Sitting of 6 February 1945

Preamble
The House met at Eleven o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    EAST GRINSTEAD GAS AND WATER BILL
    Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
    ILFORD CORPORATION BILL
    To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.
    MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL
    Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
    STAFFORDSHIRE POTTERIES STIPENDIARY JUSTICE BILL
    Read a Second time, and committed.
    WARRINGTON CORPORATION BILL
    Read a Second time, and committed.
    WISBECH WATER BILL
    Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
    NEWPORT (ISLE OF WIGHT) CORPORATION BILL
    "to provide for the transfer to the Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of the borough of Newport (Isle of Wight) of the undertaking of the Newport (Isle of Wight) Gas Company; to confer further powers upon that Corporation with regard to their gas and other undertakings and to make further provision with regard to the health local government improvement and finance of the said borough; and for other purposes"; presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS

    NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE
    Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table, Report from one of the Examiners of Peti-
    1868
    tions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
    Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Conway and Colwyn Bay Joint Water Supply Board) Bill.
    Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  COAL INDUSTRY

    Underground Gasification
    Mr. Higgsasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if any progress is being made in this country with the underground gasification of coal.
    The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): My Ministry, with the advice of the Fuel Research organisation and the Geological Survey of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, is studying this question in order to determine whether geological and other conditions in any of the coalfields in this country are such as to justify experimental trials of the process.
    Mr. Higgs: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this process has been developed to some considerable extent in Russia? Will he not accelerate the investigation?
    Major Lloyd George: I have been in touch with Russia to try to get information from there. We have a lot of literature on the subject which has all been translated. As the result of that investigation the geological survey is also to be made.
    Sir Herbert Williams: Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman studied the researches of the late Professor Sir William Ramsay on the matter?
    Captain Thorneycroft: Has the Russian Government been approached with a view to receiving a delegation?
    Major Lloyd George: Twelve months ago I approached the Russian Ambassador here, for all the help that he could give me.

    Deliveries (Medical Certificates)
    Dr. Edith Summerskillasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that medical certificates recommending delivery of coal for people seriously ill are not receiving attention; and if he will take steps to remedy this matter.
    Major Lloyd George: I regret that a number of cases have come to my notice where, notwithstanding instructions, or directions, given by the local fuel overseer, there has been delay in the delivery of coal to cases supported by medical certificates. I have taken steps to ensure that deliveries are made promptly to such cases.
    Dr. Edith Summerskillasked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many special forms for recommending delivery of coal to sick people have been issued to doctors by his Department.
    Major Lloyd George: One million copies were issued in December last to the Ministry's regional offices and to local fuel overseers for distribution to doctors, certified midwives and health visitors. I cannot say how many of these were supplied to doctors.
    Dr. Summerskill: When it was proposed to issue these special certificates, were arrangements made so that sick people could have priority?
    Major Lloyd George: Yes, arrangements were made that the local fuel overseer should instruct the merchant to honour the certificates. If they were not honoured directions were issued by the fuel overseer. Delays came to my notice and steps were immediately taken, and that delay has been overtaken.

    Domestic Supplies
    Dr. Summerskillasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what plans are being formulated in order that the present failure to distribute coal for domestic purposes will not recur next winter.
    Major Lloyd George: As the tonnage of coal delivered to London householders this winter, in spite of the exceptionally severe weather conditions, has substantially exceeded the total delivered last winter, I cannot accept my hon. Friends' implication of failure. I am, however, reviewing the present arrangements for
    1870
    coal distribution in the light of the winter's experience, and such changes as I find to be necessary for its improvement will be made.
    Dr. Summerskill: Is it now proposed to rationalise the distribution of coal, in view of the fact that the Minister of Labour said last week that even in normal conditions there would be a shortage of labour?
    Major Lloyd George: A good deal of rationalisation has already taken place. When I review the arrangements, its extension is one of the things that I shall review.
    Major C. S. Taylorasked the Minister of Fuel and Power, whether, in allocating supplies of coal, coke and anthracite for Eastbourne, he took into consideration the large numbers of evacuees now returning to this area.
    Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir. Adjustments of winter allocations of house coal to the South-Eastern Region have been made in consequence of the return of evacuees to that area, and the basic allocation to Eastbourne has been substantially increased.
    Major Taylor: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that evacuees are still returning and that, from information given me, although the figures were furnished, they were not taken into account?
    Major Lloyd George: I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we have this matter very closely in mind. The allocation has been substantially increased to Eastbourne and, if the need arises, will be increased still further.
    Mr. Astorasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he has further considered the possibility of using prisoner-of-war labour in coal distribution in London.
    Major Lloyd George: Since the reply which I gave on 23rd January to a similar Question by my hon. Friend, I am advised that the question of accommodation for prisoner-of-war labour in London has been under review, and I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Labour and National Service, as to the possibility of arranging for the labour force engaged in coal distribution to be strengthened from this source.
    Mr. Astor: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say when he will be in a position to make a definite statement?
    Major Lloyd George: I am afraid that I cannot say now more than I have said in my reply.

