st June, including some houses which have been completed, number 351 permanent and 212 temporary.
    Lieut.-Colonel Hutchison: May I ask the Minister whether the houses he designates as completed are in fact occupied?
    Mr. Buchanan: "Completed" means that so far as temporary houses are concerned we have completed our work and handed them over to the local authority. With regard to permanent houses, I anticipate that they will all be occupied.
    Mr. McKieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of houses in the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright reconditioned under the Rural Housing Acts.
    Mr. Buchanan: At 30th June, 1945, the latest date for which figures are available, 1,025 houses had been reconditioned under these Acts in the Stewartry.
    Mr. McKie: Is the Minister not now impressed by the fact that the deleterious effect of the Government of which he is a distinguished Member is bound to have effect in discontinuing rural housing in the Stewartry?
    Mr. Buchanan: It all depends upon the angle from which you look at this; for instance, if you found out that 119 were reconditioned by owner-occupiers, the total grant being £10,430, and 906 by the landlords, who were getting £84,000, that might alter the hon. Member's view.
    Mr. A. Andersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the number of serviced sites for temporary houses in the Burgh of Motherwell and Wishaw; the number of temporary houses supplied to date; and the estimated rate of future delivery.
    Mr. Buchanan: There are serviced sites for 206 temporary houses in the Burgh; 56 temporary houses are under construction and 43 additional houses have been delivered to the site. For the sites already serviced, it is estimated that deliveries will be made at the rate of 20 houses per week.
    II. Mr. Hoyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the employment of large numbers of workmen on the sub-dividing of large private houses is preventing the corporation of Edinburgh from completing the work on municipal housing schemes; if he is satisfied with the way in which licences are granted in Edinburgh for private building; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gilzeanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that licences continue to be freely given in Edinburgh for houses for sale and for garages, whilst labour is unavailable for the purpose of building houses to let; and will he take steps to remedy this position.
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that large derequisitioned houses in Edinburgh are being sold and sub-divided into flats for sale at speculative prices; that plenty of labour is available for this work whilst labour cannot be obtained to erect corporation houses; and will he take steps to ensure that the Government's policy for houses to let is implemented.
    Mr. Buchanan: I am informed that licences for the sub-division of 53 large houses and for the provision of five garages in Edinburgh have been granted by the corporation and that work has not yet been begun on about 400 new-houses for which tenders have been approved. I have accordingly at once asked the corporation to consider the suspension or reduction of the licensing of works of sub-division until better progress has been achieved with their own housing schemes.
    Mr. Hoy: Is the Minister aware that there are 146 houses at present under construction which are being held up because of the lack of plasterers?
    Mr. Buchanan:As the hon. Member has heard from my answer, I have asked Edinburgh to reconsider this matter with a view to seeing if some of the labour cannot get on with the housing scheme.
    Mr. Willis: Is the Minister aware that sub-divided houses are being made to sell at prices between £2,000 and £3,000, and that this seems to be directly against the aim of the Government, which is to obtain houses at a cost of £1,200 and produce houses for less?
    Mr. Gilzean: Will the Minister take steps to implement the last part of my Question; will he take steps to remedy this?
    Mr. Buchanan: The position is that Edinburgh Corporation, which is the licensing authority at the present time, has been written to asking it to reconsider the matter. We had better await Edinburgh's reply before we can consider what further action we can take.
    Sir W. Darling: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in the winter season particularly, in Scotland he will get more housing accommodation made available by the sub-division of existing houses than the erection of new houses, and will the Minister further that policy?
    Mr. Buchanan: I will only say that. I think that good progress has been made in Scotland, in certain parts, particularly in permanent housing, and I hope that Edinburgh will not lag in that particular matter.
    Mr. Willis: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter again.
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the latest available figures of the total number of dwelling houses made available by requisitioning in Edinburgh and Glasgow, respectively.
    Mr. Buchanan: Up to 30th November, 34 houses had been requisitioned in Edinburgh for conversion into 55 separate dwellings. The corresponding figures for Glasgow are 198 and 575 respectively.
    Mr. Willis: Will my hon. Friend examine the situation as revealed by these figures, and take all possible steps to ensure that the Edinburgh Corporation uses its vast powers of requisitioning to provide houses for the people instead of providing them for speculative builders?
    Mr. Buchanan: My hon. Friend can take it that as far as we at the Scottish Office are concerned, every encouragement is being given to Edinburgh to requisition for the purpose of private dwelling houses.
    Major Lloydasked the Secretary of State for Scotland on how -many permanent houses has building construction actually been commenced in Renfrewshire, Ayrshire and Dumbartonshire, respectively, since 1st August last.
    Mr. Buchanan: The numbers of permanent houses begun since 1st August in the. Landward and Burghal areas of Renfrewshire, Ayrshire and Dumbartonshire are 158, 148 and 79 respectively.

    School Buildings
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the raising of the school-leaving age to 15 years, he is prepared to give partly-built schools equal priority for completion with the first large-scale housing schemes; to ensure that any prefabricated huts required to accommodate the additional school population shall be specially designed for educational purposes; and to replace these huts within a stated period of time by permanent buildings.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): Until the provision of houses more closely approximates to the demand I cannot see my way to give equal priority to the completion of school buildings, but I shall do my best to facilitate their completion as far as the supply of labour and materials permits. It is impossible to provide the accommodation required for the raising of the school leaving age on 1st April, 1947, without using prefabricated huts now available, as specially designed huts could not be planned and constructed in the time. It is intended to replace the prefabricated huts as soon as labour and materials are available for permanent building, but I am unable at present to say when this will be.
    Mr. Rankin: So far as sites, structure, layout and furnishings of these temporary buildings are concerned, will they conform to the very best trends in modern educational requirements?
    Mr. Fraser: Yes, Sir.

    Local Authorities (Block Grants)
    Mr. Alexander Andersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the amount of the extra supplementation of grant payable to the Burgh of Motherwell and Wishaw under the new formula; the amount which would have been payable under the formula used in calculating the block grant; the amount payable to the city of Edinburgh under the new formula; and the amount which would have been payable under the old formula.
    Mr. Fraser: As the answer involves a number of figures, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the Official Report.
    Following is the answer:
    The amount of the new money proposed to be paid under the Bill to Edinburgh and to Motherwell and Wishaw is:

    —

    1945–46.

    1946–47.

    1947–48.

    £

    £

    £

    Edinburgh

    1146,465

    118,111

    175,757

    Motherwell and Wishaw.

    15,427

    16,970

    18,512

    If the whole of the new money were distributed on the basis of the weighted population used for the distribution of the present block grant, the figures would be:

    —

    1945–46.

    1946–47.

    1947–48.

    £

    £

    £

    Edinburgh

    66,475

    72,022

    78,569

    Motherwell and Wishaw.

    22,928

    25,221

    27,514

    The weighted population used for the distribution of part of the existing grant was calculated by reference to the circumstances of the year 1935–36; and, as it is heavily weighted for unemployment, it is now somewhat out of date in respect of industrial areas. The basis of distribution of the new money is generally in accordance with the views of the Associations of Local Authorities concerned.

    Hebrides
    Mr. M. MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the pre-war offer by the Department of Agriculture to the Ross-shire County Council of a 75 per cent. grant towards construction of the proposed pier at Portnaguran, Isle of Lewis, is now available, or will be renewed at the earliest date, in view of the importance of this project to the restoration of the island's fishing industry.
    Mr. Fraser: The prewar offer was for a grant of 75 per cent of the cost of the construction of a harbour at Portnaguran subject to a maximum of £10,500. As a similar harbour now would cost: a very much larger sum a renewal of the former offer would not meet. the case. The possibility of revising the plan with a view to reducing costs is being examined.
    Sir W. Darling: Do I understand from the Under-Secretary that the offer of the previous Tory Government is far more generous than that of the present Government?
    Mr. Fraser: I said that it will be understood that a 75 percent. grant of the former cost will not now meet the case.
    Sir W. Darling: Because it was too much?
    Mr. Fraser: No, not enough.
    Mr. M. MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the hardship endured by crofters in the Outer Hebrides and by their wives because of the increasingly long distances over which they have to carry their peat fuel on their backs, because of the exhaustion of the nearer peat banks; and if the Department of Agriculture will take steps to have the peat roads extended and widened for the motor transport of peat.
    Mr. Fraser: I appreciate that as nearer peat banks become exhausted it is more arduous for crofters to transport their peat supply. So far as estates owned by the State are concerned, assistance has been given towards the construction of peat roads in a number of cases, and any further applications for this purpose will have sympathetic consideration. My right hon. Friend has now power, however, to assist in extending and widening peat roads on private estates.
    Mr. MacMillan: In view of the fact that no particular authority seems to have any funds at its disposal for this purpose, will the Under-Secretary undertake to consult the Ministries to see whether any powers can be acquired?
    Mr. Fraser: I will undertake to inquire of the other Ministries, but some of these roads are on private estates, and I am not so sure we have power to intervene there.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is it not very simple for the Minister to requisition private estates?
    Mr. M. MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether special consultations on specifically Hebridean questions have taken place between him and the Minister of War Transport in recent weeks; and if they have developed a co-ordinated scheme of road construction work embracing roads serving Department of Agriculture estates,
    2076
    as well as county highways, in view of the need of improved transport for all island developments.
    Mr. Fraser: My right hon. Friend has had no special consultations with the Minister of War Transport on specifically Hebridean questions in recent weeks, but the two Departments are in frequent touch on these matters. The planning and construction of public roads other than trunk roads, however, is a matter for the county councils.
    Mr. MacMillan: In view of the complete failure of the Tory county councils in Inverness-shire in the past to undertake their obligations, will some action be taken by the Department acting jointly with the other Departments?
    Mr. Fraser: It may be that some action will be taken by the electors in this particular area today.

    Education Authorities (Statistics)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the fact that many of the statistical demands of his department on the education authorities relating, particularly, to the schools, were modified during the war, he will see that no return is made to the pre-war practice, but will ensure that the statistical requirements of his department are kept at a minimum, so far as schools are concerned.
    Mr. Fraser: My right hon. Friend has always sought to avoid asking for any statistical returns not essential for purposes of administration. The important educational developments which will take place in the coming years make it more than ever necessary to have full and accurate information on matters relating to the schools. I fear, therefore, that it is not possible to give an undertaking that none of the statistical returns with which it has been possible to dispense under war conditions will be reintroduced. I will see, however, that the point made by my hon. Friend with which I am in complete sympathy, is borne in mind.

    Fishing Industry, Aberdeen
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many fishing vessels were, during the last three months, diverted from the port of Aberdeen and with what tonnage of fish; why

    2077
    these diversions occurred; and what steps he is taking to prevent loss of this kind the city of Aberdeen in future.
    Mr. Fraser: During the past three months 29,300 tons of fish were landed at Aberdeen as compared with 21,950 tons in the corresponding period in 1938. No diversion of fishing vessels from Aberdeen to other landing ports has been instructed. I am informed that during the past three months not more than 12 vessels, with a total catch of 633 tons, representing about 2 per cent of the total landings, proceeded to other British ports to land their catches because the persons in charge of the vessels considered that they could be unloaded sooner at these other ports. The Regional Port Director for Scotland has recently inquired into the facilities for handling catches at Aberdeen, and his report, in which recommendations are made with regard to labour and other facilities, has been accepted by the industry.
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what delays have occurred during the last month in discharging fish arriving in the port of Aberdeen; how many vessels and what quantity of fish were involved; how much fish was thereby wasted; and what were the causes of these delays and wastages, respectively.
    Mr. Fraser: I am informed that on eight days in November, when very heavy catches were brought in, out of I70 vessels with an aggregate catch of 4,500 tons, a total of 28 vessels, with an aggregate catch of 8I6 tons, were unable owing to the high level of landings to discharge for the first sale after arrival. I understand that all these vessels were discharged in time for the following day's sale, and that no waste of fish was involved.
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what average quantity of fish was, during the last month, landed daily at Aberdeen Harbour; and whether he is satisfied that adequate gear and other facilities are avail able there to discharge promptly all the fish as it arrives in harbour.
    Mr. Fraser: The average quantity of fish landed at Aberdeen daily during November was 350 tons, as compared with 240 tons in November, 1938. As I have
    2078
    already stated, recommendations made by the Regional Port Director for Scotland with regard to the facilities available have recently been accepted by the industry.
    Mr. Hughes: Would the Under-Secretary answer the part of the Question dealing with gear, and state whether he is satisfied that adequate gear and other facilities are available to discharge fish as it arrives in harbour?
    Mr. Fraser: I think that point is covered in the report to which I have just referred.

    Sutherland (County Clerk)
    I7. Mr. Alexander Andersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the discontent in the North-East of Scotland over the unusual method of appointment to the office of county clerk adopted by the Sutherland County Council; and will he take steps to ensure that future appointments are made on merits after open competition.
    Mr. Fraser: The appointment of a county clerk is under statute a matter for the county council, and my right hon. Friend has no jurisdiction in regard to it. I understand, however, that the appointment referred to was made by the county council in the normal way at a meeting held after the vacancy had been publicly advertised and applications invited for the post.
    Mr. Anderson: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the advertisement to which he referred there was no mention whatever of any previous qualification for so important and specialised an appointment, and that the person appointed was entirely devoid of any previous experience? Can he suggest no remedy to this sort of thing?
    Mr. Fraser: I am afraid that is a matter for the local authority and, of course, the matter is in the hands of the local electors.

    Youth Advisory Committee (Report)
    Mr. Goodrichasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the national importance of the matters dealt with and the valuable suggestions contained in the Report of the Scottish Youth Advisory Committee on the News of Youth in these Times, published by his predecessor on 11th May, 1945, at Is. 6d., he will consider, in consultation with the Minister of Education, jointly publishing

    2079
    copies of such Report either free or at a lower price, and their circulation free of charge to all statutory and voluntary bodies interested.
    Mr. Fraser: Copies of this report have already been issued free of charge to all education authorities and national youth organisations in Scotland. The question whether a similar free issue should be made in England and Wales, is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education. The report has already been put on sale by the Stationery Office in England and Wales as well as in Scotland.
    Mr. Maxton: Will the Under-Secretary take steps to make this valuable publication into a Parliamentary Paper?
    Mr. Fraser: I will have that suggestion looked into.

    Water Supplies
    Major Niall Macphersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of his circular letter dated 27th October, 1945, to local authorities intimating postponement until 31st March, 1946, of the date for receiving applications for grants under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1944, he will consider and approve or disapprove each scheme as soon as possible after it is submitted and will give an undertaking that all schemes so approved will receive a grant under the Act.
    Mr. Buchanan: My right hon. Friend is prepared to consider water schemes as they come in from the local authorities, but until he can see the complete picture as reflected in the proposals of local authorities as a whole he is, I am afraid, not in a position to determine the rate of grant for each approved scheme.
    Major Macpherson:Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this will seriously postpone putting into effect a number of schemes unless local authorities have some idea of the extent to which the Treasury will contribute?
    Mr. Buchanan: We take the view that we cannot make a grant in respect of one scheme and give different treatment in the case of another one which may come along a month later. We take the view that we should treat the matter as a
    2080
    whole, and local authorities will not be unduly hampered because they will all be equitably treated.

    School Meals
    Mr. Cookasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made by his Department with school feeding arrangements in North-east Scotland.
    Mr. Fraser: In the area comprising Aberdeen, Dundee, Aberdeen County, Angus, Banff, Kincardine, Moray and Nairn, the percentage of children receiving dinners was 6.7 in May, 1942, 12.9 in June, 1943, and 18.8 in June, 1945. So far, schemes have been approved for the construction of facilities which will enable dinners to be provided for 55 per cent. of the children on the roll in this area.
    Mr. Cook: Will the Under-Secretary of State tell us when it will be possible greatly to increase the numbers at present receiving school dinners?
    Mr. Fraser: I cannot say when, but education authorities in Scotland have been urged to make provision for school meals up to 75 per cent. of their school population as soon as possible.

    Radiography Units
    Mr. Cookasked the Secretary for Scotland how many radiography units there are in Scotland; to what extent they are used; and if more of these units are to be installed in the near future.
    Mr. Buchanan: Two units, belonging to Glasgow Corporation and Lanark County Council respectively, are now in operation in Scotland. A third unit will, it is hoped, begin to operate shortly in Edinburgh. 40,610 persons have so far been examined by the Glasgow and Lanark County units. When more apparatus can be manufactured and when more medical and other personnel are available the allocation of units to other local authorities will be considered.
    Mr. Cook: Is my hon. Friend taking steps to see that this is speeded up at the earliest possible moment?
    Mr. Buchanan: We are now making every effort to see if we can increase this apparatus for other well deserving authorities.
    Mr. McAllister: In view of the manifest prejudice on the part of the School of Radiology at Edinburgh University against medical graduates of Glasgow University, will the Under-Secretary seek to establish a school of radiology and radiography in Glasgow?
    Mr. Buchanan: I am sorry, but that question does not arise, and it is much too difficult for me to answer on the spur of the moment.
    Mrs. Jean Mann: Will my hon. Friend assure us that when he gets the staff, particularly the radiographers, he will give them salaries and conditions such as obtain in England so that Scotland will not lose these girls to English authorities?
    Mr. Buchanan: My hon. Friend can take it that if it is a question of taking up the matter of salaries and emoluments in Scotland, I will not be lacking.

    National Fire Service
    Mr. Cookasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the number of N.F.S. personnel still engaged in duties in Scotland.
    Mr. Fraser: At 30th November, 1945, there were 3,153 men and 580 women employed whole-time in the National Fire Service in Scotland.
    Major Guy Lloyd: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the grievance is not that they arc engaged in duties, but the vast majority of the N.F.S. are grousing because they have nothing on earth to do, and they cannot get out?

    Schools (Physical Training Kits)
    Mr. Gilzeanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will circularise education committees in Scotland, reminding them of the powers they possess under Subsection (3) of Section 3 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1945, whereby they are permitted to make provision for physical training kits, including football outfits; and urge them to take advantage of this provision in the Act.
    Mr. Fraser: Education authorities have already been reminded of this power to provide articles of clothing suitable for physical exercise. The present supply position would make it difficult to meet any extensive demand from education authorities, but I hope that when it im-
    2082
    proves they will take the fullest advantage of this new power.
    Mr. Gilzean: Will the Joint Undersecretary of State take into account that a great deal of what is described as juvenile delinquency is due to the fact that recreational facilities do not exist and that, consequently, to provide recreational facilities would reduce this so-called juvenile delinquency?
    Mr. Fraser: I accept entirely the observations of my hon. Friend.

    Flax Industry
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to take any steps to prevent the loss to Scotland of the technique of flax growing and processing acquired during the war.
    Mr. Fraser: I have been in close consultation on this matter with the Ministers concerned and with the Scottish Council on Industry. The responsibility for flax production rests with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who informs me that the production of flax is being concentrated in areas where it can be most economically produced. Unfortunately, costs of flax produced in Scotland have been higher than the average for Great Britain, and despite intensive efforts no tenant has been found willing to take over on lease any of the three Scottish factories.
    Mr. Snadden: Is it not regrettable that three flax-fibre producing factories in Scotland are to be closed down? Is not the Minister aware that there is no mystery about growing flax and that the vagaries of the weather are of no greater account in Scotland in regard to flax growing than they are in any other country?
    Mr. Fraser: I am afraid, whether it is because of the vagaries of the weather or not, flax production in Scotland has not been so successful as flax production in England.
    Sir Ronald Ross: Or in Northern Ireland.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Sergeant Testers (Pay)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for War why sergeant testers serving at 25 W.O.S.B., R.T.C., do not receive specialist pay.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Lawson): Their responsibilities are recognised instead by the grant of suitable paid rank, the minimum rank being sergeant.
    Mr. Driberg: Does that quite meet the point? Does my right hon Friend recall that on a previous occasion he emphasised that these men were specialists, doing a special kind of skilled work?
    Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir, and for that reason they were given the rank of sergeant, and the pay.

    Oversea Tours (Home Leave)
    Mr. Basil Nieldasked the Secretary of State for War what period of home leave is now granted to men drafted from one overseas Command to another.
    Mr. Lawson:None, Sir, as a general rule. Embarkation leave is granted before departure from the United Kingdom for an overseas tour, during which the men are liable to be moved from one Command to another to meet changing requirements. Arrangements have been made, where time and movement facilities permit, to send men via the United Kingdom and to give them leave when they are moved, but this cannot always be done.
    Mr. Nield: Will my right hon. Friend say whether it is not now possible, the war being over, to allow this home leave in the vast majority of cases, at any rate from Western Europe, when a man is posted, say, to the Far East?
    Mr. Lawson: The hon. Member knows that men going from the B.A.O.R. to the Far East are at present given leave, and when they are going from the C.M.F. to the Middle East it sometimes happens that their leave is advanced. They are given leave, but in view of the urgent circumstances, this cannot always be guaranteed.

    Mediterranean (Officers' Guests)
    Mr. Nieldasked the Secretary of State for War whether in the C.M.F. area there are any restaurants, hotels, clubs or cafes to which officers may take A.T.S., other ranks, as their guests.
    Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir. Officers may take A.T.S. other ranks as guests to any restaurants, hotels, etc. which are not reserved for officers only, or for other ranks only.
    Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that in certain parts of Italy the A.T.S. have to borrow a civilian suit or attire to be accompanied by an officer, and that an officer in some cases has to borrow a private's greatcoat to take an A.T.S. into a club? Will my right hon. Friend have another look at these rules?
    Mr. Lawson: I have stated what the rule is. If that rule is not being kept and I get evidence, I will look into the matter.
    Mr. Walkden: Have another look at it.

    Officer's Accounts, India (Transfer)
    Mr. Nieldasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state the number of British officers overpaid while serving in India or Burma owing to the failure of the Indian authorities to notify, and the British authorities to ascertain, their arrival; the number from whom repayment is being demanded after their return to Great Britain; and the number who are required to make repayment after their release, respectively.
    Mr. Lawson: The details asked for could not be obtained without considerable investigation and interference with current work but, as I informed the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) on 22nd November, I am investigating the reasons for the delay in the transfer of officers' accounts from India, with a view to the prevention of such over-issues.

    Hailing Bridge
    Mr. Garry Allighanasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will postpone the demolition of the Hailing bridge over the Medway, built at the cost of the taxpayer and extensively used by the 9,000 population of the district, until the local authorities can replace it with another structure.
    Mr. Lawson: I have now authorised a further postponement of demolition until 1st January, 1946, but unless the local authority concerned is prepared to take over the maintenance from that date it will be necessary to dismantle it.

    Dependants' Allowance
    Mr. Spearmanasked the Secretary of State for War (I) what provision he proposes to make for Mrs. Ellerby,

    2085
    wife or widow of D. G. Ellerby, 1799225, who disappeared in February, since when Mrs. Ellerby has received no allowance;
    (2) if he will make financial provision for the wives of soldiers who have deserted or been sent to prison.
    Mr. Lawson: I fully sympathise with the families in these cases, but I have no power to undertake responsibility for their maintenance. The family allowance continues for seven days in the case of absence without leave, and is issuable again when the soldier returns to the Colours. The allowance continues throughout periods of imprisonment or detention, unless the soldier is committed to penal servitude and sent to a civil prison, in which case he is transferred to the Reserve at the end of two months and the allowance automatically ceases for that reason.
    There is nothing I can do in the case of Private Ellerby. The soldier absented himself without leave in this country in February last, and, following a court of inquiry, was declared a deserter.
    Mr. Spearman: Is the Minister aware that Private Ellerby was killed in an air raid in London a year ago? Could the Minister not devise some different method of punishment by which hardship is not borne by the second generation?
    Mr. Lawson: I am sorry if the man's wife may be suffering under an error in this matter, but I am bound to tell the hon. Gentleman that this man absented himself without leave on three occasions within the six months previous to this occasion.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is not the Minister aware that there are genuine cases where people have disappeared? Why do the War Office always take the worst possible view of it?
    Mr. Lawson: I was asked a question about a particular case.

    Commissions (Nomination of Candidates)
    General Sir George Jeffreysasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of an A.C.I. which forbids visits by colonels of regiments to O.C.T.U.s with a view to getting personal touch with candidates for commissions in their regiments; what is the reason for this Order; and whether he will cause it to be cancelled as soon as possible.
    Mr. Lawson: I am aware of the instruction referred to. The selection and posting to regiments of officer cadets is the responsibility of the War Office in the light of Army requirements as a whole, and cannot depend entirely on personal preferences for particular regiments, or on personal recommendations.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the existence of War Office Letter 26 General /5183, issued to all colonels of regiments, in which the responsibilities of colonels of regiments are laid down, and that the first of those responsibilities is
    "nominating suitable candidates for commissions in the regiment''?
    Will the right hon. Gentleman say how those instructions are to be carried out, in view of the recent arrangements to which he has made reference?
    Mr. Lawson: I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for directing my attention to this rule. I must say that it is no desire of mine that these candidates should be segregated from visitors, but I must make it clear that the War Office have a responsibility in this matter which it cannot delegate to anyone, officers or anybody else.
    Mr. Keeling: Will the Secretary of State for War say whether this letter, to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred, will be cancelled or withdrawn, or what will be done about it?
    Sir R. Ross: Has not the War Office always had this responsibility?

    A.T.S. Officers
    Major Digbyasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that many A.T.S. officers engaged in signals duties in B.A.O.R. are redundant; that nevertheless their release has been postponed; and whether he will issue instructions for an immediate review of the relevant war establishments.
    Mr. Lawson: The release of these officers is governed by the rules recently announced concerning all A.T.S. officers. But I am calling for a report on the matter.

    Compulsory Church Parades
    Mr. Dainesasked the Secretary of State for War under which provision of King's Regulations has a commanding

    2087
    officer the power to compel men detailed for church parade to attend divine service.
    Mr. Lawson: Paragraph 1605.
    Mr. Thurtle: Will my right hon. Friend consider revising this order, and is he aware that the great party which he represents has always been against this enforced religious observance?
    Mr. Lawson: That would be a matter for consideration later on, but as the law is I cannot interfere.
    Mr. Gallacher: Are we to take it from this Question and answer that, contrary to the situation in the earthly sphere, the supply of celestial transport is greater than the demand?
    Captain Blackburn: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, in reconsidering this matter, that the mingling of patriotism, discipline and church is resented by many people with extremely sincere religious convictions?

    Sports Equipment
    Mr. Dainesasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, although manufacturers of sports goods in this country are supplying N.A.A.F.I. with a good deal of equipment, men in the Services continue to complain that they are unable to obtain anything at all in the way of sports equipment from N.A.A.F.I.; and whether he will take appropriate action designed to prevent the hoarding of supplies in warehouses by this organisation.
    Mr. Lawson:The only function of N.A.A.F.I. is to act as the central buying agency and to carry out distribution according to the instructions of the Army Sport Control Board. Owing to world wide shortage purchases have to be made by units, not individual men, to ensure an even distribution. I am satisfied that this system is the fairest method of supply.
    Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Does my right hon. Friend now refute the idea that he is the distributor of profits, in the shape of pleasure and joy, which are made by N.A.A.F.I. out of buns and beer?
    Mr. Lawson: I suggested that this is the best possible method of supply at present.
    Mr. Walkden: Why does not the Minister see to fairer distribution?

    Sandown Park (Rent)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for War what rent is being paid for Sandown Park; and for what purpose it is being used.
    Mr. Lawson: £10,000 a year, fixed by the General Claims Tribunal. It is used to accommodate a training unit.
    Captain Marsden: How soon does the right hon. Gentleman expect that Sandown Park will be free for its usual peacetime purposes?
    Mr. Lawson: I cannot say, but the amount is fixed by the General Claims Tribunal, which is an independent body appointed for the purpose. I cannot say how soon it will be released.

    West African Units
    Major Symondsasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that British other ranks serving with West African units in India received no special trainng before joining the R.W.A.F.F.; that they receive no specialist-pay for their duties; that most West African troops speak English and all orders are given in English; that West African troops were originally conducted to India by British troops with no previous experience with Africans; and whether he will revoke his decision to suspend repatriation and leave for British troops serving with West African formations and replace them by other British troops in India of higher age groups who are unemployed.
    Mr. Lawson: As will be seen from my reply on 13th November to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Horn-castle (Commander Maitland), it has been found in practice that care must be exercised in the selection of suitable officers and non-commissioned officers for these units. This is particularly necessary in present circumstances, when the units themselves are awaiting repatriation, and I can only say that all practical steps are already being taken to reduce to a minimum the period of deferment of the British personnel.
    Major Symonds: As the duty for which these men are being retained is mainly draft-conducting, is my right hon. Friend aware that this duty, involving as it does

    2089
    a sea voyage, would be a most healthy occupation for those surplus Army personnel now taking root in G.H.Q., New Delhi?
    Mr. Lawson: I understand that the reason these officers and; N.C.O's are being deferred is that they were the leaders of these men in war, and consequently they are trusted by them. The deferment is largely due to the lack of shipping for the repatriation of these men.
    Mr. Janner: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether European men compulsorily transferred from the R.W.A.F.F. to the Indian Army are outside the provisions of Regulations for release from the Army, and, if so, will he take steps to have these men treated on the same basis as British troops in other Commands?
    Mr. Lawson: I should have to see that Question on the Order Paper.

    Tuberculosis Treatment
    Sir Stanley Reedasked the Secretary of State for War how many sanatoria under military control have been set up for the treatment of tuberculosis amongst the Forces.
    Mr. Lawson: None, Sir. This treatment is the responsibility of the Ministry of Health, but, as I stated on 16th October, in reply to a Question by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), the possibility of special arrangements for Service personnel is now under examination. Meanwhile, to avoid delay in treatment, a number of Service patients are being retained under military care.

    Dental Corps (Regular Officers)
    Captain Bairdasked the Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware of the unsatisfactory conditions of service and the lack of opportunities for promotion for Regular officers of the A.D.C.; and if he is satisfied that under present terms of service the required number of dental officers will become available to ensure an adequate dental service for the post-war Army.
    Mr. Lawson: I am aware that the number of candidates coming forward for regular commissions in the Army Dental Corps at present is inadequate, and I am considering certain measures designed
    2090
    to remedy this. But it must be borne in mind that there is at present an overall shortage of dentists in this country.

    Ranker Commissions
    Lieutenant W. Shepherdasked the Secretary of State for War the number of commissions granted from the ranks, together with the number of direct commissions during the war.
    Mr. Lawson: From 1st September, 1939, to 31st October, 1945, 208,017 commissions were granted, including 151,310 from the ranks, of which 26,198 were direct commissions, the remainder being through 0.C.T.Us. These figures do not include A.T.S.

    Education
    Lieutenant Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that their duties are preventing the attendance of members of military police units in the B.A.O.R. at study centres, provided under the Army education scheme; and whether he will inquire, in particular, into the position at Antwerp, where men in the CM.P., who wish to improve their peacetime prospects, find themselves unable to use the facilities available.
    Mr. Lawson: The decision whether a unit can implement the Army Education Scheme, having regard to its military commitments, rests with the local commander, but I am looking into this particular case.

    Demobilisation
    Major Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for War the number of men already granted a Group B release who are at present at Boyce Barracks, Crookham, Hants; how many of these men have been there for a period exceeding 14 days; and the reason for their remaining at these barracks.
    Mr. Lawson: On 28th November, there were 127, of whom I08 had been there 14 days or more, but all these should by now have been released. The delay was due to a misunderstanding on the part of the unit and the officer responsible for authorising Class B release, and steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence. The normal period of retention is not more than three or four days.
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Secretary of State for War if officers in Groups 22 and

    2091
    23, who on compassionate grounds do not have their release delayed beyond the appropriate time for their group, can be given the release leave and pay which would be their right if discharged under Class. A.
    Mr. Lawson: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 20th November to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo).
    Mr. Lipson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these men have certainly done over five years and that. they are not in receipt of release leave and pay?
    Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir.

    Tripoli (Anti-Jewish Outbreaks)
    Mr. George Porterasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has now received a report from the military commander at Tripoli on the anti-Jewish outbreaks in Tripoli which began on 4th November; how it was that in an area under British military occupation these riots continued unabated for over two days, resulting in the killing of 100 Jews, including women and children; and why no curfew was imposed to check the rioting until the third day.
    Mr. Lawson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the full statement I made on this matter on 27th November in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton).

    M.E.F. (Passages for Wives)
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements have been made to enable the wives of men serving in the M.E.F. to join their husbands.
    Mr. Lawson: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 9th October in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). Full details have been issued to all concerned.
    Major Digbyasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that other ranks serving with the Regular Army in the Middle East are reluctant to allow their wives to join them under the new scheme, as they consider the proposed accommodation inadequate and do not think it right that their wives should be housed in tents; and whether he will
    2092
    take steps either to provide better accommodation or, alternatively, to increase leave to the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Lawson: I should like to make it clear that the initiative in these cases rests with the soldier, but that his application for a passage for his family cannot be considered unless the command is satisfied that proper accommodation is available. This must necessarily be accommodation which already exists. If the accommodation is not satisfactory the families cannot be allowed to proceed. Leave from overseas is already maintained at the highest practical level and is constantly under review.
    Mr. Lipson: Would it be possible to make that information more widely known, as many of them do not know?
    Mr. Lawson: I will consider that point, because I do desire that all possible details should be known about this matter.
    Mr. Hogg: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many applications have, in fact been granted under this scheme up to date?
    Mr. Lawson: No, I am sorry but I cannot.

    Personal Case
    Lieut.-Colonel Mackesonasked the Secretary of State for War why 69520 T/Major A. F. Dunn, R.A.M.C, who was in release Group 7, was not released till 30thOctober; and if further delays such as this in the release of doctors are likely.
    Mr. Lawson: Major Dunn was employed as the senior medical officer on a troop-ship which for some time has been plying between East Africa, India and South Africa and there seems little doubt that it was not possible to contact and relieve this officer at the time when other officers in his group, serving with land formations, were assembled by India and repatriated to the United Kingdom. I cannot say that the special circumstances in this officer's case will not occur again, but the number of doctors, apart from certain specialists, whose release will be delayed is likely to be very small.

    Requisitioned Property (Malaya)
    Major Wyattasked the Secretary of State for War why the Victoria Institute at Kuala Lumpur has been requisitioned

    2093
    by the military authorities; and whether he is aware that this is the only university in the Malayan Peninsula.
    Mr. Lawson: I am inquiring as to the first part of the Question and will write to my hon. and gallant Friend. As to the second part, I am informed that it is not a university, but one of a number of secondary English schools.
    Major Wyatt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that A.L.F.S.E.A. and S.E.A.C. have commandeered a large number of buildings for clubs, and, at Singapore and in the Malayan Peninsula, for officers, causing annoyance to local residents, particularly as the buildings requisitioned are often colleges and institutes?
    Mr. Lawson: I have said that I will write to the hon. and gallant Member, and I will take note of the point he has mentioned.

  HEREDITARY TITLES
  Mr. Stamfordasked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that he will make no further recommendations for hereditary titles conferred either for political reasons or in recognition of public services.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): No, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has nothing to add to the reply which he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for the Tradeston division of Glasgow (Mr. Rankin) on 18th October last.
  Mr. Stamford: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that these hereditary titles are quite indefensible in present circumstances, and will he bear in mind that they have always been strongly resisted by the Labour Party?
  Mr. Morrison: I am not quite sure about "always," but in any case the essential constitutional point is that there is another place which is part of the Legislature, and it really is essential that the Government, as well as other people, should be represented in it.
  Mr. Wilson Harris: Has the right hon. Gentleman sufficiently considered the affirmation in a well-known hymn:
  "There is room for fresh creations In that upper home of bliss"?
  Mr. Charles Williams: Will not that other place be found very useful when the first Government reshuffle comes?

  GERMAN WAR MATERIALS
  Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many underground factories and dumps of war material have been discovered in Germany; and whether an active search is being made for others.
  Mr. Mathers (Treasurer of the Household): I have been asked to reply. My hon. Friend has no information as to the number of factories and war dumps discovered in Germany. In reply to the second part of the Question, active steps continue to be taken by the Commander-in-Chief of the Rhine Army to uncover such factories and dumps as have not already been discovered in the British zone. If the hon. Member would like to know what tonnage of armaments has already been destroyed, my hon. Friend will endeavour to provide the figures. It is the policy of His Majesty's Government to destroy or remove the whole of the German armament industry and this is being carried out.
  Captain Francis Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for War how many German captured vehicles, scheduled as unserviceable by his Department, are now held in British dumps in and around Athens; how long they have been there; and whether, in view of the shortage of transport in Greece and the inadequacy of military repair facilities, he will arrange to release these vehicles for sale at controlled prices on the local civilian market.
  Mr. Lawson: 1,074, sent mainly from Crete during the last six months. As I have informed my hon. and gallant Friend by letter, any surplus captured vehicles are handed over for civilian use at once or after repair. Action is being taken to hand over unserviceable vehicles as well.

  HOSPITALS (PETROL PRICE)
  Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the position in which certain hospitals, charitable and other organisations are placed, who have previously

  2095
  been exempt from motor licence taxation and will now be called upon to pay an additional 4d. per gallon for petrol; and what steps he proposes to take to omit these hospitals.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): No, Sir; there will be no additional 4d. a gallon on petrol.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Temporary Clerks
    Mr. Chamberlainasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many vacancies in the basic executive and clerical grades of the Civil Service have been filled since the end of the war by persons aged 30 to 55 years; what proportion of the total postwar permanent Civil Service intake this represents; and whether he will give an assurance that a temporary clerk aged 38 years with five years' service who has matriculated will have an opportunity either of being nominated for the permanent service or of entering the competitive examination therefor.
    Mr. Dalton: The answer is detailed, and I will, with permission, circulate it.
    Following is the information:
    No such vacancies have yet been filled, but arrangements are in progress for the filling of 350 vacancies in the basic executive grade of the Civil Service, and 2,000 vacancies in the basic clerical grade, by the establishment of temporary civil servants between the ages of 30 and 55. A further 400 clerical vacancies will be filled in this way towards the end 0I the reconstruction period. These figures represent 15 per cent. of the accrued vacancies in the grades in question. Any temporary clerk aged 38 who has had two years or more of continuous service is eligible for consideration for establishment in this way.

    Scientific Staff
    Mr. Pickthornasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the new salary scales for the Scientific Civil Service will be so applied that existing staff shall not be at a disadvantage in comparison with new entrants.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): Existing scientific staff will, on being brought into the new organisation, be given sufficient credit for
    2096
    previous service to put them broadly on equal terms with new entrants of the same age and quality. Details are being worked out.
    Mr. Pickthorn: While expressing satisfaction with the answer, is it ungracious to inquire whether it would not have been possible to make the earlier announcement clear enough for scientists to know that this is to be the broad effect aimed at?
    Mr. Hall: I think the earlier announcement did make it clear. If the hon. Gentleman still has doubts, I should be happy to meet him and go through the paper with him.

  REQUISITIONED PROPERTY
  Sir John Mellorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a day has yet been appointed for the purposes of Section 45 of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945.
  Mr. Dalton: No, Sir, not yet.
  Sir J. Mellor: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a date will have to be appointed before the end of February, and does he intend to leave it to the last moment?
  Mr. Dalton: I 'do not think there is any purpose in rushing it. The most important thing is to derequisition, and I do not want to start refixing the rents of premises which are soon to be derequisitioned. I therefore think we had better let derequisitioning run on for a little before bringing this question in.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    War Damage Payments
    Mr. Royleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is in a position to make a statement on, or give any date by which value payments will be made for, business and property destroyed by enemy action; and is it his intention to adhere to 1939 values.
    Mr. Dalton: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) on 22nd November, and, as regards the last part of the Question, to Section II of the War Damage Act, 1943.
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it is proposed to make payment in settlement of claims for loss of chattels caused by enemy action.
    Mr. Dalton: This date cannot yet be fixed. It will depend not only on financial considerations but on the availability of supplies, particularly of furniture and clothing.
    Mr. Boothby: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that considerable hardship is being caused by the delay?
    Mr. Dalton: I think more hardship might be caused if we took precipitate action in the matter while supplies were not ready to meet the claims coming forward.
    Mr. Quintin Hoggasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why the £200 which is owed by the War Damage Commission to Sapper Frank Edwards, discharged from the Army with a 30 percent. disability pension, has not been paid, with the result that Sapper Edwards is now subsisting on charity.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: On the information given it is not possible to identify the case to which the hon. and gallant Member refers. I have, however, written to him asking for further details and if he will supply them, I will have inquiries made.
    Mr. Hogg: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the man's name and address were given in my letter, and is he also aware that correspondence between the man and the War Damage Commission has been proceeding for some months?
    Mr. Hall: That may be, but the letter we have—I have seen the letter—does not give the address of the property in question, and that being so, we could not do anything.
    Mr. Hogg: Does not an honest debtor seek out his creditor?

    Schedule A (Repairs Allowance)
    Mr. Channonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that owing to the considerable increase in the cost of building repairs, the repairs allowance for property under Schedule A is now generally inadequate for the purpose; and whether he will review this matter at an early stage and arrange for the adjustment
    2098
    of the allowance so as to conform with present costs.
    Mr. Dalton: I regret that I cannot see my way to increase this allowance at present.

    Bearer Securities (Prohibition)
    Mr. Norman Smithasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will repeal or modify Regulation 3B of the Defence (Finance) Regulations which prohibits the issue of bearer securities.
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir.

    Purchase Tax (Furs)
    Mrs. Ridealghasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in view of the fact that imported rabbit skins for the making of utility furs are not liable to purchase tax, he will give the same exemption to British rabbit skins so that a greatly extended home and export in dustry can be stimulated.
    Mr. Dalton: There is no distinction for Purchase Tax purposes between imported and British rabbit skins. If made up into utility fur garments, both pay only 16⅔ percent. If exported, both are exempt from Purchase Tax.
    Mrs. Ridealgh: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the British rabbit skins known as "Rex" fur arc of a much better grade than the ordinary skins and therefore more expensive, are not used in utility furs, and are subject to 100 per cent. Purchase Tax, and that this is discouraging production of the furs and is discouraging ex-Servicemen from taking up this kind of enterprise? Will he go into the possibilities of this trade?
    Mr. Dalton: With great pleasure, but having regard to the over-all shortage of clothing, I do not believe that there will be much difficulty in disposing of these very valuable fur garments.
    Miss Baconasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that fur fabrics and Jacquard materials, bought by the yard, carry 100 per cent. Purchase Tax, whereas garments made of these materials carry only 16⅔ percent. Purchase Tax; and what steps he proposes to take to end this discrimination.
    Mr. Dalton: I will bear this in mind when considering the possibility of further Purchase Tax reductions next year.

    Sterling Balances
    Colonel Crosthwaite- Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (I) whether he will take steps to discriminate between imperial and foreign sterling balances acquired during the war and those acquired since the war in favour of holders of the latter, so as to secure them a prior claim on our limited supplies of goods available for export; and
    (2) whether he is aware that payment for the large orders of goods placed in this country by Egyptian firms, will be paid for out of sterling balances accumulated by Egypt during the war; and, in view of the necessity for securing foreign exchange through our exports, he will take steps to prevent such use of wartime blocked balances.
    Mr. Dalton: Any action on these lines would be a matter for negotiations with the Governments concerned.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what amounts the sterling balances held by countries of the British Empire, other countries within the sterling area and countries outside the sterling area, have increased since the cessation of hostilities with Japan; and how much of these balances have been used to pay for exports from this country.
    Mr. Dalton: The figures are only available at quarterly intervals. The total net increase between 30th June and 30th September, 1945, was about £100 millions. It is not possible to say how much was paid out during the quarter for exports from the United Kingdom.

    Dollar Expenditure (Periodicals)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the practice whereby British magazines obtain most of their light fiction by buying second rights from American magazines, at a heavy expenditure of dollars; and whether he proposes to restrain or discourage this practice.
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. No large expenditure of dollars is involved and I am reluctant to interfere in a matter on which tastes differ.
    Mr. Keeling: I beg to give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

  PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL
  Major Sir Jocelyn Lucasasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if it is intended to increase either the numbers, or the salaries, of Parliamentary Counsel; and to what extent.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes, Sir. Improved scales of salary will be announced shortly.
  Sir J. Lucas: In view of the fact that the small number of Parliamentary Counsel constitutes a bottleneck in Parliamentary legislation, would it not be better to increase the number rather than the salaries?
  Mr. Hall: We contemplate both. I said "Yes, Sir," to the Question, which covers both points.
  Major Lloyd: Would not the most satisfactory solution be to decrease the legislation?

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

    Letters to Ministers
    Mr. O'Brienasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will give the average number of letters received by Ministers from Members of the House weekly; and whether adequate staffs are at the disposal of the Ministers to deal promptly and satisfactorily with Members' correspondence.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I regret that no figures are available, but the number is very substantial. My hon. Friend is no doubt aware of present staffing difficulties, but I am sure that in all Departments every effort is made to reply promptly.
    Mr. O'Brien: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the object of the Question is a desire, which is shared by all hon. Members, to assist the Departments concerned, and that the precise information asked for in the Question would do a great deal to help the Government and hon. Members?
    Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister ask some of his colleagues whether they can give us something better than the very scrappy acknowledgment they send?
    Mr. Hall: I do not know what I can do about it. I have no doubt that other Ministers read Hansard, or that someone in their Departments reads it, and I have not the slightest doubt that the point made by my hon. Friend will come to their attention.
    Mr. Maxton: Does my hon. Friend realise that one can wait two months for an answer if one gets a nicely written acknowledgment?
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that I have had to send a letter back because of its bureaucratic character and its complete lack of humanity?

    Speeches (Reprints)
    Mr. Bowlesasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will authorise a substantial increase in the maximum number of reprints of speeches hon. Members may order from the official printer.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir, not at present. On the production side, I hope to be able to offer an increase early next year. The size of the increase is a matter for the consideration of the House.
    Mr. Bowles: Does the Minister realise that this is quite an unwarrantable interference with Parliamentary Privilege, that hon. Members should be entitled to distribute: copies of any Parliamentary speech, and that the Executive, by restricting the paper supply available, is interfering with that proper distribution, and preventing hon. Members from carrying out their duty properly?
    Mr. Hall: I cannot add to what I have said. It is hoped that on the production side an increase can be offered in the early part of next year, but at the moment it is felt that, under existing difficulties and with the shortage of paper and labour, the present number should be enough.
    Mr. Stokes: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind, in his consideration of the matter, that this policy is not leading to a saving of paper or newsprint, and that in point of fact those hon. Members who want speeches to be reprinted have to go elsewhere to get a sufficient quantity?
    Mr. Hall: Before the war the number of applications of this kind was fairly small and modest, but during the war
    2102
    there were occasions when hon. Members wanted up to 30,000 copies of a single speech. It is felt that the rule should for the moment be what it is.
    Mr. Stokes: Will my hon. Friend tell the House how many times a Member wanted 30,000 copies of his speech?

  KING'S BADGE
  Lieutenant William Shepherdasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that there appears to be a good deal of unauthorised use of the badge For Loyal Service; and whether he will consider the public sale of this token.
  Mr. Lawson: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday to a question by the hon. Member for the Abbey Division of Westminster (Sir H. Webbe).