    Directed Mineworkers (Hostel, Great Wyrley)
    Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Fuel and Power, why the hostel at Great Wyrley has not been used since completion on 15th November; and what is the current cost of upkeep, including salaries, wages and amortisation of capital.
    Major Lloyd George: Of the three hostels intended for the accommodaton of miners directed to the Cannock Chase Coalfield, one has proved to be redundant, owing to the unexpectedly larger proportion who either live in the immediate neighbourhood of the collieries or have found lodgings for themselves. It was accordingly decided not to bring the Great Wyrley hostel into use, because the other two are more conveniently situated, having regard to the present needs of the coalfield for additional manpower. The latter part of the Question is one for my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Works.
    Sir J. Mellor: Was not this a serious mis-direction of labour and materials, and a very serious waste?
    Major Lloyd George: Not necessarily. There were some geological conditions which supervened after this, which made it necessary to alter arrangements at one of the pits. Secondly, there was a fear that there would be a shortage of billeting accommodation. Had the accommodation not been ready, it would have been a very serious position. As it turned out, accommodation was more readily available than had been thought.
    Sir J. Mellor: What is going to be done with this redundant hostel?
    Major Lloyd George: As I never took over the hostel, perhaps the hon. Baronet will put his Question down.

    Italy (Exports)
    Commander Priorasked the Minister of Fuel and Power how much British coal has been exported to Italy for the use of the civilian population during the months of December, 1944, and January, 1945.
    Major Lloyd George: None, Sir.

  AFRICAN TERRITORIES (DEVELOPMENT)
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraserasked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if proposals will be made for assisting the development of Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swaziland similar to those which are proposed for the Colonies under the Colonial Development and Welfare Bill.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): Yes, Sir. The new Bill, like the Colonial Development and Welfare Act of 1940, covers these territories. I would add that grants to the three territories amounting to £973,356 have already been approved under the Act of 1940 in respect of schemes covering a period of years.

  PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICERS
  Sir H. Williamsasked the Minister of Fuel and Power why a civil servant named Mr. Michael Romain was permitted to enter into controversy with Mrs. Sheila Bumford, one of His Majesty's subjects, through the medium of a letter to "The Times" newspaper.
  Major Lloyd George: Mr. Romain is the Director of Public Relations of my Ministry, and the letter in question, which contained nothing controversial, was sent to "The Times" newspaper as part of his normal duties, and had my approval.
  Sir H. Williams: Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that, if civil servants write letters to the papers on matters which, whether they are factual or not, are controversial, ultimately the result will be that we shall start attacking civil servants by name in this Chamber?
  Major Lloyd George: I agree that as a general rule that would be so, but these officers are for the purpose of giving information—in this instance of an extremely important character, because the peak load of electricity is one of the most important things affecting the recent difficulty. There was no controversy involved, and it is a little difficult, other than by letter, to get information if the newspaper does not refer to the Minister first.
  Sir H. Williams: Was not the old practice that, when a Minister wished

  1873
  information conveyed, he wrote a letter to a correspondent and had it published, so that the Minister and not the civil servant gave the information?
  Mr. De la Bèreasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that responsibility for administration and expenses of the public relations officers attached to the various Government Departments is partially that of the Treasury and partially that of the Ministry of Information, he will confer with that Minister and publish the total number of public relations officers, including paid publicity agents, employed by the Government Departments as at 1st January, 1945, and the total cost of their salaries and expenses for the year ended 31st December, 1944.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peake): I cannot assent to my Hon. Friend's description of the responsibility for the administration and expenses of Public Relations officers as partly that of the Treasury and partly that of the Ministry of Information. Whilst arrangements exist for co-ordination, Public Relations officers are appointed by their respective Departments, subject to the usual Treasury control. A statement regarding the numbers and cost of such staff in Government Departments was circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT on Thursday last, in reply to the hon. Member for London University (Sir E. Graham Little).
  Mr. De la Bère: Is the Minister aware that the statement did not give particulars of the Ministry of Information staff, and is he not further aware that there is a substantial expense to the taxpayer in the volume of fiction masquerading as news which is published at the request of the Departments?
  Mr. Peake: Regarding the first part of the question, perhaps my hon. Friend will put a Question to the Minister of Information on that point. Regarding the second part, I anticipated that the considerable reduction in the number of these officers noted in the statement to which I have referred, would have afforded a substantial, if unusual, degree of satisfaction to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. De la Bère: Is the Minister not aware that this is a matter of widespread interest to the taxpayers and the general public?
  Mr. Speaker rose.
  Viscountess Astor: May I ask a question? There have only been two supplementaries.
  Mr. Speaker: There were probably two too many.

  PETROL ALLOWANCES

    Taxi-Cabs, Eastbourne
    Major C. S. Taylorasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will authorise an increase in the petrol allowances for private-hire motor-cars and taxi-cabs in Eastbourne, in view of the large numbers of evacuees returned or returning.
    Major Lloyd George: I have received no representations that the number of hire cars and taxi-cabs at Eastbourne is in-adequate for the reason suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend. I am, however, making inquiries and will communicate with him again as soon as possible.
    Major Taylor: is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that I made representations upon the point many months ago? If he wants further representations, I shall be pleased to send a list of the taxi drivers that there are.
    Major Lloyd George: That is not quite the point. When an emergency such as the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers to has arisen we have given the hire-car proprietors extra petrol. The taxi driver's allowance is already much higher and the proper way to proceed, if the local authority or the local police feel that Eastbourne is not properly served, is for them to apply for more taxi-cabs.
    Mr. E. P. Smith: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman bear Ashford in mind?
    Commander Locker-Lampson: Also London?

    Service Personnel on Leave
    Mr. Glanvilleasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if, in view of the difficulty experienced by members of His Majesty's forces in getting from main line stations, Newcastle and Durham, to their homes in outlying districts, when proceeding on leave, he will agree to an extra allowance of petrol to motor-car owners who are willing to assist in conveying

    1875
    them to their homes, thus ensuring to the forces members the full benefit of their leave.
    Major Lloyd George: As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, it was recently decided to re-introduce the "Get-you-Home" scheme for the benefit of members of the Services returning to this country on leave. The necessary arrangements are made locally by the Army Welfare authorities. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War that orders for the restarting of the scheme went out on 18th January.
    Mr. Glanville: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that I have facts to show that men and girls have had to walk seven or eight miles to get to their homes?
    Major Lloyd George: My hon. Friend will realise that Army welfare is not part of my duty. My duty is to see that the petrol is provided, and I am given to understand that the instructions were issued on 18th January. I would remind my hon. Friend that this service is for soldiers returning to this country and not for those already in it.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Clothing Coupons (Physical Disability Applications)
    Mr. Hugh Lawsonasked the President of the Board of Trade what are the circumstances under which extra clothing coupons are issued to limbless persons; how many persons are now in receipt of such extra clothing coupons; and what proportion of persons eligible to receive such coupons have so far received them.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): Additional clothing coupons are issued by my Department to anyone suffering from physical disability which imposes excessive wear on clothing. About 65,000 applications have been granted during the past 12 months.

    Rubber Teats and Valves
    Mrs. Tateasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Messrs. Maggs, of Frome, have had no feeding bottle teats or valves delivered
    1876
    in the month of January and that they have scores of mothers very urgently in need of same; and when the shortage of these essential articles is likely to be overcome in Frome.
    Mr. Dalton: If my hon. Friend will let me have particulars of the orders placed by this firm for delivery in January which have not been fulfilled, I shall be glad to see what can be done.
    Mrs. Tate: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for the last three months this firm has had fewer teats than ever before, in spite of the promises made by the Board of Trade; that they have had neither teats nor valves for January, and that for scores of mothers and children the position is desperate? I will give the right hon. Gentleman the particulars he asks for, but we are sick of promises from the Board of Trade which are never carried out.
    Mr. Dalton: I shall be obliged if the hon. Lady will give me the particulars I have asked for. I have made inquiries from several wholesalers, and none of them have been approached by the retailer referred to. One wholesaler tells me that he used to supply this retailer but that no supplies have been asked for during several months past. Therefore, I think it will be useful if the hon. Lady will give me a little more light on the subject.
    Mrs. Tate: I have in my hand full details which I will give to the right hon. Gentleman. I, in my turn, hope that the right hon. Gentleman will sometimes keep his promises.