GAS INDUSTRY INQUIRY
The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): With the permission of the House, I would like to inform them that I have now received the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Gas Industry which was constituted by my predecessor in June, 1944. The Report is an interesting and valuable document, and I have arranged with the Stationery Office for copies to be available in the Vote Office early this evening so that hon. Members may be able to make themselves acquainted with its substance and recommendations, which relate to the reorganisation of the industry. I am very grateful to Mr. Geoffrey Hayworth, the Chairman, and the Members of the Committee, for having made a searching and exhaustive inquiry into a difficult and technical subject of national importance.
INDIA

  Government Policy: Parliamentary Delegation
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I desire to make the following statement with regard to India.
  The statement made by the Viceroy, after his return to India, contemplates the steps which His Majesty's Government

  2103
  propose should be taken to promote the early realisation of full self-government in India. The full significance of these proposals does not seem to have been properly appreciated in India. Since it is the firm conviction of His Majesty's Government that it is by and in consultation with the directly elected representatives of the Indian people, that decisions as to the future governance of British India should be taken, it was a necessary preliminary that elections should be held to the Provincial Legislatures and the Central Assembly in India. It was announced that after the elections in India, preparatory discussions would be held with the elected representatives of British India, and with the Indian States, in order to secure the widest measure of agreement as to the method of framing a constitution. Unjustified suggestions have gained wide currency in India that these discussions would be a fruitful source of delay. I desire to make it plain that His Majesty's Government regard the setting up of a constitution-making body, by which Indians will decide their own future and also other proposals embodied in the announcement, as a matter of the greatest urgency.
  This misunderstanding has led His Majesty's Government to consider whether opportunities of personal contact between this country and India, which have been greatly interrupted during recent years, cannot now be increased. They regard it is a matter of importance that members of our own Parliament should have an opportunity to meet leading political Indian personalities, to learn their own views at first hand. They would also be able to convey in person the general wish and desire of the people of this country that India should speedily attain her full and rightful position as an independent partner State in the British Commonwealth, and the desire of Parliament to do everything within our power to promote the speedy attainment of that objective. His Majesty's Government are, therefore, arranging for a Parliamentary delegation to go to India under the auspices of the Empire Parliamentary Association. The intention is that this party should leave this country as soon as possible. In view of the difficulties of transport, it will be limited in size. The delegation will be selected by the Association in consultation with Parliamentary
  2104
  representatives of the chief political parties in this country.
  During the transition towards complete self-government India will be passing through difficult times. No greater disservice could be done to a future Indian Government and to the cause of democracy than to permit the foundations of the State to be weakened and the loyalty of its servants to those who are in authority to be undermined before that new Government comes into being. Therefore the Government of India cannot divest itself of the responsibility which rests upon it and upon all Provincial Government of preserving law and order and of resisting any attempt to resolve the constitutional issue by force. The realisation of full self-government can only come by the orderly and peaceful transfer of control of the machinery of State to purely Indian authority. His Majesty's Government could not permit any attempt to be made to break down the loyalty of the administrative services or of the Indian armed forces, and they will give full support to the Government of India in securing that their servants are protected in the performance of their duty and that the future constitution of India shall not be called into being by force or threat of force. In addition, the great need of India, whatever Governments are in power, is to raise the standard of life, of education, and of health of the masses of the people. Boldly conceived plans to meet this are already in being and His Majesty's Government are giving every encouragement to proceed with them so that improving social conditions may go forward simultaneously with the institution of self-government.
  Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman has just made a statement, the terms of which I have no doubt have been very carefully considered, and rightly so, by His Majesty's Government. I am sure he will understand me if I say that my right hon. Friends and I would like a little time to look at them before making any comment upon them, as I daresay will other hon. Members also. However, I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question or two on a point in the statement which is not quite clear to me, and that is, what are to be the functions of this Parliamentary delegation? The right hon. Gentleman will be aware there have been many such delegations at differ-

  2105
  ent times to Dominions and to Colonies of the British Empire, but all those delegations, I think, have been entirely unofficial. Is this delegation to be on the same lines? I presume that it is. Is it to differ in any way from these other delegations that have gone out from here before? If so, how is it to differ, and is it to make a report? If so, to whom is it to make a report? I think those things ought to be cleared up so that there may be no danger of misunderstanding in India about the functions of any delegation of this kind. Finally, may I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I wholly endorse what he said at the conclusion of his statement, that no force, or threat of force, can ever be a possible basis for the development of self-government in India, and we would also endorse his statement about the standard of living and the need for improvement in that respect.
  Mr. Morrison: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. With regard to the first part of what he said, this is an Empire Parliamentary Association delegation. Nevertheless, I think it would foe in a rather special category. As I conceive it, one of its purposes would be first of all to convey the good will of the British Parliament, and also to make contacts, to get information, and to assess the situation. I would hope that upon its return, Mr. Speaker, you might give it an opportunity of conferring with His Majesty's Government in order to express its views and impressions. At that point we could consider what further action should be taken. In that sense, it is rather exceptional, but we should certainly wish to have the advantage of the views and opinions and impressions of the delegates on their return.
  Mr. Maxton: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, is not this conferring on the Empire Parliamentary Association a status somewhat different from what it has held in the past? After all, it is only a voluntary association.
  Mr. Morrison: That is perfectly true, but, on the other hand, there is an active branch of the Empire Parliamentary Association in India. The Association has a good many contacts, and we thought that it was a convenient arrangement. That was the reason why we thought the Empire Parliamentary Association would provide suitable auspices.
  Mr. Eden: I wonder if I might ask the right hon. Gentleman to give further consideration to the point made by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Max-ton). This is, I think, a complete departure from any previous practice. I think, if the Government will look at the matter, they will find that all other visits have been made in response to invitations from the Dominions concerned, and I should have thought, if the Government's object is something more than a good-will mission, as it appears to be, they might be wiser to send out a mission representative—if it were agreed—of all parties in this House under the auspices of the Government rather than to stretch this Empire Parliamentary Association into a role it has never had before.
  Mr. Morrison: That will, of course, not affect the position of the delegation, as far is I can see, because it was proposed, in any case, that the delegation should be chosen after consultation with the principal Parliamentary political parties, and therefore it comes, in that sense, very much to the same thing. However, if there is any general or widespread feeling in the House that they would like the Government to confer through the usual channels, as to the particular status of the delegation, I would certainly be willing to receive and consider representations on that.
  Mr. Eden: Whilst thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that, may I ask him to bear in mind that there is also the position in India to be considered? It is very important that we should not raise false hopes of the functions of this commission in India. Therefore, if it goes under Government auspices, it could have terms of reference approved by this House and there would be no room for misunderstandings.
  Mr. Morrison: I do not want any misunderstandings. I do not conceive it as a commission. I do not conceive it as having particular terms of reference. I do not think so. I quite agree that one does not want to give any false impressions in India. This is considered to be a useful visit which will make contacts, and will, let us hope, sweeten relations between this Parliament and India, and enrich the knowledge of Parliament itself but, at the end of the day, obviously the

  2107
  responsibility for policy must rest upon His Majesty's Government responsible to Parliament and this country.
  Mr. Sorensen: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would not consider again the advisability of a deputation going from this House, not in the nature of a mission from this House, but representative of the dominant party in this House?.
  Mr. Morrison: No, Sir. I think it would be foreign to the traditions of the House and to the spirit of the whole thing if we were to draw this delegation from the majority party in the House only. I think here, at any rate, we must adopt something like the principles of Proportional Representation.
  Iieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: I would like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that in many previous missions the North-East corner of India—Assam and Bengal—was not visited. I hope this delegation will visit that part of India, and especially that it will get into touch with the Moslem leaders of Bengal and Assam.
  Mr. Morrison: We had not got as far as the itinerary. I will certainly undertake that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's point shall be kept in mind.
  Major Wyatt: Could my right hon. Friend make it quite clear—there may be some misunderstanding—that if the ultimate decision of the Indian peoples is that they do not wish India to remain a partner in the British Commonwealth, they may be allowed to make that decision; and also that there will never again be any further mention of Dominion status in connection with India?
  Hon. Members: Why not?
  Mr. Morrison: I do not think there need be any misapprehension about that. The offer of 1942 included a provision that the treaty contemplated between the new self-governing India and His Majesty's Government would not impose any restrictions on the power of India to decide her future relationship to the remainder of the British Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government stand by that position, though it is, naturally, our hope that India will remain of her own free will, within the British Commonwealth.
  Sir Stanley Reed: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whilst thanking him for the open mind he has shown, if he will give very careful consideration to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden)? This is no ordinary occasion. The delegation will be going to India under wholly exceptional conditions when great and far-reaching constitutional changes are pending in India, which will come to a head in March and April. Any Parliamentary delegation going to India is bound to be regarded in India as an official delegation and, therefore, would it not be better to give it that cachet from the very beginning and send it to India under direct Government auspices instead of through the agency of the Empire Parliamentary Association?
  Mr. Morrison: I have undertaken to consider the representations which were made by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton).
  Sir Ralph Glyn: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in considering this matter, bear in mind that there was a Standing Joint Committee on Indian affairs which was empowered to visit India and other places; and will he consider whether that would be a solution?
  Mr. Morrison: My memory is not too clear about the point, but I should doubt whether that would be a suitable way out.
  Mr. Peter Freeman: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider that the failure to solve this problem of India has been due largely to a failure of appreciation of India in this country, and of appreciation by India of this country and also lack of understanding between the countries? Would he indicate what steps he proposes to remove that misunderstanding?
  Mr. Morrison: The answer is this step.
  Wing-Commander Millington: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of impending changes, he will consider deferring the trial of 300 arrested members of the Indian National Congress so that they may be tried by an Indian court after the elections?
  Mr. Morrison: I gather that my hon. and gallant Friend's figure is a very great exaggeration. I do not think it right to deal with that matter now.
  Mr. Gallacher: I want to ask the Minister whether it would not have been better to have left out that part of the statement which contains a threat, and whether the Indian National Congress and the Moslem League will be consulted at every stage?
  Mr. Morrison: I do not profess to be as strong a believer in firm and ruthless government as the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), and really I did not detect in this statement any threat to anybody. I merely stated that the Indian Government had the responsibility of government. The fact is there have been certain indications of threats the other way.
  Mr. Gallacher: Where the Tories are concerned.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in view of the many suggestions which have been made, reconsideration will also take the form of consultations with all sections of opinion? I think it is possible he may go wrong.
  Mr. Morrison: I am much obliged for the friendly warning, but I did not gather that the main idea was challenged. There was some disagreement about the form of
  2110
  the delegation, and I will certainly regard that with the greatest friendliness.
  Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Having regard to the growing strength and influence of the trade union movement, may I ask, without wishing to suggest a particular bias, whether the right hon. Gentleman will see that the strongest trade union representation is included in the delegation?
  Mr. Morrison: There is no reason why those consulted should not keep that point in mind, but perhaps I ought not to say anything which prejudges the issue at this stage.
  Mr. Jennings: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to keep in mind that those who go to India should know something about India, and should be able to bring home some useful information?
  Mrs. Middleton: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether opportunity will be given to discuss the statement he has made, otherwise than by question and answer?
  Mr. Morrison: I am bound to say, quite apart from the time factor, in regard to which we are in considerable difficulties, I am a little doubtful whether that would be advantageous.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)—[Mr. H. Morrison.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  BUILDING MATERIALS AND HOUSING BILL
  Considered in Committee.[Progress, 3rd December.]
  [Mr. Hubert Beaumont in the Chair]

  Clause 2.—(The Building Materials and Housing Fund.)
  3.35 p.m.
  Mr. Willink: I beg to move, in page 3, line 1, after "be," insert:
  "laid before Parliament and a copy thereof."
  In moving this Amendment I think it is desirable, at the outset, to recall the position left as a result of the decision taken by the Committee last night. The Amendment which I moved yesterday, to the effect that the Minister should prepare his accounts within three months and not within a maximum of eight months, was rejected by the Committee. What, then, is the position arising at the stage which we have now reached? It is that the Minister of Works, going into this business of production and distribution in a big way as he has indicated, is under no obligation, as the Bill is at present drawn, to present or prepare any account except by 30th November following the end of any financial year in the five years during which he will be operating. That is a long period to ask Parliament to wait. Let us see what the Minister has to do. On or before 30th November following the expiration of the financial year all he has to do is to transmit his accounts to the Comptroller and Auditor General, who shall examine and certify the accounts and lay copies, together with his report thereon, before Parliament. There have been examples during the war and, no doubt, earlier, when this process has been an exceedingly long one.
  It appears to my hon. Friends and myself that the Bill, as drawn, gives every likelihood that Parliament will be de-
  2112
  prived of any knowledge of the extent of the success or failure of this operation for a grossly unreasonable time. Accordingly, this Amendment and the next Amendment on the Paper—in line 3, leave out "copies thereof together with"—are intended to secure that after the termination of the eight months, during which the Minister has been drawing up his accounts, Parliament shall see the result. I can see no solid ground of objection to such a proposal. The accounts, we hope, will be correctly and intelligibly drawn up and in a fit state to be submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Ought we not to see them at the same time as the Comptroller and Auditor-General? Ought we not to see them within eight months of the termination of the year's financial and other transactions? We suggest that this simultaneous presentation is desirable and that the accounts prepared under the subsection should be laid before Parliament and a copy thereof submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor General who would then proceed to examine and certify them and make his report.
  In the case of the earlier Amendment, which proposed that the Minister should draw up his accounts within three months and not eight months, the only argument that was used to justify the refusal to accept the proposal was that it had never been done before. It is very difficult to check a negative statement of that kind, but apart from the difficulty of checking, an argument based on what is alleged to be precedent is most unsatisfactory. These operations are going to be extremely important. They may involve great loss to the community, to the taxpayers. All of us—I am sure I can include the right hon. Gentleman—are gravely disturbed about the cost of the operations which were conducted and, as far as I know are still being conducted by the right hon. Gentleman who was Minister of Aircraft Production, and is now President of the Board of Trade. I refer, of course, to the aluminium temporary houses of which about 55,000, I understand, are going to be made, each having an area of 600 square feet, at a cost very considerably in excess of the figure at which private enterprise is going to be allowed to build houses with 1,000 square feet floor area. If such things can take place under the encouragement of a Socialist Minister it is surely right that

  2113
  this House should see the effect of this trading and production function, which the Minister of Works is being given under this Bill. I have thought carefully about it and I can see no possible reason why the Minister's accounts should not be laid before Parliament at the same time as a copy is transmitted to the Comptroller and Auditor General? If that is done, we shall see in December of any year the effect of the Minister's operations during the 12 months ended in the preceding April. What reason can there be for asking Parliament to wait for an indefinite period, which, if previous experience is a guide, might well mean another 12 months, before seeing the result of the operations.
  The Minister of Works (Mr. Tomlin-son): I am sorry to have to begin again today, by saying "No" to an Amendment. It may surprise the right hon. and learned Gentleman if 1 use the same argument—though I do not see any reason why it should not be used as an argument—that that which was thought good enough by Parliament for a score of years before I came here, should remain in operation. It is not the only argument by any means, but if you are going to make a change there should be some very good reason for making it. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman asks the Committee to do is to depart from accepted Parliamentary procedure for all accounts of this kind. Once again I want to draw attention to the fact that this is not the first time the Government has done business, whether in a big way or a little way, and all Government accounts of this kind come before the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The question was raised yesterday whether or not the Treasury could be expected to live tip to its reputation when dealing with Ministry of Works accounts of this kind, and there now seems to be doubt as to the efficiency, or effectiveness, or purposefulness of the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
  345 p.m.
  Mr. Willink: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give some grounds for that statement.
  Mr. Tomlinson: I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will let me finish my argument before he begins to question it. The Comptroller and Auditor
  2114
  General is an officer of Parliament, whose duty is to examine accounts, and to draw the attention of Parliament to any item requiring special attention. Yesterday, in the Committee we were told that no accounts would ever be submitted by a company, which could be taken as exemplary in this matter, until they had been audited. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman is asking is that before the auditor has seen the accounts and has gone through them, they should be presented to Parliament. If it is difficult sometimes, as hon. Members confessed yesterday, to understand Government finance, and if the Opposition were in earnest in wanting to spell out line by line the way in which we should make out the accounts of this particular Government undertaking, then I suggest that they would be ready to wait a little longer until the Comptroller and Auditor General, with his specific knowledge, had gone through the accounts. They could then confine themselves to things that needed special attention, and as a result the Committee would probably learn more from the accounts than if they had been presented to Parliament earlier. Whatever may be said, it does seem to me that it would be quite inappropriate for accounts to be presented to the House unaudited, at the same time as they are sent to the auditor. I do not know of a company in any part of the country which does that, and I do not see why the Government should be asked to depart from normal procedure simply because they are themselves undertaking a job.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: If the right hon. Gentleman had not so ruthlessly destroyed the previous Amendment, which sought to reduce the period in which accounts are submitted, there might be a case for the argument he has now put forward. But I cannot accept his argument that because it was never done before, we are never to improve our ways. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was open to suggestions which led to progress and to improvement in machinery, and that he would give such a proposal careful thought. It seems to me that if the Government are going in for business in a big way, and if that business is going to be efficient, there is nothing for them to fear in the early publication of the accounts. If the right hon. Gentleman had only seen his way to be a little more

  2115
  friendly to the Amendment of my right hon and learned Friend, it might have done something to allay the great disturbance which now exists in the minds of many people who would otherwise not have suspected anything else inside this Bill. [Hon. Members: "What do you suspect now?"] I am only speaking for myself, but I do not see any desire on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to disclose to Parliament whether his actions have been successful or a failure, and whether they have led to efficiency or inefficiency in the conduct of the business. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not adopt a similar attitude towards every consideration put forward by hon. Members on this side of the Committee.
  Mr. S. O. Davies: I would not have intervened in this matter had it not been for the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cocker-mouth (Lieut.-Colonel Dower). He put forward no argument in justification of this Amendment. What, in effect, he told the Committee was that if the Minister had been a little more kindly and considerate, in all probability this absurd Amendment would not have been on the Order Paper at all. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman who moved this Amendment said was this: Assuming that these accounts come before this House before they have been examined, audited and certified as correct by the Auditor-General, what would the real value of these accounts be to them? The first thing the right hon. and learned Gentleman would put to the Minister would be "Are you sure that these accounts are correct? Have they been properly audited, and have they been certified by the Department and by the officer who invariably issues a certificate of this kind before they are presented to the House?'' The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not give the remotest hint of the utter absurdity of piling figures of this kind on to the House, when nobody in the House would be in a position to say whether they were correct or incorrect. It looks as if this Amendment has been inspired more by a spirit of sheer cussed-ness, than by any intention of improving the Bill. I am forced to that conclusion by the completely negative contribution made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who moved it.
  Lieut.-Colonel Derek Walker-Smith: If I may address myself to the point made by the Minister and by the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. S. O. Davies), I would point out that the right hon. Gentleman relies upon a precedent suited to a more leisurely age than the present. The procedure on which he relies may have been suitable for the time in which it was fashioned, but those were not times in which this dynamic procedure of bulk purchase and State manufacture had been introduced. No one on this side of the Committee suggests that we should do away with the audit and examination by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Of course it is true that the Comptroller and Auditor General is an officer of Parliament, but what is suggested by this Amendment is that two processes should go on simultaneously: There should be an opportunity for, if you like, the amateur examination of these accounts quickly by the House, and also for the professional examination of these accounts by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The hon. Member for Merthyr suggested that these accounts could be of no value until they had been audited and certified by the Comptroller and Auditor General. It may well be that the Member knows his own Minister and the Government better than I do, but I would be the last to suggest that an account prepared by the Minister under the terms of Subsection (5) of this Clause would be of no value to the House until it had gone through the Comptroller and Auditor General. What we want is an early opportunity for the House to inspect these accounts and take exception to any patent matters of error, or whatever it may be. There will then be, concurrently, the professional examination by the Comptroller and Auditor General and a subsequent opportunity for the House to comment on any latent errors which this examination might bring to light. I submit that that is an eminently practical and democratic procedure which ought to be followed.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am surprised at the argument put forward by the Minister of Works, on two grounds. The first is that he omitted to describe this as a wrecking Amendment, and the second, that he put forward an argument which, if it had come from the benches behind me, would have been met with howls of derision from the benches behind the

  2117
  right hon. Gentleman—the argument that we could not do this because it had never been done before— [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman's words arc recorded in Hansard and if I have not given the facts accurately, that will be clearly apparent in Hansard. But I listened with care to what he said, and I think that I am stating correctly its effect. He went on to say that the present practice should remain in operation. I suggest that that is a most unsatisfactory argument. I want to deal quite shortly with each of the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman put forward, because this is a point of some substance. He said that this was not the first time that the Government had done business. With that we entirely agree, but it is the first time that the Government have said that they are going to engage in big business of this sort. We have—I am speaking from memory—some instances within our knowledge of the laying of accounts before Parliament, where a Government have been to some extent concerned in the conduct of business. We can look back and see whether the procedure which previously existed can really continue with regard to this big business. It is true that all accounts go before the Comptroller and Auditor General for his report and certificate; but are not these accounts correct when they are sent out by the Minister of Works to the Auditor General? Does the Auditor General fulfil the ordinary role of an accountant for a company?
  Mr. Tomlinson: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the purpose of an accountant of a company is to twist the figures?
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am not suggesting anything of the sort, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that I am not. I am suggesting that the analogy between the accounts of a company, and sending the accounts of Government business to the Auditor General is not quite correct, because surely the accounts are gone through by gentlemen with good qualifications before they leave the Ministry of Works. Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not going to say that his accounts are not fit for inspection by him or anyone else, before they have been seen by the Auditor General? The right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but in the case of the accounts of the British Overseas Airways Corporation has not something like—I am speaking
  2118
  from memory—eighteen months elapsed between the end of the financial year and the laying of these accounts before Parliament?
  We on this side of the Committee are interested in this matter, and interested to see how it gets on. 1 should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman—I do not want to cast any aspersions upon his efficiency—thinks this is going to be wonderful big business. We, on our side, have some doubts. We say that the matter should be put to the proof of these accounts and that we ought to see these accounts at the earliest possible moment. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that he is right, why should not these accounts be laid, before they go to the Auditor-General, with the knowledge that we can see and judge from these accounts what the position is, and with the knowledge that within a few months we shall have the report of the Auditor-General to confirm our views, or otherwise or to draw different points to our attention?
  Why should not we see the figures when the accounts are completed? We may have to wait a full year before we get the accounts of the previous year's operation. Does that happen with a limited company? [Hon. Members: "Yes."] In war time it may be. I am under the impression that in peace time certain steps are taken with regard to delay in presentation of accounts. I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to deal with this point in a cursory manner. If he brushes it on one side and says our proposal is a departure from precedent, and that it would be better to keep this matter quiet until some time has elapsed, that may give rise to suspicions that this Government enterprise is not in fact being so well conducted, as we on this side of the Committee hope it will be.
  4.0 p.m.
  Major Cecil Poole: I would invite the mover of the Amendment to answer one question. When will there be laid before Parliament the accounts for the very large Government expenditure incurred under his jurisdiction at the Ministry of Health in the development of the Portal house?
  Mr. Willink: The answer is that no money was spent on that account by the Ministry of Health.
  Major Poole: It may be that the amount spent on the development of the Portal house did not fall upon the Vote of the Ministry of Health, but the development of that project was very largely in the joint hands of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who was then the Minister of Health, and of the Minister of Works.
  Mr. Willink: The hon. and gallant Member was not, if I remember aright, a Member of this House at the time of the Portal house. If he was he is under a complete misapprehension, because at the beginning the development of the Portal house was not within the joint jurisdiction of the Departments at all. If questions are raised about it now, I would like to know why questions were not raised at the time, or shortly afterwards. The gross abuse of the present Minister of Health in regard to this matter has no parallel, and was not anticipated during the last I8 months of the last Parliament after the original showing of the Portal house.
  The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I would suggest that these observations are becoming rather irrelevant.
  Mr. Pritt: I will not keep this point under discussion much longer, but I should like to examine it in this way. The Amendment has been put forward with the utmost seriousness and plausibility from the other side, but what it amounts to is that in connection with this particular business Parliament is to have the opportunity to do everything twice. In the first place hon. Members opposite want the accounts unaudited and uncertified, and I think it is only right to suppose that they want them for some purpose. The purpose must be to examine them and ask questions upon them in this House. Then, when they have had a few months of that, the Comptroller and Auditor General will come forward with the audited accounts, and they will start all over again and do it twice. As a contribution to Parliamentary ups-and-downs I can understand it, but as an aid to building I cannot.
  One hon. and gallant Member opposite saw the folly of it, and so he developed it rather neatly by saying, although it is not in the words of the Amendment, that it would be understood that the first examination was to discover patent errors, and the second to discover latent errors,
  2120
  and then, I presume, after that they will want a Parliamentary inquiry to discover which were patent and which were latent. The whole thing is absurd. Why do they want this? Because they know the mess they made over the Portal house and think the present Government are as stupid as they were, or else it is because they want to waste time. Then they say that it is no argument for the right hon. Gentleman to claim that his method has worked perfectly well in the past. We on this side know that you can often do good by changes based upon previous experience, but they want a change from one single examination, to the lunatic business of two examinations, one for the patent errors and the other for those which are latent.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: No doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman has made the case extremely clear to himself, though not to anybody else, by his method of digesting other people's arguments and then regurgitating them in a slightly different form and in a rather offensive manner. I want to put this point seriously to the right hon. Gentleman. We have never suggested that our Amendment proposes something entirely new which is never practised in private enterprise, and which it would be improper to introduce into our general form of procedure. I ask him whether it is not the case with every company, that its accounts are submitted to the directors before they are audited. After they have been submitted to the directors and examined and checked, then they are audited.
  If that is the case, and it is the case, it raises the whole question of the part which Parliament is to play in State enterprises. Now that the Government as a whole are indulging in State enterprise in production and distribution I am not sure whether the present structure for the Parliamentary control of expenditure is anything like equal to keeping pace with the activities of the Government. It may be that this Amendment does not go nearly far enough, and that we may have to consider at a later stage whether we ought not to sketch out some form of Special Committee procedure to examine the trading activities of the Government. It may be that the Parliamentary structure, which was designed at a

  2121
  time when Government activities in production were not in the picture at all, is not now sufficient, but during this intermediate period, until Parliament has designed some form of machinery, some form of consultative body, would it not be better to adopt this Amendment, because the Minister may find that method a particular protection to himself and his Department as the work goes on?
  Mr. Messer: 1 would like to answer one point made by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing). He said, rightly, that draft accounts are submitted to a board of directors prior to going to the auditor, but that is by no means analogous to the present situation, for the board of directors in this House of Commons will be sitting on the Government Front Bench. The Members on the other side will not be directors.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: We maintain that Parliament as a whole is responsible.
  Mr. Messer:In point of fact the responsibility for every order will rest on the Government Front Bench, in exactly the same way as responsibility for the direction of a firm is with the directors. The directors, after the accounts have been audited, submit them to a general meeting of the shareholders.
  Squadron-Leader Fleming: Does not the final responsibility for every act of this House rest on this House?
  Mr. Messer: I am quite prepared to admit that as a good House of Commons man, but the responsibility for what the Government do must rest on the Government. After the auditors had examined the accounts, they would then be submitted to the whole of the House, and the House must take responsibility for what it does in the same way as the mass of shareholders in a company will accept or reject their audited accounts.
  The hon. Member is asking too much in asking that draft accounts should be submitted to us. What would be the argument used by hon. Members opposite? It would be, "How do we know that these figures are not hiding something? How do we know that these accounts are correct? They have not been examined by anybody who is independent." Then the Government would
  2122
  get up and say, in the words of the hon. Member opposite, "We have on the staff of the Ministry of Works and the Ministry of Health civil servants who are quite capable of submitting these accounts.'' But obviously they have an interest in things. Auditors must be those who have no such interest. The Auditor-General is independent. He would not be affected by what a Minister might say, as would be a civil servant who was auditing the accounts of his own Department. The Department would prepare the accounts and the House has a right to consider them when they have been certified as correct.
  Lieut. - Commander Joynson Hicks: I wish to refer to the illustration which the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) has just given us. His analogy is not accurate. The Members of this House are not like the shareholders of a company. We have not put up the money. We have put up a reasonable proportion of it, but the money for this speculation—I do not think it is quite right to call it an investment—is put up by the community at large. Parliament are the board of directors, and the Government Front Bench is the collective managing director of the concern. The hon. Member has introduced into the picture a new building baron. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Works will, no doubt, go down to history as one of the new building barons of the City of London.
  Mr. Messer: We shall not be so barren as were Members opposite.
  Lieut. - Commander Joynson - Hicks: There is something far more serious than these illustrations, and that is the question of the responsibility of Parliament for the expenditure of this vast sum of money. The hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. S. O. Davies) was anxious to know-why these accounts were wanted. I have no hesitation, speaking for myself, in answering him. Why I want to see the accounts of this speculation at the earliest possible time is because I am one of those who are responsible for the voting of this vast sum of money, even though I may not wish it to be voted. It is the money of the taxpayers, and I want to know as quickly as possible how it is being spent, and I say that the House has a right to see these accounts as speedily as they can be prepared at the expiration

  2123
  of the year referred to in the Clause. Their auditing and their subsequent production in a final form is a different matter. In a speculation of this sort the very least that is due to us, having regard to our responsibilities, is that we should be able to examine the accounts as early as possible. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was by no means novel, not a new thing, for the Government to embark upon enterprise in industry. That may be so, but when in the past the Governments have sought to compete with public or private enterprise the results have been by no means such as to establish confidence in one's mind, and when the Government are embarking on such a wide undertaking as this the House has every right to an early presentation of the accounts.
  Commander Galbraith: The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) made a good deal of fun about our wishing to see two different sets of accounts. As a matter of fact I hope he will not see two different sets of accounts. I have never known it to be the duty of an auditor to change the figures in an account. That is not his business at all.
  Mr. Pritt Mr. Pritt rose—
  Commander Galbraith: I—
  Mr. Pritt: Surely the hon. and gallant Member will give way.
  The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. and gallant Member does not give way, the hon. and learned Member cannot speak.
  Mr. Pritt Mr. Pritt rose—
  Commander Galbraith: Will the hon. and learned Member let me finish?
  Mr. Pritt: On a point of Order. Is it not a rule of this House that when an hon. Member has been directly named in connection with something that he has said, and he wishes to say that he has been misrepresented, that the hon. Member who is speaking will give way to him?
  The Deputy-Chairman: No, it is entirely within the discretion of the hon. and gallant Member himself.
  Mr. Pritt: I will just say that he is not telling the truth.
  The Deputy-Chairman: I must ask the hon. and learned Member to withdraw that remark.
  Mr. Pritt: I will withdraw the statement that he was not telling the truth about me, and say that he was making a wholly inaccurate statement.
  Commander Galbraith: I do not flunk there is any need for all this heat on the part of the hon. and learned Member. All I said was that I understood him to make considerable play—and hon. Members can say whether I was right or wrong—about our examining two sets of accounts. [Interruption.]
  Mr. McKie: On a point of Order. Is it right for an hon. Member to describe the hon. and gallant Member as a stubborn little fool?
  The Deputy-Chairman: I did not hear that remark.
  Commander Galbraith: I did not hear it either, but if the hon. and learned Member wishes to describe me in that way—
  The Deputy-Chairman: As the remark was not heard, may I suggest that the hon. and gallant Member now deals with the Amendment which is before the Committee?
  Commander Galbraith: It is hardly my fault.
  The Deputy-Chairman: I am not attributing blame to anyone. I simply asked the hon. and gallant Member if he would now confine himself to the Amendment.
  Commander Galbraith: I should never have departed from the Amendment had I not been interrupted, and rather rudely interrupted. I was saying that it is not an auditor's duty to alter figures in any account. His duty is to certify either that the account is correct, or otherwise. Therefore the accounts presented to us direct from the Department, will be exactly the same as the accounts we have had from the Auditor-General, but we will have a report with the second lot of accounts. It will be perfectly reasonable for us to comment on the first set of accounts, if there was anything in the report which drew our attention to other matters. We would be perfectly in order in dealing with that when it arose. All that we are asking is that we should have the result at the earliest possible moment.

  2125
  Surely the Minister wants to show how skilful his negotiations and operations have been? I think we have a right to know them. The analogy drawn between this House and a board of directors is not entirely correct. In this case the House are not the directors; they are the managers.
  Mr. Maude: May I try to bring a gentle zephyr into the Committee on this rather turbulent afternoon? I welcome the presence of the Minister of Health. I feel grateful to him today, because he has recently helped me to dig the First Lord of the Admiralty out of the U.S. naval base at Exeter. Nevertheless, I must say this. Surely it must occur to Members on the other side of the Committee that to resist this Amendment is very foolish. I will tell the Committee why. Let us see whether there is not some reason. The Subsection says:
  "Any account prepared under this Subsection shall, on or before the thirtieth day of November next following the expiration of the financial year in question …"
  Where have we got to there? We have got to November next year. From remarks made by the President of the Board of Trade it can be seen that he is clearly aware of the extreme urgency of the national interest in trade in general. It is of vital importance that we should do our best in every direction, within the next three years. If, in fact, the two right hon. Gentlemen make a success of this—excellent. The nation will be pleased and delighted. But why should not hon. Members on all sides have the opportunity of watching, at the earliest possible moment, their success? I am assuming for one moment for the purposes of the argument that they succeed, that they have a tremendous success: Why on earth should the Minister not come with his accounts at the earliest reasonable moment, which will be about a year from now, instead of after another delay of a considerable period—because there will be a considerable delay after that date, before the accounts would reach Parliament?
  The impression I am trying to give is that if nothing of this nature is done, and if refuge is taken behind arguments such as have been given today and in that way a very considerable delay is achieved, it is open to any reasonable
  2126
  man of any or of no political persuasion, to say, "Why on earth will they not give way on a small matter like this? The Opposition have taken a chance. They will not be able to come down to the House and say 'We do not know whether these figures are right or wrong; you probably cooked them.' They begged for the figures themselves. Why not come down with the figures?" There can be no reason for resisting this Amendment unless there is a lurking feeling at the back of the right hon. Gentleman's mind, first of all that it is very much better not to bother about money at all. That I conceive to be wholly wrong, and it would not stand the test of argument or debate. If it is decided that the matter should be carefully controlled from a financial point of view, why not let us have the figures at the earliest possible opportunity?
  As far as precedent is concerned in such a matter as this, what happens in this House and in this country in the next three years will be without any precedent whatever. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite should cheer immediately at that. They are determined, and we have heard again and again that they have come with a mandate, to do something epoch making. Is their silence now because, at the back of their minds there are a thousand and one things that are worrying them and their supporters? The right hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh, but I can assure hon. Members that all their supporters are not laughing. Every Member of this Committee knows quite well that the future prosperity of this country is by no means assured, and it is absolutely necessary, in the view of this side of the Committee, that proper steps should be taken to get into the mind of the right hon. Gentleman that accounting, and the rapid disclosure of figures which would show the progress of a vast experiment, should be his first consideration. I believe it sincerely and if others believe it, I cannot conceive why this thing should not be done? If the reasons advanced are the only two reasons, they are not sufficient, in these exceptional times. If there are other reasons let us have them. It is becoming a habit here for hon. Members, not merely on this side of the Committee, but Members on all sides, to ask right hon. Gentlemen many questions, to which there is no sort of answer whatever.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 138; Noes, 277.

  Division No. 45.]

  AYES.

  [4.25 p.m.

  Aitken, Hon. M.

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)

  Harvey, Air Comdre. A. V.

  Osborne, C.

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Headlam, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Astor, Hon. M.

  Hogg, Hon. Q.

  Pickthorn, K.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Holmes, Sir J. Stanley

  Poole, Col. O. B. S. (Oswestry)

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Howard, Hon. A.

  Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.

  Baxter, A. B.

  Hurd, A.

  Raikes, H. V.

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Beattie, F. (Cathcart)

  Hutchison, Lt.-Col. J. R. (G'gow, C.)

  Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

  Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel

  Jeffreys, General Sir G.

  Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

  Boothby, R.

  Jennings, R.

  Robinson, Wing-Comdr. J. R.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.

  Ross, Sir R.

  Bower, N.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A.

  Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Sanderson, Sir F.

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Cmdr. J. G.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Scott, Lord W.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Shephard, S. (Newark)

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Shepherd, Lt. W. S. (Bucklow)

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull)

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

  Carson, E.

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Low, Brig. A. R. W.

  Snadden, W. M.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Lucas, Major Sir J.

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Cooper-Key, Maj. E. M.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Spence, Maj. H. R.

  Corbett, Lieut. Col. U. (Ludlow)

  MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

  Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. O.

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Stoddart-Scott, Lt.-Col. M.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J.

  Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Darling, Sir W. Y.

  Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

  Teeling, Flt.-Lieut. W.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Thomson, Sir D. (Aberdeen, S.)

  Digby, Maj. S. Wingfield

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

  Dodds-Parker, Col. A. D.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N

  Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.

  Marples, Capt. A. E.

  Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.

  Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)

  Marsden, Comdr. A.

  Turton, R. H.

  Drayson, Capt. G. B.

  Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin)

  Vane, Lt.-Col. W. M. T.

  Drewe, C.

  Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

  Wakefield, Sir W. W.

  Duthie, W. S.

  Maude, j. C.

  Walker-Smith, Lt.-Col. D.

  Eccles, D. M.

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Ward, Hon. G. R.

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Wheatley, Lt.-Col. M. J.

  Erroll, Col. F. J.

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  White, Maj. J. B. (Canterbury

  Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Fletcher, W. (Bury)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.

  Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.

  Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.

  Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.

  York, C.

  Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)

  Nicholson, G.

  Young, Maj. Sir A. S. L. (Partick)

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

  Nield, B. (Chester)

  Glyn, Sir R.

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

  Nutting, Anthony

  Commander Agnew and Mr. Studholme.

  NOES.

  Adams, Capt. H. R. (Balham)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)

  Daggar, G.

  Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Daines, P.

  Adamson, Mrs. J. L.

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

  Allighan, Garry

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Alpass, J. H.

  Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

  Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Buchanan, G.

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Attewell, H. C.

  Burden, T. W.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Austin, H. L.

  Byers, Lt.-Col. F.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Awbery, S. S.

  Callaghan, James

  Diamond, J,

  Ayles, W. H.

  Chamberlain, R. A.

  Dobbie, W.

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

  Chater, D.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.

  Douglas, F, C. R.

  Barstow, P. G.

  Clitherow, R.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Bartlett, V.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  Barton, C.

  Cobb, F. A.

  Durbin, E. F. M.

  Beattie, J. (Belfast W.)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Dye, S.

  Bechervaise, A, E.

  Coldrick, W.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Benson, G.

  Collick, P.

  Edelman, M.

  Berry, H.

  Collindridge, F.

  Edwards, A. (Middesbrough, E.)

  Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F.

  Collins, V. J.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Binns, J.

  Cook, T. F.

  Farthing, W. J.

  Blackburn, Capt. A. R.

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

  Foot, M. M.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Forman, J. C.

  Bottomley, A. G.

  Corvedale, Viscount

  Fraser, T. (Hamiton)

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

  Cove, W. G.

  Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A

  Freeman, P. (Newport)

  Gaitskell, H. T. N

  MacMillan, M. K.

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Gallacher, W.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Skinnard, F. W.

  George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

  Gilzean, A.

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

  Gooch, E. G.

  Mathers, G.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Goodrich, H. E.

  Maxton, J.

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Mayhew, Maj. C. P.

  Solley, L. J.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

  Medland, H. M.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Messer, F.

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

  Grey, C. F.

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Grierson, E.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Stanford, W.

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Mitchison, Maj. G. R

  Steele, T.

  Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)

  Monslow, W.

  Stewart, Capt. M. (Fulham)

  Gunter, Capt. R. J.

  Montague, F.

  Stokes, R. R.

  Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Strauss, G. R.

  Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

  Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Hamilton, Lt.-Col. R.

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  Symonds, Maj. A. L.

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Hardy, E. A.

  Mort, D. L.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Moyle, A.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Haworth, J.

  Murray, J. D.

  Thomas, John R. (Dover)

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Nally, W.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Hicks, G.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. G. R. (E'b'g'h, E.)

  Hobson, C. R.

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Thorneycroft, H.

  Holman, P.

  Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

  Thurtle, E.

  Horabin, T. L.

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Tiffany, S.

  House, G.

  Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

  Tolley, L.

  Hoy, J.

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

  Hubbard, T.

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

  Paget, R. T.

  Usborne, Henry

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Parker, J.

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Janner, B.

  Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.

  Viant, S. P.

  John, W.

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Walker, G. H.

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

  Pearson, A.

  Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Jones, Maj. P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Peart, Capt. T. F.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Keenan, W.

  Perrins, W.

  Watson, W. M.

  Kenyon, C.

  Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

  Key, C. W.

  Poole, Major C. C. (Lichfield)

  Weitzman, D.

  Kinley, J.

  Popplewell, E.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Kirby, B. V.

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  White, G. F. (Derbyshire, W.)

  Kirkwood, D.

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Lang, G.

  Pritt, D. N.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Lavers, S.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Wigg, Col. G. E. C.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Pryde,D. J.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Leonard, W.

  Randall, H. E.

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Lever, Flying-Officer N. H.

  Ranger, J.

  Williams, Rt. Hon. E. J. (Ogmore)

  Levy, B. W.

  Rankin, J.

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Rees-Williams, Lt,-Col. D. R.

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Reeves, J.

  Williamson, T.

  Lipson, D. L.

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Willis, E.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Rhodes, H.

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Logan, D. G.

  Richards, R.

  Wilson, J. H.

  Longden, F.

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  Wise, Major F. J.

  Lyne, A. W.

  Robens, A.

  Woods, G. S.

  McAdam, W.

  Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. E. O. (Merioneth)

  Wyatt, Maj. W.

  McAllister, G.

  Roberts, G. O. (Caernarvonshire)

  Yates, V. F.

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Mack, J. D.

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Zilliacus, K.

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

  Royle, C.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—

  McKinlay, A. S.

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  Mr. R. J. Taylor and Captain Blenkinsop.

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Segal, Sq.-Ldr. S.

  McLeavy, F.

  Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 3.—(Payments into Building Materials and Housing Fund by the Minister of Health.)
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 3, line 8, after "materials," insert "including the cost of those materials."
  This is an Amendment about which I am optimistic, and I hope that the right
  2130
  hon. Gentleman will accept it without any heat being engendered in this Committee. It is in the nature of a drafting Amendment to clarify what I think is the intention of the Clause as viewed from both sides of the Committee. The Clause says:
  "If the Minister has purchased building materials consisting of structures ready for erection as houses."
  That is to say that, if he has bought part of the permanent prefabricated house, that is the first part that has to be specified

  2131
  before the Clause comes into play at all. It goes on about the Minister of Health
  "being satisfied that the cost of constructing houses from those materials."
  It is arguable that all that can be taken into account in estimating the cost of constructing houses from those materials would be the cost of putting the purchased parts together. I do not think that that is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman or of the Government. I feel sure that if a Law Officer were here, he would confirm my argument that it is, to say the least, arguable that, from the drafting of this Clause—in the way the purchase of building materials is referred to in the first case, and the cost of constructing the houses from those materials in the second case—in estimating the cost of constructing the houses you do not include the cost of purchasing the parts to be constructed and put together. I feel sure that the intention is that the Minister of Health shall take into account all the costs of the permanent prefabricated houses and compare those costs with the cost of the traditional houses of a similar size. Believing that to be the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, we move to insert, after the word "materials," the words "including the cost of those materials," in order to put the matter absolutely beyond doubt. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will, in this instance, depart from the argument that this has never been done before, and will, for once, accept an Amendment.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I have examined this matter very carefully and have consulted those who know much more about it than either the hon. Member or myself, and they assure me that the words of the Clause bear the construction which the hon. Member desires, and that an alteration is not necessary. If it were, I would immediately accede to it, but as I understand the Clause does exactly what the hon. Member wishes, I am sure that he will not wish to press this matter further.
  Mr. Willink: The right hon. Gentleman has gone a long way towards satisfying us, but as one who has considered the Clause, I am bound to say that I still feel doubt about the advice he has received. It is difficult as a matter of ordinary English to state that the phrase, "cost of constructing 'A out of B in-
  2132
  cludes the original cost of B. That is really the point on which the right hon. Gentleman says he has been assured. I would like him to say that he would look at it again and take advice from the highest quarters available to the Government. We know that the intention is common; all we desire is to see that the Statute is clearly expressed.
  Mr. Bevan: I am prepared to consult with the authorities responsible and also with the right hon. and learned Gentleman to see whether these words bear the interpretation we commonly desire. If they do not, I shall be prepared to accept such an Amendment. But I am assured that the words bear the interpretation we all desire.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: In view of the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Douglas: I beg to move, in page 3, line 8, leave out "substantially."
  I move this Amendment for the purpose of eliciting from the Minister a declaration of policy upon a matter which particularly concerns the local authorities who must be engaged to a very large extent in the provision of housing accommodation in the future. The intention of this Clause, as I understand it, is to prevent the local authorities from being required to bear a greater burden by reason of the necessity of erecting prefabricated houses than they would have borne if it had been possible to supply the demand quickly by means of houses of traditional methods of construction. It is also, I understand, the intention of the Clause that the expenditure which the Minister of Works incurs should, in the end, be recouped from some source. Therefore, where the cost of prefabricated houses exceeds that of houses of the traditional system, the Minister of Health will come to the aid of the local authorities and make good the difference. That is only equitable. These houses may not be distributed in any even fashion throughout the country and one local authority might be required to have a very much larger proportion of them than another. If that was so and local authorities were reqiured to bear the excess cost, then it is clear that the burden might be distributed between them in a

  2133
  very uneven and inequitable fashion. Therefore, I would like to know whether, in my interpretation of this, the Minister will adhere to the principle, and that the word "substantially" is introduced here merely for the purpose of avoiding discussion about trivial sums of difference over which there might conceivably be an argument whether the prefabricated house was, or was not, of traditional construction.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. Bevan: The real assurance that the hon. Member can obtain is that it would be quite impossible for a Minister of Health to live agreeably with the local authorities if the Minister of Health tried any sharp practice. It is very difficult to give a definition of what ''substantially'' really means. It would be as difficult to give an interpretation, if I had used the word in a converse sense as saying "anything that is not trivial"; what does "trivial" mean? The fact of the matter is that it is not the intention of the Ministry of Health whether they supply wholly prefabricated houses or part prefabricated houses to the local authorities, to charge the local authorities if there is an excess, substantially, over the cost of traditional houses, and there has to be a little come and go in this matter.
  I do not think there is any reason for apprehension. It really means we cannot have strict accounting and say we shall charge the local authority exactly what a particular prefabricated house cost and no more than that. The amount may be very small in excess, and we may have to even out the price in different parts of the country because the cost of prefabricating a particular house in certain parts of the country might be more or less than that of prefabricating the same kind of house in other parts of the country. It may be possible to even out the cost where the amount is not substantially in excess of the cost of a traditional house. But I can assure the hon. Member that it is not the intention of the Ministry of Health to land local authorities in difficulties in this matter, nor would any Minister of Health be able to live happily with local authorities if he did land them into difficulties.
  Mr. Charles Williams: I do not look at the Minister of Health with the suspicion of his hon. Friends behind him and I was very struck by the attitude
  2134
  of mind which the hon. Member for Battersea. North (Mr. Douglas) adopted towards his own Ministry. I felt there was really hardly any need as far as I was concerned—and I can only speak for myself—for the Minister to assure the Committee that the hon. Member need not expect any sharp practice from him. The right hon. Gentleman obviously thought it necessary to give that explanation, but I did not feel it was necessary. The Minister went on from that to deal with the position as between the Government and local authorities. I thought the right hon. Gentleman stated his case with his customary modesty. If there is a mutiny over this particular Amendment, I cannot promise to give support to the Minister in the Lobby, but I may perhaps be allowed to appeal to his followers not to carry it too far on this occasion, because I am convinced of what the Minister has said—that where a local authority is to put up those houses, the Ministry will, in all probability, do their best to carry out a fair bargain and give them compensation.
  There are, of course, obvious difficulties which occur between one local authority and another. The putting up of these houses in a flat area is comparatively easy and not a very costly. proceeding, but in a hilly area, the difficulties are rather greater. While I come to the support of the Minister on this particular occasion—I cannot offer to do it very often—I think I can take it from him that he will have full regard to the position of authorities in areas where the local difficulties, owing to the contour of the land, are much worse than in other cases. Speaking for a local authority which has a very hilly area I welcome the assurance he has given and I hope the hon. Member for North Battersea who seems to have a suspicious mind on this matter, will not carry his suspicion too far, because, after all, he was returned to support this Government.
  Mr. Douglas: In spite of the observations to which the Committee has just listened, I am not going to be tempted into saying anything more than to thank the Minister for the assurance he has given, and which, indeed, I expected him to give. I am sure it will be very satisfying to the local authorities, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. Willink: Before the Committee accords leave to the hon. Member to withdraw the Amendment, I would like the Minister to consider again whether the Statute would not be better drafted without this word. I always feel a little uncomfortable when the word "substantially" is in a Statute because no one knows what it means. There is a well known legal principle—De minimis non curat lex—and if any local authority raises a pettifogging point about a pound or thirty shillings or anything of that kind, the Minister can safely rest on that principle. But, if he is resting on something substantial, there is ground for great discussion on the meaning of that word and, without any collaboration with the hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Douglas), I felt that his Amendment was a sound Amendment as a matter of drafting. The statement of principle by the Minister of Health was entirely satisfactory to me because it is important that local authorities should not be dissuaded from housing activity by. reason of the heavy cost put on them.
  Mr.Hopkin Morris: As I understand his explanation, the Minister of Health, in interpreting the Statute, would take into account the position of the site, which is a matter of great importance in relation to rural housing. The remoteness of the site might add to the cost. If it is interpreted as the right hon. Gentleman stated, there is no objection, but the word "substantially" is not a satisfactory word to put in a Statute Book. One does not know what it means. One can look in the dictionary for the word "reasonably," and one finds that it would be unreasonable to define ''reasonably.'' While it is the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that we want, I would like to see a word in the Clause, which carries it into effect.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: The Minister used words, as have other hon. Members, which would seem to imply that this Clause only covers the cost of materials. As I read it, it covers the additional cost of construction. Would the Minister make that clear when he replies?
  Mr. Bevan: Hon. Members, I think, would find that their fears would be greater if the word were not in the Clause. If I take it out, the point would then be confined and I would have to charge local
  2136
  authorities exactly what that local authority would have to pay for a traditional house of the same size, and that would mean great disparity between local authorities, for instance, in rural areas. The word "substantially" is a necessary shock absorber. Therefore, I ask that hon. Members should not press the Amendment. What we desire to do is to iron out the variations in the cost of these prefabricated houses, so that they would be, over all, no higher than the cost of analogous houses of a particular type, but not in a particular area, on a precise and particular site. Take for example the term "traditional" house. How are you to define "traditional house"? It is not a measurement capable of exactitude any more than "substantial." We have to put in this word in order to indicate that the Ministry are not proposing to charge a particular authority, in whatever circumstances that authority may be, no matter how difficult it may be to put the house up, exactly what it would cost to put up a house traditionally. Therefore the word "substantial" acts as a cushion. I hope, with that explantaion, the Committee will allow the Amendment to be withdrawn.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Willink: I beg to move, in page 3, line 12, after "cost," insert:
  "being prices which will not reduce the full cost of construction below the cost of constructing a house of a similar size by traditional methods."
  Perhaps the next Amendment, in page 3, line 15, at end, insert:
  "but which are not less than the full cost of construction of houses of a similar size by traditional methods."
  could be considered also as they are on the same point. They are related to something which has just been said by the Minister of Health. I found his last exposition of the advantage of the word "substantial" a little obscure. I entirely agree that it is not easy to ascertain in any particular case, what the cost of constructing houses of a similar size, by traditional methods, might be. For example, it might be desirable to build prefabricated houses on some site which would not have been used for traditional houses. But, broadly speaking, I read this Clause as having the intention, not that the Minister of Health should put into the Ministry of Works Fund sums larger

  2137
  than those incurred by the fact that a particular local authority was having factory-made houses rather than normal houses, but that what should go into the Ministry of Works Fund is the extra expense caused to the community, and that the Minister's Vote was going to carry that extra burden by reason of the fact that, particularly in the early stages, factory-made houses would be likely to be more expensive than traditional houses. The intention is not that local authorities by reason of the fact that they were getting prefabricated houses—it will not be all local authorities that will get factory-made houses—should get an advantage over the position which would have been theirs if their houses had all been of the normal character.
  5.0 p.m.
  Accordingly, these two Amendments—whether or not their drafting is entirely apt, and this is of course a matter which requires careful drafting—have the object of binding the Minister of Works to sell to local authorities at prices comparable with those which would fall upon them if they were buying or building houses of a traditional character. I do not want to impart any element of suspicion or unfriendly suggestion, but I should have thought it right for the Minister of Health and the Minister of Works to have some principle in this Clause as to the prices at which these factory-made houses are to be disposed of to local authorities. As things stand, there is simply a reference to arrangements made by the Minister of Works for selling under cost, and no indication of the principle on which that diminution of the figure below cost is to be made. No standard is set, and in substance I apprehend that the intention of both the Ministers must be that the local authority and the taxpayer in respect of that local authority, as far as the housing subsidy is concerned, should be in the same position with regard to the factory-made house as they would be with regard to a house of traditional character.
  I did not quite follow all that the Minister of Health said with regard to ironing out and the cushion provided by the word "substantially." It is not, I imagine, the intention to ease the lot of particular authorities—poor rural authorities, for example—by this roundabout way of saying, "You are a poor
  2138
  authority, therefore you shall have prefabricated houses very much cheaper than it would cost you to build normal houses." That does not seem to be the right way to deal with any financial difficulty experienced by a poor authority. Those difficulties should be dealt with in another way. The working operation of the factory-made programme would surely be more satisfactory if a situation is arrived at whereby there is no bias in favour of the factory-made house over the traditional house, by reason of a financial consideration as between the local authority and the Treasury or the Ministry of Works. Accordingly, the purpose of these Amendments, the spirit of which I hope will be accepted, is that that principle should be explicit in the Bill when it finally passes into law. The principle is that the Minister of Works, either in selling building materials or making arrangements for the construction of houses, should endeavour, broadly, to arrive at a position in which he will get from the local authority the same figure that it would have cost them to build or to buy another type of house.
  Mr. Bevan: The Committee need not fear the consequences of the words used in the Bill. In the first place it is not the intention of the Government to supply prefabricated houses to local authorities below the cost of traditional houses of the same type. We should soon find ourselves in trouble with the Treasury if we attempted to do so. In other words, if the Ministry of Health made payment into the Ministry of Works Fund, the purpose of which would be not to enable the local authorities to get houses at the same cost as the traditional house, but to give the local authorities a concealed subsidy for the prefabricated house, we should soon get ourselves into very serious trouble. Furthermore, it would be a form of competition with traditional building that I would not desire to encourage, because it would not be a form of competition which the traditional building organisations would look upon with favour. At the same time, if prefabricated houses can be produced at less than the cost of traditional houses without any cost falling upon the Exchequer, then we cannot agree that any words should be used to prevent prefabricated houses from underselling traditional houses of the same type.

  2139
  What we obviously must not do is to use this medium for the purpose of artificially reducing the cost of the prefabricated houses, where it is not made necessary by the additional cost of construction. In point of fact, we are perfectly clear as to what we are after in this matter. The whole purpose of it, of course, as I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate, is that the local authorities cannot be expected to engage in experiments of this sort, and therefore the Government must carry out the experiments for them. If those experiments cost more than the local authority would have to pay for the cost of a traditional house, then the Exchequer must bear the cost of the experimentation. It would, however, be deplorable if we were unable to make experiments of this sort, and I am quite certain that that is not the right hon. Gentleman's intention. Therefore, I will assume that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not desire to press this Amendment, and there is no difference between us, at least in regard to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said in moving it.
  Mr. Willink: The assurances of the Minister have been clear and entirely in line with what I understood the intention of the Clause to be. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Willink: I beg to move, in page 3, line 22, at end, add:
  "and shall lay before Parliament each quarter a statement showing the average amount paid by him per house and per set of such building materials."
  This is one of the controversial Amendments. The Clause as it stands leaves the matter in this way, that differences which arise on the cost of constructing houses are to be paid into the account of the Ministry of Works, to such an extent as to ensure that the receipts of the Fund are no less than they would have been if the houses could have been sold without any loss at all. There have been unjustifiably acid comments on the experimental period with regard to temporary houses during the war—a time of very great difficulty, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks), who was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
  2140
  of Works at the time, would agree. These times are difficult, too, and we have heard of the very large number of schemes that have been investigated and the quite large number of schemes which are being proceeded with for factory made houses. It is right that there should be an investigation of a number of these schemes, but it is most desirable that, through lack of Parliamentary supervision, there should not be excessively long experimentation, and if there are any cases where there has been inefficiency, such as the giving of large orders at great prices without sufficient evidence to justify the giving of such orders, such matters should be brought before this House.
  When reference was made to this in the Second Reading Debate, the Minister of Health said that matters of this kind could all be raised on his Vote at a later stage. I do not know whether other right hon. and hon. Members will agree with me, but my impression is that it is quite impossible to make a detailed investigation of the ventures, which may be most unwise in matters of this kind, on the Vote of the Minister. I thought the Minister would be far more ready than he showed himself to be on the Second Reading Debate to give the House, which is intensely interested both in the progress of housing and in the reduction of the cost of houses—which I understand the Members on the Government Front Bench are as anxious to see as we are—information at regular and frequent intervals as to the financial position with regard to these factory-made houses. Why should we not have what is suggested in this Amendment, that is, a statement of the average amount paid, over any period which the Minister feels convenient—we suggest three months—per house or per set of such building materials? The Clause itself is drawn in terms of building materials, consisting of structures ready for erection on the one hand, and of houses on the other.
  The Minister was indignant at this request. I rather think on a previous occasion he called a request of this kind impudent. Whether he will call it impudent today, I have no idea. It is the sort of adjective that occurs to him, but my submission to the Committee is that we should not be content to leave this matter in complete obscurity as it will be, if this Amendment, or something on the same lines, is not included in the Bill.

  2141
  The metaphors which we used in the earlier discussion this afternoon were varied, but I am bound to say that the metaphor which seemed to me nearest the truth was that the Government are the chief executives of this national concern, and we are, as near as can be, the great body of the responsible trustees and directors of what is going forward. We want to know whether there is success in this factory-made programme, and we are intensely interested in there being no unnecessary loss, or anything wrong, so far as we can judge, with regard to the various types selected and with regard O design and material. I urge upon the Government to undertake a greater responsibility with regard to giving information to the House, than they have so far seemed disposed to do.
  Mr. Bevan: I think, if my recollection serves me correctly, the original request was for a statement of accounts. This is an entirely different matter, and I put it on a different footing. In point of fact, the adjective I used on a previous occasion with regard to accounts, would not be applicable to the request now made, and I would not be so infertile as to use the same adjective on different occasions. The fact of the matter is that the Amendment is unnecessary, because hon. Members in any part of the Committee can obtain this information any time they like by putting down a Question on the Order Paper.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The information would be denied.
  Mr. Bevan: I do not know what the noble Lord means by that. If an hon. Member puts on the Order Paper a Question asking for information, there is no denial of information, and I do not think he can suggest that there is. The point to which we ought to have regard in this matter is this: everybody knows that it is not possible to make a proper estimate of the advantages of prefabrication until we have had a sufficiently long run. The payments made by the Minister of Health to the Ministry of Works in the first instance for the first lot of houses might easily create a most unsatisfactory state of mind and people would say "There you are, the whole experiment has gone phut." As a matter of fact, I said the other night that it seemed to me that hon.
  2142
  Members opposite, when they had charge of this matter, were unduly frightened over the cost of a steel house. I wish they had gone on. I wish they had had the courage and had not been deterred, but had pursued their experiments. Had they done so, we would find ourselves in possession of a house which we could erect in great quantities all over the country. Instead of that, there was interference due to the fear that the original expenditure would create such an unfavourable opinion, that it might have nasty political consequences. The result is that today we have not got the houses that we might otherwise have.
  5.15 p.m.
  So I would suggest to hon. Members, as the House of Commons and the country are deeply interested in trying as far as possible to supplement the traditional housing programme by the production of prefabricated houses, that we ought not to allow our judgment of the advantages of prefabricated houses to be determined by the cost in the initial stages. We shall find ourselves over and over again in that position on this question of prefabrication. I know that the dividing line between ardent experimentation and profligate extravagance may be very narrow in these cases. If we fail, we shall be accused of extravagance, but if we succeed we shall be praised for forethought. I seriously suggest that it is a; least as important for the nation to experiment in unconventional forms of house construction as it was essential to experiment in the building of bombers and submarines during the period of the war. I hope that in our whole approach to this matter we shall be sympathetic to the desire of trying to obtain unconventional methods of house construction.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said as to the value of experiment, but I would ask whether it would not be wise to have progress reports during the currency of these experiments. After all, this House and the country want to know whether the experiments are developing well or not, and they will not be unfair about the initial cost. But they do want to know, and the method of question and answer does not quite meet that desire.
  Mr. Bevan: The difficulty is what sort of statement of accounts do the Committee require. The Amendment suggests that

  2143
  we should say, "We have produced 12,000 prefabricated houses with. 12,000 sets of materials." The expression "sets of materials" is hardly a happy one, but I appreciate the difficulties in phrasing these matters. The set of materials would, in this connotation presumably mean the whole set of the materials required to build a house and I would accept it in that interpretation. We should therefore say, '' Twelve thousand houses have been provided. We have paid a certain price, compared with the traditional building of the same sort, and the amount paid in to the Ministry of Works Fund is about £100 or £200 per house," or something of that sort. That is all hon. Members would get if I accepted the Amendment.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: Might I point out that those are really not the figures, and that is not the information, for which we are asking? We want to know the average amount paid per house and the extent to which the Minister is subsidising each house.
  Mr. Bevan:That is what I said. I mentioned the average amount that the Ministry of Health would pay into the Fund in respect of the houses provided for local authorities. That is to say, the houses have cost the country, say any figure you like, £1,200 per house, while the cost of building a traditional house of the same size would be £1,000 to the local authority. Therefore, the excess payment is £200 in each case, and the payment made by the Ministry of Health into the Fund in respect of each of those houses would be £200. That is all that would be obtained if I accepted the Amendment. There would be no difficulty at all in conveying that information in three sentences in answer to a Question. Why on earth it should be necessary to provide a statement about once a quarter I cannot understand. In any case, the point remains that the information cannot start to be given until the houses have actually been provided to the local authorities, because there would not be a house in existence, and no-one could have any information of this kind in the preparatory stages of providing prefabricated houses. None of the costs of experimentation would be in it at all, because you could not charge the whole cost of experimentation to the first delivery of prefabricated houses. Therefore the information given would be value-
  2144
  less and would convey an entirely wrong idea of the situation.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: Personally, I am not asking that the whole of the cost of experimentation should be charged to any one particular batch of houses. The point is, is the experimental work that has been done on these houses bringing good results or not? That can only be found out by-stepping it up in stages, quarterly pictures on a comparative basis, which would give figures of some considerable value.
  Mr. Bevan: What the hon. Gentleman desires to obtain is all right, but he is not obtaining it by these ways. It is perfectly natural curiosity for the House to want to find out what is happening to experimentation in prefabrication.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: It is not merely curiosity.
  Mr. Bevan: There is no difficulty about the word "curiosity." It is natural that the House should want to know. The fact of the matter is that the Government would be delighted to give the information, but at what stage is it to be given? At the present time certain experiments are going on which may come to nothing at all. Indeed, I said on 15th October that we were not going to form any prophesies about what was happening in regard to factory produced houses because we are in an entirely new field. We do not know what may happen about it, and I am therefore not going to tie myself to any prophesies. Suppose we have produced a factory made house, and suppose after months of experimentation, false starts and re-adaptations, we have at last got a house coming off the production lines, and that house is being supplied to local authorities. Can hon. Members tell me how I am going to cost the first lot of houses?
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: Perhaps I can answer that question. Under the first part of the Clause, that is what the right hon. Gentleman is undertaking to do. Before he can give any subsidy at all, he has to determine that the cost of constructing permanent prefabricated houses from these materials substantially exceeds the cost of constructing permanent houses of a similar size. He has to make that

  2145
  calculation before he can give a subsidy at all.
  Mr. Bevan: No, the only sum I have to bear in mind in that matter is that of constructing traditional houses of the same size, and I supply these houses at the same price. The amount of the excess would have to be decided by relation to another account entirely. The amount of the excess on the first run may be prohibitive, but on 30,000 houses it might be comparatively small. I wish the noble Lord the Member for Southern Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) would not make those gestures of incomprehension. We know that he does not comprehend but there is no reason why he should take us into his confidence. We do not mind telling the House at any time, because the House is entitled to know, what is the payment made by the Minister of Health into the Fund of the Ministry of Works in respect of prefabricated houses supplied to local authorities, and we shall do so, but I warn the House that they will not present the picture of what the cost of prefabrication is going to be to the Government in the long run. Therefore it seems to me that the Amendment is unnecessary.
  If the Committee insist that the Amendment is necessary, I will have a look at it, but I do not want to accept these words at all. If the present Amendment is necessary, better words might be found. If we say we shall report to the House once a quarter, we shall have to decide which way we shall report. All the House will get will be a slip of paper stating, "The Ministry of Health has delivered to local authorities X number of houses at Y cost and paid into the Ministry of Works Fund so much." Hon. Members should be content to get this information even more frequently than once a quarter, if they wished, by putting down a Question on the Order Paper in the ordinary way.
  Mr. George Hicks: I am sure that we are all concerned with the proposal of hon. Members opposite that we should get the cost of prefabricated houses at the very earliest moment. I think the Minister of Health has adequately replied to the Amendment. He is very ready to give the information. I am certain that the limitation which the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite is putting upon the period of
  2146
  the report is one which he would find, in practice to be very imperfect, and one which would not give him very much help. The Ministry of Works are going into business; there is no hon. Member on that side of the Committee who would expect, inside I2 months, to be able to give anything like a report of his activities if he went into business. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, yes."] Hon. Members know very well that they could not, and that they would need at least 12 months to build up an organisation. Although there has been some experience in the present case, obviously hon. Members are asking for a very short report. If they got their report it would be very imperfect, and I am certain that they would be very unhappy about the figures that were given. The Government would not be very happy about it either, because the figures would give an incomplete picture.
  The Government are going into pre-fabrication, but we should try to remember that we have had many hundreds of years of house building, and that no country in the world knows more about house building than this country. We shall wish the Government luck in whatever they do about prefabrication, but we know that they are not going very far, and that as soon as the traditional ways and means of house-building are available again, the prefabrication of houses is finished, right away. We are not raising any opposition, whatever the Government do about it. Something may come out of the prefabrication inquiries which may help in certain standards being established here and there, and to that extent they may be useful; but the prefabrication of houses is a fabrication. There is no question about it at all. I do not know whether you would allow me, Mr. Beaumont, to say that I agree with the Minister of Health very strongly in one respect. It is very regrettable that the first efforts made with the Portal house were not allowed to proceed. They were the cheapest, the best, and the most economical. I am sure that was a great pity that we were not able to proceed along those lines.
  The value of prefabricated houses is to give shelter, temporary shelter, for those in the community who are not able to get a traditional house. That is the whole value of the prefabricated house, which

  2147
  has never been thought of in any other way. I beg the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite not to press the Amendment, because I am satisfied that three-monthly figures would give a very-imperfect national picture. It would be of no help except as propaganda, but it would be no use in regard to performance. The Minister of Health is on the right lines when he says that he will, at the right time, give the information which is available. It must be part of the picture and not the colour that hon. Members want or that they would like. It would be at the end of the period, when we have had the opportunity to measure this matter, and we shall be very glad to give it to hon. Members.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. G. Hicks) has taken a wider scope than is covered by the Amendment, which deals with a short and simple point. I am a little confused by the answer of the right hon. Gentleman today. If I may say so without impudence, his answer rather lacked the clarity that most of his observations possessed. He began by saying that we can elicit all this information by Question, and that there was no reason for the Amendment to be incorporated in the Bill because it would be so easy to get the information by Question.
  I assume that we should not be told, in answer to a Question, that we should get far more information next Spring than any Conservative Government had ever given. From saying that we should get if in answer to Questions, the Minister then went on to put forward reasons why it was really not in the public interest to give the information. He talked about the position after the first run being unsatisfactory, about the expenses being so high that people might be frightened and deterred. I feel quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman's eloquence would be able to explain any events of that sort to the satisfaction of this Committee and of the people in the country, but that will not arise if this Amendment is accepted. This Amendment would only come into play when the Minister of Health had approved an arrangement with the Minister of Works for the subsidy on prefabricated permanent houses. As I read the Bill, that transfer of money cannot come into force at all until the cost of each per-
  2148
  manent prefabricated house has been assessed.
  5.30 p.m.
  This Amendment, if adopted, could not result in any statement being made to the House of Commons until an arrangement had been approved by the Minister of Health for the payment of the subsidy. We do not oppose the expenditure of money on these prefabricated permanent houses, but we are surely quite entitled to ask that there should be a regular return showing the extent of the subsidy per house which the right hon. Gentleman has approved. Having listened to him, I am rather in doubt whether he is prepared to give that information and let the House know by how much he is subsidising each permanent prefabricated house, or set of building materials for it. If he is prepared to give that statement, I suggest that it-is convenient to have it coming up quarterly and not in answer to Questions which may be put at any time. A quarterly return would be a convenient form which would enable us to judge of the right hon. Gentleman's efficiency, by showing how much the subsidy decreased as time went on. The right hon. Gentleman did say that he was prepared to give the information asked for in this Amendment. If he is not able to accept the words on the Order Paper—perhaps they are not particularly skilfully drawn —I would ask him to give an assurance that the point will be further considered before the Report stage with a view to inserting a provision for a quarterly return of the information, which I understood he was prepared to give. It is all very well to say that we can get the information by Question and answer, but it is surely much more convenient to get it quarterly, when each statement can be compared with the statement issued the quarter before, instead of having to deal with the irregular periods which would be involved in answers to Questions. If the right hon. Gentleman could give that assurance, I am sure we could get on to the next Amendment fairly speedily.
  Mr. Bevan: It seems to me that we are making very heavy weather about a very small matter. Some hon. Members have perhaps had a longer experience of administration than I have, but I have had a long experience in the House and I have never known any Amendment accepted which wrote into a Statute a right which

  2149
  every Member has already got. Every Member has the right to obtain this information any day he likes by Question and answer—every week, every month, every quarter. Then what is the good of writing into the Statute a piece of constitutional redundancy? If the Amendment were accepted, and we had to provide this information once every quarter, that would not enable the Clerks at the Table to refuse a Question the day before. They would still have to accept it and the information would have to be given. I daresay there are Amendments of some substance on which hon. Members opposite wish to occupy the time of the Committee, but surely there can be no greater frivolity than to ask that a Statute should be enlarged, and words used, to write into it a piece of machinery which already exists in the constitutional relationship between the Executive and the House of- Commons. I do ask hon. Members to let us get on to something of real substance and not spend so much time on what, after all, is unimportant. Up to now we have been getting along very harmoniously and have made some progress. It really is inconsistent to allow a Bill to have a Second Reading without any Amendment being moved, and without a Division, and then to occupy the time of the Committee on a matter of this sort, which has no substance in it whatever. Furthermore, may I say that the method of reporting to the House is not defined. In what way are we to report to the House?
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: My right hon. Friend surely knows that in Committee we raise points of minor detail. We do not challenge the principles of the Bill.
  Mr. Bevan: Hon. Members know very well that they have been moving Amendments which would have wrecked the Bill, and now they are holding the matter up on an Amendment which really has no content. If I may finish the sentence I was engaged on, there is no definition of how we should report to the House. Is a White Paper to be laid before the House? If a White Paper was laid before the House containing the information hon. Members ask for, it would be a White Paper of four lines, saying merely how many houses had been provided and how much had been paid for each house. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not? "] Really, I have never heard of such Parliamentary frivolity.
  Mr. Nicholson: If the right hon. Gentleman says that this is a point of minor importance, I am exceedingly surprised that he should lose his temper about it. I do not think he will find that his hectic form of lecturing the Opposition will help him in his work. I say that, not because I think it is good for him not to get his own way in everything, but because I am interested in the workings of his mind. He told the Committee that the Amendment was trivial. He said that hon. Members have the right to get the information by Question and answer. At another stage in his speech he said that the information is so scanty that it is not worth giving to the House, but on another occasion he said that there was too much information and it was misleading, I am left in a complete fog as to what is really in his mind. He said that it was quite easy to get the information by Question and answer, and his colleague the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. George Hicks), in an attempt to be helpful, said he could not give the information at all. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to keep calm and give us one really good reason why this Amendment is unnecessary or harmful.
  Mr. Willink: A quarter of an hour ago the right hon. Gentleman said he would consider this matter. Now he feels impatient and says the whole thing is trivial. I appreciate fully that there is a difficulty in defining the stage where experimentation ends and production begins. A house which, in its beginning, is an experimental house, or one of an experimental group becomes a house forming part of a local authority's housing estate. The cost of producing that house may have been very high at first, whereas an exactly similar house supplied to the housing authority six months later may cost much less. I see his difficulties in regard to the simple form of this Amendment. The average amount paid per house, if it covered many types of house, would not, I agree, be very illuminating. It may be that the Minister will not be forthcoming enough to suggest what would be a more appropriate form. I really think that his adverse comment, that a proposal that he should lay something before Parliament is inadequate because it does not specify whether it should be a White Paper or not, is as trivial as anything could be. I have never seen any reference whatever

  2151
  to a White Paper in a Statute, and I should have thought that he and those who help him with the drafting of his Bills could very easily put into proper form the phrase ''shall lay before Parliament."
  I admit, however, that the actual form of this Amendment is not as satisfactory as I should wish, and I hope the Minister will return to his earlier mood and say that he will consider finding some more appropriate form under which to give information to the House on the progress of this very important project than would be afforded by Question and answer. No answer could be sufficiently detailed, and there would have to be a very substantial number of questions to deal with perhaps 30 different types of prefabricated house. [Interruption.] Might there not be 30 different types of prefabricated house in production, and being supplied to local authorities at very widely differing rates of subsidy at the same time? That sort of information could not be adequately dealt with by Question and answer; we do not want the Question hour occupied by ten Members, each putting down three Questions on three different types of prefabricated house. I hope the Minister will indicate that he is prepared to make periodical statements, in whatever form is convenient, with regard to the progress of this programme.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I do not know whether the Minister has thought of the effect on his private office, of his refusal to meet us and give us the information for which we ask.
  Mr. Bevan: The Noble Lord must not say that. The Ministry has not refused information.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: In this form.
  Mr. Bevan: The fact is that the information in this form is wholly inadequate, and very much more information would be obtained by ordinary Question and answer.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The effect of refusing this information in this form, and of constantly refusing to give details of houses, costs and everything else, will engender suspicion throughout the whole Committee and will only result in the right hon. Gentleman's private office being plagued with questions, week by week,
  2152
  by 50 or 60 hon. Members on this side of the House. The Government have taken away Private Members' time and the effect of that on the Adjournment half hour and on Question Time has been immediate. Likewise, the Minister's refusal to give the kind of information we ask for here will only result in his office being plagued with questions. Suspicion is created in all our minds, and the only way to allay it is to reply in a friendly fashion to the questions put by my right hon. Friend below me. This information will not entail a very great amount of preparation in the right hon. Gentleman's Department, although I do not argue that it will be very simple. As my right hon. Friend says there will be many types of house, and prices will tend to fluctuate according to conditions throughout the country. They may gradually come down every month, or every quarter as this information is required. A different set of prices for a variety of houses will be asked for, and it may well need a paper of some four or five pages instead of lines. But at no point do I think it will involve him in as much trouble as he will have if he creates this suspicion by refusing information, because that forces on us the duty of asking innumerable questions.
  Mr. Gallacher: The noble Lord has talked about the suspicion that is in hon. Members' minds. It is nothing to the suspicion that is in the minds of hon. Members on this side about the game that is being played by hon. Members over there. I think it is time they stopped it. The people of this country, I do not care in what constituency, are not concerned with insufficient statements about the financial results of experiments; they are concerned with houses, and everything should be done to encourage the Minister to go ahead with the houses and not to play about with trivial matters of this kind.
  5.45 P.m.
  Sir William Darling: I am disappointed at the way in which the Minister of Health is treating. this matter. I do not think he takes a sufficiently large view of his own responsibilities and importance. He is setting up —if I may speak in commercial terms to which perhaps he is unaccustomed—the largest house-building and house-supplying business that has ever existed in the

  2153
  world. He is asking for £100,000,000 worth of building materials. He must know that he cannot set up a business of this character without having the most elaborate statistics.
  Mr. Bevan: On a point of Order, Sir Charles. I respectfully submit that most of the arguments that have been advanced have been on the subject of a statement of accounts. There is no reference to that in the Amendment before the Committee, which reads:
  "and shall lay before Parliament each quarter a statement showing the average, amount paid by him per house and per set of such building materials."
  There is no question of any such thing as an account of the kind the hon. Gentleman is describing. Most of the arguments from hon. Members opposite have been concerned with a full statement of the whole cost of prefabrication. That is not the Amendment before us.
  Sir W. Darling: I was happy to give way for that point of Order to be made. It is for you, Sir Charles, to decide whether or not it is a point of Order. I take it you do not admit it is a point of Order.
  The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I think the Amendment before the Committee has been dealt with in a businesslike way.
  Sir W. Darling: To proceed with my argument, if we are to have State management of industry, it must carry with it all the complications of a very inferior system, the capitalist system, and the Minister of Health and other Ministers who undertake responsibilities of this sort will have to resort to tedious but essential book-keeping, and it is that tedious but essential book-keeping which the Committee is entitled to demand. I do not want to engage in the house-building trade, I am satisfied with the people who have done it in the past, but the right hon.

  Division No. 46.]

  AYES.

  [5.52 p.m.

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Boothby, R.

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Aitken, Hon. M.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)

  Bower, N.

  Cooper-Key, Maj. E. M.

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A.

  Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

  Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

  Astor, Hon. M.

  Braithwaite, Lt. Comdr. J. G.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

  Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Beattie, F. (Cathcart)

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Darling, Sir W. Y.

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Carson, E.

  De la Bère, R.

  Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

  Digby, Maj. S. Wingfield

  Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

  Dodds-Parker, Col. A. D.

  Gentleman and the Government compel me, as a taxpayer and a Member of the House, to enter the business. If I am to enter it, I insist—
  Mr. Bevan: On a point of Order. May I respectfully submit that the capitalist system is not under consideration? I submit that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are entirely irrelevant, and that what is before the Committee at the moment is a precise and particular Amendment of the narrowest sort, and that we are not discussing the merits of the capitalist system, whether they exist or not.
  The Temporary Chairman: I was under the impression that the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) was putting the claim that Parliament should be given the price per house.
  Mr. Bevan: No, he was not.
  The Temporary Chairman: I was under the impression that his arguments were so directed, or I would have stopped him.
  Sir W. Darling: I am grateful to you, Sir Charles, for defending me against such an experienced Parliamentarian as the Minister of Health. It may help his argument to interrupt a comparatively new Member twice, but he will not be able to get away from the logic of facts. If he cannot supply the Committee with intimate details down to the last screw, bolt and nut, he will not provide houses for this country.
  The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member is now going beyond the Amendment.
  Sir W. Darling: If I am going too far, I am prepared to leave the field to the Minister of Health.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, I47; Noes, 297.

  Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.

  Luoas, Major Sir J.

  Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

  Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

  Drayson, Capt. G. B.

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

  Duthie, W. S.

  Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.

  Sanderson, Sir F.

  Eccles, D. M.

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Scott, Lord W.

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)

  Shephard, S. (Newark)

  Erroll, Col. F. J.

  MacLeod, Capt. J.

  Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

  Fletcher, W. (Bury)

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

  Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.

  Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

  Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

  Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Snadden, W. M.

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Gammans, Capt. L. D.

  Marples, Capt. A. E.

  Spence, Maj. H. R.

  George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'br'ke)

  Marsden, Comdr. A.

  Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. O.

  Glyn, Sir R.

  Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

  Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J.

  Gridley, Sir A.

  Maude, J. C.

  Studholme, H. G.

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Hare, Lt.-Col. Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Harvey, Air-Cmdre. A. V.

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Haughton, Maj. S. G.

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  Thomson, Sir D. (Aberdeen, S.)

  Headlam, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.

  Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Neill, W. F. (Belfast, N.)

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

  Hogg, Hon. Q.

  Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.

  Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.

  Holmes, Sir J. Stanley

  Nicholson, G.

  Turton, R. H.

  Howard, Hon. A.

  Nield, B.

  Vane, Lt.-Col. W. M. T.

  Hulbert, Wing-Comdr. N. J.

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

  Wakefield, Sir W. W.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)

  Nutting, Anthony

  Walker-Smith, Lt.-Col. O.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Col. J. R. (G'gow, C.)

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Ward, Hon. G. R.

  Jeffreys, General Sir G.

  Osborne, C.

  Wheatley, Lt.-Col. M. J.

  Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Keeling, E. H.

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  White, Maj. J. B. (Canterbury)

  Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Pickthorn, K.

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Lambert, G.

  Poole, Col. O. B. S. (Oswestry)

  Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.

  York, C.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.

  Young, Maj. Sir A. S. L. (Partick)

  Lindsay, Lt.Col. M. (Solihull)

  Raikes, H. V.

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.).

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Low, Brig. A. R. W.

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Mr. Drewe and Major Mott-Radclyffe.

  NOES.

  Adams, Capt. H. R. (Balham)

  Champion, A. J.

  Foot, M. M.

  Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Chater, D.

  Forman, J. C.

  Adamson, Mrs. J. L.

  Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.

  Foster, W. (Wigan)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Clitherow, R.

  Freeman, P. (Newport)

  Allighan, Garry

  Cluse, W. S.

  Gaitskell, H. T. N.

  Alpass, J. H.

  Cobb, F. A.

  Gallacher, W.

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Coldrick, W.

  Gilzean, A.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Collick, P.

  Gooch, E. G.

  Austin, H. L.

  Collindridge, F.

  Goodrich, H. E.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Collins, V. J.

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Ayles, W. H.

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

  Cook, T. F.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

  Grey, C. F.

  Barstow, P. G.

  Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)

  Grierson, E.

  Barton, C.

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Battley, J. R.

  Corvedale, Viscount

  Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)

  Beattie, J. (Belfast, W.)

  Cove, W. G.

  Gunter, Capt. R. J.

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A.

  Guy, W. H.

  Belcher, J. W.

  Cunningham, P.

  Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)

  Benson, G.

  Daggar, G.

  Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

  Berry, H.

  Daines, P.

  Hamilton, Lt.-Col. R.

  Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F.

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Hardy, E. A.

  Bevin, Rt. Hon. E. (Wandsworth, C.)

  Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Binns, J.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Haworth, J.

  Blackburn, A. R.

  Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  Hicks, G.

  Blenkinsop, Capt. A.

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Hobson, C. R.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Holman, P.

  Bottomley, A. G.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Horabin, T. L.

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

  Diamond, J.

  House, G.

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Dobbie, W.

  Hoy, J.

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)

  Dodds, N. N.

  Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Douglas, F. C. R.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Janner, B.

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Dye, S.

  John, W.

  Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Buchanan, G.

  Edelman, M.

  Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

  Burden, T. W.

  Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Jones, Maj. P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Burke, W. A.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Keenan, W.

  Byers, Lt.-Col. F.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Kenyon, C.

  Callaghan, James

  Ewart, R.

  Key, C. W.

  Chamberlain, R. A.

  Farthing, W. J.

  King, E. M.

  2156

  2157

  Kinley, J.

  Paget, R. T.

  Strauss, G. R.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

  Stross, Dr. B.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Lang, G.

  Parker, J.

  Symonds, Maj. A. L.

  Lavers, S.

  Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Leonard, W.

  Pearson, A.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Levy, B. W.

  Peart, Capt. T. F.

  Thomas, John R. (Dover)

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Perrins, W.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Lipson, D. L.

  Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. G. R. (E'b'gh, E.)

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Poole, Major C. C. (Lichfield)

  Thorneycroft, H.

  Logan, D. G.

  Popplewell, E.

  Thurtle, E.

  Longden, F.

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Tiffany, S.

  Lyne, A. W.

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Tolley, L.

  McAdam, W.

  Pritt, D. N.

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

  McAllister, G.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Usborne, Henry

  Mack, J. D.

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Randall, H. E.

  Viant, S. P.

  Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

  Ranger J.

  Walkden, E.

  McKinlay, A. S.

  Rankin, J.

  Walker, G. H.

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Rees-Williams, Lt.-Col D. R

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  McLeavy, F.

  Reevas, J.

  Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

  MacMillan, M. K.

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Rhodes, H.

  Watson, W. M.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Richards, R.

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  Weitzman, D.

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Robens, A.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Mathers, G.

  Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. E. O. (Merioneth)

  White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.

  Mayhew, Maj. C. P.

  Roberts, G. O. (Caernarvonshire)

  White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Medland, H. M.

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Messer, F.

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Wigg, G. E. C.

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Royle, C.

  Wilkes, Maj. L.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Sargood, R.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Monslow, W.

  Segal, Sq. Ldr. S.

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Montague, F.

  Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

  Williams, Rt. Hon. E. J. (Ogmore)

  Moody, A. S.

  Shawcross, Cmdr. C. N. (Widnes)

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.

  Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

  Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Skeffington-Lodge, Lt. T. C.

  Williamson, T.

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Willis, E.

  Mort, D. L.

  Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Moyle, A.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

  Wilson, J. H.

  Murray, J. D.

  Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

  Wise, Major F. J.

  Nally, W.

  Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

  Woodburn, A.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Woods, G. S.

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Wyatt, Maj. W.

  Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

  Solley, L. J.

  Yates, V. F.

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

  Younger, Maj. Hon. K. G.

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Stamford, W.

  Zilliacus, K.

  O'Brien, T.

  Steele, T.

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Stewart, Capt. M. (Fulham)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Orr, Sir J. Boyd

  Strachey, J.

  Mr. J. Henderson and Mr. Simmons.

  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. Willink: I wish briefly to raise one point and to ask a question of the Minister of Health. I think he will be in a position to give me the Assurance I want. This Clause is intended to deal entirely with house of the normal size and with what are called permanent house. I think it is conceivable that Clause 3 as drafted could be taken to apply to temporary house. I should like to have an assurance from the Minister that none of the house that fall within the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act will be dealt with under the provisions of Clause 3.
  2158
  It might be said that the aluminium house is a house of such a character that the cost of erection substantially exceeds the cost of erecting other houses by traditional methods. I should like an assurance from the Minister that the point has been, or will be, considered, because I cannot help feeling that it is most important that legislation which emerges from these many discussions on housing should be tidy and intelligible, and that no subsequent argument should arise as to whether any particular Clause applies to permanent and temporary houses, or the one or the other. This is particularly important, in my view, because I have heard rumours—and I hope there is no foundation for them—that, because the aluminium house is so expensive, its life

  2159
  is likely to be prolonged and that there may be some change suggested as to the duration of houses erected under the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act.
  Mr. Bevan: I am happy to give the assurance that the right hon. and learned Gentleman requires. This Clause does not relate in any sense, to temporary houses. That is dealt with under the Housing (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1944, and this Clause has no particular application at all.
  Mr. Willink: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill,
  Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause5—(Increase of sums available for defraying expenses under 7 and 8, Geo. 6, c. 36.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. C. Williams: I think the Committee might rightly ask for an explanation of this Clause. It will be noticed that, under this Clause, we are increasing the amount of money by some £50,000,000. I think there is no one in this Committee who would object to that increase. I think it may be necessary, but I would like some explanation of how the Government are working out these increases. Might I also ask the right hon. Gentleman—who is only too willing to be charming and obliging to me, as always—if he can give the Committee some assurance on whether this amount is sufficient? It would be a pity if he had to come here and ask us to increase the amount in a short time. If I have that assurance, perhaps it might be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to have this Clause.
  Mr. Bevan: I hasten to reply to the hon. Gentleman. The purpose of the Clause is to provide the additional money necessary to finance the temporary housing programme, because that programme cost very much in excess of what was originally estimated. If the hon. Member wishes the Committee to penetrate into the reason why the temporary houses cost more than was estimated, I should be only too happy to do so, but I thought
  2160
  it was a subject from which hon. Members opposite would like to part as quickly as possible. If the Committee wish to examine this subject, I would find it quite delectable to do so.
  Mr. Williams: I will not weary the Committee further, because the Committee might not think the subject was quite delectable, and the right hon. Gentleman might fall down again, as he has done once or twice before. For that reason, I thank him for his short explanation, which did not, however, cover the point whether he has got enough money for the future. I thank him very sincerely, and I am glad that, this time, he has not fallen down.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 6.—(Extension of powers of local authorities to give financial assistance towards acquisition, construction, etc., of houses.)
  Mr. Douglas: I beg to move, in page 4, line 31, at end, add:
  "(3) In relation to an advance or a guarantee in respect of any house in the administrative county of London this Section shall have effect as if for the words 'twelve hundred pounds' there were substituted the words 'thirteen hundred pounds."
  This Clause deals with the amount that may be advanced by local authorities by way of financial assistance, either for the purchase of houses or for the erection of houses, and the object of the new Subsection which I am moving is to increase the limit laid down in the Clause of £1,200 to the sum of £1,300 in the case of London. It will be remembered that the amount which is in question here includes both the value of the house itself and that of the land upon which it stands, and, in view of the very heavy price of land in London, it is clear that a limit which is suitable for the rest of the country is not entirely suitable here. In selecting the figure contained in this Amendment, I have followed the precedent established by my right hon. Friend with regard to the licensing of private builders, in which case the figure for the rest of the country is a ceiling price of £1,200, but, in the case of London, this was increased to £1,300 for the reason which I have mentioned. I therefore seek to bring this provision into line with what is to be done by the Bill.
  Mr. Bevan: I hope that, perhaps, we can get away from this Amendment quite quickly, because there are a number of Amendments with the same purport on the Order Paper and to which the names of hon. Members opposite are appended. I am entirely sympathetic with the purpose that lies behind this Amendment. I think, however, that the words are inappropriate, and even the association of £1,300 with the upward limit of building in the metropolitan area is not itself a happy association, because it might be that, before very long, private enterprise could build houses at a greater price than that and then the relationship between the two figures would not be made. If the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment, I will consider the point at a later stage, and will consider putting in £1,300, or a higher figure for the country as a whole.
  Sir W. Darling: Including Scotland?
  Mr. Bevan: Yes, it includes Scotland. We are very anxious to enable people to acquire their own houses at reasonable rates of interest, and we are happy to extend the application of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act to houses of greater value, and, if that is satisfactory to the Committee, I shall be prepared, at a later stage, to introduce an Amendment with a higher figure applying to the country as a whole, including Scotland.
  Mr. Douglas: In view of the assurance the Minister has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. Willink: In view of what has been said by the Minister, I would not oppose the suggestion by the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Douglas), but, if any question does arise, contrary to what the Minister has said, in regard to some definition of another area in the country, no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would give consideration to it. We had in mind the metropolitan area, but, if the Minister is prepared to deal with it over the whole country, the point will not arise.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 7.—(Limitation of rent and purchase price of houses constructed under certain building licences.)
  Mr. Manningham-Bullcr: I beg to move, in page 5, line II, after "period," insert:
  2162
  "of four years beginning with the passing of this Act."
  This Amendment raises a point which I raised on the Second Reading of this Bill. It is a point of drafting, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to meet me with regard to it. Under Clause 7 (I), a limitation is imposed upon the price at which a house may be sold or the rent that may be charged for the letting of that house for a period of four years and not more from the passing of this Bill, and that, I think, is quite clear. But, when we come to Subsection (2), we see these words:
  "(2) For the purposes of this Section a house shall be deemed to have been let at a rent in excess of the permitted rent if the total rent payable by the tenant in respect of any part of the period for which the house is let exceeds the total rent which would have been payable by him in respect of that part of the said period if the house had been let at the permitted rent."
  Under Subsection (2), the period referred to is not the period of [our years from the passing of the Bill, but the period for which the house is let. If we have a house let, after the commencement of the operation of this Bill, for a period of seven years, then, as T read the Bill, although we assume that the intention of the Government was that this part of the Bill would apply to the first four years of that lease, under the wording as it now stands, there is no doubt to my mind that the restriction would apply to the full period of the lease, that is to say, seven years. I appreciate that this is a somewhat technical matter, but I have considered this carefully, and it seems to me that the points need clarification. If the Minister's intention is that a lease for 21 years shall, throughout the whole period of that 21 years, be at a rent not exceeding the permitted rent, then I agree that Subsection (2) is ample for that purpose. But, if it be his intention, as I think it is, merely to put a ceiling on the rent for the first four years, then Subsection (2) is not apt for that purpose, and there should be inserted, after the word "period" in line II the words proposed in the Amendment.
  That would make it clear that the restriction was for that period of four years, even though the lease or agreement for a lease might be for a seven, 14 or 21 year period. I do not think there should be any controversy over this Amendment. It is a drafting point, but one of consider-

  2163
  able substance, because people ought to know where they stand when this Bill becomes law.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, there is one point in reference to this Amendment to which I would draw attention. In relation to this Subsection will he please take into consideration the very heavy sanctions which will apply? I do not think my hon. Friend was right in his interpretation of this Subsection.
  Mr. Bevan: I am exceedingly anxious, and I am quite sure that the Members of the Committee will be with me in this, that we should not permit anything to go into this Bill which would enable collusion to take place between a possible tenant and the landlord of houses of this kind which are indeed being built as a special privilege. These houses are in a very special category. They are built by licence, they are limited in price, they are intended to supplement the public building programme, and it would be exceedingly undesirable that there should arise anything like a black market in them, and that the purposes of the law should be thwarted by collusive action between tenant and landlord. If it were possible for a rent to be fixed at the restrictive level for four years, and for the lease to provide that at the end of that period a higher rent may be charged because then the house will be free, as is intended by the Bill, then there would appear at first sight to be nothing to prevent the landlord and the tenant from agreeing to a lease setting a much higher rent for a period at the expiration of the four years. Supposing, however, it was 21 years and that the permitted rent was £I a week. Then supposing the tenant says, "Yes, but at the end of 21 years I will pay you £2 a week for so many years," the effect would be that the landlord would have got away with it. The right way is to limit the lease to four years, and have a new lease at the end of that period. Although I appreciate the intention of the hon. Gentleman, I am desperately afraid that if I use the words he wishes me to use, we would establish a breach which I am sure he is as anxious as I am not to establish.
  Mr. J. S. C. Reid: We appreciate that collusion must not be
  2164
  allowed to occur, but there is one point that occurs to me as being covered by this drafting, which I am sure is not meant. Suppose the landlord adopts the plan which the right hon. Gentleman suggested, namely, that he rents the house for four years and then makes arrangements before the four years have run out for the fifth year. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the drafting he will see that the offence lies in offering to let during the four years. It will be difficult to postpone the beginning of the negotiations in order to keep within the letter of the law until the four years have elapsed. I think we might find some way out if it were not "offers for sale" during the four years, but "with regard to" the four years.
  Mr. Bevan: I appreciate the point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but is it really one of great substance? What hardship is being placed upon the landlord in this Subsection? Hon. Members opposite are being optimistic about the housing scheme in thinking that in four year's time we shall be in such a happy position that landlords will be looking for tenants, rather than tenants for landlords. Let us envisage the situation suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. A four years' lease has been obtained at a restricted rent and the period is coming to an end. The landlord, presumably, will be afraid that he cannot find a tenant to live in his house, and therefore he will want to start negotiations at once. On a strict interpretation, if he started negotiations before the end of the four years, and the tenant offered a higher rent than the permitted one, he might be committing an offence, but he would not do so if he waited a few days until the lease expired. Would he suffer any hardship by waiting for a week or a fort night? I should be happy to believe that in four years' time the housing situation will be so revolutionised that the landlord would be put in a disadvantageous position in relation to the tenant.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: It seems that the right hon. Gentleman does not appreciate the point. The point is quite definitely that it is the tenant who wants to know what his future will be, and whether he will be able to continue to live in the house. It is not a question of hardship to the landlord, half as much as a case of hardship for the tenant.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: No one on this side of the Committee, I am sure, is in favour of encouraging any sort of collusive arrangement which would defeat the object of this part of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that it is his intention, in order to stop any possible collusion, to make the period of control of rent apply for a longer period than four years, if the letting takes place after the passing of this Bill. He has also indicated that in his view the proper course is for the parties only to agree to a four years' lease, or for a lease for the period expiring at the end of four years from the passage of this Bill, and then entering into fresh negotiations as to the future let. I must concede that I think there is considerable force in that contention, and he did us credit in saying that he did not think we were trying to secure any advantage for those who wished to defeat his object. However, I would ask him—because I think it is an important point—to consider before the Report stage the position of two people, one of whom has occupied premises the lease of which is expiring at the end of the fourth period of a given year. In that case two people, perfectly bona fide, without any intention of defeating the Bill, want to come together to make arrangements for the future. I do not know whether some provision could be made for excluding, under a later Clause, negotiations which take place within, say, three months of the termination of the tenancy. That is a point which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look at, and if he will give an indication that he will do so, 1 will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move,
  in page 5, line 37, leave out "benefits secured by," and insert "consideration secured in."
  This is another drafting Amendment, but one of some difficulty to explain because I find it rather difficult to understand Subsection (5). It is a point to which I referred on the Second Reading. Under Subsection (3) clear provision is made for adding to the nominal sale a benefit which the vendor gets from the purchaser in addition to the recorded price. Under Subsection (4) there is a similar provision with regard to rent, and we do not quarrel with that at all because it is obviously right, if you
  2166
  are to make this effective, that any secret bargain has to be taken into account to see whether or not there is a sale above the permitted price, or a letting above the permitted rent. Those two Subsections are to me quite clear in their meaning. But when I come to Subsection (5) 1 begin to get confused. It says there:
  "In determining for the purposes of this Section the consideration for which a house has been sold or let, the court shall have regard to any transaction with which the sale or letting is associated"—
  that is clear enough but this is the part which confuses me a little—
  "and if it appears to the court that the benefits secured by that transaction to the vendor or lessor exceed what they would have been if the house had not been sold or let for the consideration for which it was in fact sold or let, that consideration shall be deemed to be increased by such sum as fairly represents the excess."
  Either that adds to Subsections (4) and (3) or it does not. If it does not add to those previous Subsections to which I have referred, Subsection (5) is unnecessary. Presumably it is inserted there because it does add something, but there is apparently no relation between the possible benefits secured by the vendor' or the landlord and what the tenant or purchaser will have to pay under the contract for sale or letting. That is why we have put down on the Order Paper three Amendments which, Sir Charles, with the leave of the Committee, I thought might conveniently be taken together to save time, namely, the one I have just moved, and the next two Amendments on the Paper—in page 5, line 38, leave out "exceed," and insert "exceeds," and in line 38, leave out "they," and insert "it"—so that the Subsection would read:
  "and if it appears to the court that the consideration secured in that transaction to the vendor or lessor exceeds what it would have been if the house had not been sold or let."
  I think the word "consideration" makes the meaning clearer, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept these Amendments.
  Mr. Bevan: There is no difference between us as to the intention of the Subsections in this matter. There is no difference of principle. It is merely a question of whether the language in the Bill is more appropriate than the language in the Amendments. Now I am advised that the language in

  2167
  the Bill is a better vehicle for what we intend than the language suggested by the hon. Gentleman in his Amendments. If his language were more appropriate, I would not hesitate to accept it, but I am informed that a great deal of confusion will be created if the term "consideration" is uniformly substituted for the term "benefit," because it is intended by us that the term "consideration" shall be the price and the term "benefit" applies to the cited considerations. By maintaining that distinction scrupulously throughout, intelligibility is given to the Bill. The term "consideration" is what in fact the person pays for the house; the term "benefit" is what may be obtained by the person who may have provided a sum of money—key money, premiums, or anything of that sort. It is intended to catch the two of them and that is the reason why this language has been used.
  6.30 p.m.
  It is a very complicated matter, as the hon. Member has said, but as there seems to be no difference at all between us, and we not only want to see that the actual legal price of the house is not exceeded, but no other consideration or benefit is obtained which would affect the intention of the law, the term "consideration" as applied to the one category and that of "benefit" as applied to the other is, I think, sufficient. I will have a look at this again because, as I say, there is no question of principle between us. It is purely a question of drafting and if I find that the purposes of the Bill are better secured by an alteration in the wording I shall be only too ready to have that alteration made. But I am certain that the hon. Member will also appreciate that if it is decided that the language at present used is the better vehicle, then we shall have to maintain it.
  Mr. Molson: I am very glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman will have a look at it again. I did listen to his explanation because, without it, I found myself unable to understand the Clause at all. I did not quite follow what he said about ''consideration." If he will look at Subsection (3) he will find that it say:
  "Where a house is sold for a consideration which consists wholly or partly of
  2168
  something other than the payment of a money price for the house."
  In the explanation he gave he said that that was to be a "benefit" and that "consideration" was to apply only to actual payment.
  Mr. Bevan: "Consideration" will be the whole thing. "Benefit" would be that part of the consideration which belongs to some form of payment, other than the direct payment.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I have listened with interest to the explanation of this rather difficult Subsection. Speaking as a lawyer I would say that the term ''consideration" has a fairly precise meaning which the word "benefit" lacks. The word "consideration" would not only have regard to the price, the nominal price of the contract but any ancillary bargain that might be attached to it and that is why as a lawyer I prefer the word "consideration" to the word "benefit" which has not such a precise legal meaning. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for saying that he will consider this matter again and I beg to ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 6, line 4, at end, add:
  "save and except that where a house is let, the rent for the period of four years from the passing of the Act shall be deemed to be the permitted rent and no more and where the house is sold, the price shall be deemed to be the permitted price and any sums overpaid by the lessee or purchaser shall be repaid to him by the lessor or vendor, and in default of repayment, recoverable at law."
  This raises a point of principle on this Clause which is of considerable importance, in my view. Let us see what the Clause does already. It makes it an offence for anyone to let or sell a house at the price above that permitted in the licence. But as the Bill now stands, the tenant who has agreed to rent a house at a price above the permitted price, is not free from the legal obligation to go on paying that rent during the currency of the tenancy. In the same way, the man who has agreed to buy a house at a price above the permitted price, has to stand to his bargain and pay that excessive price notwithstanding the provisions of this Bill. Hon. Members will see that Subsection (7) says:

  2169
  ''The commission of an offence under this Section shall not affect the title to any property or the operation of any contract."
  Let me take for example the case where the sale of a house is above the permitted price. The vendor has committed an offence under this Measure; he is brought to the police court, he is convicted and he is fined and he can pay as a fine:
  ''such amount as will in the opinion of the court secure that he derives no benefit from the offence."
  That is to say, the Government are providing machinery whereby the State can take out of the vendor's pocket, the precise sum that the purchaser has paid into it, in excess of the permitted price, plus a fine of £100. The same consideration applies with regard to a lease of any period for more than the permitted rent. The tenant must go on paying. The landlord commits an offence and will have to pay that which he has obtained from the tenant and which he should not have obtained from him, plus whatever fine may be inflicted on him at conviction. That does not seem to me to afford the protection that I want to see given to the tenant, or to the purchaser of a house which is subject to a licensing condition, such as that envisaged in Subsection (I).
  I appreciate that there may be, in a few cases, some collusion between a tenant and the landlord, some collusion between a vendor and a purchaser, but what I suggest this Committee should see to is that the intentions behind the licence are adhered to, that the rent is kept at the permitted price notwithstanding the breach of the law by the vendor, and that the price for which a house is sold is limited to the permitted price. It is for that reason that we have put down this Amendment. If it is put in the Statute, its effect will be that the man who, either through ignorance of the law or by mistake, has been induced to enter into a bargain to rent premises, to which the licence attaches a condition of this sort—that that man, acting innocently and entering into that bargain, will be relieved from the burden of paying the excessive rent, and will have his obligation limited to paying the rent to which it is the intention that any occupant of the house should pay. That, it seems to me, would give the protection which this Committee should desire to be given to a lessee. It means that neither the
  2170
  landlord, nor indeed the Government nor the Crown, would secure any benefit out of a breach of the law. The landlord would not be getting any of the money from the tenant to pay the fine, and the landlord under the earlier provisions of the law may still be dealt with pretty severely. The same considerations apply to the sale and purchase of a house.
  In concluding my speech in support of this Amendment I would like to deal in advance with an argument which perhaps might be brought against it, namely, that this would enable a tenant or a purchaser who has entered into a collusive bargain with a vendor or lessor, to secure an advantage, because he would get into occupation of the house, and the tenant would get his rent reduced to the permitted level. I suppose there might be a few cases where that would happen, but I think that it is much more important to put into this Bill a power to reduce the rent to the permitted level, than to take excessive precautions against an occasionally collusive bargain.
  Mr. Bevan:I must resist this Amendment, because the language of the Clause has been carefully drawn so as to give rise to the protection that the hon. Member wishes to take away. It must be borne in mind again on this Amendment, that the houses that are being dealt with are in a special category, and that we need to protect the poorer members of the community from the richer members of the community. In most cases, houses of this kind are of the higher rented sort, and, ordinarily, the people who rent them or buy them, will be people of a knowledgeableclass. If they look at Clause 8 the Committee will see that there is a register in which each house appears, and that there is, in fact, no excuse for ignorance as to what the rent or the price of the house should be. There is no justification whatever for any person, whether he be the lessor or the purchaser of a house, to plead ignorance of whether the house belongs to that category or not. I ask the Committee not to make, here, a very wide breach in the provision.
  I appreciate the intention of the hon. Member. He wishes to protect the innocent person who has been caught, by an unscrupulous or even by an innocent lawyer, particularly if the house has changed hands. It is well known that

  2171
  where houses are sold that the genealogy of the house is carefully examined. If the house has been let, the appropriate rent is ascertainable. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not always."] It is ascertainable because it is registered. As a matter of fact the conditions under which these houses are being built, and let are the subject of regulation and therefore it seems to me that the language that the hon. Member wishes to use could actually become an escape for the purchaser who has entered into collusion with the landlord, or the seller, to pay a higher price for it than he ought to have done, and this would start a very considerable black market in these houses again. Of course, it is always possible where action is started in a case of this kind, and the action is actually in court, for the house to be re-rented and a new tenancy agreement put into a new lease. The terms of the new lease would be operative at once and that is what is happening in most cases. Where the rent is too high, the landlord would, of course, put himself right, and arrange a new tenancy agreement for a new lease on legal terms. No hardship would arise on that score. For these reasons I ask the Committee not to request the Government to impart language into this Bill at this stage, which takes away from us the power that we desire to use, to see that these houses remain in legitimate hands, for legitimate use, and are not the subject of black market speculation.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. J. S. C. Reid: There are a great many Acts of Parliament of all kinds under which certain terms are declared to be illegal, but in practically every one of which I have ever heard—I cannot think of an exception—the bargain is no longer enforceable, and in most of them, the person who has paid too much is entitled to recover, or the person who has received too little is entitled to get the balance.
  Mr. Bevan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is assuming that the lessee is the victim. He may also be the culprit.
  Mr. Reid: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to leave it open to the court, I do not think we should take any exception to that. If he were to say that the court may remodel the agreement, and
  2172
  leave it to the court to say whether the equities of the situation call for a remodelling of the agreement or not, I think there would be a good deal to be said for that. But here is a law which is going to ensure that, for the sake of punishing a wrongful tenant who has induced a landlord to let to him, the innocent tenant who has unwittingly offered more than the legal price is deprived of all remedy. I can foresee the greatest possible difficulty. You get somebody who has unwittingly offered half as much again as the proper rent, and he is told by some of his friends, the next week, "You have offered far more than you should have done, and your landlord is going to have his money taken away from him in the shape of a fine." The tenant is going to pay the fine, because he is going to pay the money to the landlord, and the landlord is going to pay the money to the Exchequer. I can imagine an innocent tenant having a grievance, and I do not think it will do the administration of this Measure any good, if people with that kind of grievance, are going round the country. I see the point that there may be difficulty about making an absolute rule the other way, but if the right hon. Gentleman feels that, perhaps he would consider the point that the court should deal with the situation as to it may seem just.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: Supposing the payment is made by an innocent tenant, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in that case, would that not be a payment by mistake, and would it not, in those circumstances, be recoverable? I can see one or two hon. Members of my own profession shaking their heads, but in my submission that would be the law.
  Mr. Reid: If I went into the whole question of error in fact I could go on for a very long time and bore the Committee. I do not think that it is quite as easy as that.
  Mr. Bevan: Again, here we are not quarrelling with each other on a question of profound principle. We looked at this very carefully indeed, and hon. Members will recollect, these provisions were made when we were considering what we might do about the selling price of houses. We looked at this then to see whether we could not put up a fence to prevent the

  2173
  selling of houses becoming the subject of unscrupulous practices. I hope the Committee will not make any breaches in that today. I think that the tenant is being brought forward quite naturally, because he is the best case to plead in connection with the principle; but, nevertheless, there are cases of houses being bought and sold, as well as those which are tenanted, and most of these houses will be bought but not tenanted. The overwhelming majority of those which are being built at the present time are being built by contractors for immediate purchase. If the economic rents are already high, and a tenant comes along and pays a rent in excess of that given, it would be extraordinary if he did not find out something about it. I think, in those circumstances, the Committee ought not to ask me to lower the fence, or to make a small breach in it. I will look at the possibility of the court having power, because I think there is a point there. I cannot say here and now that it can be done, and hon. Members would not expect me to, but there is a point that the court may be able to look at all the surrounding circumstances. I will have it examined quite sincerely, with a view to putting it in the Bill if it proves to be practicable, and does not give rise to any evasions.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: As the right hon. Gentleman has quite rightly said, there is really no issue between us on what we want to achieve in this Amendment. I am sure that he must acquit us of having any intention of making any breach in the wall which he is endeavouring to erect to secure that the permitted rent remains the permitted rent, and the price the permitted price. That is not our intention at all. I welcome his assurance that, without committing himself, he will look into the possibility of giving the court power, where the innocence of a tenant or purchaser is established, to avert the lease or sale contract. I think that would be a good provision, and that it could perhaps be incorporated in Clause 7 (I). I can understand the right hon. Gentleman saying that he could not at this moment commit himself to saying that that will be done, but I feel that it would be a good provision if it could be inserted. I am by no means as confident as the right hon. Gentleman appears to be, that there will not be innocent people on both sides who will make mistakes in regard to these
  2174
  houses. In those circumstances, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I should like to detain the Committee for a few moments to raise the question of how the Clause is to work in Scotland, with regard to conditions for permitted rent. The Committee will be aware that rent in Scotland includes the owner's rates. I want to find out how this is to be worked. As I understand it, the only just way to do it would be to start by saying "How much ought the owner to get to keep in his pocket after he has paid the rates?" That would be the rent in the English sense. Supposing the licensing authority were looking at the whole situation, they should surely start by saying, "The owner in this case ought to get £60 a year out of which to pay all his outgoings, interest on capital and all the other things"; and then they would have to say, "In order that the owner shall be able to get £60 a year, we must inquire what the owner's rates are, and fix the rent, in the Scottish house, at such a figure as will give £60 a year after the rates have been paid." Supposing the owner's rates were 6s. 8d. in the £—the tenant's of course would be higher—that would mean he would have to get a sum which after the deduction of 6s. 8d. in the £ leaves £60, and that would be £90. Therefore having said that £60 was a fair return to the owner, you say that the rent, in the Scottish sense, shall be £90. That is all right so long as the owner's rates remain stationary, but supposing, within the first two years, the owner's rates go up by £5 —and I am taking figures very close to what is actually happening in Glasgow. The rent remains at £90, but as a result of the rates going up by £5, the local authority is now claiming £35 from the owner, and the owner is left with only £55, whereas, when the licence was arranged, every one was agreed that the just return was £60.
  The best way out of this would be for the Government to bring forward the provisions of the Sorn Committee which was concurred in by Members of all parties, that this business of mounting owner's rates should come to an end, and that a

  2175
  ceiling should be put upon them. That cannot be done today or tomorrow. We have to provide for the situation until it is done. I would ask the hon. Gentleman, therefore, if he would consider making some provision in this Bill so that the permitted rent can be increased by an appropriate sum to make good the increase in the owner's rates during the period of four years. I thought of drafting something myself, but I was not quite sure what the method of working this would be. I therefore thought that it would be better to put the point to the hon. Gentleman, who knows the difficulty with regard to our rating system, and ask him whether he thought the point was a good one, and, if so, whether he would be good enough to do something to put it right before we reach the Report stage of this Bill.
  The Joint Undersecretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Buchanan): I do not blame the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the slightest, but I only heard a short time ago that the point was to be raised. As he knows, the Scottish system of rating is very complicated. The usual English system of rating is that the tenant pays all the rates. Under the Scottish system, the rates work out at about 50 per cent, paid by owner and 50 per cent, by the tenant. The consequence is that we have the odd arrangement constantly happening of having rates upon rates. A distinguished civil servant in Scotland, Sir John Lamb, once' said that there was only one problem that would never be solved in Scotland and that was the problem of rating. The Sorn Committee to which the right hon and learned Gentleman referred reported in favour of a ceiling for owners' rates, but, so far, that has not become law. I can only undertake to look at the situation which the right hon. Gentleman has raised, that within the four years' period there may be an increase of rates. I see many difficulties in conceding his point by taking out one set of property for special treatment which would not apply to any other set of property. Do not forget that the owners of property claim the same justice for their property which is being built now, and if you start to concede it in this case, I shall immediately hear every other owner of property saying why not concede it throughout the country. If this alteration of law
  2176
  is to be made, I do not think that it should be made on this Bill. It ought to be done by a Rating Bill for Scotland. Without committing myself in any way, I will, however, undertake to examine the matter with my officials and see if anything can be done. If I were dealing with this matter in isolation I have no doubt that I could come to some solution, but the moment I suggested anything about owners' rates in this connection, I can see that difficulties would immediately crop up in other parts of the field.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. Reid: I thank the hon. Member for his reply. In the circumstances I could not reasonably expect him to go any further, and I am obliged to him for what he has said.
  Mr. Willink: There is another point which has been brought to my attention and which is worth raising, and although I have not been able to give the right hon. Gentleman notice of it I would ask him to consider it. We are dealing here with houses built under a licence, with a control of the sale price for a period of four years. We cannot tell now what will be the course of building prices over the next four years. One looks back to the unhappy period after the last war, which was marked by a lamentable rise in building costs, such as we hope the Government will be able to prevent. Indeed, we hope the period will be marked by a fall in costs. These licences may be granted by some local authorities for a number of houses which may, in fact, not be built for some time, and by the time they do come to be built the costs of building may have risen or fallen. I think these licences are issued by the local authorities under the authority of the Minister of Health. I imagine there is no doubt that the terms of a licence with respect to a house not yet sold or not yet let may be revoked and fresh terms put into it, because the permitted price or the rent fixed when the licence was granted might be quite inappropriate for a house the building of which started 18 months from now.
  Mr. Bevan: The answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that it will be extremely undesirable to have a large number of these licences suspended in the market and not operated. Therefore, if a licence is not taken up within a period—I forget what it is, but it is a perfectly

  2177
  reasonable period—it will lapse, and the applicant can come forward for a new licence.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 8.—(Registration of conditions imposed by building licences, and duties of local authorities.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. C. Williams: I would ask for information upon one point in order to help me in explaining the Bill. I think the Clause is clear; it is for the purpose of registration, but I do want to know precisely who the "proper officer" is who is referred to in line 12 on page 6. We should know that, and also if there is to be a definite register to which the ordinary individual can refer and where it will be kept. Will it be kept by the local authority or by some Government Department? I ask this because without such information I should not be in a position to explain these things in my division, and my constituents are very interested in them. Further, we as Members ought to know where the register is to be, who is the "officer." and how he is appointed. That might save us having to write quite a number of letters to the Government in the future. I feel this would both help the Government and help hon. Members opposite who have had so many letters to write.
  Mr. Bevan:The answer to the first question is that it is the local authority. The proper officer would be the clerk of the authority or any person appointed to perform these particular functions.
  Mr. Williams: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I can see the relief spreading over the faces of the hon. Members behind him. I only hope his explanation was adequate enough—it was not very full—to relieve their worst fears.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 9.—(Interpretation.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. C. Williams: I am glad to be able to help again on this Clause. It is fairly clear, I think, but in paragraph Subsection (3, b) there occurs the word "de-
  2178
  mises." May I ask exactly what that means. It may be a Scottish expression, and some Scottish Law Officer might help us out, but I feel it is a word which can be used in more senses than one. I see the Home Secretary, and perhaps he might be able to tell us it the Minister of Health falls down. We ought to be in a position to explain all these things to our constituents.
  Mr. Bevan: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that in these matters I share his uncertainty, but I am sure the Courts would not find any difficulty in interpreting this. It is difficult to say in this connection what the word "demises" means, but I think it means "alienate."
  Mr. Williams: That does not carry us very much further. Could it have the connotation of "to let" or "to sell''? We are told, and I frankly believe it, that here we are doing something of very great importance and yet we have no real definition of one of the leading words. However, I must resign myself reluctantly to not getting the proper information because, after all, it is rather a tumbledown erection that I see opposite.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 11.—(Short title and extent.)
  Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, in page 8, line 34, leave out Subsection(2).
  This Amendment is moved in order to prepare the way for the proposed new Clause which is on the Paper.
  Mr. C. Williams: I think the Clause is very much better with the words left in. I did understand what it meant, and though I cannot now discuss the next Clause I only say that I should very much regret to see the omission of the words of this Subsection:
  "The provisions of this Act relating to the rent and purchase price of houses shall not extend to Northern Ireland."
  I cannot understand why they should not extend to Northern Ireland. When the new Clause that is following is passed, Northern Ireland will come in under exactly the same conditions with respect to the rest of the Bill. It seems remarkable suddenly to change a Clause in this respect with absolutely no explanation.
  Mr. Bevan: The answer is that if the hon. Member is courageous enough to enter into conflict with Northern Ireland, I do not share his courage. It is done at the request of the Northern Ireland Parliament. It has become the practice to accede to their requests. We do it in this form, and I would plead with the hon. Member not to throw that very succulent apple of discord across the Floor of the Chamber.
  Mr. C. Williams: I would not wish to throw the apple of discord into these proceedings. I would not do anything contrary to the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland because I have worked with them for a long time and I have real sympathy with them. As I have received some little satisfaction from the right hon. Gentleman—not very much—I assure him that my intentions are always peaceful and I am never likely to be quarrelsome as are some of the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Application to Northern Ireland.)
  (1) Sections three, five, six and eight of this Act shall not extend to Northern Ire land; and this Act shall, in its application to Northern Ireland, have effect as if paragraph (c) of Subsection (I) of Section one were omitted there from.
  (2) In the application of this Act to Northern Ireland, Section seven thereof, and so much of Section nine thereof as relates to the said Section seven, shall be deemed for the purposes of Section six of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920 (which relates to the power of the Parliament of Northern Ireland to make laws), to be provisions of an Act passed before the appointed day.—[Mr. Bevan.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  It is not necessary for us to discuss the Clause at any length. It contains provisions which the Northern Ireland Parliament can itself amend if it so wishes. That is also common form. Unless a Statute which applies to Northern Ireland expressly states that Northern Ireland is able to amend or repeal it, it cannot do so, and that is the purpose of this Clause.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir William Allen: When we in Northern Ireland
  2180
  first saw the Bill we were rather surprised and our people set about trying to see whether they could not make some improvement in it. When the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health was on this side of the Committee, I often heard him make very severe strictures on Departments for legislating by reference. Now he is tied up in the same way himself. When I first read the Clause I said to myself, ''Whatever does this mean?'' I doubted whether any of the 640 Members of the House of Commons could have explained what it meant. Having gone into the question, I find it simply resolves itself in Northern Ireland being placed on a parity or equality with the rest of the country. We of course have to submit to the same taxes or disabilities, and when we have the opportunity of contributing our quota to the Imperial Parliament or Exchequer we do it in the same way as it is done over here. As we contribute £35,000,000 to the Exchequer every year, and as our voluntary contributions to the war effort amounted to upwards of £120,000,000 we think we are entitled to parity of treatment with that of Great Britain. That is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman has done in this Clause and personally, and on behalf of Ulster Members and the Northern Ireland Government, I would like to convey our grateful thanks to him and to the Department responsible for making this improvement in the Bill.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. C. Williams: I listened to the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Armagh (Sir W. Allen) with interest and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health himself will be gratified that his action in putting down an Amendment rather clumsily on a previous Clause did not cause discord and that we now know that the representatives of Northern Ireland have approved of this new Clause. I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee in dealing with it, but it is a bad' case of legislation by reference and it is a great pity that more clarity was not shown earlier, when so much time could have been saved, especially if this had been an original Clause of the Bill. I regret that the Government should have thought it so unnecessary to get their original Bill right that they had to come at this time with a new Clause; it makes it difficult

  2181
  for us, who have a lot of work to do, to look after Amendments and to try to help the Government.
  Mr. McKie: As the Member representing the constituency nearest to Northern Ireland I would like to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Armagh (Sir W. Allen) have said. While my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay was talking and complaining of this cumbrous new Clause being introduced by the Minister at this late hour in the day I thought I heard the Minister say—and he will correct me if I am wrong—that all legislation incorporated into Bills of this House with regard to Northern Ireland has been legislation by reference. Was I right in assuming that that was what the right hon. Gentleman said?
  Sir W. Allen: Not necessarily.
  Mr. McKie: I must accept the information supplied by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Armagh, with his very long experience and knowledge of Ulster matters, and some 30 years in this House, in preference to what the Minister of Health indicated to the Committee a few moments ago. I protest very strongly indeed against the cumbrous nature of the Clause and this continual legislation by reference, which, as my hon. and gallant Friend reminded the Committee, the present Minister of Health himself continually attacked when he sat in the last Parliament. In the Parliament of 193I, when I first came into this House, I used to sit enthralled listening to the right hon. Gentleman attacking the Government of the day under Ramsay MacDonald. My only reason for rising was because, as I say, I represent the constituency in Great Britain nearest to Ulster and separated only by the narrow straits, from the constituency represented in this House by my hon. Friend the senior Member for Down (Dr. Little), who I am sorry is not here tonight, and by my hon. and gallant Friend the other Member for Down (Sir W. Smiles).
  The. Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): Would the hon. Member please come back to the Clause?
  Mr. McKie: I was unaware that I had ever left it.
  The Deputy-Chairman: I was completely unaware that the hon. Member had ever been near it.
  Mr. McKie: Had the senior Member for Down been here tonight, with his well known interest in Ulster affairs and his zealous care in protecting the interests of his own constituents, as a Northern Ireland Member he would have wanted particular information from the Minister about this Clause. I very much regret that the Minister was unable to give the information, and just slurred over it by saying that everyone could understand it, when not one single person in the Committee really knows what it is all about.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
  Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed.[Bill 44.]C

  ELECTORS AND JURORS [MONEY]
  Resolution reported:
  "That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to electoral registration and to voting at parliamentary and local government elections, to make provision with respect to jurors books, to amend the law relating to returning officers for Scottish constituencies, and to provide for matters connected with the purposes aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

  (a)of one-half of the expenses of registration officers in Great Britain in performing their functions under that Act, including all proper and reasonable charges for trouble, care and attention in the performance of those functions and any costs incurred by such an officer as party to an appeal;

  (b)of one-half of any expenses properly incurred by the proper officer of a local authority in England or Wales in the performance of the functions of registration officers tinder the said Act, including reasonable charges for the proper officer's own trouble, care and attention in the performance of those functions and for the remuneration and expenses of any staff provided by the authority;

  (c)of any expenses properly incurred by registration officers in Northern Ireland in connection with their functions under the said Act, the said expenses to be calculated subject to the provisions of Subsection (2) of Section fifteen of the Representation of the People Act, 1918, as if they were registration expenses as denned for the purposes

  2183
  of that Section, and to include the expense, of any printing required in connection with the performance of those functions; and

  (d)of any sums paid by registration officers in Northern Ireland in respect of services performed and expenses incurred by overseers under the said Act."

ELECTORS AND JURORS BILL
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]

CLAUSE I.—(Annual register to be used for all Parliamentary elections until registers are in force under 7 and 8 Geo. 5. c. 64.)
Mr. Osbert Peake: I beg to move, in page I, line 12, leave out from "the," to end of line 13, and insert:
"fifteenth day of October nineteen hundred and forty-six."
I think it would be convenient for the Committee if the third Amendment on the Order Paper, standing in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends, were considered with it, because the two go together—in page I, line 20, at end, insert:
"(3) If at any time prior to the fifteenth day of October, nineteen hundred and forty-six, a resolution is passed by each House of Parliament providing that this Section shall apply to an election at which the time fixed for nomination falls before the fifteenth day of October, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, the operation of this Section shall be so extended."
The object of the Amendments is to carry out what I believe to be the intention of the Home Secretary, which is to make Clause I temporary in character. The Bill contains in its Title the words:
"To amend the law relating to electoral registration and to voting at parliamentary and local government elections"
and the sub-heading in italics before Clause 1 is:
"Temporary provisions as to Electoral Registration."
In moving the Second Reading of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman made it clear that the whole Bill, in his opinion, was to be of a temporary character. He said in his Second Reading speech:
"I have to ask the House today to pass another Measure that will make temporary provision for elections that will be held during the coming year, 1946."
Later in his speech he said that in Clause I, that is, the Clause now before the Committee:
"We propose that the register now in force shall remain in force until 14th October next and that all Parliamentary elections during the intervening period shall be fought on that register."
Towards the conclusion of his speech he said:
"The Government are working in the hope that certainly in the case of the register it will be compiled to come into force on 15th October, 1946, they will be able to rely upon the canvass, publication, claim and objection method which was the practice prior to the difficulties into which the war brought us."—[Official Report, 21st Nov., 1945, Vol. 416, c. 447–455.]
Therefore it is perfectly clear that he intends this Clause to be of a temporary nature. However, when one looks at Clause I, it is unlimited in duration in its terms, and the purpose of the Amendments which I am discussing is to make Clause I apply to the register to be prepared next year, that is, the register which will come into force on 15th October, 1946, coupled with a proviso that if it is impossible after that for the 1947 register to return to the proper method of residential qualification, etc., an affirmative Resolution of both Houses may continue this Clause of the Bill for a further year. I believe that these Amendments are in accordance with the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman. All the other Clauses in this Bill have a time limit of some sort brought into them, including the provision in Clause 8 in respect of postal voting. I therefore think these Amendments are, in accordance with the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman and the general wishes of the Committee.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I do not complain of the quotations made from my Second Reading speech by the right hon. Gentleman. I appear to have expressed myself with sufficient clarity to make my meaning understandable. This is really a conflict between hopes and fears. If I accepted this first Amendment I should be put in the position that I must produce legislation based on the report of the Committee on Electoral Machinery in time for it to be operated so that a register can be produced on 15th October, 1946.
Mr. Peake: Nineteen forty-seven.
Mr. Ede: No, that is the proviso, is it not?
Mr. Peake:I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I hope I made myself clear. If the Amendments are accepted, Clause I will then apply to the register which comes into force on 15th October, 1946, but it would only be after an affirmative resolution of both Houses that Clause I would apply to the Register of 1947.
Mr. Ede:I think that is so. I have appointed the Committee. The names were made known during last weekend. I hope the Committee may be able to get on with its business with reasonable dispatch. I am quite sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who is Chairman of the Committee, will endeavour to secure that that shall be so, but after I have received the Report it will be necessary to prepare legislation, and to submit it to the House. They may cover a very large number of points in the recommendations that they make, and I should desire as far as possible, that the next Bill which is introduced on this matter should be on the basis of the permanent legislation of the country. I do not want to bring in another Measure that would be a temporary one dealing with two or three years or even a shorter space of time. In those circumstances I might possibly be hampered in 1947 if the Amendments of the right hon. Gentleman were passed. I hope it will not be so, but I do not want to come back to this House in so short space of time as that, merely to get the prolongation of this Measure, if our fears in regard to the speed at which the giving of effect by legislation to the recommendations of the Committee should be justified.
7.30 p.m.
I hope that the Committee will agree that this Clause can be left in its present form. I have given to the House on Second Reading and to the Committee again this evening my pledge that I will do all I can to expedite legislation, but until I see the form of the Report, it is not possible for me to promise that the legislation will be available by 15th October, 1947, and I do not think, in the circumstances, it would be reasonable to expect that we should have to produce an affirmative Resolution if, in fact, we were not in a position to have the register on a permanent basis by that date.
Mr. Peake: I confess I am a little disappointed by the right hon. Gentleman's reply. Here is a Clause which comes under a heading in italics:
"Temporary Provisions in respect of legislation ",
and of course, as all lawyers know, words in italics in a Bill have no legal validity. But we go on from those words in italics to a Clause which is permanent in form and I am a little disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman, even though unable to accept the Amendment which would give a definite run of a year plus a further year if Parliament agreed, has not placed any limitation at all on the operation of Clause I of the Bill. I had been prepared to give two years for certain if that was the period which he required. I think it is a little unreasonable when you have a Bill ostensibly of a temporary character that we should not have any time limit in the most important Clause in the Bill. As I say, I am disappointed because, as the matter now stands, it rests entirely on the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman. I have a great respect for the right hon. Gentleman and I am quite sure he will do his best to carry out his assurance. At the same time I say it is unsatisfactory in a Bill expressed in its headings as temporary in character, to have the main operative Clause in a permanent form.
Mr. Ede: The right hon. Gentleman has expressed his disappointment so pleasantly and has gone a stage further by saying that he would be content with a two year run and then a year by an affirmative Resolution, that I will try to meet him on that point at a further stage of the Bill.
Mr. Peake: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Major Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move, in page I, line 17, at end, insert:
"(2) Notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1945 the annual register which is due to come into force on the fifteenth day of October, nineteen hundred and forty-six, shall instead come into force on the first day of October of that year, and in subsequent years the date for the coming into force of the annual register shall be the first day of October."

2187
The object of the Amendment which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends is to secure a longer interval than exists at present between the date of publication of the register and the municipal elections, which take place on 1st November in each year. This matter was brought to the attention of the House on 17th January, and the then Solicitor-General promised that the matter would be given full consideration by the Government. So far as I know, since that date nothing further has been heard of this matter, but the Committee will appreciate that its urgency has become the greater by reason of the fact that recent changes have assimilated the local government register with the Parliamentary register and thereby greatly increased the total of local government electors.
It will be within the experience of many Members of the Committee that wards, for local government electoral purposes, now include many thousands of electors, and it is a matter of real difficulty from the point of view of political organisation to arrange for the necessary canvass, and the necessary delivery of election addresses, in the very short period which elapses between 15th October and 1st November. The object of this Amendment is to secure that that period is substantially doubled. This question is in no sense a party issue. Hon. Members on the other side of the Committee are, I am perfectly certain, equally concerned with hon. Members on this side, to secure that local government elections are treated with the seriousness and importance which they deserve. They are probably as much concerned as we are at the lamentably low percentage of local government electors to go to the poll. If the register could be published earlier, it would be possible for all the parties concerned, by advance organisation, to secure that the issues at the local government election were more fully understood and more widely known among the electors, and I am perfectly certain that hon. Members opposite would be the last people in the world, in view of their own recent endeavours in this respect, to deny the electors such activities. I do appeal to them to consider the merits of this proposal.
I am aware that the difficulty of only getting a register some 15 days before the election is, in some cases, met where the
2188
political agent is on good terms with the local authorities and capable of getting an advance sight of the register, but that kind of procedure is highly undesirable. It makes for inequality, it makes for unfairness, and is not a becoming feature of any system of political organisation. I would therefore commend the idea contained in this Amendment to the Committee as being a small contribution to the more smooth and efficient working of the machinery of local government.
Captain Prescott: I wish to associate myself with the case so ably presented by the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Major Boyd-Carpenter). I fail to see why the date should be 15th October. Surely it would be more convenient if it were 1st October. My hon. and gallant Friend has referred to the importance of local government elections and hon. Members in all parts of the Committee I am sure agree with the case he put forward. I cannot but think that 15 days is a very short period to allow for elections of this nature. Mention has been made of the low polls at municipal elections. That fact must be present to the minds of all hon. Members in the Committee at the moment, and I suggest that every step should be taken to further interest in municipal matters, and make the most convenient arrangements to further the proper carrying out of municipal elections. I think that a month is a reasonable period. It would help all candidates and would be of advantage to the municipal electors themselves. For these and many other reasons I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to accept this Amendment.
Mr. Ede: I have listened with great attention to the remarks made by the two hon. and gallant Gentlemen who have both addressed the Committee on this Amendment. I have every sympathy with the point of view which they have expressed. It is true that a former Solicitor-General did promise that the matter would be taken into consideration. This is one of the matters that will come before the Committee of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, and I hope that in the permanent legislation which will result from that Committee it may be possible to include this Amendment. I am sorry that I cannot accept it tonight, because I could not give a guarantee that next year the physical arrangements for

2189
printing the register would be made in time for the register in that year to be published on 1st October.
I would say that, of course, there is one other inconvenience which was not mentioned by either of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and which is a very real one, in having a register published as late as 15th October. This year the date for nomination for provincial borough councils were 18th October, and for the metropolitan borough Councils 23rd October. I do not care how carefully a register is compiled. It is certain that, owing to human frailty, a few people are sure to be left off. I have contested a very large number of elections in my time, and I have never known an election when on the day before polling day there have not been a certain number of electors who, for some reason or other, were not registered. It creates a great difficulty if a nomination paper has been filled up in good faith, relying on the old register, and then, in the few days which I have mentioned, in between the date of the publication of the register and the date of the deposit of the nomination paper itself, there is a person whose name does not appear on the new register. There are great practical reasons for making this Amendment when we come to the permanent alteration of the law, and I assure the hon. and gallant Gentlemen who have so persuasively set forth the reasons for this Amendment today that I will endeavour to include it in the permanent legislation which I shall bring forward.
Major Boyd-Carpenter: In the light of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and, in particular, having regard to the fact that he has put a far more powerful argument for the Amendment than ever I or my hon. Friends were able to put, I am certain that if I ask leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment we can have some confidence that the assurances which the right hon. Gentleman has given will bear better fruit than did those of the Solicitor-General. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Continuance of Section one of 7 & 8 Geo. 6 c. 24.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
7.45 p.m.
Mr. Peake:This is the Clause which continues the abolition of the two month's residence qualification, and maintains in its place the qualification of residence upon a single day some months previous to the coming into force of the register. When we brought in the original Act of 1943, this two months' residence qualification was embodied in the Act. It was put there as a result of the Report of the Committee on Electoral Machinery. It obviously involves complications from the point of view of the electoral registration officers, coupled, as it was with a system of continuous registration for bringing the register up to date month by month. In the Spring of 1944, round about D-Day, the electoral registration officers came to the Home Office and said this system was proving unworkable. As a result of their representations, the Act of 1944 was passed, providing for residence upon a single day, coupled with a fixed annual register coming into force on 15th October. We think, now that peacetime conditions have returned, although we cannot have the system of continuous registration for bringing the register automatically up to date in accordance with the movements of the population, we might go back without insuperable difficulty to the system of a two months' residence qualification. Both the right hon. Gentleman and the Undersecretary of State for Scotland during their speeches on the Second Reading affirmed their belief in a residential period —a definite period for qualifying for being placed upon the register—and with that my hon. Friends and I upon these Trenches are in agreement.
We attach importance to a residential qualification, and I think that view will be generally accepted in all parts of the Committee, but, now the war is over, although we cannot get back to a system of continuous registration as was envisaged by the Act of 1943, we do not see why we should not now return to a period of residence as the basis for being placed upon the electoral register. It does not seem to us to involve any very great difficulties. I think the number of staff involved was calculated in 1944 at something like 400 supervisory officials and some 1,200 clerks, to prepare a register with a residence qualification. In fact, I think probably the number of staff required would be smaller than that, because that number of staff was required

2191
for the operation of a system of continuous registration which is a much more complex matter. I do not think there would be much to be added to the staff requirement as a result of returning to a two months' period for qualification to be entered on the register. In our view, it would certainly be much more satisfactory. Both the Lord President of the Council and other Members of the Government have declared themselves to be against the voting of what are called birds of passage—people who come into a constituency and stay there for a few weeks, or perhaps two or three months. With a single day as a qualification to be placed upon the register one is bound to get on the register quite a number of people who have no real ties with the constituency at all. Of course, in peace time it used to be a three months' period. I think it is quite reasonable, in the conditions prevailing today with a mobile population, that the period should be shorter, but we think there ought to be some residence qualification, and therefore we do not think that the Clause ought to appear in this Bill at the present time.
Mr. Harold Sutcliffe: I want to support my right hon. Friend in his appeal to the Minister that we should now return to a two month's residence qualification. It seems very surprising to me, in view of what happened at this recent election, that the right hon. Gentleman is endeavouring in this Bill to perpetuate the same system under which the election was fought in July, 1945. Surely, never since the extension of the franchise to its present proportions have there been anything like so many complaints as there were over this election. I think there is not a Member who was satisfied with the way in which the General Election was conducted; I mean the way in which so many people were left off the register. For one who has been a lifelong voter in a constituency, and has perhaps lived in the same house all the time, to have been left off the register, for some unearthly reason, is the kind of thing that happened. We should not carry on a system such as that for any future election.
The Lord President of the Council, who was then the Home Secretary, made all the arrangements in 1943 for this two months' qualifying period, and they were only withdrawn in 1944, in the very tense
2192
situation of the war at that time, because of the impossibility of acquiring sufficient staff. Surely, we should now be looking ahead—and the Bill does look ahead. There must be sufficient staff available by the time they will be wanted. About 1,200people will be required altogether, to compile the Register based on the two-months' qualifying period. Surely, it is a poor advertisement of the Government's demobilisation plans that the Government should be so pessimistic about the situation so far ahead that they do not think there will be 1,200 people ready to do this work. That is a surprising confession on the part of the Government. We should delete the Clause, which embodies a purely wartime qualification. Even the two months' qualification is a wartime system, and as soon as possible I hope we shall get back to the prewar system. I urge that in any election which may take place in the fairly near future we should not go through the same experience as we had this year, for causes outside anyone's control. Surety, those same causes do not operate in peacetime, and will not operate by the time future elections take place. Surely, the time has come when we should return to the two-months' qualifying period. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree to the deletion of the Clause.
Major Digby: I support the view that we should return to the form of the 1940 Act. I dislike dropping the qualifying period, and particularly so when registration is based on the registration cards and when the person concerned is registered purely as to where he had his food on a particular day. I want to raise another matter, and perhaps the Minister can give us an answer when he replies. It relates to travellers' cards. I believe a lot of people have travellers' cards. I should like to know whether they are all registered where they happened to be feeding on 30th June, the qualifying day, or whether they are allowed to opt. It is an important point. We are elected here not to represent a body of people but to represent a constituency and the people living in it. That constituency looks to us to represent its views. It therefore follows that it is of great importance that we should be good representatives for that area, and it is of great importance that electors should be able to judge in that matter. But how

2193
can persons who happen to be eating their food on the 30th June in a particular area, but may otherwise have very little connection with the place, judge whether any one of the candidates is the person to represent that area or not? It is obvious that he cannot do so.
Apart from that difficulty, there is the fact that some people may remove during the qualifying period of two months, but I am sure hon. Members will agree that it is absolutely necessary that they should be properly catered for. It does not seem to present any difficulty, in view of the new provisions for personal voting, and it would be possible to take the last place where they spent two months, and to relate their vote to that place so that there would be no question of their losing the vote. There may be a lot of grievances in the Committee on this matter of the residence qualification. The Lord President of the Council, when he was speaking on the 1944 Bill, used extremely strong words on the matter and he justified even the temporary departure from the qualifying date by the fact that it was necessary to make provision for by-elections. It had nothing to do with the General Election. It was only on that account, and as a temporary Measure that the Government were willing to extend this qualifying period.
The General Election has come and gone and we are now being asked to go on with this system, which has not been satisfactory. I regard the matter with apprehension. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman tells us that there arc manpower difficulties, but really I cannot see that it would be impossible to find, even here, the very small number of people required. It is not a question of finding them today or tomorrow, but only in the period between next June and next October, which is long way away. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider seriously whether it is not possible to find the very small number of people who will be required at that time, getting on for one year ahead. I urge the Committee to reject the Clause, if the right hon. Gentleman will not change his mind. I feel that a very important principle is involved.
Mr. Ede:The date 30th June is very important, but I do not know whether that is a reason why anyone should fast on it, and why the mere fact that some-
2194
one has dinner in some place or other on 30th June disqualifies the person from voting in an election. The logical application of the hon. and gallant Member's remarks might be that everyone should dine or lunch out of his own constituency on 30th June so that he should not acquire the disability which the hon. and gallant Member thinks he would. With regard to travellers' cards a person is registered in accordance with the permanent address shown on his identity card. The person who has a traveller's card and is staying in some seaside resort, say, away from home on the qualifying day, is not registered in respect of the place in which he gets his food on the travellers' card, but in respect of the address which is on his identity card.
Major Digby: I thought that it was on the travellers' card that we are allowed to get our food, without being registered in the particular shops.
Mr. Ede:Yes, but that has nothing to do with the question of registration for electoral purposes. That depends upon the address that is shown on the identity card, and the national registration officer passes on the information as to the number of people he has registered to the electoral registration officer. Apart from that, I stand by what I have previously said and by what my right hon. Friend the Lord President said, about the desirability of getting back to a residential period, and I had hoped to be able to include such a provision in the Bill. But I consulted with the registration officers throughout the country, and I was assured by them that, at any rate so far as the next register is concerned, it would be quite impossible for them to operate the provisions for a continuous register. I cannot help thinking that the number of additional staff said to be required for this has been very considerably minimised by the right hon. Gentleman. I know it was based on some information given previously by the county registration officers—
8.0 p.m.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: It was given by the Lord President of the Council.
Mr. Ede: It was given by the Lord President of the Council, on information supplied to him by the county registration officers, and I gather that at that time the borough registration officers—I am

2195
speaking entirely from memory—felt that they could do the job. I am bound to say that neither of those groups of registration officers now feel that they would be able to do the job, and it is only because of the purely physical difficulty, of the fear of the registration officers that if we put the duty on them they would not be able to fulfil it, that I have not been able to include provision for continuous registration in the Bill.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: One does not wish to press this matter unduly; one appreciates the difficulties, but it is a curious change from the time before the 1943 Act, when it was said, although we were at war, that the system could be worked. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, if it cannot be worked during the next year, does the retention of Clause 2 in the Bill in its present form in any way obstruct the operation of a qualifying period for a subsequent period?
Mr. Ede:I think the hon. Gentleman has given the correct interpretation of the Bill, but I will have that particular point examined.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Supplementary register.)
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, to leave out "as soon as may be," and insert "immediately."
It was with some astonishment that I found, on reading this Bill, that it contained the mystic, magic and completely inexplicable and undefinable words, "as soon as may be." I was particularly astonished when I recollected the trouble that the Lord President of the Council had had with those words when he was Home Secretary in connection with fireguard regulations. Yet we find that the Home Office, not learning from experience I regret to say, brings forward to Parliament a Measure containing those words. I know the right hon. Gentleman opposite attaches some importance to the use of the English language, and I should indeed be obliged to him if he could explain to the Committee what those word's mean, if anything. The same words occurred in another Bill, the Statutory Instruments
2196
Bill, more than once, and when the Solicitor-General was asked to explain them he moved or accepted—I have forgotten which—an Amendment to insert the word "immediately," which not only has the advantage of being one word instead of five, but also of having some meaning. I am therefore hopeful that the right hon. Gentleman will attempt the task of finding out what the words "as soon as may be" mean, but I hope none the less, whether he attempts that task or not, that he will accept the Amendment and insert the word "immediately." That was the word which the Solicitor-General thought was the right replacement for this curious phrase.
Mr. Ede: Of course the meaning of this phrase depends, in its legislative sense, upon the Government that is in office, and in this particular connection I regard "as soon as may be" and "immediately" as synonymous. I, therefore, propose to accept the Amendment, which does not alter the meaning of the Bill but which does insert a word of Latin origin in place of five words of English origin. I see them disappear from the Bill with regret, for I prefer English even to English derived from Latin, but I hope that there will be no ill-feeling between us on that score. The hon. Member may rest assured that by inserting the word "immediately" the purposes of the Bill will be brought into effect at exactly the same second of time as they would be if the words "as soon as may be" had remained.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should like to thank the right 'hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has met this Amendment, while regretting that he has not faced up to the task of defining with precision what the words "as soon as may be" mean.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, leave out "December" and insert "January."
I do not know whether it would be for the convenience of the Committee to take, along with this Amendment, the next four Amendments on page 316 of the Order Paper, the last Amendment on page 316, and the fourth and fifth Amendments on page 317 The points raised in all these Amendments are really similar, and I think it would save the time of the

2197
Committee if we took them together. The one upon which the others are to some extent consequential proposes in line 36, to insert:
"(3) Arrangements shall be made—

(a)as respects members of the Forces, by the Admiralty, Army Council or Air Council, as the case may be;

(b) as respects seamen, by the Minister of War Transport;

for securing that every person appearing to be qualified to make a Service declaration shall have an opportunity of making one and for so transmitting such declaration to the registration officer in any manner authorised by electoral registration regulations that it is received by the registration officer before the end of January, nineteen hundred and forty-six; and where a declaration so received by the registration officer is made by a person already entered in the Service register for that constituency, the registration officer shall make no entry in the supplementary register in respect of that person."
The first point that one appreciates on looking at Clause 3, which deals with the supplementary register, is the fact that there is no provision in that Clause for an automatic registration of Service voters, a provision that was recommended by the Speaker's Conference and a provision which, in view of the figures published in the White Paper, I should have thought it was desirable to implement. The second point is that Section 10 of the Parliament (Elections and Meeting) Act, 1943, provided that
"Arrangements shall be made, as respects members of the Forces, by the Admiralty, the Army Council or Air Council, as the case may be; as respects seamen, by the Minister of War Transport; for securing that (so far as circumstances permit) every person appearing to be qualified to make a service declaration shall have an effective opportunity of exercising from time to time as occasion may require the rights conferred upon him by this Part of the Act in relation to the making and cancellation of Service declarations."
I am not quite clear whether Section 10 of the 1943 Act has any application with regard to entry in the supplementary register under the Bill now being considered, because that Section specifically referred to the rights conferred upon a persons by that part of the Act—which means the 1943 Act—but in 1943 Parliament was of opinion that it was necessary and desirable to put in a Statute a provision to the effect which I have just stated, casting the responsibility upon the Army Council, the Admiralty and the Air Council, and in the case of seamen, upon the Minister of War Transport. As far as
2198
I can see this Bill omits any reference to that Section, and that is why the Amendment was put upon the Order Paper. If Section 10 of the 1943 Act applies to the supplementary register, of course I concede that the Amendment is in part unnecessary. But Section 10 of the 1943 Act applies only where it states that arrangements shall be made for securing that
"so far as circumstances permit."
8.15 p.m.
That was done in wartime and it was as far as one could go in wartime, but I submit that now we should put a slightly greater obligation upon the Army Council, the Air Ministry, the Admiralty and the Ministry of War Transport in this respect. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will, therefore, see that we have made a slight alteration, in the wording of our Amendment, from that which was contained in Section 10 of the 1943 Act. When one looks at the figures of Service votes at the last Election and the numbers of people who were in the Forces and who wanted the right to vote, but whose declarations were rejected on one ground or another, it becomes clear that if we are to prepare a supplementary register for Service voters that will be more than a cause of dissatisfaction, we should try to produce machinery which will render their inclusion in the Register as automatic as possible. Therefore we seek to provide that every Serviceman shall be given an opportunity of making a Service declaration. We omit the words
"so far as circumstances permit,"
because the situation in regard to getting these declarations to men in Burma and elsewhere has, of course, changed. We seek to put a duty upon the authorities who see that every Serviceman makes a declaration. What happens then? The declaration comes back to the registration officer of the area concerned, who will have to make a check to see whether that Serviceman is already entered on the Service Register. If he is already entered, we provide in our Amendment that he shall not be entered on the Service Register. If that machinery were used, it seems to me we could get a Register in force at the end of February of next year which would include all those who are now serving the country in the Forces and who were omitted from the Register on which the General Election took place.

2199
This brings me to the other Amendments which are being taken together with this Amendment. Obviously, it would be too short a time for the fulfilment of that obligation by the Army Council, the Admiralty and the Air Ministry if the time were limited to 31st December. It could not be done in that time. What we seek to do, while not seeking to delay the production of the supplementary register, is to give a further month for the making of these declarations. That is why, in all material places, we have altered the date from 31st December to the last day of January, 1946. I think the point raised in these Amendments is one of considerable importance. I do not think the Committee should be satisfied with any Bill which does not provide for the automatic registration of a Service voter and which leaves it still to the Service man to contract in, without ensuring an opportunity that he will be able to contract in, to exercise his right of voting in any election that may take place —and, of course, an election may take place far sooner than hon. Members opposite expect.
Major Digby: It seems to me to be important that this date should be extended from 31st December to the end of January. If we are to have a supplementary register, it seems to me to be most important that it should be made a real success, and that we should get in some of these Service and ex-Service people who were left out of the last register. Those of us who have served in the Army during this war have some idea of the time it takes for any instructions from the War Office to reach the unit, and, if the time allowed is only until the end of December, I do not see how those instructions can be fully effective. For that reason, I support the Amendment.
Mr. E. P. Smith: A few minutes ago the Home Secretary was so obliging to us that he changed the phrase "as soon as may be" for the word "immediately," and he is now being asked to change December, 1945, which might be regarded as "immediately," to January, 1946, which might be regarded as "as soon as may be," in order to ensure that the members of the Services shall have an effective opportunity of registering their votes. If I may say so with great respect, the right hon. Gentle-
2200
man took the first somersault very gracefully, and I hope he will take the second equally successfully.
Mr. Ede: It is, of course, always difficult to make a concession in Committee, because that is, at once, made the reason for a second-concession, I regret that I am not able to meet the wishes of right hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite on this particular Amendment. With regard to the question put to me by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham- Buller), I am informed that Section 20 of the Parliamentary Electors (Wartime Registration) Act, 1943is still in operation, and that all the obligations that were placed on various people by that Section remain in force. Therefore, in so far as the main Amendment among those which we are discussing —
Mr. Manningham-Buller: And will "apply to the supplementary register?
Mr. Ede: Oh, yes, and will apply to the supplementary register. So far as the main Amendment which we are discussing is concerned, that is, repetition of Section I0, it would appear to be unnecessary. When we come to the question of the date, I would point out that, immediately after the General Election, a notice was sent to all commands and similar people who are responsible for transmitting information to the troops, drawing attention to the failures that had occurred with regard to the registration of certain people and informing them that they could now make a fresh declaration. That has been repeated during recent weeks, so that we have made every effort to bring to the attention of the troops the power they have of getting on to the supplementary register, and, of course, that is a concession that is peculiar to the troops and which, does not apply to the civilian population.
I think there will be some later Amendments dealing with one or two of the smaller details with regard to that, and I do not think I need anticipate what I may be asked to say later on, that I think it will be generally accepted that people in the Forces and in the Mercantile Marine are, in fact, in a better position with regard to the supplementary register than are the civilian population who cannot get on it—people who have been civilians all through. I am bound to say that, as an ex-Serviceman myself, I would

2201
very much like to have made a point of placing a duty on the Army Council, Admiralty and Air Council of seeing that all people will, in fact, be placed on the register, but, when I tried to do that, I found there were serious practical difficulties in the way. It is not easy for the Army Council to find out in which constituency a man actually resides. There arc plenty of people who give an address which they believe to be quite genuine—a postal address—but which may, quite seriously mislead the Army Council when they try to get that person placed on the register. I think the arrangements that are now made, until we can get down to a permanent basis for the register—and that is one of the things on which my hon. Friend's Committee will have to report—until we get permanent machinery and a far better staff to deal with these matters, we shall be compelled to leave the responsibility where it is at the moment.
I hope that, when we get the permanent legislation, we shall be able to ensure that the man in the Forces will be registered automatically. I hope that, by that time, there will be far less movement of troops than at the moment takes place, and that it will be found within the competence of these three Service Departments to undertake the duty. I have been in correspondence with the Service Departments in an endeavour to get them to undertake this duty, because I am exceedingly anxious that every Serviceman shall, in fact, be on the register, but, at the moment, the Service Departments feel that it would not be possible for them to discharge the duty that this Amendment would place on them if the Committee were to enact it. I must, therefore, ask the Committee to await the permanent legislation, when I hope we may be able to have something which will be more satisfactory to me than the present arrangements.
I could reject what the hon. Gentleman called the main Amendment and still, of course, accept the other Amendments for making this date 31st January instead of December. That would leave only 28 days within which the supplementary register would have to be compiled and passed, and there I was confronted again with the view of the registration officers that it would be impossible for them in that time to comply with the requirements under the Statute. Therefore, I regret
2202
that it is not possible for me to accept the two main Amendments to which the hon. Member referred.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: For an Amendment which has elicited such a valuable and important statement from the right hon. Gentleman, I am sure no apology is necessary. I am sorry, and I am sure he is, that he has not found it possible to ensure in this Measure automatic registration for the Servicemen, but one welcomes the hope that he has expressed that it will become possible in the near future. In view of what he has said about the obligations under Section I0 of the I943 Act, which was somewhat obscure, and the compilation of the supplementary register, and in view of his other observations, I beg to ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 2, line 33, leave out "was" and insert "will have reached."
It may be for the convenience of the Committee to consider this Amendment and the other Amendments on the Paper which relate to the same point. I have a certain amount of optimism that the right hon. Gentleman will accept them, because, in lines 30 to 36, it is provided that, where a man makes a Service declaration between the end of June and the end of December, and where at the time he makes the Service declaration, he is 21 years or over, then the effect of the Bill is to treat him as 21 years of age and put him on the register. That is all very well, but may I put this point to the right hon. Gentleman? Suppose someone makes a declaration on 30th November and he is not 21 at that time, but he will be 21 before the end of December? As the Bill now stands, that individual will not be on the register because he will not be 21at the time he made his Service declaration, although he will be making his Service declaration within the time limit for making it under this Clause.
8.30 p.m.
What we seek to provide is that it does not matter whether he makes his Service declaration before he is 21 or waits until he is exactly 21 before making it, so long

2203
as it appears from that declaration that he will have reached 21 years or over by the end of the period—I ought not to have included the second Amendment, Major Milner; I ought to have mentioned only the one I am moving and the last one to line 33, because the second one was an alternative in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would accept the last Amendment. If he makes his declaration between the end of June and the end of December, it will not matter if he is 21 or over at the time he makes the declaration; he will get on the register if he has reached 21 or over by the end of December, 1945. I hope I have made the object of this Amendment quite clear to the right hon. Gentleman in those few words, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment, which is merely designed to ensure that those, for instance, who may be far overseas, say in Burma, who know that the last date on which they can make a Service declaration and get it back here is a date which will come before they are 21 although they will have reached 21 by the 31st December, who would now be struck off or not be on the supplementary register will in fact get upon it. I am sure it is the intention of both sides of this Committee that that should happen, and that in my view will be achieved if this Amendment is accepted.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): The hon. Gentleman is trying to take us really too far with this Amendment. The purpose of the supplementary register was to bring in those people who were inadvertently left out of the previous register. We hope they are going to come in now, but the hon. Gentleman asks us to give cover to the Serviceman who has become 21 between 30th June and 31st December. We confess straight away that some Servicemen who have become 21 between 30th June and 31st December will not come into this supplementary register, but I think it will be agreed on all sides that it would not be right to give a specific cover to the Serviceman who becomes 21 between June and December.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: Why not?
Mr. Fraser: There is no suggestion that a similar advantage should be given to the civilians. The Serviceman does not
2204
look for an advantage over civilians; he only asks to be given the same right as a civilian in this regard. But the hon. Gentleman has asked that the Serviceman should be given a very obvious and specific advantage—
Mr. Manningham-Buller: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am merely trying to put in order a facility which is given in this Bill. If the hon. Gentleman will refer to it, he will see that in this Bill the facilities are given to some of those who have become 21 in the Services between 30th June and the 31st December. All that I am trying to ensure by this Amendment is that there should not be a series of anomalies in the selection of those who can get in the register just depending upon the date when they make their declaration.
Mr. Fraser: I have just said that some Servicemen who attain 21 between June and December will come on under the provisions in this Bill, providing they are 21 at the date on which they make their application, but if they are not 21 at the date at which they make application, they will not come on, and we do not think that it would be right to make specific provision for their coming on if they were able to say on their declaration that they will attain the age of 21 before the 31st December. As I said, there is no suggestion that a similar advantage should be given to the civilian voter. Furthermore, even were the Amendment accepted, there would be no provision for the man who comes out of the Services into "civvy street," to use a colloquialism, before he reaches his twenty-first birthday, even though that should be between the date of his release and 31st December. There is no cover for that man and it would not be the intention of the Committee to give specific cover to the man who continues to serve without giving it to the man who may have to be discharged from the Services because he has met with some serious incapacity. I think it must be appreciated that there will be anomalies in so far as some men who attain their 21st birthday between June and December will come on, and I think that this Committee would not press for such a specific cover to be given to the Service voter.
Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I am indeed surprised at the line which the hon. Gentleman has taken. If he had said that there

2205
was some grave administrative difficulty—we know that this is not a very satisfactory Bill at all, that it is not what we would like it to be for many practical reasons—about accepting this Amendment, and that we were jeopardising the scheme in some way if we tried to insist on it, he would be making a case, but I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman saying that it is not right—because that was the word he used—that certain people who have attained the age of 21—
Mr. Fraser: I said "to make substantial cover."
Mr. Reid: I understood the hon. Gentleman to take a matter of principle—that it was not "right" to give to these people the right to vote for some reason or other. That I cannot understand. I should have thought the right line of approach here was this: We will give the vote to every man we can bring within the scheme without going into too great administrative complexities. Everybody ought, we agree, in theory, to have a vote, but we agree that in practice there are difficulties about bringing certain people in. Very well. As far as you establish the practical difficulty, you have to leave them out, regretfully but inevitably, but why we should leave out people when there is no administrative difficulty about bringing them in, I do not understand. I agree there have to be anomalies whatever happens, but surely, recognising that position, we ought to stretch a point as far as ever we can to bring in the maximum possible number. That is all this Amendment is asking, and I. really cannot understand why, on any other ground than administrative difficulty, the hon. Gentleman should be so sticky about it. I would ask him to think about it again.
Major Cecil Poole: I would appeal to the Minister to have a look at this Amendment again and see if, between now and a later stage of the Bill, he cannot do something to meet what is required. What is asked for is something which is very elementary and perfectly simple, and it will remove what may be very serious anomalies. For instance, if a soldier stationed in this country reaches the age of 21on 24th or 25th December, he can fill up his 2626 and be on the register, but the poor devil who is out in Burma, who may be 21
2206
in August, has to fill his up perhaps in June or July and does not get on the register. If I remember my Army Form B.2626 rightly—and I have not seen one since we had the awful hullabaloo to complete it in time for the last Election, and which was responsible for so many men being deprived of their vote—I do not think there is any space on the 2626 to declare his age—
Mr. Fraser Mr. Fraser: There is.
Mr. Ede: You were well over the age.
Major Poole: Yes, I know. Then my memory is at fault. Be that as it may, I do not think it justifies us in depriving a man serving overseas of a vote and giving it to the man who is fortunate enough to have a home posting because he can get his 2626 into his returning officer and the other man cannot. I hope, too, that the Minister will endeavour to form some assessment of the extent to which facilities have been made available between June and December for men to get on to the supplementary register because my information is that there are very few No. 2626 forms completed. Therefore, the supplementary register bids fair to be as big a farce as the Service register was at the General Election. We can make it less of a farce if we endeavour to include every man. This register is operative from February to October, 1946. This being so, a man may be 22 years of age and still not have a vote. We cannot justify such a situation. We arc giving nothing away. What we are saying is that a man, if he be 21 by 31st December this year, shall have a vote. It should not be beyond the wit of man, or the Minister, to devise means whereby that can be done.
Mr. Ede: I have listened to the argument put forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Lichfield (Major Cecil Poole) and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid), and I think it is a point on which the Committee would like the Government to meet them. I am prepared to put words into the Bill on the Report stage that will do that, but I am advised that the exact wording now proposed would make very awkward reading in the Clause. I hope, therefore, that on my giving this assurance the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment will be willing to withdraw it on the

2207
understanding that I will find words between now and Friday, when we have the Report stage, that will enable the desire of the Committee to be carried out.
I would point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Lichfield that among the declarations that Service men make is one in the following form:
"I hereby declare that I … am a British subject and am (am not) 21 years of age or over. (If under 2: years of age) was born on… … … … … … …
Therefore, a man who signs his form today, and whose birthday is on Christmas Day, could make a perfectly truthful declaration that he is not 21 years or over but was born on the 25th December, 1924, and would, therefore, be entitled, when the supplementary register is made, to be placed on it.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I would like to assure the right hon. Gentleman that we on this side of the House accept his assurance, and that my purpose in moving this Amendment has been met. In view of the assurance given and the way in which he has met the point, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lieut.-Colonel Byers: I beg to move, in page 2, line 40, leave out paragraph (a), and insert:
"(a) that between the end of June nineteen hundred and forty-five, and the end of December in that year, the said person ceases to reside in the constituency for which he or she is registered in a civilian residence register as a parliamentary elector or that said person ceased to be a member of the Forces or a seaman between the end of June, nineteen hundred and forty-five, and the end of December in that year."
The purpose of this Amendment is very simple. On the Second Reading of this Bill I put forward this same suggestion, but I would say, with respect, that it was given very little consideration by the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who dismissed it as impracticable. It was probably my own fault for not making the matter clear to him. I put forward two suggestions at the time, one an ideal which was discarded as impracticable in the circumstances, and the second that which is now on the Order Paper. Unfortunately, the Joint Under-Secretary for Scotland fastened on the ideal and discarded it. In this Bill there are two very great improvements—the provision of
2208
supplementary registers upon which those ceasing to be members of the Services or of the Mercantile Marine can be placed, as can, similarly, those serving in the Forces or war workers abroad. The purpose of this Amendment is to include on the supplementary register civilians who have moved from one area in England, Scotland or Wales to another. This Committee should not accept the excuse from the Government that this is administratively impossible, because the vote is a very precious thing and it is our duty as Members of this House to ensure that as many people as possible who are eligible to vote are included upon the register. This is one method of improving the situation. I am glad to see the Government have accepted the idea and put people who move from one area to another on the absent voters' list. That is an improvement, but it does not go far enough. Therefore, I put forward this suggestion which will enable civilians to be placed on exactly the same footing as members of the Forces and seamen.
8.45 p.m.
Within the last hour the Minister has said that civilians are worse off under this scheme than those in the Forces. The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that they shall not be worse off, and that they get the same benefits as the serving men and women and those who have been demobilised. In other words, they are included not upon the absent voters list with the questionable advantage of being able to vote in the constituency which they have left, but are included in the supplementary register of the constituency to which they have moved. There has been a tremendous amount of movement in this country since 30th June of this year, and it will continue. The only provision made, which I admit is better than hitherto, is to give those people the right to go on the absent voters' list. I suggest that the right answer is to accept, not necessarily the actual wording of this Amendment, but its intention. We have not the advantage of the Parliamentary draftsman. This Amendment endeavours to see that people who have moved during the war—many hundreds of thousands of them—are not debarred from voting in the constituencies in which they reside. This Committee cannot accept the excuse of administrative difficulties. To get on the absent voters' list a person must apply; what we are

2209
suggesting is that instead of applying to get on that list in the constituency in which a person lives, he should be able to get on the supplementary register in the constituency to which he has moved. This is not a matter of party politics; it is merely an honest and sincere attempt to see that more people are given the opportunity to use their votes in the constituencies in which they have a living and a vital interest at the moment. We could, without much difficulty, incorporate the intention of this Amendment in the Bill and see to it that a considerable number of people who would otherwise only have the privilege of absent voting by post, are given a real live vote in the constituency in which they are actually residing. Therefore, I would press the Minister to give serious and sympathetic consideration to this Amendment.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Oliver): The hon. and gallant Gentleman was quite right when he said that if his Amendment were accepted a large number of civilians would come upon the supplementary register. That would enormously widen the intention of that register which is primarily intended to cover persons not previously registered. The men who have been demobilised from the Services between June and December very rightly will come onto the supplementary register but that would hardly be appropriate for civilians who had merely left one constituency to go to another.
Lieut.-Colonel Byers: Why not?
Mr. Oliver: Because facilities have been provided in cases of that kind for the civilian to record his vote. The matter to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred with regard to postal voting was to overcome the difficulty where the civilian, moving from one part of the country to another, desired to exercise his vote, and provision in the Statute is made to enable him to do that.
Lieut.-Colonel Byers: I made that specific point in my speech, that postal voting arrangements are not nearly as good as they were suggested to be.
Mr. Oliver: That is a matter of opinion, because to come on to the supplementary register the person who was registered in the constituency would require, I think, to have removed before January, 1946,
2210
but that does not apply to postal voting. Therefore, he has a much greater extended power by the provisions of the Statute than he has under the proposals of this Amendment. One other difficulty in this Amendment is that there is no provision in it for removing the names from the register in the constituency in which they were first registered. Therefore, it is important if a large number of civilians should be placed on the supplementary register that there should be corresponding provision for the removal of names, which would be permitted to remain there unless machinery is provided for their removal.
Lieut.-Colonel Byers: That is in the consequential Amendment.
Mr. Oliver: For those reasons it would not be possible for the Government to fall in with the suggestion by accepting the Amendment.
Mr. Renton: I wonder if it is clear to the hon. Gentleman that there is a very grave disadvantage in not making provision as suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for North Dorset (Lieut.-Colonel Byers) for this reason: Whether we like it or not, both the intentions of the Government and the circumstances of the time will mean that a great many people will be disturbed from their normal place of residence. For example, the direction of labour is apparently going to continue, the existence of flying squads, the lack of housing in some areas which will cause people to move to others, and the question of the re-allocation of industry in the conversion from wartime to peacetime production—all these matters may cause people to be disfranchised unless some kind of provision is made in this Bill. It would appear that this Amendment covers these cases, and that the consequential Amendment would avoid the difficulty of people having possibly two votes. I would, therefore, seriously ask the hon. Gentleman to consider this matter again before taking a final decision.
Squadron-Leader Emrys Roberts:What we are asking for is not merely the greater exercise of the use of the vote. We want to achieve the result that a man can vote in a constituency in which his interest lies, and where he wants a voice in its representation. The absent voters' list does not achieve that a

2211
man can vote in the constituency where his interest lies. The soldier when he goes on to the civilian register can be registered in the area where he is going to live, but assume that his wife, as is so often the case, is living with his mother in another constituency and goes to live in the new address with her husband, the result is that the wife has a vote in her old constituency and the soldier a vote in the new constituency. I think the point is involved that people should have a vote in the area where they have an interest, and I, therefore, ask the Minister if he will reconsider the matter.
Amendment negatived.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 2, line 40, after "of," insert "or was released from."
I think that it would be convenient to take together the Amendments:
In page 2, line 41, after "or," insert "ceased to be,"
In page 2, line 44, after "ceasing," insert "or being so released," and
In page 2, line 47, after "ceasing," insert "or being so released."
May I ask the hon. Gentleman to deal quite shortly with this point which emerges from the Bill in its present form? What is the position of those who are released under Class B, or on indefinite release, or on compassionate release with regard to the supplementary register? Are they to be deemed to be entitled to be put on the Service register? It may be difficult for them to be informed of their rights of making a declaration before the end of the year if they are members of the Forces. The difficulty with regard to the Clause is that people released under Class B are still, in one sense, members of the Forces, because if they do not take the work to which they are directed they are recalled to the Colours. I am sure it was not the right hon. Gentleman's intention to leave those released under Class B or released under any other conditions in a state of suspense, not knowing whether they came under Subsection (3) or Subsection (2), and it was with the intention of clarifying their position that we put down these Amendments. It would then be clear that those released under Class B would have to go on to
2212
the civilian side of this supplementary register.
Mr. Ede: I am pleased to be able to give the hon. Member the assurances for which he asks. The people to whom he alluded, persons discharged under Class B or persons indefinitely released from the Forces, get an identity card under the National Registration Regulations, and where they get this card between 30th June and 31st December their names will be passed on to the electoral registrar for inclusion in the supplementary register, so that all those for whom he spoke will, in fact, get on to the supplementary register under the Clause as it is drafted.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am glad to have received that assurance, but in view of it I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider between now and Report stage, whether it is apt to have the words ''cease to be a member of the Forces" when, in fact, anyone released under Class B or on indefinite release does not cease to be a member of the Forces. Would it not be better to put in "or was released" as a matter of drafting? The right hon. Gentleman may not want to give an opinion now, but in view of his assurance I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 3, line I, leave out from "shall" to "secure" in line 2.
Under Subsection (4) of this Clause the registration officer has not the positive duty of securing that there is no duplication of entries in this supplementary register to the Service register and supplementary register to the civilian register. It is only provided that he shall, "so far as is reasonably practicable," secure that there is no duplication. Those words would appear to provide adequate cover for a multitude of errors and omissions on his part, and I can see no reason why they should be included when it is a question of securing that there is no duplication of entry in the supplementary register. It will not be a difficult thing for the registration officer for a constituency to look down his entries for his supplementary register and see that a person is not entered twice over. Therefore, with regard to that register, the words "so far as is reasonably practicable" are unnecessary.

2213
Similarly, it must be a comparatively simple matter in a constituency to compare the Service register, which is in force now, with the Service part of the supplementary register, which will come into force in February of next year. We are comparing two lists of Servicemen and I should have thought that there again there was no reason why the registration officer should be given this protection for errors in a Statute. I agree that comparing entries on the supplementary register with entries on the civilian register is likely to cause considerable difficulty and may lead—one hopes it does not—to a number of errors of duplication. Therefore, in these Amendments on the Order Paper we have sought to provide that the registration officer should be under the positive duty of seeing there is no duplication between the Service register and the Service part of the supplementary register, and no duplication of entries in the supplementary register and, as far as is reasonably, practicable, that there is no duplication between the civilian register and the supplementary register. If the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment, he would make a considerable improvement in the terms of the Bill.
Mr. Ede: I do not know what is to happen to a registration officer if these words are left out and then accidentally, through circumstances over which he has no real control—a duplicate entry actually occurs in the register.
Mr. Manningham - Buller: Nothing would happen.
Mr. Ede:There are no sanctions and I do not know that anyone could take action against him. If he malevolently left a person's name off the register that person, if he could prove malevolence, might have some action against him. I do not think that the putting of the name of a person on the register twice would involve any sanctions at all, either civil or criminal. It is impossible to lay down a definite requirement that there should be no duplication. A man may have been registered while in the Forces for a particular address. He returns to the same borough or constituency, but on discharge from the Forces he proceeds to another address and that is the one he gives to the national registration officer, who then sends his name and that address to the electoral registration officer, who enters
2214
it on the supplementary register. It might be that the name goes on to a section of the register distinct from the one in which he has previously been registered.
Take what may be a very common case, that of a soldier who is registered, having given his own parents' address as the address in respect of which he wishes to be registered. He has been married, and as happens in so many cases at the moment, his wife is still living with her parents, and he decides that for the time being, immediately on discharge, he will go and live with her at her parents' house. Although it may be only a very short distance away, it may be very difficult, especially if the man has a name which is fairly common, for the registration officer to spot that the John Smith whose name is sent to him for this new address is the same John Smith who was registered for another address while in the Services. It would be rather foolish of a registration officer to strike the name off the first address because he had got a duplicate name on some other part of the register.
Practical reasons like that make it impossible to make this duty mandatory and absolute on the returning officer. When this Bill becomes law we shall issue a circular to registration officers, asking them to exercise all the ingenuity they can in an attempt to prevent duplication, because nobody wants a swollen register. I hope that they will be successful in keeping duplication down to a minimum, but I would not like to put on them an obligation which might in certain places lead to a person being inadvertently struck off because he happens to have the same name as someone who had made a claim to go on the supplementary register.
Mr. Peake: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and in view of the fact that this supplementary register will only be in force for elections between 1st March next year and the ensuing 15th October, we shall not object if, as a result of this Subsection, some Servicemen, many of whom were deprived of a vote at the last Election, get two votes at a by-election.
Mr. Ede:In protection of the ex-Servicemen I would say that while their name may be twice on the register, there will be serious trouble for them if they

2215
seek to exercise both in an election, though I doubt if many of them would be tempted to do so.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: In view of what has been said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Extension of facilities for voting as a civilian absent voter.)
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 5, line 2, leave out "area," and insert "polling district."
This Amendment, which appears to be a very simple one, raises a point of considerable importance. Under Clause 6 as it now stands any one who satisfies the registration officer that he no longer resides at the address in respect of which he is so registered, or at any other address within the same area, is entitled to have his name placed upon the absent voters' list. When one wishes to see what is meant by the words "within the same area" one must turn to Clause 20 of the Bill where one see that:
"…two addresses shall be deemed to be within the same area if they satisfy one of the following conditions that …
"they are both within the combined area of two contiguous metropolitan boroughs;
'' they are both within the area of the same county borough;
"they are both within the area of the same non-county borough;
they are both within the area of the same urban district; or
'' they are both within the area of the same rural parish."
It seems to me that that interpretation of the word "area" is bound to lead to a whole series of anomalies. A man may have just moved from one rural parish to another, and be living 50 yards away from his previous address. If he applies he will be entitled to vote by post.
9.15 p.m.
But a man who is living in Birmingham who will move from one end of Birmingham to the other may not acquire the facilities of postal voting. I would suggest that, instead of making this very complicated definition of area, the right place to draw the line in considering who
2216
should get the facilities of voting by post and of being put on the absent voters' list, and the right area to define is the polling district. If a man in a country constituency, when living in one polling district, moves his home to another polling district, it may be in the same constituency, and he may be many miles away from the place where he should exercise his right of voting. Therefore, I think that that gentleman should have the right of being put on the absent voters' list. The same would apply wherever you like to take the "situation, and surely the polling district is the right area, and no other. If a man moves out of the polling district in which he is registered, what is the argument against that man not being put on the absent voters' list, no matter whether he has moved from one contiguous borough to another one, or from one end of the borough to the far end of another which is contiguous? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider or state if he is in a position to do so, what valid arguments there are against the adoption of the polling district as the area instead of the definition. he has given in Clause 20.
Mr. Ede: I was rather surprised that the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), in dealing with this matter, dealt in the way he did with the question of rural voters, because I think the definition in the Bill of a rural parish is likely to be more advantageous to some rural voters than the words "polling district" because in my knowledge there are some constituencies in the country where more than one rural parish is included in a polling district and, quite frankly, I think this is a concession which is more necessary in rural areas than for movements inside boroughs where, as a rule, means of public transport are reasonably good and I should not be prepared, in any event, as far as rural voters arc concerned, to use the definition of "polling district" instead of "rural parish."
When it comes to the other areas, if I there accepted "polling district," one might be involved in having to register really a very large number of quite frivolous claims for a postal vote. In boroughs, as a rule, the ward, or a part of the ward, is the polling district. There are 14 wards in the borough of South Shields, which I represent, and the total acreage is under 3,000 acres. Some of the wards are very small indeed, and as

2217
the migration is as great as it is at the moment, I am sure we should be involved in a considerable amount of registration for postal voting if the "polling district" was taken as the appropriate phrase. I cannot think that, because a person moves from an area of 100 acres into another area of 100 acres adjoining it, it gives him a right to claim a postal vote, and that the returning officers should be put to all the difficulties which arise when a postal vote is registered.
It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) stated, that the words are not part of the Act, but it will be noted that Clause 6 has above it the heading in italics, "Temporary Provisions as to Voting by Post and by Proxy." This question of the appropriate area for the exercise of postal voting will be one of the matters which will be considered by the Committee on Electoral Registration of my hon. Friend. I hope that they will make some recommendations that will enable this question to be very closely examined by people—agents and others—who are on the Committee and who have considerable knowledge of these matters. I would therefore hope that we might be allowed to use the present definition, which is undoubtedly more helpful to rural voters in the most scattered parts of the country, than the definition given by the hon. Gentleman, and when we produce our permanent legislation we may hope that we shall have had the benefit of this expert advice and be able to put before the House something which will be generally acceptable.
Mr. E. P. Smith: In regard to Clause 20 defining the areas concerned, what is meant by "parish" in paragraph (e)? What do the words "rural parish" really mean? Is it an ecclesiastical parish or a parish council?
The Chairman (Major Milner): The hon. Member cannot go into that definition now.
Mr. Ede: I will deal with it when I come to it.
Mr. E. P. Smith: With great respect, Clause 20 has been brought up in relation to this Amendment, and I submit that we are entitled to know what is meant by the phrase.
The Chairman: I understood that the hon. Gentleman asked for an explanation of something on Clause 20. It is not in Order to do so on a discussion of Clause 6.
Mr. Ede: We shall get to it in due course.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: In view of what has been said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Major Sir Basil Neven-Spence: I beg to move, in line 5, at end, insert:
"(2) If any person, registered in a. civilian residence register as a parliamentary elector for any constituency, satisfies the registration officer on an application made within the period and in the manner prescribed by electoral registration regulations that he will probably be unable, without making a journey by sea or air, to proceed from the address in respect of which he is registered in that register to a polling place in order to vote in person at any parliamentary election for which that register will be used, the registration officer shall enter the name of that person in the absent voters list for the purposes of every parliamentary election for which that register is used."
This Amendment is to enable people who would otherwise have to cross the sea to record their votes, to get over that difficulty. In this Bill we are enabling people who are physically incapacitated or blind to exercise their votes, and I think an equally strong case can be made for enabling people who are, as I might put it, geographically incapacitated. The situation is that in some of the island constituencies there are polling districts with more than one island in them, and the result has been that many of the electors in these areas, although theoretically enfranchised, have never in fact been able to record their votes because of the difficulty of getting to the polling place. It might be thought that this difficulty could be overcome by setting up more polling places, but I think we have gone as far along that road as is practicable. Sooner or later we will get a situation in which there is only a comparatively small number of people, and it is now becoming difficult in some of these rural areas to find people who are suitably qualified to preside at a polling booth. It is also difficult to get people to undertake a journey across, in one case 16 miles, and in another case 25 miles, with the possibility of not being able to get back for several days, and in some cases even for

2219
several weeks. The only practical way of getting over the difficulty is to allow those people to have their names on the absent voters' list, and to let them vote by post or by proxy.
Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I must confess to a great deal of sympathy for the Amendment. This is not altogether a new problem, but could have been solved years ago by hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were on this side of the House. They were then on the winning side and they were not interested very much in voters unless they favoured themselves. I am very glad, as a fellow Islander Member, to support a number of the suggestions made by the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment. We must have regard to the less selfish implications of the Amendment, but the fact of the matter is simply stated; the hon. and gallant Member opposite and his Friends have for many years themselves disfranchised these people by neglecting to provide proper roads and means of communication. I suggest that they should now go all out to remedy these defects in our transport system and they should support us, who are endeavouring to help our electors to make more effective their theoretical franchise.
We have a genuine case, and the hon. and gallant Member has as genuine a case as anyone, and I welcome the Amendment. I have as many voters in my constituency as he has in his, who are disfranchised for geographical reasons. Many of the places where they live are cut off by miles of sea, by heavy seas and narrow sounds and it is sometimes almost impossible for them to cast their votes. There are not only isles but peninsulas from which electors have to go by sea, and they are just as cut off because they have no roads and they do not always manage to get away because of the bad weather by sea. It is suggested that they should be allowed to vote by post and the suggestion should certainly be considered favourably by my right hon. Friend.
There is one point on which I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Member, and that is when he says that we have gone far enough in the matter of supplying polling stations. I do not think that we have gone nearly far enough. There
2220
are places miles apart, with schools between them which could serve the purpose of polling stations, but the schools are neglected for this use and people have to go many miles from their homes to the polling stations and back. Polling facilities should be made as equitable as possible. I do not think that a person in the Shetlands, the Orkneys or the Western Isles should have to go to additional expense, discomfort and risk in exercising his right and his duty to register his vote. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider this matter very sympathetically, and if he feels he cannot accept it, and at the same time save face with the other side of the House, may I remind him that there are many of us on this side who are anxious that he should accept it and possibly save our faces at the same time as his own?
9.30 p.m.
Major McCallum: I support my hon. and gallant Friend in this Amendment. May I call attention to the fact that the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) invariably opens his remarks with some reference to previous Tory Governments? May I point out to him that the Highlands and Islands of Scotland were almost the sole areas in Britain that returned only Conservative or Liberal National Members, and that that was true in all cases except that of the hon. Member himself? They showed their good sense. I would like to include under this Amendment not only island constituencies but certain places on the mainland of Scotland where people have difficulty in getting to the poll and can only do so by making long journeys by water. I know of a place where there are, I think, 11 or 12 voters who never go to the polls because they have to travel 10 or 15 miles by water. They are thereby to all intents and purposes disfranchised. I therefore submit that not only the people on the islands, but also those on the mainland who are geographically disabled, should be incorporated in the supplementary register. There are several areas in the Highlands of Scotland where the same thing applies.
In the constituency which I represent there was an island from which the voters had to make a very rough sea journey of 14 miles to vote, and my predecessor, at the time of the much-maligned Tory majority, was able to get a polling station

2221
placed there. In the smaller islands I am referring to it would be impracticable to set up polling stations, and in view of the difficult journeys the electors have to take, and the bad weather in which they might have to take them, they ought to be allowed to be put on the supplementary register.
Mr. Fraser: When I saw this Amendment on the Order Paper, I first made inquiry as to whether additional polling stations could be set up. I was advised that it was not practicable to set up polling stations in all these scattered islands, and that to do so would involve too great a risk, because on many occasions it might be impossible, because of the stress of weather, to collect the ballot boxes on polling day. I, therefore, inquired whether I could possibly accept this Amendment, and in view of the speeches to which we have just listened, and of the fact that there is a considerable consensus of opinion in favour of extending postal voting to the people of these islands, I think I should give way. I would, however, indicate to the Committee that we could not guarantee that in every case it would be possible to get the ballot paper delivered, again because of the weather conditions that sometimes prevail. I think however that many more people would be able to vote if we accepted the Amendment than would otherwise be the case, and I have therefore pleasure in accepting it.
Mr. C. Williams:I rise to thank the Government for accepting the Amendment. We have heard the Scottish case but not the English case, because the hon. Member who would have put that case is ill. I am not going to make a long political speech, as did the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. Macmillan). I just want to say that I appreciate the effect of this change, which will enable the people of the Scilly Isles, who are the most hard working and industrious of the Islanders throughout Great Britain, to vote and to go on returning to Parliament good supporters of the Liberal Nationalists or of the Tory Party.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 5, line II, after "physically," insert "either by blindness or otherwise."
2222
I think it would be convenient to deal also with the two Amendments in my name, in page 5, line 15, and page 5, line 17. These Amendments are largely of a drafting nature and are necessary in order that Subsection (2) may clearly specify the category of persons who are eligible for a postal vote by reason of physical incapacity. It will be found that the words I propose to insert bring in rather than exclude people. They define the matter rather more closely. I hope the Committee will be prepared to accept these Amendments as another instance of our effort to bring within the facilities for voting people who, through no fault of their own, but through serious physical disability, would be otherwise deprived of the franchise.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 5, line 12, leave out "parliamentary."
As the other five Amendments in my name on this Clause cover the same point, I think it would be convenient to deal with them together. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has been in a conciliatory mood this evening, and as a result our business is proceeding most expeditiously. These Amendments raise a point which even those few hon. Members who have not followed closely the intricacies of the various Acts of Parliament and the Amendments on the Order Paper will be able to understand. Subsection (2) of this Clause provides for additional facilities for the physically incapacitated and the blind to cast their votes at a Parliamentary election. It does not seem unreasonable that similar facilities for the bedridden and the blind might be extended to local government elections. Why on earth this Amendment could or should be resisted, I cannot imagine. It would be quite illogical to give a bedridden or blind person postal voting facilities to enable him to cast his vote for a Member of Parliament, but to deny him those facilities in the case of the election of a local councillor.
Mr. Ede:I have every sympathy with this Amendment, and therefore, I very much regret that I cannot accept it because there is no machinery provided in the Bill by which postal voting at municipal elections could be operated. With regard to postal voting at Parliamentary elections, specific duties are placed upon

2223
returning officers and other people to ensure that the voting papers are sent out, that when they are returned they are treated in a certain way, and that they are then incorporated in the total votes to be counted, and become part of the voice of the electorate. The right hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, appreciate that there is no similar machinery for dealing with municipal elections. This part of the Bill is a temporary part, and this is one of the matters that I am going to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to bring before his Committee, with a view to getting the appropriate recommendations made so that we can place a duty on returning officers in municipal elections to allow people who are incapacitated in this way to perform the duty of citizenship by recording their votes.
I think there is even more cause for allowing people in this position to record their votes than there is in the case of people who have left a constituency and moved to another. Such people have probably lost interest in the place from which they have gone, whereas these bedridden and blind people are often almost bound to remain in the place where they are, even against their wishes. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that it is an entirely practical objection that I am taking to this Amendment, and that it is my hope and my intention that the permanent Measure shall include provisions whereby incapacitated people shall be able to vote at municipal elections. I hope that, when we get the permanent Measure in front of us, I shall have the right hon. Gentleman's support in carrying it through.
Mr. Peake:In view of the sympathetic response which the right hon. Gentleman has made, and the very real, practical difficulties, which I appreciate, of constructing machinery for a temporary period in relation to the casting of votes in this way at a local government election, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made:
In page 5, line 15, leave out from the first "that," to "he," in line 16, and insert:
"he is so incapacitated physically, either by blindness or otherwise, that."
In page 5, line 17, leave out from "by," to the first "the," in line 18.—[Mr. Ede.]
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 7.—(Extension of right of service voter's proxy to vote by post.)
Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 6, line 28, after "register," insert:
"or, as the case may be, on the supplementary register.''
This Amendment is necessary to make clear that the right of voting by post under the Clause is conferred, not only upon the proxies of Service voters who are registered in the Service register, published as part of the annual register, but also upon the proxies of Service voters registered in the supplementary register prepared under Clause 3. I am sure that the Committee will feel that these words should be inserted.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
CLAUSE 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 9.—(Temporary provisions as to jurors books.)
Mr. Ede:I beg to move, in page 8, line I, to leave out, "books," and insert "book."
This drafting Amendment is necessary because there can be only one jurors' book in the City of London in any one year, and to allude to this book in the plural would be a mistake.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10 to 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 15.—(Application and adaptation of enactments.)
9.45 p.m.
Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 11, line 40, leave out "the preparation and publication of."
These words are unnecessary and might lead to considerable confusion if they were retained.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Burden: I hope the Home Secretary will forgive me for raising at this late hour a question which is of considerable importance to local government officers. In the Representation of the People Act of 1945, to which reference is made in this Clause, there is provision under Section 34 for compensation to local government officers in the event of loss of superannuation rights. I ask the Home Secretary, is there similar provision in this Clause and, if not, will he look at that matter between now and the Report Stage. I am sure he would desire that that should be construed as part of this Bill also.
Mr. Ede: I regret that on a point of such detail as that, I cannot give an answer without notice, but I will look into the point between now and the Report Stage and see if it is necessary to take any action.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE I7.—(Financial provisions.)
Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 12, line 45, leave out "duties," and insert "functions."
I notice that several hon. and learned Gentlemen are laughing. I suppose they feel that I have spotted one of those points out of which considerable legal fortunes have been made in the past. This is a drafting Amendment necessary in order to keep the language of the Subsection uniform. Having regard to the use of the word ''functions'' in line 6 of Subsection (2), by putting the same word in both places we ensure that there shall be no doubt about the meaning.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 18.—(Approval of regulations by Parliament.)
Mr. Ede: I beg to move in page 13, line 6, leave out "should," and insert "shall."
This is something more than a point of grammar but it is largely a drafting change, and it is required because it is, of course, intended that the laying of
2226
jurors book regulations before Parliament shall be mandatory. I was once sitting on the bench when a lady took the oath in this form: "The evidence I shall give should be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." I do not desire to place myself in the same convenient position in which the witness was endeavouring to place herself.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Peake: The last Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman has drawn my eye to the offending words "as soon as may be" in line 7. Already on one occasion this evening the right hon. Gentleman has surmounted those words by substituting the word "immediately." I wonder whether between now and the Report Stage he would consider making his Bill thoroughly consistent by making the same substitution in this Clause?
Mr. Ede: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was in the Committee when the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) moved the previous Amendment on this point. I explained then that while this Government was in office I should regard "as soon as may be" and "immediately" as synonymous. I realise that it is desirable, even here, to be consistent, and I will therefore consider whether I should move "as soon as may be" back into the Bill in the earlier place or put "immediately" in here.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 19.—(Saving for university elections.)
Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 13, line 23, after "proxy," insert:
"except those provisions which relate to the application of Part IV of the Act of 1945"
This Amendment is necessary because the Clause as it now stands excludes university constituencies from all the registration and voting provisions of the Bill. This exclusion is too wide since the provisions for extending the postal voting in a General Election shall contain Part IV of the Representation of the People Act, 1945—and are continued by Clause 8—and are effective in respect of

2227
university elections. Accordingly, the Amendment exempts those provisions from that portion of the Clause.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20.—(Addresses within the same area.)
Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 13, line 38, after "London," insert:
"or of any metropolitan borough contiguous thereto."
This is a drafting Amendment which is necessary in order to make quite clear that two addresses, one in the City and the other in a contiguous metropolitan borough, respectively, would rank as being in the combined area of two contiguous metropolitan boroughs.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. E. P. Smith: I rise to repeat a question which I put earlier and which the right hon. Gentleman said he would answer when we reached Clause 20. I should be grateful if he would tell us the legal definition of the words "rural parish" used in paragraph (e) in this connection.
Mr. Ede: I cannot answer for Scotland in this matter because their local government is so different from ours. But this Parliament does occasionally deal with Scottish matters, and I would not like some Scottish Members to intervene to say that my definition was inadequate as applying to that country. If there is any Scottish point, I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State will deal with it. A rural parish in England and Wales is an area covered either by a parish council or a parish meeting. It is a civil parish and not an ecclesiastical one. I think the definition is given in the Local Government Act, 1933. It is any area that has a parish council or, if its population is not sufficient to have a parish council, has a parish meeting. Such an area is regarded as a parish for the purposes of this Bill.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 21.—(Inerpreation)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Sir William Darling: I would ask for enlightenment on the following interpretation in this Clause:
"war worker's declaration 'means a declaration which is a war worker's declaration."
There is reference to it also in Clause 3 (2). It seems to me that we are getting away from the war and although a war worker's declaration may be valuable enough during war time, is it likely to be of any value in this Bill?
Mr. Ede: War workers are people who were displaced in order to perform certain work during the war. That is as clear a definition as any, I think, ever found in an Act of Parliament. The Act under which they were allowed to claim to be registered remains in existence, and we desire that these people should still be allowed to exercise the franchise, although they cannot do so under the ordinary law of the land. I think it would be very wrong to deprive these people of the franchise, merely because the definition —happily—now begins to sound a little ridiculous. I hope that when we have the permanent legislation, it will be possible to make some arrangement whereby people who are working abroad and in similar circumstances may be admitted to the franchise, if they can be associated with a residential qualification in this country.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 22.—(Application to Scotland.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. J. S. C. Reid: If an earlier Amendment had been accepted the Amendment which my hon. Friend and I have on the Paper to leave out Subsection (3) of this Clause would have been consequential and in Order, but as it is it does give notice to the right hon. Gentleman of the point which we wish to raise. Clause 22 (3) takes out, with regard to Scotland, all references to the rural parishes and so on, and inserts a reference instead to an electoral division of a county. I rather think that an electoral division is a constituency. I do not think it is a polling

2229
district. If I am wrong, perhaps I shall be corrected. If it is a constituency, then this is quite out of line with the policy expressed by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to England. It is far too big a division. Quite obviously one constituency stretching from Inverness burgh to the other end of the Isle of Skye—
Mr. Thomas Fraser: Local government constituency.
Mr. Reid: That means within a Parliamentary constituency of a county. I am not sure what happens to those who are in the remoter rural districts. It is all right in the more closely populated districts, but I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can tell us what the position will be in a rural parish when we come to deal with the more scattered populations of the North and West.
10.0 p.m.
Mr. Fraser: The county council electoral division is, invariably, a lesser area than the parish in the most sparsely populated parts of Scotland, and I think hon. Members who live in those sparsely populated parts will agree that the area within which the provision of the postal vote would not apply, is a lesser area than the actual parish.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 23, 24 and 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
First Schedule agreed to.

Second Schedule (Modification of Section Twenty-three of Act of 1918.)
Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page I6, line 37, after "register," insert "or supplementary register."
I think it would be as well if at the same time, we considered a similar Amendment in line 10, on page 17. These Amendments are required because the facilities for voting by proxy conferred by Clause 6 are conferred not only on persons registered in the civilian residents' register, but also on persons registered as civilian voters in the supplementary register.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 17, line 10, after "register," insert "or supplementary register."—[Mr. Ede.]
Schedule, as amended, agreed to. Third and Fourth Schedules agreed to.
Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 45.]

INSHORE FISHING INDUSTRY BILL
Order read for consideration of Lords Amendment.
Ordered:
"That the Lords Amendment be now considered."—[Mr. Collick.]

CLAUSE 2.—(Power to extend period for making grants and loans.)
Lords Amendment:
In page 2, line 30, leave out "forty," and insert "four."
10.4 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. Collick): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The House will be familiar with the procedure which is followed when a Bill gives a Minister the power to make an Order. Under that procedure the Order is laid before Parliament, and if Parliament so decides within a period of forty days that Order can be annulled. There is a standard provision which is adopted in all Bills of this kind which reads as follows:
"And in reckoning the said period of forty-days no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days."
Unfortunately and regrettably, instead of the word "four" days being in the Bill, through some clerical or printer's error, the word "forty" appeared. The Amendment merely seeks to put in the correct word, which is "four," instead of "forty," which is printed in the Bill.

SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS
Resolved:
"That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home- Department, extending Section I of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the County Borough of Stockport, a copy of which Order was presented on 27th November, be approved.—[Mr. Oliver.]

GOVERNMENT SURPLUS STORES (DISPOSAL)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Mathers.]
10.7 p.m.
Mr. Sidney Shephard: Since I gave notice that I would raise the matter of the disposal of Government surplus stores the Government have done their best to take any sting out of the subject, which I might have been able to impart into this Debate. I had intended specifically to refer to the stocks held by local authorities on behalf of the Ministry of Health and to deal with them in some detail, but the Minister of Health forestalled me last week by issuing an order to all local authorities to get rid of those goods to the public as soon as possible. This new arrangement will give great satisfaction not only to the local authorities, who were getting very worried in view of deterioration, but also to the general public, who, as we all know full well, badly want blankets, mattresses, pillow-cases and the hundred and one household articles that are in those rest centres, A.R.P. dumps and stores all over the country. In some areas the situation was assuming the nature of a public scandal. In Warwickshire a member of the county council is reported to have said,' of the stocks belonging to the Ministry of Health, that rats were in the mattresses and moths in the blankets. I have not the slightest doubt that many of these goods all over the country have deteriorated considerably during the last few years. Now that the Minister of Health has ceased his procrastination, I hope that these local authorities will lose no time in getting these goods into the hands of the public.
But that is only one small part of this problem. I want to deal now with the vast stocks of surplus war stores, quite apart from the Ministry of Health stocks, which are lying in dumps, as we know in every part of this country. I have had many letters of complaint, not only of the inability of would-be purchasers to obtain these goods, but also of the wanton destruction which is taking place. I would like to quote three small extracts. These are all very reputable firms and I have no reason at all to doubt the accuracy of their statements. The first one says:
2232
"Last week we saw a lorry from the Depot at Castle Ashby, No. L.4563111, which had a front mudguard slightly dented, otherwise we were told that the vehicle was in perfect condition. That was a Bedford Lorry of the type we use in our business, but we were told that because of the dented mudguard, the lorry had to be scrapped. We are informed that many lorries in really good condition are being scrapped, and we fail to see why this most unnecessary wastage of good material should be allowed to occur."
The second one is from a firm of engineers. It states:
"I visited the Bristol Aircraft Factory at Clayton-le-Moors, near Accrington, to buy machine tools. The whole of the machine equipment has been removed for destruction. I picked several machines out for purchase, instructed my broker to secure them, I have paid three visits this month, they are still there, still un priced and still no finality. In the stores I could see them opening paper packets of precision tools, including Carbide Tips, which cost £32 per pound. They shed the lot into a truck which I followed to the heat treating department, where heat was wasted to destroy them. The trade want these tools, to buy new both price and delivery are still prohibitive."
The third is from a firm of building contractors:
"For six months I have been trying to obtain Winget mortar mixer, and a four ton lorry and a Priestman cub digger valued at about £1,000. From time to time I have approached the Air Ministry, the Ministry of Supply and other Ministries, only with the result of being advised to apply to T. C. Jones of Shepherds Bush who are their agents for disposal. These people can only supply me with new appliances under a Government permit, and deliver in six months' time. In fact, it is impossible to obtain anything lying about at these dumps which we have inspected, such as at Hatfield where there is at least a million pounds worth of goods."
These extracts give some indication of the frustration which is felt by people who really want these goods, and who are prepared to buy them. In the plans for the disposal of Government surplus stores, which was issued as a White Paper in 1944, these goods were divided into three categories. The class to which I am making reference is Class C, which is described as manufacturing stores suitable for or convertible to civilian use. Of course, it includes a great variety of articles, as the White Paper says, from road rollers to great coats and from trucks to typewriters. Speaking in the previous year the then President of the Board of Trade said that there must be an orderly disposal of these goods, that there must be no profiteering on the one hand, and that due regard must be paid to the interests

2233
of manufacturers and distributors. No one would quarrel with those two stipulations. Many of us here can remember what happened after the last war, when there was a lot of profiteering, and when the market was also flooded. The White Paper goes on to say that the general principles to be followed in the disposal of these goods are that they are to be released fast enough to get into the hands of the consumers when they are required, and to avoid adverse effects on production through flooding the market. We all know that if the whole of these goods were put on the market today there could be no adverse effects on production, because there is no production of them. As to the point that they are to be released fast enough to get them into the hands of the consumer when they are required, that, to me, is simply farcical. They have been required for some time past.
Three weeks ago I put down a Question to the President of the Board of Trade to ask him the value of sales of Government surplus stores. I was fobbed off with a most ambiguous answer. It completely evaded the question. All I was told was I hat the value of surplus stores was in excess of £20 million. I was not told the value of the surplus stores that had been sold. It is more than two years ago now since the Surplus Textile Corporation was set up, in conjunction with the Board of Trade. to deal with and sell certain categories of surplus goods. The members of that organisation were led to believe that soon after the war they would be dealing with millions of pounds worth of goods. What really has happened, is that up to a very recent date, all they have dealt with was 34,000 reject khaki jerseys, a few red stockings, and half a million industrial overalls. I understand that other corporations have been set up to deal with surplus goods. I do not know what they are, and it would be interesting to know how much they have dealt with up to date. But—I imagine as a result of recent publicity and there has been a lot of publicity over this matter recently—it was announced that the Board of Trade were releasing 239,000 white hospital blankets and they were going to be sold to the Surplus Textiles Corporation. An official of that body next day said they knew nothing about it until they saw it in the evening paper. He went on to say:
"This is typical of the muddled and dilatory way in which the release of millions of
2234
pounds worth of goods is being handled. No private organisation, however big, would dare to leave such a wealth of consumer goods for which there is such an urgent demand, lying about unused and deteriorating."
Last year the Board of Trade said they had several new plans, and in the Press today new plans were announced. Frankly, I could not see any difference between the new plans and the old plans. Presumably, they are going to be disposed of through the same sources, but I did see that they intend to set up an official disposal commission and the Government's spokesman told the Press conference what I was very surprised to learn, that he wanted to remove an erroneous opinion that Government Departments were holding back vast quantities. I am sure we are of sufficient intelligence to know that these goods are being held back. We all know of cases in our own constituencies where there are dumps of goods, some of them deteriorating month by month and no effort is made to move them, or even to sell them.
I would like to know from the Minister whether in fact there is any departure from the principle of the White Paper with regard to the selling of these goods in the future. I know that under the White Paper the Ministry of Supply were responsible for the sorting, catalogueing, and assembling and for making the contracts of sale and I know that the Board of Trade were responsible for fixing the prices, and deciding on the rate of sale. I would like to know whether there has been any change there and also the value of sales in this country up to a recent date, and what positive steps are being taken to speed up release. The public are rightly disturbed. They look upon the handling of this matter as inept and lackadaisical; they are horrified to hear of the waste of goods, that are rotting away, and that public money is being treated as if it were of no consequence. In my opinion this is only one more instance of the present Government's complete inability to tackle the problems which face this country.
10.20 p.m.
Mr. Evelyn Walkden: I have listened with great enjoyment to the hon. Gentleman who has raised this question, but I wonder what he meant by constantly referring all the way through his rambling speech to "goods." He has mentioned about three items. I could mention 103 if there were time in

2235
this brief Debate. For him to keep on referring to "goods," without defining what it is he wants to get on to the market, is hardly helpful to the House or to the nation. We know that there are dumps such as those to which he has referred. What we are anxious about arises from the announcement made by the Ministry of Health, which is not a Board of Trade Department at all, that blankets and commodities out of stores to which he has referred, are coming on the market in the next day or two. We hope that they will not go to men's sisters, cousins, aunts and other relatives, but that they will be legitimately distributed through commercial undertakings and stores. If the hon. Gentleman had told us what specific goods he had in mind, it would have been more helpful. I hope he will have another opportunity later on, because I am sure that he is hardly helping the Minister to give us the kind of information for which we are waiting.
10.22 p.m.
Sir William Darling: I feel that this is the kind of Debate which we are going to have increasingly in the future. His Majesty's Government, rightly or wrongly, have pledged themselves to the collectivisation of our industry, and we are now embarking on a series of difficulties and problems with which countless thousands of business men have been familiar every day of their lives. The Government have produced, very successfully, masses of commodities of all sorts and descriptions necessary for the war effort, and they are unable, apparently, to deal with the disposal of the commodities which are now surplus. The reason is that they are rather afraid of what they think was the mismanagement of this problem at the end of the last war. I am not among those who agree that there was mismanagement. The late Lord Melchett was at the head of the Commission, and in 18 months he disposed of the commodities which were surplus at the end of the last war. Many people made a lot of money out of them; that was no crime. Many people got a great deal of advantage out of them; that was a great public service. If I had to choose between the present attitude of doleful dumps, which is the present Government's attitude towards them, and the helter-skelter distribution which took
2236
place at the end of the last war, I know where I and the public would prefer to put our support.
The hon. Member for Newark (Mr. S. Shephard) was asked what he specifically-had in mind. I venture to say that the public of this country are hungry for almost any commodity. The shops, warehouses and factories are empty. We are anxious to buy anything, so hard up are we for goods. I will give some details of what I and hundreds of like people such as merchants and owners of factories, would be willing to buy. I have been trying to get filing cabinets, for example, during the last year. They are very much in demand. There are in the possession of His Majesty's Government mountains of filing cabinets which are used for filing documents of no importance. The manufacturers are not allowed to make them for me, and I am not allowed to get them from Government disposal boards. Is there any other item which the hon. Member for Don-caster (Mr. E. Walkden) would like to know? I have been looking for a comptometer during the last five years. What have I had to do? I have had to pay £I a month for the hire of a comptometer; I am not allowed to buy one because of the regulations of the Board of Trade. In shame the man from whom I hired the comptometer said to me, "You had better have it now. You have paid for it several times over" There are thousands of comptometers in Government Departments.
Does the hon. Member for Doncaster want any more particulars? I can give him further examples. Arising from the ill-advised efforts of the Ministry of Food, all up and down the country very expensive canteen equipment was imposed upon local authorities. They were only prepared to take it because the Government, through the Ministry of Food, guaranteed them against loss. Lots of us want to start canteens now for our expanding businesses, because the people coming back from the war have been accustomed to these services in the factories, but we cannot get them. I can name three businesses that cannot get canteen equipment, which is, however, lying idle, rusting and unused in Government Departments. Does the hon. Member for Doncaster want any more examples? I could give him a number. I will, however, move from the subject.
Mr. E. Walkden:Will the hon. Member give us a few more? He has only mentioned three items. Do let him tell us what he wants. I could mention 153.
Sir W. Darling: The hon. Member will have his opportunity. He is closely associated with the Minister and has the Minister's ear. Let him impart his great knowledge to the Minister, and I shall be grateful, as well as the Minister. I am not concerned with this aspect of the matter at the moment, but with other Departments, and particularly with the extravagances of the Ministry of Food.
Mr. Speaker: I must remind the hon. Member that the Minister has only a very few minutes left in which to reply.
Sir W. Darling:I have a very heavy subject to deal with, and I was —[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on."] I am advised, Mr. Speaker, to finish what I am saying. I am glad that I resisted the temptation of following the hon. Member for Don-caster, who wanted me to give a catalogue of things, and that might have been out of Order. I will bring my remarks to a conclusion. These stores are not confined to the articles mentioned by me or by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark. They include many other stores, including food in tins and cartons, which are not only becoming wasted but are occupying in warehouses valuable space which could be used for other purposes. I hope that on this general question, consideration will be given to the inability, and I hope it is only a passing one, on the part of Government Departments to handle these matters. The Government have committed themselves to a programme of collectivisation. Let them learn the simple elementary rules of business, which any small shopkeeper would be only too glad to teach them.
10.28 p.m.
The Parliamentary' Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Ellis Smith): The most disappointed man in this House now is myself. I had gone to a lot of trouble so as to be able to give the hon. Member who raised this matter some satisfaction, but I cannot do so within the seven minutes that are left to me, as the time is not sufficient to deal with such a big subject. When the hon. Member says that he will be raising the subject on numerous occasions in future, I can say that we shall welcome it being raised at
2238
any time. The hon. Member fully supported the White Paper when the Debate took place, as he will see if he refers to Hansard of 25th July, 1944, in cols. 687 and 688. He will find there the speech that he made, fully supporting the White Paper. Hon. Members will also see that on the same occasion I had the privilege of speaking on behalf of our party and that we welcomed the fullest investigation into this matter. The hon. Member said that the Government had done their best to take the sting out of the Debate. I do not blame him for saying that and 1 can well understand it, but I can assure him that the steps taken by the Government were not taken just because this Debate was going to take place. As a matter of fact, the Ministry of Health have been dealing with this matter for weeks, in consultation with other Government Departments. As a result of those consultations the circular referred to was issued and steps had already been taken to bring about an improvement.
In regard to the new plans, what has happened is that there is an adaptation of the White Paper, based upon our experience and the lessons that we have learned. I would remind hon. Members that it is only four months since the war finished. During that period, as a result of the experience gained, plans had already been made to apply the lessons that have been learned. The hon. Gentle man has made charges about wanton destruction. I ask for the co-operation of all Members of the House in this, and I would say that if they can make any specific charges of this description we will gladly look into them—
Sir W. Darling:We are not your local Gestapo.
Mr. Ellis Smith: I think that is a most ungenerous observation. It is not the sort of remark that is usually made by hon. Members of this House when they are asked to co-operate in matters of this kind. We all have public interest at heart and are usually prepared to do our duty to the public in order to safeguard the interests of our people and to safeguard public property. There is only one personal point I am going to make. The hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Shephard) spoke about business people and business policy. Let me make it clear that I was brought up in big-scale industry in this

2239
country and, as a result of that experience, I say we take second place to no business people, with regard to organising and running matters of this kind.
Sir W. Darling: "By their fruits ye shall know them."
Mr. Ellis Smith: That is a true saying, and by their fruits the country knew the works of the last Government and showed that knowledge at the last General Election. Returning to the point about wanton destruction, I repeat that if any hon. Members of this House can give any specific instances we shall gladly look into them. With regard to machine tools, we have already received a letter from a right hon. Member, and are making an investigation into the matter. With regard to dumps, I myself have felt uneasy about them. As one travels about the country and sees these huge dumps, many of them in the open air, and deteriorating as a result of the weather, one has reason to be very much concerned about them. But in this matter all should do their duty, and as far as the Government are concerned, we shall have these dumps surveyed from time to time. We have other Government Departments to deal with, when considering these matters, especially Service departments, because the international situation is still fairly serious, and we are bound to have regard to that. If we receive any complaints, I will give an undertaking that they will be investigated as quickly as possible in order that we can avoid the mistakes of the past.
Unfortunately, I cannot deal with the matter more adequately tonight, but no one would have been more pleased than I to do so if I had the opportunity. I had gone to great trouble today to go into this question with all the people concerned, in order to arm myself adequately to deal with the case. What I will do is this. If there is no improvement in the situation—and even accepting what the hon. and gallant Member has said, if there is no improvement from his point of view or from the point of view of any other hon. Member—and if the question is raised again within a reason-
2240
able time, I will try to give them an answer, telling them about the plans prepared, and how we have adapted the White Paper in order to take advantage of our experiences, so that we can do our best to safeguard national property in this country. I was fortunate enough to be a member of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, and I always did feel that not enough justice was done to the reports of that Committee. In the ninth report a recommendation was made which has been put into operation; that the final choice of a disposal department and a negotiating department for each class of goods should be made as soon as possible. In addition to that, the circular sent out by the Ministry of Heal this a big step in the right direction. All that I am hoping is that the local authorities, when they carry this out, will see that there is a minimum of inconvenience to our people, and that the goods get to the people as quickly as possible. Our people have suffered long enough. We have strained ourselves in this country, and hon. Members can depend on it that this Government, representing the people, composed of men born of the people, will look after the people's interest to the very best possible advantage.
Mr. Shephard:Before the hon Gentleman sits down, will he answer the specific question I put to him as to the value of the surplus goods that the Government have disposed of in this country up to a recent date. Why was I fobbed off with a very ambiguous answer when I put the Question on the Paper.
Mr. Ellis Smith: The hon. Member was given an answer. I think—I am speaking from memory now—it was £20,000,000. Since then there has been an increase.
It being half an hour after the conclusion of Business exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), Mr. SPEAKER' adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order, as modified for this Session by the Order made upon 16th August.
Adjourned at Twenty-three Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.

COAL INDUSTRY
  Miners (Re-employment)
  Miners (Re-employment)
  Ouston E Pit
  Ouston E Pit
  Export Coal (Quality)
  Export Coal (Quality)
  Advisory Committees
  Advisory Committees
  American Mission (Report)
  American Mission (Report)
  Colliery Tips (Picking-over)
  Colliery Tips (Picking-over)
  Pit Ponies
  Pit Ponies
  Voluntary Absenteeism
  Voluntary Absenteeism
  Wages and Costs
  Wages and Costs
FUEL AND POWER
  Sub-Tenants (Registration)
  Sub-Tenants (Registration)
  Coal Distribution, London
  Coal Distribution, London
  Shopwindow Lighting
  Shopwindow Lighting
  Petrol Rationing
  Petrol Rationing
  Electricity Supplies, Merioneth (Water Power)
  Electricity Supplies, Merioneth (Water Power)
  Petrol Price (Northern Ireland)
  Petrol Price (Northern Ireland)
  Wood (Birmingham)
  Wood (Birmingham)
  Fuel Efficiency Bulletins
  Fuel Efficiency Bulletins
EMPLOYMENT
  Railway Works (Conditions)
  Railway Works (Conditions)
  Dockworkers' Wages
  Dockworkers' Wages
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Labour Control (Radio Industry)
  Labour Control (Radio Industry)
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Brickworks, Almondsbury (Canteen)
  Brickworks, Almondsbury (Canteen)
  National Service (Releases)
  National Service (Releases)
DEMOBILISATION
  Paper Operatives
  Paper Operatives
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Agricultural Workers
  Agricultural Workers
  Wallpaper Industry (Key Men)
  Wallpaper Industry (Key Men)
  MILITARY SERVICE (CHOICE)
  MILITARY SERVICE (CHOICE)
  MINISTRY OF LABOUR ("S" CLASS CLERKS)
  MINISTRY OF LABOUR ("S" CLASS CLERKS)
BRITISH ARMY
  Censorship
  Censorship
  Leave Train (Dover-North Wales)
  Leave Train (Dover-North Wales)
  Indonesia (Troops)
  Indonesia (Troops)
  Territorial Army
  Territorial Army
  Postwar Service
  Postwar Service
  Cairnryan Port
  Cairnryan Port
  Tank Training Ground (Kirkcudbright)
  Tank Training Ground (Kirkcudbright)
  Personal Cases
  Personal Cases
  Miners
  Miners
  Overseas Postings
  Overseas Postings
  Python Tour
  Python Tour
  Re-engagement (Medical Standard)
  Re-engagement (Medical Standard)
  West African Units
  West African Units
  Detention Barracks (M.P.s' Visits)
  Detention Barracks (M.P.s' Visits)
  Military Offences (Review)
  Military Offences (Review)
  Courts-Martial (Review)
  Courts-Martial (Review)
  Home Guard (Clothing)
  Home Guard (Clothing)
  Transport Conditions
  Transport Conditions
  Training Grounds
  Training Grounds
  Malta (Parcels Despatch)
  Malta (Parcels Despatch)
  Leave
  Leave
  Jewish Brigade (Fast)
  Jewish Brigade (Fast)
  Compassionate Leave
  Compassionate Leave
  Searchlight Sites
  Searchlight Sites
  Requisitioned Property
  Requisitioned Property
  Baggage Entitlement (East Africa)
  Baggage Entitlement (East Africa)
  Irish Citizens
  Irish Citizens
  Formation College, Luton (Opening)
  Formation College, Luton (Opening)
  B.A.O.R. (Hon. Colonels' Visits)
  B.A.O.R. (Hon. Colonels' Visits)
  Economy Branch
  Economy Branch
  Punishments
  Punishments
  Billeted Personnel (Travelling Expenses)
  Billeted Personnel (Travelling Expenses)
  Demobilisation
  Demobilisation
  Excavator Drivers
  Excavator Drivers
  Officers (Special Leave)
  Officers (Special Leave)
  Vehicles and Craft
  Vehicles and Craft
  Rifle Clubs (Ammunition)
  Rifle Clubs (Ammunition)
  A.T.S., Armagh (Incident)
  A.T.S., Armagh (Incident)
  Service Vehicles (Speed Cheek)
  Service Vehicles (Speed Cheek)
  HONG KONG (RELIEF SUPPLIES)
  HONG KONG (RELIEF SUPPLIES)
  RED CROSS PARCELS (DISPOSAL)
  RED CROSS PARCELS (DISPOSAL)
PRISONERS OF WAR
  Medical Examination
  Medical Examination
  Spanish Nationals
  Spanish Nationals
  Deaths, Far East (Information)
  Deaths, Far East (Information)
  Reporting Unit, Leigh-on-Sea
  Reporting Unit, Leigh-on-Sea
  Germans, Darras Hall Camp
  Germans, Darras Hall Camp
  POLISH ARMED FORCES (REPATRIATION)
  POLISH ARMED FORCES (REPATRIATION)
  LEAVE PETROL (ARMED FORCES)
  LEAVE PETROL (ARMED FORCES)
  GIBRALTAR (GOVERNOR'S SUMMER RESIDENCE)
  GIBRALTAR (GOVERNOR'S SUMMER RESIDENCE)
  MALAYA (HEALTH PRECAUTIONS)
  MALAYA (HEALTH PRECAUTIONS)
  WAR DECORATIONS AND MEDALS
  WAR DECORATIONS AND MEDALS
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Building Licences
  Building Licences
  Building and Civil Engineering (Control of Entry)
  Building and Civil Engineering (Control of Entry)
  Youth Organisations (Army Huts)
  Youth Organisations (Army Huts)
  Requisitioned Property
  Requisitioned Property
  Assistant Electrical Wiremen
  Assistant Electrical Wiremen
  Coast Towns (Rehabilitation)
  Coast Towns (Rehabilitation)
PALACE OF WESTMINSTER
  Historical Pieces
  Historical Pieces
  House of Commons Refreshment Department
  House of Commons Refreshment Department
  First-Aid Room
  First-Aid Room
HOUSING
  Aluminium Houses
  Aluminium Houses
  Operatives (Edinburgh)
  Operatives (Edinburgh)
  Specialists (Release)
  Specialists (Release)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Aircraft Accident
  Aircraft Accident
  Requisitioned Property
  Requisitioned Property
  Demobilisation
  Demobilisation
  Uxbridge Common
  Uxbridge Common
  CIVIL AVIATION (U.S.A.— BERMUDA)
  CIVIL AVIATION (U.S.A.— BERMUDA)
  AGRICULTURAL WORKERS (CLASS B RELEASES)
  AGRICULTURAL WORKERS (CLASS B RELEASES)
SCOTLAND
  Housing
  Housing
  Excisable Liquor (Sunday Sale)
  Excisable Liquor (Sunday Sale)
  Glasgow-Lesmahagow and Coalburn Passenger Services
  Glasgow-Lesmahagow and Coalburn Passenger Services
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Czeehoslovakian Loan
  Czeehoslovakian Loan
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  MINISTERS AND OFFICIALS (MOTOR CARS)
  MINISTERS AND OFFICIALS (MOTOR CARS)
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
  Mall Scheme, Oxford
  Mall Scheme, Oxford
  Statutory Rule and Order 1304
  Statutory Rule and Order 1304
  Footpaths
  Footpaths
  CHRISTIAN REFORM LEAGUE
  CHRISTIAN REFORM LEAGUE
  ROYAL NAVY (PRIZE MONEY)
  ROYAL NAVY (PRIZE MONEY)
  OLD AGE PENSIONERS (MILK)
  OLD AGE PENSIONERS (MILK)

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
The Lord Rochdale—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Lord Nunburnhohne—Took the Oath.

INDIA.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask His Majesty's Government a private notice question of which I have already informed them—namely, whether His Majesty's Government have any statement to make on Indian affairs.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the opportunity he gives me of making a statement on behalf of His Majesty's Government. The statement made by the Viceroy after his return to India contemplates the steps which His Majesty's Government propose should be taken to promote the early realization of full self-government in India. The full significance of these proposals does not seem to have been properly appreciated in India. Since it is the firm conviction of His Majesty's Government that it is by anti in consultation with the directly elected representatives of the Indian people that decisions as to the future governance of British India should be taken, it was a necessary preliminary that elections should be held to the Provincial Legislatures and the Central Assembly in India. It was announced that after the elections in India preparatory discussions would be held with the elected representatives of British India and with the Indian States in order to secure the widest measure of agreement as to the method of framing a Constitution. Unjustified suggestions have gained wide currency in India that these discussions would be a fruitful source of delay. I desire to make it plain that His Majesty's Government regard the setting up of, a Constitution-making body by which
258
Indians will decide their own future and also other proposals embodied in the announcement as a matter of greatest urgency.
This misunderstanding has led His Majesty's Government to consider whether opportunities of personal contact between this country and India which have been greatly interrupted during recent years cannot now be increased. They regard it as a matter of importance that members of our own Parliament should have an opportunity to meet leading political Indian personalities to learn their own views at first hand. They would also be able to convey in person the general wish and desire of the people of this country that India should speedily attain her full and rightful position as an independent partner State in the British Commonwealth and the desire of Parliament to do everything within our power to promote the speedy attainment of that objective. His Majesty's Government are therefore arranging for a Parliamentary Delegation to go to India under the auspices of the Empire Parliamentary Association. The intention is that this party should leave this country as soon as possible. In view of the difficulties of transport, it will be limited in size. The Delegation will be selected by the Association in consultation with Parliamentary representatives of the chief political Parties in this country.
During the transition towards complete self-government India will be passing through difficult times. No greater disservice could be done to a future Indian Government and to the cause of democracy than to permit the foundations of the State to be weakened and the loyalty of its servants to those who are in authority to be undermined before that new govern-merit comes into being. Therefore the Government of India cannot divest itself of the responsibility which rests upon is and upon all Provincial Governments of preserving law and order and of resisting any attempt to resolve the constitutional issue by force. The realization of full self-government can only come by the orderly and peaceful transfer of control of the machinery of State to purely Indian authority.
His Majesty's Government could riot permit any attempt to he made to break down the loyalty of the administrative services or of the Indian Armed Forces,

259
and they will give full support to the Government of India in securing that their servants are protected in the performance of their duty and that the future Constitution of India shall not be called into being by force or threat of force.
In addition, the great need of India, whatever Government are in power, is to raise the standard of life, of education, and of health of the masses of the people. Boldly conceived plans to meet this are already in being and His Majesty's Government are giving every encouragement to proceed with them so that improving social conditions may go forward simultaneously with the institution of self-government.
2.43 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I desire, if I may, to thank the noble Lord for the statement he has just made on the problem of India. Perhaps I might be permitted to make a few very short observations. We should like to examine his statement with the care and consideration due to it in order that we may, if necessary, put down a Motion to suit his convenience to discuss it properly. I am glad to know that His Majesty's Government do not propose to yield to tyranny and force, but perhaps I might ask the noble Lord whether this delegation under the auspices of the Empire Parliamentary Association who are proceeding to India, will be accompanied by the noble Lord's, Under-Secretary or any other Minister, and whether it is quite clear that no one on this. Delegation can commit His Majesty's Government, or the Government of India, in anything they may say or do during the period of their visit.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, as to the question whether the Under-Secretary or State for India will go to India, that will be a matter for consideration by the Empire Parliamentary Association in deciding the names of the delegates. On the second question, this visit follows the lines of similar visits that have been made to India and to other parts of His Majesty's Dominions and Empire, and it has not been the practice hitherto, and is not the intention of His Majesty's Government in the present case, that the Delegation should be given any powers to commit His Majesty's Government to any special policy, though, of course the policy to which His Majesty's
260
Government have already given expression will no doubt form the background and atmosphere in which the Delegation will proceed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
2.45 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I should like to take the earliest opportunity of informing your Lordships that, in order to facilitate proceedings on the Joyce appeal case which comes before your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity next week, I shall ask your Lordships to be good enough to agree to postponing the hour of meeting next Tuesday, December 11, until 4 p.m. as the Lord Chancellor is very anxious that the Court shall have a full day's hearing of the case that day. I might, perhaps, add that we shall probably have a formal sitting next Friday afternoon after the House of Commons has risen, in order to receive the Building Materials and Housing Bill and the Elections and Jurors Bill and to read them a first time. This will enable your Lordships to have fuller time to discuss them later. As we are approaching the Christmas Recess and it is necessary to conclude all the stages of these and other Bills before we rise, I shall ask your Lordships on Tuesday next to agree to a Motion giving precedence to Government business until the Recess. This is the usual practice at this time of the year, and I am not seeking to create any precedent.
There is one further point which I might make now—namely, that we have a very long list of speakers on the important debate on agricultural policy this afternoon. It may, therefore, not be possible to conclude the debate to-day although we shall make every effort to do so. I understand that there will be no judicial sitting of the House on Thursday afternoon. If, therefore, we find it necessary to adjourn to-day's debate, noble Lords who have business on the Order Paper for Thursday afternoon would, perhaps, not object if we sat at 2.30 instead of at 4 o'clock for the purpose of dealing with their Notices and thereafter proceeded with the adjourned debate on agriculture. I am very reluctant to move the fixed times of our sittings as your Lordships are busy men

261
and have many engagements elsewhere; but time is exceedingly precious just now and I cannot see any other alternative. Of course, the next best thing would be for us to conclude our debate this afternoon. If so, the question of changing our hour of sitting on Thursday will not arise.
2.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I think that on all these matters your Lordships' House will wish to meet the suggestion of the noble Viscount. We are jealous of any time taken from us, even for so important a matter as the sitting of this House in its judicial capacity, but this particular appeal arises in such circumstance that all your Lordships, I am sure, would wish that it should be disposed of as rapidly as possible. I am sure your Lordships will agree to the later sitting next Tuesday. With regard to the suggestion that this debate should go over to next Thursday, if it cannot be finished to-day, as the number of speakers is very large, that, I think, also will meet the general convenience of the House, and I hope it will not unduly inconvenience those who have Motions on the Order Paper. The Motion to take the time of the House for certain Bills is, I think, in accordance with precedent. I shall not accuse the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, of springing any new constitutional surprise on us. As I understand it, the special meeting on Friday is for the purpose of carrying out the undertaking given by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House and the Lord Chancellor, that we should have as much time as possible between now and the Committee stage to deal with these Bills. I am sure that all quarters of your Lordships' House would wish to meet all the points made in the suggestion.
2.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, noble Lords on these Benches also wish to concur in the proposals made by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. We hope that at an early date he can inform us when the House is likely to adjourn for Christmas and to reassemble in January. Perhaps the noble Viscount can tell us this when he makes his statement with regard to future business next week.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Viscounts for assisting in this matter. In regard to the
262
date for the adjournment for the Christmas Recess, that depends, I am told, on the progress made with certain Bills in the other place. I am sure your Lordships will agree that we should have as much time as is reasonably possible to discuss the Bills in this House and that fact does affect the date of the adjournment. As soon as ever I am in a position to make a statement I will do so.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a, and to be printed.
SUPPLIES AND SERVICES (TRANSITIONAL POWERS) BILL.
Returned from the Common, with the Amendments agreed to.
INDIA (PROCLAMATION OF EMERGENCY) BILL.
House in Committee (according to, Order): Bill reported without amendment.
CIVIL DEFENCE (SUSPENSION OF POWERS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

POLICE (OVERSEAS SERVICE) BILL.
2.54 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Nathan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The Viscount MERSEY in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Special provisions as to members of home police forces.
(3) Where a person to whom Section one of the Police and Firemen (War Service) Act, 1939, applies, being a person who ceased to,

263
serve as a constable in order to serve in His Majesty's forces, upon ceasing to serve in those forces engages, with the consent of the appropriate authority for his home police force, for a period of overseas service, he shall be deemed for the purposes of the said Act to have resumed service as a constable, and the foregoing provisions of this section shall apply to him as if he had engaged far a period of overseas service from his home police force.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD NATHAN)THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD NATHAN) moved, at the beginning of subsection (3), after "Where," to insert, ",whether before or after the commencement of this Act". The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment appearing in my name on the Paper. The object of it is merely to fill in a gap in the Bill. Under the Police and Firemen (War Service) Act a police officer from the home police joining the overseas police force is protected so far as his pension rights are concerned. It would be otherwise with those who joined prior to the passing of this Act, and this Bill, this Amendment and the Amendment which follows are designed to fill in that gap and to protect the pension rights of those who have already joined the overseas police force.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 9, after ("Where") insert (",whether before or after the commencement of this Act,").—(Lord Nathan.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NATHAN: The other Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 12, leave out ("engages") and insert ("has engaged").—(Lord Nathan.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

STATUTORY ORDERS (SPECIAL PROCEDURE) BILL.
2.57 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT): My Lords, I beg to move that this House do resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SOULBURY: My Lords, before your Lordships accede to this Motion, I should like to remind you that the Second Reading of the Bill took place only three days after the Bill was first in your Lordships' hands. On that occasion my noble friend Viscount Cranborne protested against the very short time available to your Lordships for the study of the Bill. He suggested that a substantial interval should take place between the Second Reading and the Committee stage, and he also suggested that a slightly more extended debate should take place on the Motion to move the House into Committee. I propose to take advantage of that suggestion, with which the noble Lord opposite was in agreement.
I do not suppose your Lordships found the ten days that have elapsed between the Second Reading and the Committee stage any too long to study the provisions of this extremely complicated and intricate measure and to master it. I do not profess for one moment to have mastered this Bill, but I should like to make one or two observations upon it and then to ask the Lord Chancellor a few questions on the measure. On the Second Reading of the Bill, the Lord Chancellor drew attention- to the alleged intrinsic merits of the Bill, and said that it was substantially the same as the measure presented to another place last March by the Coalition Government or, as I prefer to call it, the National Government. He suggested that as a result of its smooth passage it could be described as a non-controversial matter. I am not much enamoured of the doctrine that Bills that may have been supported by members of the National Government last March or at any other time are thereby immune from criticism by members of that Government for ever afterwards. That is certainly not the theory or the practice of noble Lords opposite who were members of that Government, and I feel that no one who was a member of the National Government should feel himself estopped from amending or, if he wishes, opposing measures many of which may at the time have represented the greatest common multiple of such agreement as was possible in the circumstances that existed.
Nor am I inclined to agree that this Bill is entirely non-controversial. Indeed, I should think that that epithet can

265
seldom be applied to any measures we receive or are likely to receive from the Government opposite. Especially would I deny that epithet to any Bills which are said to be conducive to expediting or simplifying the procedure of Parliament. It is of those Bills that I think in this House we should be particularly suspicious and especially watchful.
The ostensible object of this Bill, as explained to us, was to simplify and to expedite a certain part of our Parliamentary proceedings known as the. Provisional Order procedure. That object is a commendable one, but it is a fact that certain members of His Majesty's Govern-merit have, in the past and to-day, so often given the impression that Parliamentary discussion is a hindrance to them rather than a help, that I feel rather sceptical of these good intentions. It may be the misfortune of His Majesty's Government, but they certainly cannot yet claim to have built up a solid reputation for tenderness and regard for the liberties of the individual or for the authority of Parliament. On the contrary, recent events have shown an absolutely reverse tendency. We have got the Bank of England Bill, in which, thanks to the vigilance of the Opposition in another place, the Government have-been forced to secure the privacy of the individual banking account. Then there is the Building Restrictions Bill, and again one observes that the Government have quite recently been foiled in an attempt to set up an inquisitorial form of inspectorate of a most pernicious character. So much for the individual. As regards Parliament, we have very recently in our memories the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill.
It may in the circumstances not be possible for His Majesty's Government to avoid giving the son of impression which I have indicated; it may be inherent in the policy to which they are committed. My own view is that the socialization of a country is bound to place increasing restrictions upon the liberty of the individual and upon the freedom of Parliamentary discussions. If that is so, it therefore becomes all the more our duty most meticulously to examine a proposal of this sort which is designed to simplify and expedite Parliamentary procedure. The proposals, we are told, are designed not only to simplify but to expedite this
266
procedure. The value of Parliamentary discussion is greatly diminished if it becomes precipitate; it is not susceptible to undue compression. Deliberation implies an atmosphere that is deliberate. If the Government wish to save time, well and good, but let them count the cost, for the exchange of individual liberties for legislative celerity may in the long run prove to be a very bad bargain. It has been well said that counsels to which Time has not been called, Time w ill not ratify. No doubt in the Provisional Order procedure as it is at present a good case may be made out, and indeed has been made out, for simplification and time saving. I should be willing to give much more credit to His Majesty's Government for that were it not for the fact that they appear to be feverishly and frantically expediting every mortal thing but the things which really matter, such as demobilization, housing and the production of goods. The impetuous and almost indecent haste with which the Government are proceeding in certain matters almost reminds me of the personage of whom it is written in an Old Book, "He has come down to us having great wrath because he knoweth that he hath but a short time."
On the Second Reading of this Bill the Lord Chancellor gave a very clear exposition of the machinery of the Bill. He said that first of all we had got to have a local inquiry. He went on to say that when the preliminaries had been carried out the Minister had to certify that certain steps have been taken, and that after that the order had to lie on the table for a period of fourteen days during which objections could be presented to it. He continued:
"At the end of that period the petitions are referred to the Chairmen, that is to say the Lord Chairman in our House and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the Commons, who then have to perform this task; "—
your Lordships will note the task they have to perform—
"they have to differentiate between those petitions which are petitions of general objection and those which are petitions for amendment."
I want to ask the Lord Chancellor my first question. What is to be the basis of the distinction between those two categories? What principles can be laid down for the guidance of the Chairmen in determining to which category one or other petition belongs? I ask that for the

267
reason that in the Explanatory Memorandum issued upon this Bill in another place it was said that a new feature of the Bill proposed was that a-distinction should be drawn between objections based on broad grounds of policy and those based on individual interest. In his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill in another place, the Lord President of the Council, Mr. Morrison (speaking from the same brief, I think, as that from which the Lord Chancellor spoke), said as follows:
"The Lord Chairman and the Chairman of Ways and Means have the duty of examining these petitions and in particular of distinguishing between those which are described as petitions for amendment, that is, those which pray for detail amendment, and petitions of general objection, that is, those which attack the order generally."
He went on to endorse the explanation given in the Explanatory Memorandum, and said that the distinction which the Bill drew was between petitions based on broad grounds of policy and petitions based on individual interest. He went on to define petitions of general objection as petitions which raised the whole policy of an order.
When we come to the passage of this Bill through Committee in another place, we encounter a rather remarkable statement made by the Lord Privy Seal, who was piloting the Bill through Committee. He was resisting an Amendment which had been put down to establish a basis of distinction on the lines laid down by the Explanatory Memorandum and by the Lord President of the Council in another place. This is what the Lord Privy Seal said:
"If these Amendments were accepted then I think the two Chairmen would be placed in an impossible position, with a really impossible job, because they would then have to look at every petition, whether praying for amendment or for withdrawal of the order in order to ascertain whether the ground on which it was based involved questions of national policy. That was never the intention of the Bill, and I hope that the Committee will consider very carefully before they throw such onerous duties which were never intended to be cast on the Chairmen."
What does a petition of general objection mean? Surely a petition of general objection must inevitably involve questions of national policy. If it does not, why call it general? "General" distinguishes it from individual, "general" means everybody and everybody means the general public. Questions of national
268
policy are questions which affect the general public. In the view of the Lord Privy Seal it is apparently impossible to make this distinction and the Chairmen upon whom the duties are imposed in another place cannot make it. Therefore I ask the Lord Chancellor if he can say, for the guidance of the Chairmen and the members of the Joint Committee, what is the difference between a petition which is general, a petition which involves everyone, and a petition which involves questions of national policy. If, as one would think, there is no difference, then perhaps he would give some guidance to the Chairmen to help them to carry out a task which the Explanatory Memorandum says is a new feature, which the Lord President imposed upon them, and which the Lord Privy Seal says it is impossible to perform.
May I put the second question? If the Chairmen of this new Joint Committee, the Lord Chairman and the Chairman of Ways and Means, disagree with each other (as they well may in view of the apparent conflict between the two potentates in another place) what happens? How will they settle it? Will they settle it by seniority, as I believe was the practice with the Roman Consuls? Will they settle it by presiding over the Committee on alternate days, following the practice of the Generals in Marlborough's wars? That was not, I believe, a very satisfactory precedent. Perhaps there will be a repetition of the "water party" in Sketches by Boz which some of your Lordships may remember. If I recall it aright, on that occasion two gentlemen decided to hold a party on the river, and for that reason arranged to appoint a committee of ten to make the arrangements and share the expenses. It was decided that each of the gentlemen should appoint five candidates, and that each could black-ball the others' candidates. The result was that every candidate was black-balled, and so there was no committee and no party. I ask the Lord Chancellor to endeavour, if he can, for the guidance of the Chairmen, to establish some principle to meet the dilemma which I have pointed out. I have not quoted these valuable precedents to create alarm and despondency in the minds of the Chairmen, but because there is a real difficulty here, and I want to help the Chairmen to perform a task which has been imposed by one Minister

269
and described by another as impossible and never intended to be performed.
I come now to my third question, The Lord Chancellor has pointed out that this Bit' diners from the Bill prepared by the National Government last March in one respect. The latter Bill was not to be applied to existing Acts of Parliament for a period of live years; and the Lord Chancellor said that realizing that the five-year period was not particularly welcome to your Lordships, the Bill had been amended by dropping it. That is rather a poor solution. In view of the fact that your Lordships do not want Parliament to be fettered or restricted by imposing a five-year limit, and when the existing Acts are protected from five years' retrospective legislation, the Lord Chancellor removes the protection. Whether that protection is justified or not—and for all I know it may be—I should like to know why the Lord Chancellor, when a member of the Coalition Government, supported the five-year protection for existing Acts of Parliament, and now, as a member of anther Government, has altered his opinion.
My fourth and last question is this: Why is there a difference of procedure in this Bill between Scotland and England? I refer to the difference indicated in Clause 10 of the Bill. This matter was raised in another place, but apparently not answered. If it is the intention of the Government to simplify this Bill, the Scottish procedure seems to me a good deal simpler. In what I have said about this Bill I have no desire to be captious or unfairly critical. The Bill has many good points, as I should be the last to deny; but in this proposal, as in so many others, the Government seems to be acting first and thinking afterwards. I know that the object is to save time, and it probably does save time; but I believe that in the long run more time would be saved and better results achieved if the procedure were reversed.
3.14 p.m.
THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I imagine that your Lordships will expect to hear a few words from me on this matter, as I am Acting Chairman of Committees. You already know the history of the Bill, which the Lord Chancellor has described. It was prepared under the Coalition Government about
270
two years ago, to deal with an acceleration of legislation during the period of reconstruction. The Lord Chancellor has mentioned that it proposed a new type of procedure for these Provisional Order Confirmation Bills. These Bills, like Private Bills, have in practice been entrusted to a great extent to the supervision of the two Chairmen. Every Provisional Order Bill, as your Lordships probably know, undergoes a careful scrutiny in each House, particularly by the two Chairmen—the Chairman of Ways and Means in another place and the Chairman of Committees in this House. That is done in order to ensure a uniform practice according to a fixed Parliamentary code.
The new procedure proposed is that the orders will not come before the Chairman of Ways and Means or the Chairman of Committees, but only the petitions; and the two Chairmen will only have to do with the petitions in the sense indicated by the noble Lord who has just spoken namely, to separate those petitions which are of "general objection" from those which are for "amendment." The normal course now is that an order confirmed by a Provisional Order Bill goes direct to a Select Committee upstairs, if there is any petition against it. If there is no petition against it, it is settled by the Chairman in an Unopposed Committee. Under the proposed procedure, no alterations can be made in an order after it is brought before the House unless it is petitioned against. I understand that even verbal alterations cannot be made.
In order to illustrate what the actual result of the examination of orders by the two Chairmen is, I would quote one year which I have taken at random, the Parliamentary Session 1936–37. In that Session thirty-six Provisional Order Bills were presented to Parliament and became law. Of these, two were opposed in the House of Commons before Select Committees, and one of these was fought again in this House. Of the remaining thirty-four Bills, against which no petitions had been presented, fourteen were amended by one or both Houses. Out of thirty-four unopposed Bills a considerable proportion required some alteration during their passage through Parliament. If these Bills had been orders presented under the present Bill, none of these Amendments

271
would have been included, even the most paltry; and that, I think, is a matter which your Lordships ought to consider. The control which your Lordships exercise through the Chairman of Committees, and which is exercised through the Select Committees upstairs, will to that extent be limited.
There is another side to the matter, the rights of petitioners. Petitioners at present, if they object and put in a petition, can be heard by a Select Committee of each House. The proposal now is that there should be a Joint Committee. Personally, I do not think that that is a very great hardship, although I am not Much enamoured of Joint Committees, which are twice the size of a Select Committee and require quorums from both Houses. I have sat as a member and as Chairman of many Select Committees for many years, and I regard them—and I am sure your Lordships will agree with me—as the very best tribunals of their sort that could be devised. They combine justice arid expediency with dispatch, and doing something twice is not necessarily doing it any better. A very distinguished predecessor of the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack remarked that iterations are commonly loss of time. If that was so in the seventeenth century, I expect that it is still so to-day. Petitioners will now only be able to have petitions considered after they have been divided into these two categories—"general objection" or "amendment"—and can only get the former considered if a Resolution is passed by either House sending the order to the Joint Committee. It may be extremely difficult for a petitioner to get that done. To get it done in another place is certainly not going to be easy. There is great congestion of work at the present time, and he may not be able to get any individual Member of Parliament to take up his case. Consequently, he may have to come to this House.
I am not sure that your Lordships may not find that you have a good many of these petitions argued on the floor of the House, and that, I think, is not the right place for petitions of this sort to be argued. The Lord Chancellor has described what we know so well, the paraphernalia of graphs, maps and blackboards, and the chartered accountants who could not very
272
well be heard by your Lordships. The result of that might possibly be that the Chairman, when he was examining the petitions to divide them, might feel that injustice was being done to a petitioner and might consider himself obliged to take action in the matter. I feel that that is not the work that ought to be put on the Chairman of Committees in this House, who is supposed to be, and is, an absolutely independent officer of the House. The Bill also gives power to make the procedure retrospective on an Address. I cannot help saying that I hope that your Lordships will hesitate very much before you make such an order without having had some experience of the working of the Bill. I believe that what I have said—though I have not had any opportunity of consulting him in matters of detail—is in general accord with the views of my noble friend Lord Stanmore. He wishes me to assure your Lordships—as I do on my own behalf—that, whatever happens, we shall facilitate, so far as lies in our power, the practice and procedure laid down by the Bill. My Lords, I have always been against reading speeches, and I thought that I might perhaps have eluded the lame foot of Nemesis on this occasion. I hope that I have done so.
3.24 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, perhaps it would be for the convenience of your Lordships if I were now to attempt, quite briefly, to answer points which have been made. May I deal first with the points in the last speech because they are fresh in my memory? The noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, stated, I think, that in the year 1936 out of some thirty-six Provisional Orders which were not opposed, Amendments were made in something like fourteen cases. If you analyse these Amendments you will almost certainly find that they are either small or very highly technical points, or else Amendments inserted in order to dispose of possible objections You agree with your adversary and he says: "I will not oppose you if you will meet me in this way." In that sense it is true, they are not opposed petitions, but they are petitions which would have been opposed if the concession had not been made. The consequence would be to-day that the petition would be put in and the opposition would be able to make itself felt in that way.

273
Lord Mersey's next point was with regard to the difficulty of finding time to raise these matters. In the House of Commons this is the accepted position, and if your case is so bad that you cannot find some one somewhere in that House to take it up and support it, then I do not think it needs very much attention. Finally, Lord Mersey said that this Bill in the future might be retrospective. With very great respect, I differ from him there. We may by affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament apply the provisions of the Bill to orders to be made under Statutes now existing. But if we do so it is just as if we amend one of these Acts. It only becomes active with regard to the future. It is not retrospective in the proper sense of the word. I think, if I may say so, that we should be very unwise promptly to apply this new machinery to each case unless and until we have had a chance to see how it operates, and if it gives satisfaction.
I was reluctant to accept the point about the period of five years. May I say that if I referred to this in a rather lighthearted manner, I am sorry. I was, as a matter of fact, endeavouring to make a little joke there. Now I quite agree with what both noble Lords have said to the effect that it is obviously right before we apply this procedure further than we intend to apply it to-day we should have a fair opportunity of seeing how it works and if it gives general satisfaction.
The noble Lord wanted me to give guidance to the Chairmen as to the basis upon which to proceed in distinguishing between petitions of general objection and petitions of amendment. I should be most reluctant, on the spur of the moment and without notice, to venture to give guidance to trusted officials who are much better able to do this job than I even after I had received instructions. I think that the distinction in broad outline is plain enough. We All recognize the difference between a "Committee point" and a "Second Reading point." We all know the distinction between a point which negatives the whole purpose of the order and a point which though it does not do that asks that the order should be amended in this, that or the other respect. If, on the spur of the moment, I were to try to find an appropriate form of words I would say that an Amendment which, on true
274
construction, negatives the main purpose of the Bill is a petition of general objection—although I distinguish the whole policy of the order (which I think is the right phrase) from national policy without in any way limiting it to the order (which I think is an impossible phrase). I am content if the noble Lord thinks that this is a better phrase to say that an amendment which negatives the whole policy of the order would be to my mine a petition of general objection.
LORD SOULBURY: My Lords, the trouble is that guidance has been given in another place and the sign-posts point in opposite directions.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I cannot be responsible for signposts in another place. I can only be responsible for my own sign-posts, and I hope that in this matter my sign-post is relatively clear, and points in the right direction.
Next the noble Lord raised the question as to what is to happen in the event of a difference between the Chairmen. This is typical of our unwritten Constitution. All sorts of difficulties might arise which do riot arise. I will just give you this illustration. In the Scottish Private Bill procedure, which has been in force since 1899, exactly the same difficulty might have arisen the whole time, but it has never once arisen. The reason is that common sense prevailed and these two eminent officers worked out some compromise and did the right thing.
I have dealt with the five years limit. With regard to the difference between Scotland and England, there are many differences between Scotland and England, and many of them, I have no doubt, will remain. The Scotsmen, who have had a better procedure with regard to Private Bills in the past, are rather anxious that the good features of their procedure should be preserved, and we have therefore drafted the Scottish clause to meet with their approval.
LORD SOULBURY: Why cannot we have the good features of the Scottish system?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Because we think that the English procedure is equally good. At any rate, we want this procedure. Perhaps in working out this Bill we shall find, which is best. I sug-

275
gest that we might now go into Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The VISCOUNT MERSEY in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Preliminary Proceedings.
2.—(1) No order to which this Act applies shall be laid before Parliament until the requirements of the empowering enactment with respect to the publication or service of notices, the consideration of objections, and the holding of inquiries or other proceedings preliminary to the making or confirmation of the order have been complied with, or, where no such requirements are imposed by that enactment, until the requirements of the First Schedule to this Act have been complied with; and after any such requirements as aforesaid have been complied with, notice of the Minister's intention to lay the order before Parliament shall be published in the London Gazette not less than three days before the order is so laid.
3.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT LONG VISCOUNT LONG moved, in subsection (1), after "and" ["and after any such requirements"], to insert "not less than twenty-eight days." The noble Viscount said: I rise to move the Amendment standing in my name. As the clause in this Bill stands at present, there appears to be no minimum time specified between the various steps to be taken, and in consequence of that it is possible that an order might he made or confirmed so quickly after the preliminary proceedings that there would not be sufficient time for objections to what might be a highly technical question, being properly marshalled, thought out and argued. Furthermore, there is no minimum time specified in Clause 2 between the making or confirming of an order and the date when the notice of the Minister's intention to lay the order before Parliament is to be published, so that notice might easily follow within a few days after the making or confirming of the order. The next step, of course, would be for the order to be laid before Parliament under subsection (1) of Clause and this apparently can be done in the days after the publication of the notice. The only remaining time would then be the period of fourteen days specified in Clause 3, within which a petition may be presented against the order. If this procedure is adopted, it is
276
quite possible that persons objecting or requiring Amendments would have no opportunity of drafting them in a manner which would do justice to their cause.
May I call your Lordships' attention especially to the fact that the complicated technical nature of many of the orders which will be covered by the Bill is realized? In these circumstances, justice would not be done and if I may give an example, without adequate time petitions for Amendments might have to be so loosely drafted that they would be considered as petitions of general objection. Under Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill, Parliament might decide that no steps should be taken on the objection, and the order might thereupon become effective and operate in an unjust manner. I therefore suggest there should be a minimum period of twenty-eight days between the completion of the preliminary proceedings and the time when the notice of the Minister's intention to lay an order before Parliament is to be advertised. This, therefore, is the purpose of my first Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 22, after ("and") insert ("not less than twenty-eight days")—(Viscount Long.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If there had been any doubt that this is a very complicated Bill, I think that the speech we have just heard, if I may say so with the greatest respect, would have revealed it. I am not quite sure that the noble Viscount quite understands the effect of his Amendment. I have the greatest-sympathy with him if he is saying that there must be a considerable lapse of time between the time when the draft order is first promulgated and the time when the person who is affected has the right to put in an objection. At a later stage of this Bill the noble Lord has an Amendment in the Schedule which I am prepared to accept in order to give effect to that position, but what he is doing here is something quite different. He is saying that the Minister is not to be allowed to make an order for twenty-eight days. For twenty-eight days he may go about keeping this order in his head. That does nobody any good at all That is simply delay for delay's sake, and it is an exceedingly bad example of the wrong way in which to get Government Departments to go a little quicker.

277
Perhaps your Lordships will just consider this. In all cases of complicated orders, where the person who has held the inquiry has to draw up his report the report has to be considered, the Minister's officers have to express themselves about it, and finally they have to ask the Minister's opinion, the period would be very much longer than twenty-eight days. In practice the only case in which the Minister could make an order within twenty-eight days would be a perfectly simple case where opposition had probably been withdrawn. But in this case let the Minister make the order as soon as he can. When he has made this draft order then have the time limit so that people may take steps. That is provided for at the present time in this way. This Bill is very complicated and I apologize to your Lordships for having to explain it, but this Bill only applies to four Acts of Parliament—the Water Act, the Town and Country Planning Act, the Scottish Town and Country Planning Act, and the Local Government (Boundary Commission) Act. Each of those Acts, with the exception of the last, the regulations of which are now before the House, provides for this very point.
If the noble Lord will look at paragraph 2 of the First Schedule of the Water Act of 1945, he will see that these twenty-eight clays are there provided for. It says:
"Applicants for any order to which this Part of the Schedule applies, shall submit to the Minister a draft of the order which they desire him to make and shall publish once at least in each of two successive weeks in one or more local newspapers … and specifying a place in the said area where a copy of the draft order may be inspected at all reasonable hours during a period of twenty-eight days."
That is where you want your twenty-eight days—to enable a man to see what it is proposed to do. In those circumstances, have your twenty-eight days by all means. Just as we have provided that in the Water Act, so also will it be found in the Town and Country Planning Act and in the Scottish Town and Country Planning Act that a period of twenty-eight days is provided for. That is the period dealt with in the First Schedule.
But this period of twenty-eight days is no good to anyone. It is no good saying the Minister shall not consider anything for twenty-eight days. What is
278
relevant is that when persons know what is proposed to be done they should have time to look into the matter and consider it. Therefore, I venture to say to the noble Lord that his Amendment is misconceived and his arguments do not bear on the Amendment put down.
VISCOUNT LONG: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his reply. May I say that, as far as I am concerned, I find the Bill very difficult to understand, but in view of what the Lord Chancellor has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT LONG: In view of my withdrawal of the first Amendment, I do not propose to move the next Amendment standing in my name.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 5 agreed to.
3.43 p.m.
Clause 6 [Operations of orders]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The two Amendments to Clause 6 standing in my name propose the deletion from paragraphs (a) and (b) of the word "standing." This part of the Bill was put in as a result of an Amendment moved by a private Member in another place. He was given the assistance of the Parliamentary draftsman to draft this very difficult Amendment, but at the last moment worse counsels prevailed and he moved a manuscript Amendment including the word "standing," so as you will see the word "standing" comes before the word "committee." Whoever advised him about that was thinking only of the procedure in the other place. The word is quite inappropriate to your Lordships' House because we do not have Standing Committees. The word "Committee" by itself will suit your Lordships' House all right and for this reason I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendments moved.—
Page 5, line 12, leave out ("standing"). line 21, leave out ("standing")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Costs
(3) The reasonable costs incurred by a local authority in applying for or supporting an order to which this Act applies, or in opposing any such order, including costs incurred in connection with any local inquiry preliminary thereto, shall, to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Minister of Health, be deemed to be expenses properly incurred by the local authority and shall be paid accordingly, and the local authority may borrow for the purpose of defraying such costs.
3.45 p.m.
LORD HENLEY LORD HENLEY, rose to move, at the beginning of subsection (3), to leave out "The reasonable" and insert "No." The noble Lord said: There are standing in my name three Amendments to Clause 7, and I should like to say that the first Amendment, at page 5, line 43, to leave out "The reasonable" and to insert "No", and the third one in line 46, to leave out certain words and insert others, hang together. In the remarks I am making I am considering those and leaving out the second Amendment for the moment—that to leave out the word "reasonable" in line 43.
These Amendments arc put forward at the request of the County Councils' Association who have carefully considered this Bill. The effect of this subsection as it stands is, first of all, to put the Minister of Health in the position now occupied by the Taxing Master under the Parliamentary Costs Acts and consequently restricts the power conferred on local authorities by such recent legislation as Section 256 of the Local Government Act, 1933, which says in subsection (1):
"No expenses incurred in the promotion of, or opposition to, a Bill under this Part of this Act being expenses which are liable to be taxed under the Parliamentary Costs Acts, 1847–1879, shall be charged to the funds of a local authority unless they have been so taxed and allowed."
The County Councils' Association are opposed to the Minister of Health being placed in a position which he might use to deter a local authority from applying for, or supporting, or opposing an order. The eventual disallowance of costs incurred could be a strong weapon in muzzling a local authority, and it is particularly objectionable because, whether the opposition be successful or not, it may be carried to great lengths. It is contrary to the elementary principles of justice that the party to decide the reason-
280
ableness of costs—whether they be properly incurred—may be one of the participants in the proceedings from which they arise. Also, the Association see no reason why the provisions which now apply in relation to expenses incurred in the case of Bills promoted or opposed under the Local Government Acts should not be applied under the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Bill which merely substitutes a new procedure with regard to the order instead of by way of a Private Bill. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I must alter the sequence of these Amendments. If the words "The reasonable" are carried then the noble Lord's alternative Amendment in line 43 will fall to the ground. The proper way to put it is, I think, to, move in page 5, line 43, to leave out the word "The ". The question therefore 's that the word "The" stands part of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 43, leave out ("The") and insert ("No").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Here, again, it is obvious that the County Councils' Association have completely failed to understand this Bill. Indeed, if I were to concede this Amendment, they would never be able to get any costs of a local inquiry at all. I can imagine nothing more unreasonable than to accept the noble Lord's Amendment, or nothing which the County Councils' Association would more dislike. The long and short of it is that they have failed to realize that under the Local Government Act there are two distinct codes about costs. In the first place there is Section 256, which deals with the expenses of local government authorities in the promotion of or opposition to a Bill. Of course the noble Lord knows that if it is an ordinary case of a Bill there is no question of a local inquiry at all. That is what is dealt with in Section 256. Then there is another section of the Act, Section 285, which deals with the procedure of making Provisional Orders. Where you are making a Provisional Order you are, of course, dealing with a case in which the local authority has a right, under its constitution, to apply for a Provisional Order. There you have the whole code relating to Provisional Orders and, as we would expect, in this code you have the machinery for the costs of the local authority,

281
not only in and about the Provisional Order but also the inquiry which, of course, is the initiation of a Provisional Order.
What we have done here, following well-known precedents, is simply to say that the Provisional Order procedure with regard to costs is the right procedure to adopt and not the Private Bill procedure, in that the former does and the latter does not make any provision or allowance for costs of public inquiries. Therefore, that is what we have done. I venture to think we have obviously done so rightly, and that when what I have said has been read by the local authorities' representatives they will agree that I am right in applying the principles of the Act relating to Provisional Orders to what is, after all, a Provisional Order Bill, and I am right in resisting the temptation to apply the Private Bill machinery to what, after all, is not a Private Bill.
VISCOUNT SW1NTON: I am sure the Lord Chancellor is right in saying that an Amendment which would deprive the local authority of any chance of getting costs is the last thing my noble friend desired, but I did think there was substance in the point he raised that, while giving the local authority the right to claim costs, the person who ought to judge the costs should be an independent taxing master, just as the Chairman of Committees here would act in an independent capacity and not, as I understood would be the ease under the procedure as it stands, that the person to decide whether a local authority should have costs, or how much they should have, might be a party to the action—namely, the Ministry. If the Ministry has been defeated in an inquiry by a local authority and the inquiry holds that the Minister has proceeded in an unreasonable way, it does seem to me to be not very reasonable that the Minister who has been held to be in default should be the person to decide whether or not the successful appellants should have costs, or how much they should have.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I just answer that point? The noble Viscount knows, no doubt, that that has been the position for very many years. The position is that under Section 285 of the Act of 1933 which, as he may remember, came from a very much earlier Act, the costs which may be charged by a local authority are subject to two calculations:
282
they must be reasonable and their amount must be sanctioned by the Minister of Health. That is right because, after all, the Minister of Health has to protect the public, the ratepayers, and see that their money is not wasted. But there is also machinery which is often not made use of. Under the House of Commons costs Taxation Act, 1879, a Secretary of State, or the Minister of Health, if he is in, any doubt, may ask the taxing officer of the, House to decide for him that portion of the costs which falls within the Private Bills machinery, and that is sometimes done. So if we were to depart from this procedure we should be departing from a very well known procedure which I think has always been satisfactory. The Minister of Health must hold the scales. He has to protect the ratepayer against the local authority and see that justice is done.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am sure that if the Lord Chancellor says so, we are following a precedent. We have all gone on this primrose path: I am sure I have been guilty of it for the last twenty-five years when I have been a Minister. But I am not at all sure it is a good precedent. Quite frankly, the argument that the Minister has the duty of protecting the ratepayers against the local authority seems to me to be curiously undemocratic. I always thought that county councils and municipalities were elected by their local electors who, if they thought the authorities were not doing very well, would turn them out. Of course, if a local authority is behaving improperly or corruptly the Minister has a general duty to come in and do something about it. I do not want to pursue this point unduly. It may be that we cannot do anything about it. But I certainly do not want it to be taken that we are all assenting to the proposition, and that in these days when such enormous powers are given to Ministers to act, overriding local authorities and taking the place of the ordinary citizens in every walk of life—I do not want it to go on record that I and those for whom I speak at all accept the proposition that the right person to judge as to whether an action has been reasonable, when he has been found in default himself, is the Minister and not the local authority.
LORD HENLEY: I find myself in a. somewhat difficult position, faced with so.

283
many learned opinions, but I do still hold to the view that the Minister is put in a wrong position and that it would be very much preferable that the taxing master should decide the cost in this case. I cannot understand why that is not a possibility, even though it has not been in every case the procedure adopted in these cases in the past. I quite understand the distinction drawn between the Bill and the orders, but, all the same, I do venture still to press my Amendment on the grounds that have been already urged.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Might I make one remark on this? Is not the matter slightly changed from what it was when a local authority or some other body was putting forward a Private Bill? Then it might have been quite right for the Minister of Health to have had that overriding power; but now, as I understand it, in most of these cases it will be the Minister of Health or some other Government Department who will be behind the Provisional Order procedure. In that case it seems to me extremely odd that you should leave it in that Minister's hands to say to a local authority who may have opposed his order: "It is quite wrong for you to have done so; therefore I disallow you charging any costs." That, I believe, is the position into Which we might get, and that, no doubt, is the position which the County Councils' Association visualized. I should have hoped that the Lord Chancellor might be able to look at this and see whether there is anything in that point, and if possible put it right at a later stage of this Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am always ready to look at anything, but I say quite frankly that I think this is all wrong. We are following here a very well-known procedure which has given complete satisfaction in the past. What I am being asked to do is to apply to these Provisional Orders a procedure which is wholly inapplicable to them and does not cover the ground, and in regard to which there can be no machinery whatever for dealing with the costs of a local inquiry—it simply does not arise. Therefore I will look at it, yet I look at it without leading your Lordships to suppose that I think there is any justification whatever for this suggestion, because I do not. I would ask your Lordships at any rate not to press this Amendment now. I will look
284
at it between now and the next stage, and if I think there is anything in it I will tell your Lordships.
LORD HENLEY: That being the case, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.0 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My next Amendment, to omit the word "reasonable" is of a verbal nature. The word "reasonable" must be considered in conjunction with the words that follow later in the subsection "shall, to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Minister of Health, be deemed to be expenses properly incurred." It is suggested that the subsection as it is now does one of two things: either it enables the Minister of Health to refuse his sanction to the whole or part of costs which ex-hypothesi from the word "reasonable" in the first line are reasonable and therefore involves him in unreasonable action, or it uses the word "reasonable" quite unnecessarily and tautologically.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid I cannot possibly accept this. The subsection starts "The reasonable costs." The noble Lord, Lord Henley, wants to substitute "No Costs."
LORD HENLEY: No, to leave out the word "reasonable."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I am going to look into the other point, perhaps I might look into this at the same time. I do not know whether there is any objection or not. I suppose the costs would have to be qualified in some way. If you were to incur costs on a most lavish scale, you would not be entitled to them. On the spur of the moment I would not be prepared to agree to the deletion of the word "reasonable," but I will look into the matter and see if the subsection can be allowed to read "the costs" instead of "the reasonable costs."
LORD HENLEY: I do not move. I have already referred to my last Amendment and I shall not now move that.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Application to orders extending to Scotland only.
(6) In this section, the expression 'empowering enactment' in relation to any order includes any enactment other than this Act

285
which has the effect of requiring the service of notices in connexion therewith, and for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section a notice shall be sufficient notice of an order if it sets out the purport of the order and specifies a place where copies thereof may be inspected free of charge at all reasonable hours."
4.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN moved, in subsection (2), in subsection (6) of the substituted Section two, after "inspected," to insert "and supplied." noble Viscount said: I beg to move this Amendment, which is concerned with the convenience of people affected by Statutory Orders. It is perhaps a small point, but I think it would be of benefit that a copy of the order with which they have to coin-ply should be available for those people to take away. It seems a pity that you can only go round and inspect a copy of the order without being able to take away all the information so that you can consider it. I beg to move—
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 34, after ("inspected") insert ("and supplied").—(Viscount Stonehaven.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope the noble Lord understands quite clearly what he is doing. He is putting into tile Scottish Application Clause words which provide that Scotsmen may have a concession which Englishmen do not get—namely, that Scotsmen shall have orders provided to them free o charge, but not Englishmen, who have to pay for them. That really would not do may I point out to the noble Lord that some of these orders are very long and relate to one person in a very small degree. Take, for instance, a compulsory purchase order where you are acquiring a lot of land. You will find a long and complicated order which will have a schedule to it setting out the properties it is proposed to acquire. You look for your name, you see your name and the address ct. your properly. That is all you want to know about it. You know then that the local authority is intending to acquire your property. The rest of the order is of no value to you; you know all you want to know. On the other hand, there may be orders amalgamating a lot of water undertakings where it is necessary that those concerned should be able to study the order closely. The empowering Statutes provide for that, hut they do not provide for the
286
order to be applied free of charge. You have always to pay the reasonable costs, and sometimes the Act defines how you are to assess the reasonable costs. This is the first attempt we have had to see that these things are supplied free of charge. I could not accept this Amendment.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: I beg to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

FIRST SCHEDULE.
Preliminary Proceedings.
2. Every such notice shall specify the time within which and the manner in which objections may be made to the application or to the order, as the case may be.
VISCOUNT LONG VISCOUNT LONG moved, in paragraph 2, after "time," to insert "not being less than twenty-eight days." The noble Viscount said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 17, after ("time") insert ("not being less than twenty-eight days").—(Viscount Long).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am happy to accept this Amendment. As the noble Viscount knows, the First Schedule at the present time does not apply to anything, but it may apply to something in the future.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: In view of what was said by the Lord Chancellor when I moved an Amendment just now I shall not proceed with the Amendment in my name to insert in paragraph 5, after "inspected," the words "and supplied."
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to. Remaining schedule agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL POLICY.
4.9 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they could give further particulars of their agricultural policy; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I put down this Motion to give His

287
Majesty's Government an opportunity of amplifying the statement that was given on November 15 by the noble Viscount the Leader of this House and by the Minister in another place. I should like to say straight away that I found some parts of that statement very satisfactory. First and foremost was the fact that His Majesty's Government have taken a large part of their policy from the agricultural industry itself. Some time ago the Royal Agricultural Society published a symposium of the policies of all those authorities and bodies which are entitled to speak on behalf of the different sections of agriculture. I should like to congratulate His Majesty's Government on having taken some of their policy from them.
One thing that is most necessary is that as far as possible agriculture should be taken out of Party politics. There is another statement by the Minister which I should like to commend, which he made in answering supplementary questions on his policy in another place. The Minister of Agriculture said:
"The best thing any Government can do to assist the agricultural workers is to ensure that there is a healthy, well-balanced, prosperous and stable agricultural industry."
I hope that noble Lords opposite and their colleagues in another place will always remember that. I am quite sure that it is entirely true. But, although we are able to applaud some portions of the Government's policy, we are, I think, entitled to know a little more about it. We are entitled to know how that policy is going to be implemented. A pious and in some cases a rather cryptic phrase is not sufficient; what we want to know is how in fact this policy is going to work out.
For instance, take the Government's proposed procedure in regard to the fixing of prices. The long-range fixing of prices, which was introduced by Mr. Hudson when he was Minister of Agriculture, is entirely sound in principle, but the most important question is, what prices are going to be fixed? That is what really matters. Everything depends on that. I should like to know whether the Government can give us any assurance in that respect. Merely to tell us eighteen months in advance that the prices for such-and-such a commodity are
288
going to be wholly unremunerative would simply be to antedate the debacle that would inevitably follow. We must remember that wages at present are higher than they have ever been before in agriculture. In my opinion they are not at all too high; the agricultural labourer is the most skilled of all the great artisans in this country; but the wages bill that all farmers have to pay at present is greater than anything that has ever been known before in the industry.
I am sure the Government will agree that prices must be related to costs; and of all the costs that the farmer has to meet wages are far and away the greatest— probably more on most farms than all the other costs put together. It is essential, therefore, that the prices that farmers are going to receive shall be related to the wages which they have to pay. I would remind the Government that farmers have not been allowed to come out of this war with the cash reserves which they had after the last war, cash reserves which were of tremendous importance and benefit to the whole industry in the bad years that followed the last war. The farmers are coming out of this war in a very different condition; a great many of them have not made big profits at all, and those who have made big profits have had to pay them out in E.P.T. If, therefore, the Government are not going to fix prices which enable the farmers to pay the high wages that prevail at present, there will be greater unemployment in agriculture than we have ever known before, and we shall have the biggest debacle that we have ever known in the industry.
That is what I meant when I said at the beginning of my remarks that, although we welcomed parts of the policy announced on November 15, we want to know how it is going to work out and how it is to be implemented. Now that my noble friend the Leader of the House is here, I cannot help reminding him of the agricultural policy of the last Socialist Government, which was announced by the noble Viscount himself when he was Minister of Agriculture. He said "Farming must be made to pay." I was always a very warm supporter of that policy, but the trouble was that the Government took no steps whatever to carry it out.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: You turned us out!
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think my noble friend had longer in office at that time than perhaps he is going to have this time, so that if he did not have enough time on the last occasion I hope he will hurry up now! what tile farmer is interested in and what is important to the country, is how these fine and excellent phrases will actually work out.
Let me put the question in a different form. Let us take it by commodities. There is no commodity more important to the health of the nation than milk, and I should like to ask the Government whether they will translate their policy into terms of milk. What is the milk target at which the Government are aiming? What is the yearly gallonage that they hope to achieve, not next year or the year after, but in, say, five or six years' time, when their policy has been able to produce results? They are always telling us of the necessity of planning, and I think that that necessity is just as great in agriculture as in other spheres. We want to know where we are going, and therefore I should like to ask the Government how much milk they think that the industry can and should produce under their policy. I should also like to ask the same question with regard to the principal meat products of the country—beef, mutton and bacon. How much of what we consume in this country do the Government think should be home-grown?
There are other branches of agriculture about which we should like to hear something. The Minister said in his statement:
"The objective will be to promote a healthy and efficient agriculture, capable of producing that part of the nation's food which is required from home sources."
There is not a word in the whole statement about such crops as fruit, vegetables and hops, and I should be glad if the Government could tell us what the fate of those very important branches of agriculture is going to be. I am a hop-grower and a fruit-grower myself. I live among hop-growers and fruit-growers, and noble Lords arc aware that there are no branches of agriculture which give more employment per acre than those crops do. Furthermore, there are few branches of agriculture which are more exposed to the danger arising front gluts than those crops. I would like to ask His Majesty's Government: Are fruit-growers going to have any protection against gluts of fruit from overseas countries being dumped
290
into this country? In regard to hops I would like to ask whether the Hops Marketing Scheme—which is due to expire next year, I think—is going to he renewed. Also, I would like to ask whether it is the policy of the Government that the very considerable importation of foreign hops, particularly American hops, that used to take place before the war, should be continued in the postwar era, or whether it is the policy of the Government that we should ourselves grow more of, or all of, the hops we consume.
In that connexion, I desire to remind. His Majesty's Government that at Wye Agricultural College, in recent years, there have been bred a whole series of new varieties of hops which contain the qualities for which foreign hops have been imported in the past. There has, however, been no inducement to English farmers, so far, to grow varieties with which they are not familiar. Therefore, I would like to know whether the Government propose to take any steps to enable the work which has been done by Wye Agricultural College to be followed up in the hopfields of England—as, for example, by giving a special hop quota for those varieties.
Then we come to the second part of the Government's statement, the part where we are told how landowners and farmers— but not agricultural labourers, I gather—are to be taught how to conduct their business. We read that:
"… the Government propose to take appropriate steps to ensure that agricultural land is not only properly farmed but properly managed and equipped. …"
I should be very grateful if the spokesman for His Majesty's Government could tell me what arc the appropriate steps they contemplate to ensure that agricultural' land is to be properly equipped. I do not see, in this statement, one word about Death Duties, and yet, my Lords, everyone who has investigated these problems knows that Death Duties are more responsible than anything else for preventing the proper equipment of farms. How can you maintain the equipment of an estate properly if at every generation you have to convert a great chunk of the capital invested in it into cash and surrender it to the Government? It does not matter whether the farm is worth £5,000, £50,000 or £500,000, the problem is the same. It is that which has crippled the efforts of

291
landowners to keep their farms properly equipped, and equipped as they would like them to be. The Income Tax Act which was passed this year, at the instance of Sir John Anderson, was, I think, the greatest agricultural reform that we have had for many years. But even that, without some alteration in the law concerning Death Duties, will not enable the equipment of farms to be such as modern conditions require.
I am quite sure that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will agree with me when I say that in this year, 1945, in order to conduct agriculture efficiently we require far more capital equipment than was required, say, forty or fifty years ago. Therefore, this problem of equipping an agricultural estate and maintaining that equipment is a far greater problem than it was, say, in our grandfathers' days. I should like to ask the noble Viscount whether the Government are going to help landowners in that matter at all, and if so, how? Or do they not want to help landowners? Do they want to set landowners an impossible task? Do they want to ham-string the horse and then shoot him because he cannot jump? I am sure we should be much obliged to know what the "appropriate steps" are going to be.
Another question I would like to put is about the Land Commission. We read that:
"The Government propose to set up a Commission for the purpose of managing and developing for agricultural use land acquired under these powers. …"
I would like to ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House if that means that the Commission will take over land, acquire it, recondition it and then sell it to farmers, or does it mean that the Commission is going to farm that land itself or hold it, itself, in perpetuity and let it to farmers? I think that the Government ought to tell us a little more about that plan. If, after all, this is going to be piecemeal nationalization of land, I cannot see how that is going to help the countryside. We shall be creating a great and ever-growing non-resident landlord, and of all landlords the worst is the corporate non-resident landlord.
Then we come to that part of the policy which tells how the efficiency of farmers is going to be looked after. Upon that
292
I would like to say this. I believe that the Government will be making a great mistake if they think they are going to get the same stamp of man to serve on their agricultural county committees in peace-time as they had serving on, their agricultural county war agricultural committees during the war. Then the very best farmers in the country gave up an immense amount of time to this work and rendered service of the utmost benefit to the whole agricultural community out of motives of patriotism. But it will not be unreasonable if those men say that, now the war is over, they must devote more time to looking after their own businesses. I think there is a danger that these agricultural committees—and it is a danger to which all committees are apt to be exposed—may become the happy hunting ground of "gas-bags"—people who are very fond of airing their views, but who have not got the record of accomplishment behind them to entitle them to express them so freely.
I read in the paper to-day that we are to have 1,500 officials, or 15,000, I am not quite sure which, who are going to advise farmers how to farm. I hope these officials will carry with them a certificate that they themselves have successfully managed farms and run them at a profit, because although, of course, there are inefficient farmers as there are inefficient members of every profession—I have even known inefficient politicians and inefficient civil servants—the number of farmers who can be classified under that title or given that epithet, is a very small minority indeed. A great deal of nonsense has been written about inefficient farmers by townsmen who do not know the difference between a turnip and a mangel-wurzel. Because land was under-farmed before the war, it did not necessarily prove that the farmer was inefficient or a fool. With the limited capital resources at his disposal and with the falling markets with which he was confronted, he was, in many cases, making the best of a bad job. If he had been given decent conditions he would have farmed that land as well as he farmed it during the war.
With regard to the number of farmers who had to be dispossessed at the commencement of the war, the great majority of them were due to the Act passed by the first Socialist Government which made it practically impossible for a landlord to get

293
rid of a bad tanner. Many farmers who had been hood tanners in their time had got too old and ceased to be able to fulfil their obligations, and that Act made it almost impossible for their landlords to get rid of them. So far as the evil did exist, it was very greatly aggravated by the Socialist legislation of 1924. Therefore I believe the idea that bad farming is rife in this country is misconceived. In fact, it is only men of ability and energy who have been able to weather the depressions with which the industry has been afflicted during the last fifty years. I say to His Majesty's Government that if they will give fair prices, fair markets, fair conditions and rid the land of this crippling attack on capital equipment that the Death Duties bring to every generation, the farmers of to-day are fully capable of maintaining the great reputation which was built up by their predecessors in generation past. I hope the Government will therefore be able to give us further information on these aspects of their agricultural policy on which I have asked them questions.
But there is a further final question I should like to ask His Majesty's Government. What are they going to do in the immediate future in regard to labour and cottages? Other noble Lords are going to speak at greater length about this. but I cannot sit down without saying that however good your long-term policy and however well designed it is (if it is well-designed), unless von do something about labour and cottages now, agriculture will receive a very severe setback. Conditions are intensely serious on hundreds of farms at present. Agriculture is at this moment going downhill simply through lack of labour, and lack of cottages in which to house the labour, and that is particularly the case in regard to stockmen because white the Government are appealing to us to increase our dairy herds, it is, impossible to get cottages in which to house the cowmen, and cowmen must live close to their herds. I should like to make an appeal to His Majesty's Government for immediate results in that respect. I hope also that they may be able to reassure us in regard to the other questions I have ventured to address to them this afternoon. I -beg to move.
4.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, it is quite like old times having the noble Earl
294
on the other side of the Table when we are discussing agriculture. I remember an occasion many years ago in another place when I had the responsibility of introducing the Agricultural Marketing Bill, and I remember that the noble Earl served the same purpose, shall I say, with the same efficiency in those days. But In those days, as now, he was willing to wound but vet afraid to strike. I well remember—and I remember it with gratitude—how on more than one occasion, convinced against himself, the noble Earl rendered me considerable help in regard to improving the Agricultural Marketing, Bill and in getting it through, although I suffered from his admonitions from the other side of the Table quite frequently. However, I would raise the question as to the accuracy of some of his history. I believe that the noble Earl prefaced his remarks by suggesting that the Government had taken its policy from the National Farmers' Union, or words to that effect.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I said a large part of their policy was taken from the agricultural industry, and I quoted the symposium published by the Royal Agricultural Society.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: That only makes the sphere a little wider, but I will answer that question and this is where I am afraid I must correct him in the matter of history. It is now twenty years ago—a little more than twenty years ago—when I myself with the present Minister of Agriculture and the late Mr. Wise, who had been Secretary of the Ministry of Food, were appointed as a Committee by the Labour Party to consider agricultural policy. It is twenty-two years ago, my Lords! That Committee found that unreliability of farm prices, the general insecurity of outlook of the industry, affected both owners and farmers, and had been mainly responsible for the deplorable conditions into which the industry had drifted. We therefore set about trying to formulate a policy which would have the result of giving security of price to the farmer. That policy was debated by the conference of the Labour Party in 1926—nineteen years ago. It shows you how slowly we move in this country. I am just putting the noble Earl right in a matter of history. It was adopted in 1926, and we had rather a fight because it was contrary to the usually accepted

295
maxim that you should get your food as cheaply as possible. We contended, and we succeeded in carrying the conference with a unanimous vote—I had the honour of moving the resolution myself—that it was a mistake to beat down the primary producer to the lowest possible figure. Of course, that is all accepted now since Hot Springs, but what I am pointing out to the noble Earl is that we passed it in 1926. Therefore, I think we can at least claim, to some extent, that we are pioneers of this policy. I put it no higher than that.
At all events, we agree that the lowest possible price to the producer, whether it be fruit or wheat in England or bananas in Jamaica, was not a sound policy and that it impoverished the primary producers. What was true of other parts of the world should be applied in Great Britain if we could find ways of applying it. When you examine security of price, it immediately emerges—as it did in the first Great War, and, in fact, it is insuperable—that if you are going to obtain security of price you must have some machinery for controlling supply somewhere in its passage from the primary producer to the consumer. You may, if you like, use established business agencies so long as you have your control somewhere, for you cannot get security of price without it. It is also necessary, if you are going to get security of price of home and imported commodities, to have an arrangement for dealing with imported supplies as well as home supplies.
I well remember when the expression "import board" was founded; and for some reason or other it has obtained an unpleasant flavour. I well remember, too, a colleague of the- noble Earl asking my advice on a certain matter. I advised him as to how I thought—after due examination, of course—a stabilized price for a particular commodity could be obtained. He accepted my advice, but he exhorted me, whatever I did, not to call it an import board. That is because the name was supposed to be Socialistic, or something. Of course, whatever you call it, it is the same thing in effect; it is a body of men who manage the importation of a commodity, and such management must be applied in the case of any commodity which is partly home produced and partly imported.
296
I now come to the point where the noble Earl rather amplified my statement in saying that we have taken our policy from the industry. I would remind him that if you are going to establish stability of price, you must have control. The first effort must be to obtain an organized market in respect of home-produced supplies, and the Agricultural Marketing Act was passed for that purpose. So far from our taking our policy from the industry, if the noble Earl will recollect, he will remember well enough the bitter and strong fight I had with the then executive committee of the National Farmers' Union who opposed me tooth and nail. In fact, I remember they invited me to go to a meeting in the West of England where I was met by an agreeable Chairman who tried to allay my misgivings by giving me a good dinner before the meeting. Afterwards he said: "There are 2,000 farmers in the meeting, but I do not think you have a friend among them." I am only reminding the noble Earl that that was the atmosphere when we tried to establish machinery for stabilizing prices. Whoever is responsible for this policy, it can be claimed, as a matter of historic fact, that the policy was designed by the Labour Party. It has had a great many people to extol it since it has become relatively fashionable, but, as to the origin of it, do let us be fair to the unfortunate inventors.
The noble Earl asked me a number of questions on the basis of price fixing, and they were very proper questions indeed. I am much obliged to him for sending me notice of the questions beforehand, and I will do my best to reply to them. Of course we want to fix a fair price. I notice that in one place the noble Earl imagined that we should fix prices which were unremunerative. Of course not. The whole idea of a stabilized price system, as, in fact, is stated expressly and clearly in the policy, is to have a system which will enable an efficient farmer—I am sure your Lordships will agree with the word "efficient"—to produce the goods and pay adequate wages to those who help to do the work. We have no desire to depart from that understanding. In fact, it is in order to enable that to be done that the whole scheme is devised, because we all know the dreadful vicissitudes that the industry went through in years gone by, when you had such extraordinary variations in prices that nobody knew

297
what was going to happen next year, and many were ruined in consequence.
The method for determining the prices will, naturally, vary according to the different commodities. That must be so. For instance, for live-stock prices we contemplate a four-year period because it takes four years to breed and grow an animal, and that is why the long period is taken. It is provided that during that period there will be a two-year fixing of a minimum price every alternate February so that you are always working on a four-year basis with a two years' fixation immediately in front. The periods, as the noble Earl is well aware, have been fixed differently for other commodities—for cereals eighteen months—according to the necessities of the actual production.
Here I would remind your Lordships that not long ago it was announced in this House and in another place that it was proposed to continue the Ministry of Food as a permanent body. The reason for that is obvious. It would not do for the Ministry of Agriculture, representing an interested industry, to be the Ministry responsible for all the importation proceedings and bulk purchases of foreign supplies, and so on, and, above all, to be the sole arbiter of prices. Therefore, it was clear that the Ministry of Food, the Treasury and the Ministry of Agriculture must all be concerned in the review of prices. The whole basis of the scheme is to encourage efficiency with the understanding that I have previously elaborated. We think it is desirable and necessary that there should be some plan in our method. We want to see our land producing those portions of the country's food for which it is best suited. That is sound agriculture and, therefore, you must have a scheme sufficiently elastic and sufficiently general for your bulk production. But that does not mean—and is not intended to mean—that the individual farmer will be harassed in the planning of his cultivations. It will mean, in general, that the country will see that we require so many thousands or hundreds of thousands of acres of potatoes or sugar beet, or whatever it is, and local agencies will be left to adjust the cropping accordingly.
I do not agree with the noble Lord that the good men who are serving the county committees who have necessarily been used in surveying other farms, in translating to the industry the general scheme
298
of the food production plan, and all the rest of it, with which we are familiar, will desert them. I hope not. We shall do our very best to keep them and I am sure the noble Earl will help us, because he realizes, as we do, the need to enlist the best and most experienced minds in the industry in helping to guide this scheme. We do not propose to farm from Whitehall—not at all. We are decentralizing. it. We want to find in the counties the best minds in the industry and get them to help us to guide this scheme in the county committees as they are doing now. I do not agree with the noble Lord that those people will make way for, to use his own words, "gas-bags." It is not a habit of the farming community, I am glad to say, to produce "gas-bags." The noble Lord may have found some, but I have not. I have found them into rise realists—some of the most obstinate realists in the world—and that description of "gas-bags" should not be applied to them.
However, jesting apart, I have no reason whatever to suppose that we shall fail to enlist the good will and help of the most experienced farmers in the different districts, and I am glad to say that the National Farmers' Union is clearly desiring to help us as much as it can. The committees will be used far the general purposes of survey, and so on, as they are now, and for another purpose to which I will come in a minute. The noble Earl even allowed himself to suggest that farmers are to be taught their business, and that if they do not deliver the goods—I am using his words—these various pains and penalties will be inflicted on them. He really knows as well as I do that those are what might be called figures of speech. They have no relation to the actualities of the situation. The county committees which have served during the war have enormously improved the standard of farming. For the most part they have been served by district committees which have been constituted, almost completely, of the best farmers in the district. They know perfectly well who are the B farmers and the C farmers, and they visit the C farmers, exhort them and give them instructions. The noble Earl knows, as well as I do, that there are C farmers. It is no good pretending there are not. It is desirable that you should improve the standard of cultivation, and these commit-

299
tees and those who have helped them during the war have enormously improved the standard of cultivation in many parts of the country. But what they have done already is only a portion of what can be done. We all agree that the application of new knowledge and of science to agriculture is capable of an immense development in the future and we want to use this machinery to see that it is done.
The same applies, if I may say so with bated breath, to the landowner. There are bad landowners as well as bad farmers, and it is quite fair that if the Government of the country, at the expense, if need be, of the taxpayer, are assuring an adequate market at a fair price, they should be entitled to request in return that there should be a good standard of cultivation. It would be wrong if they did not. Therefore you have to establish machinery for securing it. The same applies to the equipment of the farms. It clearly is right that a farmer, if he is going to produce milk, should have a proper water supply, proper sheds to house his cattle, and so on. It is not giving him a fair chance to do his business properly if he has not these things. Therefore it is our business to see that there is adequate equipment. Nobody wants to be hard on any particular owner, but it is quite clear—and the noble Earl would be the first to admit it, as the Landowners' Association have admitted it—that the obligations attaching to the ownership of a farm should be complied with and no: evaded. As in the case of the farmer, when, after due, proper and often prolonged inquiry (as we all know), a particular farmer is not allowed to go on wasting the land any longer, so it is also provided here that if the landowner is unable or unwilling, or both, to equip his land properly, he should pass it over to somebody else who can; or if not, the Land Commission can acquire it. But there will be provision for appeal. Nobody, I am sure, wishes to deal with it other than fairly, but it is an essential concomitant of the State undertaking these great obligations with regard to the industry and I am quite sure no fair-minded landowner or farmer objects to it.
I entirely agree with what the noble Earl said as to the inadequacy of cottages and the crux of the case for the next few years is labour. I have great apprehension as to what will happen with the 1947
300
harvest. There may not be prisoners of war, as we have row, and perhaps a good many members of the Women's Land Army will have gone. Unless there is a substantial reinforcement of the labour forces in one way or another we shall be in a very difficult position indeed in. 1947 in getting in the harvest. Nobody realizes that more acutely than His Majesty's Government, and anything we can do to provide cottages and to increase the provision of labour between now and then we will do.
Here may I interrupt my remarks for two or three minutes to reply to the questions the noble Earl has sent to me, because they are appropriate at this point? I will do so as briefly and as well as I can. He asked me if prices are to be fixed to increase the present agricultural population or to maintain it at its present level. I think I have answered that fairly well. But clearly, we foresee great developments in agriculture, and they ought to be made. The country's land is worthy of it, and the whole scheme of this policy is designed to promote those developments. That will, of necessity, mean an increasing number of people employed in the industry. That is what we hope, and the policy will be a failure if it does not lead to that result.
The noble Earl asks if there will be a target for milk. If he means a target of so many million gallons, as the case may be, the answer is No. Although during the war there has been a great increase in the consumption of liquid milk, the actual production of milk has diminished—fifty million gallons is about the diminution in production, in gross, for the whole country. The explanation is that 150,000,000 gallons of milk have been saved either by not being used on the farms or by not being made into butter, or whatever it is, so that the extra amount of milk has found its way on to the liquid milk market. On the liquid milk market a very much smaller proportion has been processed than was the case before the war. Those two figures between them, notwithstanding the gross decline in the total output, have made some 270,000,000 gallons more milk for people to drink. We have by no means, I hope, satisfied the demand for liquid milk. We have by no means satisfied the demand for processed milk, because we have merely cut it off. Therefore it is quite evident

301
that we can look forward to a substantial increase in milk production. What the gallonage will be I cannot say, but it must be very substantial if it is going to meet the need. One of the most important contributions to that end will be an increase in the yield of milk per cow. That has been going on very satisfactorily. A lot of animals not worth keeping have been got rid of, and there has been a great improvement in the standard of herds. That improvement, of course, should be, and no doubt will be, continued.
The noble Earl asked me some questions about meat. There again, I can only say that the policy I indicated will be pursued, but what that will mean precisely in terms of tonnage of meat I cannot say. Our live-stock policy is clearly, after milk, the chief element in British agriculture of large scale application. It is in live stock that British agriculture is almost preeminent, and we shall do our best to encourage it in every way possible. The noble Earl also raised a question about fruit and vegetables. My reply to that is—I hope he will not scoff at it—that the Advisory Service will contain, we hope, a considerable number of experts in horticulture, fruit-growing and suchlike industries. It should be very considerably expanded in districts which are suitable for it. Nobody knows more about that subject than the noble Earl himself, or, if I may say so, has practised it more successfully and efficiently.
The Hops Marketing Scheme was not suspended, and there is no likelihood of its being suspended. In order to examine what is to be done in the future with regard to the Hops Marketing Board, I am fortunately in a position to-day to announce that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture has just appointed a Reorganization Commission to inquire into the arrangements to be devised for continuing this industry and for dealing with it. The noble Earl asked me some question about foreign hops. I think perhaps Oregon hops were in his mind. In the first place, apart from our not wanting to spend any more dollars than we can avoid at the present time, it is not at all likely that there will be any particular demand for those hops, as far as we can see, at dl events in the near future. With regard to the special varieties that are being cultivated at Wye, I have some in-
302
formation here which will encourage the noble Earl. These: two new varieties—I am afraid I know nothing about them, so I can only quote from the paper—called gold and bullion, which have apparently a remarkable yield as compared with other varieties, have made some headway. The present production is about 1,500 cwt. annually. Provision is being made for planting, and to speed up the supply of planting material, the East Mailing Research Station and the Wye Agricultural College have been asked to study rapid propagation. These institutions are receiving grants for this purpose from the Agricultural Research Council, and part of them are provided by the Ministry itself. I hope that reply is satisfactory to the noble Earl.
Then he said—with unquestionable truth and justice—that a good deal of the decline in the standard of farm equipment has been due to the taxation policy of the past generation. I do not deny it. All I have to say is that it was certainly not the Labour Government which imposed those taxes. There have been many years of good solid Conservative government since these pernicious Acts were passed. Whoever may be responsible for these sins and wickednesses, it certainly is not the present Government.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: What are you going to do about it?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am only making a very proper plea that it should not be cast up against us. By the way, the noble Earl made a mistake about the Agricultural Holdings Act, which he said the pernicious Labour Government of 1924 passed, and which made it so difficult for a landowner to get rid of a bad tenant. Unfortunately he is a little wrong in his history. That Act was passed by the Conservative Government in 1923. In any case, if it had been passed by the Labour Government—it was not—there have been twenty years of Tory administration between then and now. If it was so harmful, I really think the noble Earl might earnestly be requested to think up something a little more novel and ingenious. It certainly was not our fault, and there has been plenty of time for his friends to remedy it. However, I agree with him that it has been exceedingly difficult and has been a real hardship on

303
landowners by reason of Death Duties and otherwise to carry out the repairs which are required.
It has been partly, I think, due to neglect on the part of the community generally, for instance, with regard to water supply schemes, electricity and so forth. In our view they are public services and should be much more economically dealt with on that basis. At the same time, already my right honourable friend is arranging for loans to be made to landowners at 3½ per cent for the purpose of assisting them to provide better equipment and so on. This, in conjunction with the 10 per cent. allowance, to which the noble Earl referred, in last year's Income Tax Bill will at all events afford very substantial assistance. I sincerely hope that as the industry gets into a more stable condition, there will be more confidence in carrying out these improvements. They are certainly badly needed. It is no part of the Labour Government policy to take advantage of the situation, as I think the noble Earl suggested, by asking landowners to do impossible tasks. Our aim is to be helpful. At the same time, if a landowner is not prepared to do his job, then he ought to make way for somebody else.
I will not keep your Lordships any longer. This fascinating subject has been one which has been near to my heart for many years. At long last we are trying, after an opportunity long hoped for, to establish a scheme of agriculture in this country which will provide a real basis of security for the industry. We have confidence that if we can succeed in doing that we shall have provided a basis upon which a great many helpful developments will ultimately be founded. What is wanted, above all, is confidence. Once we get that, we can get all sorts of other things gradually arising. I believe in the course of time—we know it will not happen quickly; it cannot happen quickly by the processes of nature—this policy will result in bringing much more good land into fruitful cultivation, and we shall produce more good food for the people and a better life for many of them.
5.3 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, towards the end of his speech the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, told us that this subject has been very near to his heart
304
for many years. I think we all know that to be true. Years ago, when he and I sat on the same side of the House, and even worked in the same Department, when I was his Under-Secretary, I well remember feeling all the time that there was no better friend to agriculture than the noble Viscount.
The statement that we are discussing to-day is of immense importance to the future of the industry. It is of historic importance, because it really means a declaration by the country as a whole that they have come to realize that the old conflict between town and country, which this country has endured for many years, is wrong, and is hurtful to both sides, agriculture and industry alike. The country have come to realize that what is to-day an annual purchasing power of well over £500,000,000, which is in the hands of the agricultural industry, is of immense importance to the towns, and that cheap food, as it was understood in the past, was not only a bad policy for farmers who were driven down to rock bottom by it, but was bad business for the towns by destroying the markets for their products. The country has really been driven to this point of view, and the fact that this policy is inevitable should make it all the more welcome to us. I was a little sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, was driven into making Party claims about it.
LORD QUIBELL: Quite rightly.
EARL DE LA WARR: It is perfectly right. I remember discussions on the Advisory Committee of the Labour Party, and I well remember the passing of the resolution in 1926; but equally I well remember the struggles that the noble Viscount and I had in 1929 and 1930 to persuade the Labour Government to adopt even a modicum of that policy. After struggling for a year to get the Wheat Quota Act through, it was left to the succeeding Government to do so, because we failed; and that was only the Wheat Quota Act and had nothing to do with import boards. What was the good of talking of import boards in 1922 and 1926, when in fact when we had a Labour Government we could not put anything into force? That, however, is a matter of history, and who minds about it at the present time? We are concerned with the present and the future; and, as the

305
noble Earl, Lord Selborne, has told us, this policy that we are discussing has behind it the approval of the whole agricultural industry. It was put forward by the industry over three years ago. More than that, it has the approval of great chambers of commerce, like the Manchester Chamber of Commerce—it is at least two years since they passed what is now regarded as their famous resolution—the London Chamber of Commerce, and others, as well as of the Engineering Industries Association and a great number of other trading and industrial bodies.
I have no criticisms to offer whatsoever. My only regret is that rather more is not made in the policy of the Hot Springs Conference; which laid down that the basis of agricultural policy not only in this country but throughout the world must in future be the proper feeding of the people of the world. Very little, I regret to say, is said about that aspect of the question in the statement, although it is perfectly true that Hot Springs is mentioned. But if, like the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, I have no criticisms to make, I have a number of questions that I should like to put. The first is concerned with something which the noble Earl has already dealt with but which seems to me fundamental, and I am not sure that: the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, has dealt with it sufficiently fully. We are all delighted that the industry has been given an assured market at assured prices, and the machinery for the assessment of prices is on the whole satisfactory. But the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, when defining the basis on which the price was to be arrived at, said it would be a price which would enable the efficient fanner to make a good living and to pay good wages. At first sight that seems eminently satisfactory. The trouble about the agricultural industry, however, is that the efficient farmer has quite different costs on one type of land from those which he has on another: and it would be perfectly possible for the Government completely to fulfil the pledges given in this policy, by giving assured markets at assured prices which would enable the large farmer, on good land, to have a highly satisfactory life, and to pay wholly satisfactory wages, but which would cause ruin to the great mass of the countryside, the farmers who had farms of average size on land of average quality. It is very
306
important, therefore, that the Government should be quite specific in the reply which they give on this point, and I suggest to the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, that it would be a good thing if he could be more specific on this point than was the noble Viscount, Lord Addison.
The policy lays great emphasis, and rightly, on the word "efficient." There is no one in the agricultural industry who would in any way deprecate that emphasis. It is a challenge to the industry, and a challenge that the whole industry is prepared to accept. It is only fair that, if we are given assured markets, we should in our turn give every assurance to the community that we shall produce their food as cheaply and efficiently as possible. But, it efficiency is impressed upon us, we are entitled in reply to demand from the Government the conditions which will make it possible for us to be fully efficient.
On the first point that I am going to mention—the subject of marketing—I definitely welcome what the Government say. The noble Viscount and I have worked together upon that point in the past. There is no need for me, now, to stress the difference between what the farmer receives and what the consumer pays. That is really a hardy annual, and the problem does not need any further underlining. The present Government are not the first to set out to tackle this problem of marketing. I wish them all success, but there are one or two questions which I would like to put to them. Are they going to be content to give a friendly reception to any proposals that the farmers themselves may put forward for the reorganization of marketing, or do the Government feel that it is their duty definitely to give a lead? More important than that question, there are a number of matters such as milk distribution and central slaughtering which are, very largely, outside the control of the farmer himself. What steps are the Government going to take in dealing with problems such as those? I would appreciate a definite answer from the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, on those two points.
We have been told what is going to happen to us, as an industry, if we farm badly or equip out farms badly. I say again what I have already said on the question of efficiency generally. None of

307
us can have any ground for complaint in that connexion. I certainly shall have none. If we farm our land badly, or we equip it badly, as landowners, we have got to take what is coming to us. Land is a trust. That is the basis of land ownership in this country, and it is right that it should be so. Again, I welcome what the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, said to the effect that if we are to farm and equip our land properly—I am thinking now of new equipment—we do want some very definite assurance from the Government as to how they are going to make it possible. This is not a question of Party politics. It is true, as the noble Viscount has said, that the Labour Party were not responsible for the imposition of Death Duties. But they are now the Government and, therefore, they are responsible for everything. What we have got to break away from in this country, surely, is this system that we have been pursuing for so long a time of neither nationalizing the land nor giving the landowner a chance of making the best possible use of his land from the point of view of the welfare of the country. As the Government have decided—and rightly decided, I think—not to nationalize the land, it is up to them to make it possible for the landowner to function properly and to make the best use of his land. As Lord Selborne has stated, never has capital been more necessary for the development and proper maintenance of agricultural land than it is to-day. You require three or four times more capital now to work a farm efficiently than was required in the past.
The subject of Death Duties is one which the noble Lord and I have discussed in the past, and it is not perhaps fair to throw at him now what he has said previously or to bring up reports that he has signed. But I think that we arc all conscious that this great levy, generation after generation, on the ownership of land—it may or may not be just: I am not discussing that now—certainly makes it impossible to equip land as it should be equipped. The noble Lord referred to the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, and to the rate of 3½ per cent. interest. I would not have referred to it, but as he seems to be interested in history I would just mention that to the best of my recollection this was laid before Parliament by Mr. Hudson before the last
308
General Election. But apart altogether from taxation or credit, both of them long-term considerations, I should like to refer to certain short-term considerations. At the present moment it is a matter of sufficient difficulty to get even a few tiles to replace any that may be missing from a roof, let alone, in view of the scarcity of labour and materials, completely to re-model a farm.
Now what about the immediate position, to which Lord Selborne has just referred? It does seem to me that even more important than policies for the future is this question of what is happening here and now. The whole basis of our appeal to the country is that we, as an industry, are able, at this period of crisis in the world's supplies, to make our contribution, and, what is more, we are determined to do so. But are we, as we are now placed, able to do so? Certainly never was the atmosphere more favourable. I am not sure that Lord Selborne was not just a little pessimistic about the possibilities of getting the right type of farmer to serve on the county agricultural committees. I believe that if a proper lead is given to them, and if they are made to feel that it is necessary having regard to the economic position of this country, and to the world position in respect of supplies—if they are made to realize that they are being given their opportunity to lay the foundations of an efficient and prosperous industry for the future—they will make the response which we desire. Never was the industry as a whole more anxious to play its part in national life. Never was it more open-minded to new ideas.
Speaking, for a moment, as Chairman of the Agricultural Research Council, may I say that I know very well how great is the pressure we get from those in the industry for more research, more help, more knowledge. I know, because of my contacts with farmers serving on the war agricultural committees and in other capacities, how desperately anxious farmers are, at the moment, to acquire more knowledge. I fear that at this very moment a train is leaving London which I had hoped to catch in order to go down into the country to attend one of those educational meetings of the kind which farmers, in different parts of the country, are arranging for practically every evening. I ask noble Lords who are not connected with the country to realize that

309
never at any time have the farmers been more determined to acquire all the knowledge that can possibly be put at their disposal, But can the Government tell us of a single county in England that is not, at the moment, crying out for labour? The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, mentioned this matter, I was very glad to note, but he did not actually tell us what was going to be done to relieve the situation. He told us that our milk production was down by some 50,000,000 gallons, I thank, compared with the pre-war figure. I do not know whether I have been given some different figures, but I rather think that there is a divergence with regard to the estimate e what is being used on farms.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I think that the figure which was in the noble Earl's mind was the consumption of liquid milk which, of course, has greatly increased.
EARL DE LA WARR: The figure I was given showed an increase, but I have no doubt that the noble Viscount has access to official figures and one must leave it at that. Unless something is done about the labour situation there will be a very real decrease in milk production quite soon. One hears all over the country of herds being given up and dispersed at the present moment, simply because the farmers are unable to get the labour for having the cows milked. I do not think it is being alarmist to say that the position is becoming desperate and worse every day.
Let us look at the labour position generally. The Women's Land Army is on the decrease and incidentally, when we remind ourselves of the numbers of members in the Women's Land Army who are actually working in the cowsheds, we realize, with milk as a first priority how doubly serious that is. The conscientious objectors have gone, the Italians have gone and as the noble Lord said, we cannot count on the Germans for ever. In my own county one in three and a half working on the land to-day is a German and I am told that next year the proportion is going to be even narrower. We had a reply to a question that I put down the other day on the subject of release from the Forces. We were told that out of io,000 applications for Class B release. 664 have actually been released. I made inquiries from various friends of mine on war agricultural committees who have to recommend these
310
releases and asked them for their explanation of why things are going so slowly. They said that no alternative is left, that the stringency of the conditions laid down by His Majesty's Government is such that they cannot make recommendations for releasing more men than they are doing at the moment.
I was told only to-day by the chairman of a labour committee in one county that they were recommending about one in fifty, although they knew that most of the 49 they had to turn down were needed on the farm. I gather that only men in a supervisory capacity are to be released. It is not supervisors we want on the farms; it is workers. What is the Minister going to do on this question of the conditions that have been laid down with regard to Class B? Is he going to lie down under it? Is he telling the Minister of Food what effect it is going to have on rations? Is he telling the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect it will have on foreign exchange if we cannot produce the food? And is he telling his colleagues as a whole what effect it will have on starving Europe if we are to make a greater demand on world pools of food supplies? I think that the Minister worked for some years under Mr. Hudson. Did he not learn something from him of how to deal with recalcitrant colleagues? I hope he will look back and ask himself whether Mr. Hudson would be sitting down to-day under these restrictions which are making it impossible to get labour on the farms at the present moment.
Even if he is able to get labour, where are the people going to live? I gather from an answer to my question last week that at the present moment no houses at all have been built. There is nothing at all in the statement about houses. I was very glad it was referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Addison; but there was not a word with regard to rural housing in the statement. I ask the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, quite categorically, what is going to be the rural housing policy of his Government? What is going to be their target? What are they aiming at? Let them remember that all private individuals have been told very firmly that their efforts are not wanted in housing. I gather that if I were to build a cottage for £1,200 and let it at 3s., 4s., or 5s. a week, I should get no assistance at all. If, a local authority likes to put up a house like that, and charges

311
7s. 6d. to 12s. to the same man, the authority is going to get assistance. So it is the sole responsibility of the Government to-day in a way it never was before, to see that these houses are, in fact, provided. I would also ask the noble Lord whether he is pressing the Minister of Health for the better Act he promised us when he threw over the Housing (Rural Workers) Act. It seemed a strange thing to do if you were preparing a better Act to throw over what you had got until you had produced that better Act. Nevertheless, that was what was done, and I have no doubt that he is daily pressing the Minister of Health for his better and improved version.
These points I have ventured to put forward are not simply in the interests of the agricultural industry. After all, if we are short of labour and houses for labour, there is an obvious solution for the individual farmer to cut flown the number of cows he keeps and put land down to grass, but we are told that the country needs food, and we want to be allowed to play our part. I can assure the noble Lord that if we are given the tools we are determined to do our best to work and serve the interests of the country. We are definitely encouraged by the statement we are discussing to-day, but I implore the noble Viscount and his Minister to realize that they have done nothing more than lay foundations—sound foundations—for the grim, hard, grinding work that has got to be done in the next few years. I congratulate the Government, but I say that a much stronger lead must be given here and now, at the present day, if these fine great plans for the future are not to prove castles in the air.
5.39 p.m.
LORD COURTHOPE: My Lords, I hope that with your Lordships' kindness you will be a little blind to a new boy's faults. The noble Earl who moved this Motion and the noble Viscount the Leader of the House had a little controversy of a historical nature as to a gathering of agricultural organizations which took place at the Royal Agricultural Society. As I was the Chairman and the convener of that body, perhaps I may say a word or two about it. It took place about one and a half years ago and it was not remarkable for any originality. The last
312
thing we should do would be to claim any credit for what the noble Viscount did in days of long ago. But it was remarkable for the tact that I think, for the first time, a range of bodies representing every phase of agriculture—owner, farmer, surveyor, agent, agricultural labourer and various other bodies concerned with land—came to complete agreement on a policy which has teen included, to a very large extent, in that of the present Government and also in the policy which the late Minister of Agriculture put out just before the Election. It is the great variety of minds that agreed on that for which we claim value, and not for picking up anyone else's original ideas.
As there has been a discussion about control and the need for good husbandry and good estate management, perhaps I might quote one sentence from that agreed document on the subject:
"In return for a guaranteed price limit, all owners and occupiers of rural land must accept an obligation to maintain a reasonable standard of good husbandry and good estate management and submit to the necessary measure of direction and guidance subject to provision for appeal to an impartial tribunal."
That was accepted unanimously, and I can only say that I am delighted to find that the present Government, as well as the late Minister of Agriculture, accept so many of the points on which all these different bodies were agreed.
I should like, also, if I may do so without impertinence, to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture upon his appointment of Professor Scott Watson as Chairman of his Advisory Committee. In my opinion there is no one in the whole of our agricultural community better able than Professor Scott Watson to carry out the function which I understand that that Committee is to undertake. I see that he is described in the newspaper, quite correctly, as the Agricultural Adviser, until recent times, to our Embassy in Washington. He was also, until to-day; editor of the Royal Agricultural Journal. He has had to give up that position. Perhaps, as I have mentioned that, I may mention that he is also the author of one of the most remarkable books of agricultural history which has been produced for a very long time—the Centenary History of the Royal Agricultural Society which he published on the occasion of the Royal Show in 1939. I

313
apologize for introducing those little incidents, but I was incited to it by the historical controversy with which this debate began. Most of what ought to be said, I think, has already been said, and a great many of the points which I had noted down for my speech have become out of date and obsolete owing to the speeches already made, but I should like to mention two or three points in the agricultural picture about which I have grave anxiety, and to ask His Majesty's Government not to overlook them.
The first is that I am very worried about the decline in the sheep population. I do not look upon this from the point of view of mutton or of wool—in fact, I think it is quite possibly due to the wool situation that the decline has taken place—I look upon it from the point of view of fertility. There are many hundreds of thousands of acres of our lighter land to which the presence of sheep and the folding of sheep was of the utmost importance, and I hope the Government will not overlook this point. I know that, perhaps, the needs of bill sheep and the keeping of them free from the forester may be more insistent of recent years, but a much greater importance ought to be attached to the presence of large numbers of sheep on our lighter land, for, unless it is looked to, I am afraid the decline in the sheep population will continue.
Another point about which I am very worried is the quality of our horned stock. It is not improving as fast as it ought. I have no doubt that the policy which the war forced upon us is, to some extent, responsible for that. We were more concerned with quantity than quality during the war, and we still arc, to some extent. But I want to emphasize, particularly, the importance of encouraging the maintenance and the increase of the pedigree herds of high quality. A great many of our best breeders of horned stock are giving up their pedigree herds. It is becoming too difficult and too expensive to maintain them, although it is of the utmost importance that high quality should be maintained and that it should be made possible and worth while for the stock-owner to keep up a very high standard of quality.
I am going to throw out a suggestion that came into my mind during a recent visit I made to the Argentine. I went
314
there in my capacity as President of the Royal Agricultural Society to visit the Argentine Rural Society and to see what they had to show. I found an almost incredible number of high quality animals. I do not suppose there was any animal in any breed that we could not match with a picked animal from the corresponding breed over here, but while we should have a difficulty in finding the two or three picked animals to equal or beat the Argentine animals of the same breed, they have them by the hundreds, and of such quality that it was not easy for anyone, even those accustomed to the judging of stock, to reduce the number to a quite small dimension for the purposes of judging.
The suggestion I want to throw out is this. We are, quite rightly, keeping a tight experimental hold on artificial insemination. In the Argentine, they are using artificial insemination not, as we do, to try to eliminate the scrub bull, but to multiply the number of females that can be served by their most expensive animals. They use artificial insemination in connexion with the bulls for which they have paid thousands or tens of thousands of dollars, in order to spread the high quality through as large a number as possible. I think it might be well worth while our considering the possibility of something on those lines. Of course, I know it is more difficult for us, in a way, because in any given area, and on any given farm, there is not a very large number, as a rule, of the female animals in a suitable condition at any one time for this insemination to be used, whereas, in the Argentine, you have herds of 20,000 animals, and it is relatively easy to arrange. But those are difficulties which I think can be overcome.
At all events, I sincerely hope the Government will not overlook this possibility of trying to maintain our herds. If we do not maintain their quality, we shall lose our export market. One of our best export markets, if not quite the best, has been the Argentine, but their breeders are not going to come over here and pay huge prices for bulls in order to introduce fresh blood unless those bulls are of at least as high a quality as the herds for which they are buying them. Their quality is very high. So I hope no stone will be left unturned in order to maintain the high quality of our horned stock.

315
Now I want to say a word or two, if I may, about buildings. I do not want to repeat what has already been very well said by the two noble Earls who have already spoken from this side and with whose remarks I entirely agree. But most of their remarks dealt with housing. That is very serious, but so are the conditions of farm buildings. In many parts of the country farm buildings are in a deplorable state. I know the difficulty of labour and I am not going to say anything about it, but I do beg the Government not to allow any other consideration to increase the difficulty of repairs, and not to make it difficult or impossible to utilize such labour as one has.
The obligation is put on to the landowner. For the moment I am speaking about the landowner and his quite proper obligation to maintain the equipment of his farms on a reasonably high level. Most landowners who have a number of farms to look after, whether they are occupying them themselves or letting them to tenants, have found it necessary to maintain a small staff of what we usually call estate tradesmen—bricklayers, carpenters, painters and so on, to do the continual round of repairs to farm buildings, cottages, etc. During the last year or two it has been very often impossible to make the fullest use of one's estate tradesmen, owing to the difficulty of getting materials. Obstacles have even been put in the way of using timber which is one's own. That is constantly happening. Frequently, on my own small estate, I have had repairs for which I have labour and timber available which were held up for quite a long time owing to the necessity for getting a licence in order to use £10 or£15 worth of timber which one had cut from one's own trees and which one wanted to use to carry out urgent repairs. Do not let that go on. There is no earthly reason why, when there is a small estate staff available to carry out urgent repairs, a general licence should not be given to them to use such materials as are on the estate.
I hope also licences to purchase such things as hardware which are not grown on the estate will be expedited. I have known several cases where a cottage which had been knocked about by blast from bombing could not be repaired for many weeks because one could not get a licence
316
to obtain a new sink, and the cottage was useless without a sink. That sort of thing ought not to happen in these days when every possible facility for the housing of one's labour is so urgently needed. I very much hope that these things will be taken into account and that the Government will not allow any avoidable difficulty to be put into the way of people who want to repair and maintain their buildings.
5.56 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I am sure you will all agree that we have just listened to a most instructive and informative speech from the latest agricultural recruit to your Lordships' House. I venture to hope that we shall hear on many occasions in the future in this House from my noble friend Lord Courthope similar speeches of a real and valuable constructive nature. To refer for one moment to what he said about live stock, I deplore more than I can tell you the unfortunate gap in quality between the best of our farmers and the worst, and the best of our live stock and the worst. There are many countries, including Argentina, where the average quality of both is higher than the average quality in this country. He referred incidentally to sheep. There is a good old motto—I am not sure that it did not originate with Jethro Tull—"The sheep hath a golden foot"; and all those who in days gone by have folded their sheep upon arable crops on light land would, I am sure, agree that the decline in the sheep population in this country is a very serious loss, at any rate from the point of view of the fertility of land.
I do not propose to look a gift horse in the mouth. We have in the Government's agricultural policy a valuable contribution to the national security of this country. The foundation of security in this country is to be found in the countryside. It is more than seventy years ago that that great statesman, Disraeli, said that "the nation which neglects its agriculture is bound to decay." I would venture to say that two devastating wars have reminded not only the man on the farm but a large proportion of our urban population of the serious possibilities of our losing our national health, our national prosperity and, above all, our national security, by neglect of a sound and fundamental agricultural policy.

317
Thirty-six years ago I entered Parliament solely as an agriculturist and I claimed from my constituents, in the most preponderantly agricultural constituency south of Yorkshire, and had conceded to me, a free hand in regard to the policy of either political Party which might affect the welfare of the agricultural community. I claim the right to explore this new charter for the British countryside quite dispassionately and wholly uninfluenced by political partisanship. For the last half century we have dealt with our agricultural problems in a woefully piecemeal fashion and without any systematic overhaul of the whole creaky fabric, tottering on shaky foundations. Now, for the first time, we are offered a sound and solid basis upon which, if we all pull our weight, we can effect a veritable renaissance of the British countryside.
I do not hesitate in telling your Lordships that I regard the Government's scheme which has lately been put forward by the present Minister of Agriculture as a British Agricultural Magna Charta, or, if you like, a Bill of Rights, providing security of markets and stability of prices over a sufficient period to enable every farmer to lay his plans with confidence and with a fair prospect of a reasonable reward for his labour, a due return upon his capital outlay and, I may add enterprise, after adequately remunerating his workpeople. The quid pro quo that the Government, speaking on behalf of the public, demand is efficiency, skill and competent management. Incidentally, in regard to the attainment of that efficiency and skill, they now offer free technical advice to improve conditions in those respects. We now have our chance. It is up to all of us, whether we be agricultural landowners, farmers, or agricultural workers, to justify it by efficiency, hard conscientious work and public spirit.
Reference has been made to the noble Viscount who now leads this House. He is by profession a doctor and a politician, but at heart he is a son of the soil. I am bound to say, in candour, that I cannot remember any leading politician, sitting in either House of Parliament, who has so consistently, and if I may add, so logically, done his best to improve conditions in the British countryside. I have a sort of idea—I may be wrong—that he is in regard to this scheme a sort
318
of deus ex machina, the god behind the throne. However that may be, I am perfectly certain that his- influence is most salutary, and I for my part trust his assurances without any lurking suspicions which may be entertained from a purely partisan standpoint.
I am not going to take up your Lordships' time in uttering, as I am rather tempted to do, oratorical periods at what I regard as a great crisis and turning point in our agricultural history. I do want very seriously to ask whether the Government have sufficiently considered—I think it was incidentally referred to by the noble Earl Lord De La Warr—the case of the small farmer and the smallholder. I honestly see a danger, if this scheme is worked out, bearing in mind the extended use of labour-saving machinery and implements, of the small man, with little or no capital behind him, being squeezed out to the disadvantage not only of our British countryside but also to the disadvantage of those spacious and somewhat vacant lands overseas which are to-day sadly in need of re-population by members of our British race. In fact, the small man's economic existence depends upon co-operation. I want to urge that in the Government scheme for agriculture something in the nature of definite assistance be offered to the smallholder on condition that he accepts co-operation as a compulsory factor, as, 'by the way, has been so admirably insisted upon by the Land Settlement Association. If I may venture to say so, I think we can learn some valuable lessons from the experience of that association, with its remarkable results in putting small people (including miners, alter a state of serious depression in the mining industry), upon the land and not only preparing them for a life of prosperity and good health in the British countryside, but fitting them to be settlers, with a welcome awaiting them and their children after them in some part of the British Commonwealth and Empire overseas.
The noble Earl who opened this debate has become a very prominent fruit grower. He has applied some of the latest teachings of research which has been carried out at the East Mailing Research Station in immensely extending the production of dessert apples—of which by the way, in former days we grew only a

319
very small proportion of our total consumption—on the same area of land. That leads me to request that we do not in future draw a hard-and-fast line between agriculture and those more intensive forms of husbandry which may come more properly under the heading of market gardening, fruit production and the like. After all, it is all one science. Whatever may happen to the products of our more extensive husbandry, I do foresee an immense fillip being given to intensive husbandry, particularly to fruit-growing and market-gardening, in the years to come. They can he well linked with poultry keeping, and to some extent with pig-keeping, and thus constitute a valuable economic unit for the smaller type of husbandman.
I want must warmly to welcome—perhaps I do so with more avidity as I have devoted a good part of my life to agricultural science and the application of science to agriculture—the setting up of the National Agricultural Advisory Service. It is admirably planned, so far as one can judge from accounts in the newspapers, and as regards its principal officers, most excellently manned. The names of Scott Watson, H. V. Taylor, Troup, and Slater are sure guarantees of efficiency and public confidence. I rattier wish it had been found possible to include in that list the name of Engiedow. I really do not know of any man who has done more valuable work in promoting knowledge of agriculture, particularly' among the younger generation, than Professor Engiedow. In that connexion I should like to say this. Our agricultural research work is the best in the word, but our conveyance of its results into farm practice is relatively poor and ineffective. In this respect we have much to learn from the United States of America, Holland, Denmark, and New Zealand.
Another point I should like to make is that an effort should be made to induce our agricultural scientists, or at any rate those who work in this advisory service, to convey their advice in language that farmers and their employees can understand. For many years past there has been too great a tendency for young agricultural scientists to talk scientific jargon. I remember my dear old friend Henry Armstrong, possibly the ablest agricultural chemist we have ever had, at any rate during the last generation, per-
320
petually declaiming against technical jargon as applied to the instruction of practical agriculturists. Curiously enough —and I have reason to know something about this because I have travelled on agricultural tours of investigation in a large number of countries—our scientific discoveries in the field of agriculture are far better known and much more universally acted upon in certain other countries than they are in our own. That ought not to be the case. We ought to take care that the discoveries that are made in our research stations are, to use a modern phrase, "put over" in language that farmers and farm workers can understand, to the maximum advantage of our own husbandry.
Among other things, I see references in this statement to experimental farms and horticultural stations, which are going to be established throughout the country. The British farmer is a curious person; he does not like being lectured, but he is often quite easily instructed by seeing a demonstration or visiting an experimental farm. In fact, he learns almost as much by his eyes—what is called nowadays optical education—as he does by his ears. I wish that part of the scheme every success. Incidentally, this advisory service will, I venture to hope, result in greater uniformity in the matter of scientific advice delivered through the county education committees to our young farmers. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, said, in effect, that the rising generation of farmers are sitting up and taking notice to a much greater extent than did their forbears. They are longing for just the sort of information which this advisory service and its executants can provide for them. Do not let them be disappointed. There are discussion groups which might be formed. I do not know whether the Government have in mind in this advisory service the formation of discussions groups. These groups have become a great feature during the war in all our Fighting Services, and to very great advantage. There are large numbers of men now being demobilized, some of them for work on the land, who are asking that these discussion groups shall be continued in civil life. I cannot imagine anything better than the development of these discussion groups under the ægis or influence of this advisory service.
I should like to say a word with regard to British manufacturers of agricultural

321
implements, a question which was dealt with only yesterday in an admirable address given by Mr. Wright, the mechanical expert, at the Farmers' Club. There is no doubt that, particularly at a time when we want to save our dollar's, there is enormous scope for the manufacturers of agricultural machinery and implements to cater much more than they do at present for the small farmer. After all, the bulk of our farmers are small farmers, and there are comparatively few labour-saving implements to-day which an well adapted for use by the small fruit grower, the market gardener and the smallholder. I think that if the manufacturers could turn their minds to that problem they would get a full demand for appropriate implements in this country, and not a small demand from some of our overseas Dominions, including very particularly New Zealand, whose requirements I know full well. I was very glad to see the announcement in the newspapers to-day that Mr. R. R. Enfield was going to become Chief Economic Adviser to the Minister of Agriculture. I can confidently say that when I served very many years ago in the Board of Agriculture I found no official of that Department with a clearer brain or a greater capacity for conveying the information of which he was so well possessed than Mr. Enfield. As an old agricultural campaigner, and one who most earnestly has prayed to see a real renaissance of our British countryside, I most sincerely wish the Government all possible success.
6.17 p.m.
LORD QUIBELL: My Lords, I should first like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Courthope, on the maiden speech which he has delivered. He was one of the most knowledgeable agriculturists that we had in another place, and, so far as his contributions to this House are concerned, they will be welcomed on all sides because whatever he says he says with authority and with experience. I first remember making contact with the noble Lord in 1930, at a time when some of us were very anxious about the poverty and unemployment in the countryside. It was one of the worst periods that I can remember, although I recall vividly the poverty of the countryside when, as a boy, I was brought up in a little agricultural parish.
In 1930 we endeavoured to form an All-Party Committee to grapple with this in-
322
dustry and to deal with the dire need of the countryside to solve the problem of unemployment. The noble Lord was to be the Chairman of that Committee. I thought that we were going to put our house in order and do something for agriculture; but when we met he announced that the then Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons had stated that the best way to solve the unemployment problem in the countryside and to help agriculture was to get rid of the then Labour Government. So we came out of the room disappointed and disillusioned, and so far as agriculture was concerned nothing was done, and nothing came out of that All-Party meeting.
The object of a long-term agricultural policy must be to develop a healthy and efficient agriculture. This object can be secured only if reasonable and stable prices are fixed for all the main agricultural products. We are now paying, and have already paid, a very big price for the years of neglect by successive Governments of this vitally important industry. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House and I have been champions of what I call standard prices for primary agricultural products, including wheat, barley, oats and all the rest. Not only that but I remember being so courageous—I think the noble Viscount the Leader of the House was not in the Chamber at the time—as to deliver a speech on those lines. The matter did not end very well for me, because as a result I had to appear on what is called the carpet, to answer an accusation of delivering a speech that was not as orthodox as it might have been at the time. Nevertheless, I never regretted making that speech. I was convinced then, as I am now, and as I have been for twenty years, that unless we put upon each different commodity which we produce in the countryside an economic price then all else that we can do for agriculture will amount to little or nothing. I believe that time has proved that.
I do not see among the occupants of the Liberal benches any of those who advocated the stabilization of price levels, but I would like to remind them of the import board which was proposed. They said for some reason—God knows what it was—that they did not like the idea of an import board because it, so to speak, cut across the early Victorian free trade ideas of the Liberal Party. But we wanted an import board, and I believe

323
that it would have helped to solve the difficulties with which we were then faced, and would have enabled us to fix an economic price for wheat and so on. An import board with single purchasing power could then have bought in the foreign markets, and, no matter how cheaply, at prices that cut across neither the old theories of free trade nor those of tariff reform.
It should be our object to secure improvements in working conditions and in wage levels. Such improvements are only possible if general price levels for commodities are secured and prosperity is brought to the countryside for a change. Poverty has reigned for far too long in rural England. I remember years when some of us struggled along with the noble Lord the leader of the Opposition in a campaign to give to the countryside unemployment insurance. We failed because, it was said, the farmer could not afford it. Thousands of members of the agricultural community were out of work, and in a great many cases they were driven to the towns. That was the picture, but it was not a picture resulting from the failings of a Labour Government. It was a picture the responsibility for which rested upon successive Governments, Liberal, Tory or Labour, because of their failure to tackle problems affecting the countryside in a fundamental way.
There is not a single noble Lord in this House who does not share, in some degree, some of the guilt for the conditions that obtained in the countryside during and before those years of which I have been speaking. I can rail against landlords. For some of them, at any rate, I have no great love. I can also deliver quite a strong speech criticizing some farmers. But that sort of thing would not do agriculture any good. It never has, and it never will. The fact of the matter is that before we can take out of agriculture we have to put something into it. As your Lordships know, farm buildings, in all parts of the country, have fallen into a state of disrepair. I have personal knowledge of this because I have inspected hundreds of such buildings in my own County of Lincolnshire. It is right to say that a great many of these buildings were a disgrace—but to whom? I have figures here relating to this matter, but
324
it would not be right to detain your Lordships by quoting them at this late hour. They prove that so far as the landlord is concerned he was: receiving something like two per cent. on the capital invested in his farms in 1929–1930 and some subsequent years. In some cases farmers were quite unable to pay any rent at all and they were allowed to go on farming on some estates for as long as four or five years at a stretch absolutely rent free.
That was the condition of agriculture, and, as I say, there is not one of us who has not been partially responsible for the poverty-stricken state of the countryside. No wonder the farmers did not trust us. No wonder they learned to look askance at politicians in general. They said that they had been badly let down again over the matter of the Corn Production Act at the end of the last war. Now a long-term policy has been produced by my right honourable friend which is the sort of policy to which they have long been looking forward. The Government pronouncement gives them the assurance which they need in order to plan, to engage and employ labour and to lay out money. With the assurances which they have now they will be better able to go into that chamber which some of them were turned out of—I mean the sweating chamber—and ask for help on the security of fixed price levels for their products, with more confidence than they have ever had before.
With regard to farm buildings, mention has been made of the difficulties of getting them repaired and it cannot be denied that there are great difficulties. I happen to have carried out work on buildings for some agriculturists, and how those buildings were standing up before the repairs were done I really do not know. The condition of them, in some cases, was really unbelievable. In a great number of instances milk was being produced under conditions that would, I verily believe, if they came to your Lordships' knowledge, have the effect of making you refuse ever again to drink a glass of milk produced in our countryside. I assure you that I, myself, would never have drunk a glass of milk on some of those farms. I confess that I like a glass of beer, and it may he that I do not look too bad on it. Certainly I would far rather have a glass of beer brewed from Lord Selborne's hops than a glass of milk produced under the

325
conditions which obtain on some of our great estates.
But the owners could not help the state of disrepair in which their buildings had fallen. The money just was not there to enable Clem to put it right. The labour shortage in the countryside has been stressed and it is not very difficult to understand how it came about in the bad old days of which I have been speaking. So many agricultural workers were driven by economic conditions into the towns, and many of those who remained became unemployed. It is owing to so many good men leaving the countryside that we have lost so much of that skill which used to be such a joy to all those concerned with agriculture and to all lovers of the country. How well I remember seeing my grandfather and my father thatch a stack with such neatness and precision that when they had finished it really appeared as though there was scarcely a straw out of place. How few workers there are in the country to-day who possess that degree of skill. What a delight it was to see a good man plash a hedge and note how every stroke was delivered with such artistry that the hedge was left as an object of pride and glory for the whole countryside. To scotch a hedge was also a task in which the skilled man took an immense pride, and the result of his work was a joy to the eye of the beholder.
Going about the countryside a great deal, as I do, I cannot help noticing how much of that skill is missing. The men of the younger generation have simply not had the opportunities of acquiring it. What we must do is to endeavour to attract younger men back to work on the land and keep them there. We shall only succeed in this if we give the agricultural labourer such an interest in life that he will remain in the country arid will develop his skill, instead of taking advantage of the first opportunity that presents itself to move to a big industrial town. What are the conditions which have attracted these men to the towns? First, of course, better wages; second, the advantage of living in houses provided with modern conveniences; and third, and not least, the opportunity for children to be given a proper education. In some of the non-provided schools in rural areas you find teachers who really ought not to be teaching at all in these modern times. It is for these reasons that so many
326
people have left the country to go into the great industrial towns.
We have got to build the houses, but the Minister of Agriculture can no more solve that problem than any one of us in this Chamber to-clay. It is a question of labour 'and of materials, and if it had been in order I should have said something about the materials and labour necessary for building. I believe that so far as the immediate needs of the countryside are concerned, the temporary house is the one we should press for. They can he fabricated and carted through the countryside to remote places. By that means I believe we could get an enormous number of houses in the countryside erected in the next few years. It is essential that it should be done now and not in four or five years' time.
As to the question of ownership, we all seem to me to lack courage to say what we believe, nut I think that we ought to be intellectually honest with ourselves. I have never yet brought myself down to express the view that you can carry on farming in some of the remote places without the aid of what is commonly known as a tied cottage. I worked on a farm as a boy and walked two miles to work. Suppose there were not some houses on that farm of 365 acres. A large number of sheep, of beasts, and horses were there. Why, it was absolutely essential that there should be some cottages on that farm. The question of ownership and the rights of the tenant and of the farmer are matters which I cannot very well settle, but I believe the only solution is that we must continue to have some tied houses in the country districts, houses which are attached to the farm and part and parcel of it, for the shepherds. You could not expect a man to walk in February or March two miles to where his sheep were. The whole thing is absolutely unthinkable. These men live almost on the job, and it is essential that the stockman should be somewhere near the farm. I say that the answer to those who do not want the tied cottage is to say: "Build us a. sufficient number of freehold houses in the village so that if a man is not a decent employer of labour his employee has a right to go into a free house."
I believe that ultimately is the solution. I believe that not one of us here could do better than what is now done. We should

327
want our labour at hand when it was needed. So far as the farm is concerned some cottages ought to be erected somewhere near it. In some industrial towns—my own, for instance—where there are huge steel works, if you wanted to turn the men out of the houses that lay nearest to their work, they would say something you would not like to put on the records of this House! Consider the conditions, especially in the winter months, and the cycling in the bad weather. So far as that problem is concerned, I think we should look at it again broadly before we decide whether a house is to be tied or not. The whole solution to the problem is the building of a large number of houses of a modern character in addition, in order that we may meet the needs of these people who are being dealt with in this fashion by the very few farmers who are doing it to-day. There arc not many of them. I have not had a case brought to my notice for a long time, and I hope it will be a long time before I do.
6.36 p.m.
LORD CROMWELL: My Lords, I am sure you will agree that the noble Lord who has lust sat down has sent a very clear and pleasant breeze through the atmosphere of this Chamber, and one can feel that he is as sincere as his speech implies. He is not afraid, when he thinks that some of the members of his own Party are going wrong, to point out where, in his view, they should correct and review their ideas. As a chairman of a war agricultural executive committee, I thought it proper to seek the advice of the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, as to whether I should take part in a debate of this kind. He advised me that he not only thought it was proper but that he himself as an ex-chairman of a war agricultural executive committee, regretted having to give that up perhaps more than anything else, which he had to do in order to assume office. I should like to endorse what other noble Lords have said about the debt of gratitude we owe to the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, for his deep interest in agriculture and a lifelong study of the workings of that industry.
I have also thought fit to convey in general terms the tenor of my brief remarks to the Minister of Agriculture. If I may digress for one moment—you will see the
328
reason for it, I think, later on—during the passage of the Bill on the acquisition of coal royalties, whose exact name I have forgotten, the then Lord Chancellor who sat upon the Woolsack advised those who owned coal not to take part in the debate and in any case not to vote, as their financial interests were concerned. In ignoring that advice, I think most properly, I enjoyed for a very brief spell, a short-lived notoriety in the Press, but it is my view that your Lordships' House can make the maximum contribution towards ensuring good legislation being passed in the country if those qualified by experience are heard. As chairman of a war agricultural executive committee, as a landowner, and also as one farming about 700 acres, I feel that if not qualified by knowledge, I at least have sufficient experience of industry to make a few remarks during this debate.
I should like to make one further reference to the passage of the Coal Royalties Bill which is germane to the discussion on the purchase of raw materials by the State. At that time I warned the Government in office that whatever the merits of the purchase of coal were, they were at least establishing the principle of State purchase, where a case could be made and provided fair compensation was given. That was not only sponsored but pushed by the then Government and I ventured to say that it might prove to be a rod with which their own backs would later on be beaten. I myself do not consider that the compensation received by the owners of coal was fair, but I must say that they accepted that their case should be put before an independent Tribunal, as also did the Government. They also accepted the terms of reference agreed to before that independent Tribunal, but, after being politically outmanœuvred by the, Government then in office, they accepted conditions which were not calculated to produce fairness in the result. I mention this because the same principle is being perpetuated in agriculture.
In passing, I would like to pay a compliment to the noble Lord, Lord Hazlerigg, who has recently come to your Lordships' House, and who has had to leave before addressing you on this subject, for placing this matter before the Minister of Agriculture and pressing the point of an independent Tribunal. I am

329
very glad that the Minister has thought fit to introduce this, but it is not to be of any value or, anyhow, its value will be greatly minimized if its terms of reference, under which they are obliged to act, are not such as will create fairness to both farmer and the State. Having said that, may I congratulate the Minister on championing agriculture so forcibly as to ensure the Cabinet—to use the Minister's own words—"giving an assured policy for the industry"? I would point out that an assured market, although important, is valueless unless the crops can be sown and harvested, and the stock housed and fed.
I was glad to hear the noble Viscount the Leader of the House point out that the Government were not unaware of the seriousness of the position of labour, but if I might be allowed for a moment to refer to my own county, the County of Leicestershire, which was, in the main, one might say, exclusively grass before the war and is now rather more plough than grass, labour there is in exactly the same position. We have about an equal number of regular employees and an equal number of casual labourers, the latter made up of the Land Army and prisoners of war, plus school children in seasonable times. And incidentally, may I pay, as I have clone before, a tribute to these children, and say that I hope that their help to the farmer during seasonable periods will form a permanent part of the labour for the industry? Not only are they of great value to agriculture, but, as I have been able to observe, the health of the children themselves has improved. However, there is one appeal I would like to make again to the President of the Board of Trade: that these children cannot continue to work in conditions such as existed last year during the potato harvesting unless they are given clothing or, in lieu, extra coupons so that clothing and boots may be purchased.
I would also praise the work of the Land Army and point out, at the same time, that the intake of the country as a whole is not at present, I understand, being offset by the wastage through sickness, resignation and other causes. As has already been referred to, the Italians will soon have left the country which leaves us with the German prisoners of war to provide 5o per cent. of the labour required in Leicestershire. That labour,
330
we are assured, wall be available for the harvest of 1946 and, probably—although I was rather distressed by what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House said today which reduces "probably" to "possibly"—for the harvest: of 1947; even though it may be in reduced numbers. We must plan ahead because it is am possible to live from hand to mouth. The Government are in a position to guarantee labour. If they do not give that guarantee, farmers must guard themselves against a possible shortage. In that event the land cannot give its maximum value and we shall go back to what was seen not long ago, ranching as opposed to farming, and I will pay your Lordships the compliment of saying that you will know what I mean by that.
I concede it is essential that the industry shall become self-supporting eventually. What has been stressed by several noble Lords already is good houses, with as good amenities as the workers in the towns get. It does not seem to me that this is the time, of all times, to put difficulties in the way of reconditioning houses in rural areas. What does agriculture want? Briefly, it is this, and quote the Minister's own words: "Houses, houses, and more houses." Of course, as your Lordships know, agriculture is not the only industry that requires houses and, therefore, it would look as if it will have to rely, for quite a number of years yet, on a casual labour force. If the Government wish the crops grown and harvested, it is up to them to ensure that that force is available.
In conclusion, may I ask the Government for information on three points which have not been referred to at all in this debate, although I do know they are present in the mind of the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House? In setting up the National Agricultural Advisory Service—and I pay my tribute to the officers who will be responsible for conducting that service, as other noble Lords have done—it would appear that they have added yet one more body to deal with the industry in the counties. There would now appear, on the face of it, to be three such bodies. There are the National Agricultural Advisory Service, itself responsible direct to the Minister; the successors of the war agricultural executive committees—whatever their name may be—respon-

331
sible direct to the Minister, but in no way over, and not a part of, the Advisory Service; and some administration by the county councils through their agricultural education sub-committees. I know it has been stressed by the Minister that with good will everything can be made to work, but is it the best solution to have three separate bodies? Is it a compromise in order to avoid hurting the feelings of some of the existing bodies? Will it not cause over-lapping and even create difficulties, whatever good will is applied? I am sure good will will be applied by all three bodies concerned. Before closing may I ask the Minister if, in summing
332
up or replying, he can give some indication as to the merits of such an organization, and whether he will think again to see if one organization can be created to do the work of the three at present proposed?
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Lord Nunburnholme.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.
House adjourned at nine minutes before seven o'clock.