    Austin Motors Ltd. (Accounts, Publication)
    Mr. Silkinasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that Austin Motors, Limited, have announced the payment of a bonus of 10 per cent. on their ordinary and A ordinary stock without publishing their accounts; if he has called the attention of the Cohen Committee to this further example of a company's failure to comply with the Stock Exchange regulation; and if he proposes to expedite legislation, in view of the repetition of these failures.
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, but I am glad to note that, following the failure of this company to publish their profits simultaneously with their dividend announce-

    1877
    ment, dealings in their shares were suspended. As a result, preliminary profit figures were quickly made available. The Cohen Committee already have this matter before them.

    Children's Rubber Footwear
    Captain McEwenasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any additional releases of gum boots for children are being, or have been, made to meet the requirements caused by existing bad weather conditions.
    Mr. Lewisasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the hardship suffered by schoolchildren in country districts owing to the inadequate supply of waterproof footwear; and if he is taking any steps to facilitate the production of any substitutes for rubber wellington boots for their use.
    Sir Leonard Lyleasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the inadequacy of the supply of children's rubber boots, thus causing hardship to many children in the inclement weather; and whether he will take steps to increase the supply of these boots and of children's footwear of all kinds.
    Mr. Dalton: In spite of the extreme shortage of natural rubber, I was able to re-start the production of some children's wellingtons last summer, and I am glad to say that I have also been able to arrange for this small home production to be supplemented during the present year by imports from Canada. Children living in rural areas will have preference in the distribution of these supplies which, I am afraid, will still be small in relation to the total demand.
    Captain McEwen: Is this distribution going on now?
    Mr. Dalton: Certainly, Sir.

    St. John Ambulance Cadets (Uniforms)
    Sir Thomas Cookasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of difficulties in providing uniform for St. John Ambulance cadets, owing to coupons, and will he facilitate purchase.
    Mr. Dalton: I regret that, in view of the present shortage of supplies, I cannot see my way to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Sir T. Cook: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the future of ambulance work lies in our ability to enthuse the rising generation, and that any restrictions discourage their public spirit?
    Mr. Dalton: These restrictions are imposed upon us by the war, but I hope that in the future supplies will become available.

    Weights and Measures (Metric System)
    Mr. Hewlettasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has any information as to the countries in which the use of the metric system of weights and measures is legally compulsory and those where it is optional.
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. Information on this subject is available, and if my hon. Friend will let me know any countries in which he is specially interested, I shall be glad to send him particulars.
    Mr. Hewlett: Having regard to the fact that these countries include our export markets, will the right hon. Gentleman consider appointing a small committee to review the progress of the metric system and report on the best way of stimulating its general use?

    Furnishing Fabrics, Carpets and Household Linen
    Major C. S. Taylorasked the President of the Board of Trade what quantities of textiles, furnishing fabrics and carpets have been exported from Britain to foreign countries and the Dominions, respectively, during the past six months; and how much it is proposed to export during the next six months.
    Mr. R. C. Morrisonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the difficulties now being faced by housewives owing to the depletion and deterioration of their stocks of household linen; and whether he will give an assurance that this deficiency will be at least partially made good before household linen is allowed to be exported.
    Mr. Dalton: I am well aware of the present severe shortage of these goods. Exports of cotton, wool and rayon textiles are barely sufficient to meet the essential needs of Empire and Allied countries which are dependent upon us for supplies. No new production of furnishing fabrics or carpets for export has

    1879
    been authorised since 1942. Exports have thus been limited to old stocks, which are now virtually exhausted. Further particulars will be given in the Export Accounts for 1944 to be published later this month. There is unlikely to be any increase in the rate of these exports during the next six months.
    Major Taylor: Can my right hon. Friend say whether, in the Allied and Empire countries to which these goods are exported, there is any rationing of such goods?
    Mr. Dalton: In some there is and in some there is not, but some of these goods are not rationed in the strict sense of the word here. I would like to make clear that we are only exporting now in order to meet the urgent needs of people who are very dependent upon us—in the Empire in particular. They are of the opinion that they are getting very little indeed now, and I am receiving many representations that they should have more.
    Major Taylor: I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Prototype Equipment (Licences)
    Mr. Higgsasked the President of the Board of Trade how many licences have been applied for to manufacture prototype equipment; how many have been granted; and how many refused.
    Mr. Dalton: The number of applications received is 1,100; 930 have been granted; and 19 have been refused for the time being on the advice of the Supply Departments concerned but will be reconsidered later.
    Mr. Higgs: Owing to the small number of licences that have been refused, would it not be possible for the President to permit the manufacture of prototypes without a licence?
    Mr. Dalton: I cannot do that. Licences that have been refused have been reduced from 30 to 19. The ground for refusal is that the Supply Department concerned tells me that the firm that wants the licence is behind with its war contracts. If a firm is behind with its war contracts it ought to complete them first. In a number of cases we have been able to reconsider the matter since the firm has caught up with its arrears.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE

    Death Grants
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Minister of National Insurance the estimated amount in the National Insurance proposals over and above contributions to be met by the taxpayer on death grants for the first 5, 10, 15 and 20 years, respectively, after the scheme comes into operation.
    The Minister of National Insurance (Sir William Jowitt): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on 12th December to the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor) from which he will see that it is estimated that in the first year the expenditure on death grants will fall short of the related contribution income by about £2,500,000, whilst in ten years' time, the expenditure will exceed the contributions by about £500,000 and in 20 years' time by about £4,500,000 a year. Under present conditions I do not think I should be justified in asking for figures to be calculated in greater detail.
    Sir W. Smithers: In view of that answer, can my right hon. and learned Friend say what the real value of those grants will be; and can he give us an assurance that they will not be paid in depreciating currency?
    Sir W. Jowitt: It will depend upon the whole trend of future events. I cannot prophesy what they will be.
    Sir W. Smithers: Then why raise false hopes?

    Ministry's Offices
    Sir Frank Sandersonasked the Minister of National Insurance (1) whether he is aware that the successful launching of the proposed new Ministry of National Insurance will be seriously imperilled by unsuitable location of offices in advance of operational planning; and will he consider withholding any definite decision in the meantime;
    (2) whether he is aware of the feeling of resentment at the proposal to set up at a place in the provinces, possibly Newcastle-on-Tyne, his new Ministry, which will absorb the staffs of the Acton Claims and Record Office of the Ministry of Labour and National Service, and the Ministry of Health, Blackpool; and in view of the hardship caused to members of his staff by the breaking up of their

    1881
    homes by permanent transfer to the provinces where there are few houses for them, and the uprooting of their homes, will he reconsider his decision.
    Sir W. Jowitt: It has been impracticable to postpone a decision on this matter because of the necessity for the Blackpool staff to vacate as soon as possible the requisitioned premises in which they are at present accommodated. The point of view of the staff was put very fully during the discussions between the Treasury and the Staff Side of National Whitley Council, to which I referred in an answer on 1st February to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards), and I need only add that every effort will be made to mitigate any hardships which the transfer may entail.
    Sir F. Sanderson: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that it will mean that vast numbers of civil servants, who have willingly accepted this uprooting during the war, will have to suffer complete and permanent disorganisation and separation from their families and their homes and will be bereft of the hope for the future which has sustained them during the time of war?
    Mr. Magnay: Will it not be to the great benefit of these people that they should live in a more bracing climate; and will this not mean our getting quicker answers to questions?
    Sir W. Jowitt: I have already said that we should be wrong to give up any idea of the proper location of Government Departments because it entails certain hardships. We will do everything possible to minimise those hardships.
    Sir William Davison: Will not the Government find proper accommodation for these men and their families?
    Sir F. Sanderson: I beg to give notice that, owing to the cruel hardships that this decision will entail upon thousands of civil servants, and owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what authority has the expenditure for the headquarters of the Ministry of National Insurance at Newcastle-on-Tyne, estimated at £2,000,000, been sanctioned.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): The provision of certain temporary office accommodation has been approved, but no proposals for more permanent buildings have yet been formulated.
    Sir W. Smithers: Under what Financial Resolution of this House has my right hon. Friend power to authorise or suggest such expenditure?
    Sir J. Anderson: The point of my answer is that plans involving such expenditure have not been formulated.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Home Leave Scheme
    Mr. Hugh Lawsonasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that in a unit of the B.L.A., of which he has been informed, leave vacancies are being allotted in accordance with the length of service of the individual soldier with the B.L.A. and not chosen by ballot from those eligible for leave; and if he will stop this practice.
    Captain Prescottasked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether, in calculating the leave quota to the United Kingdom for men with long service overseas, account is taken of men granted compassionate leave;
    (2) whether he is aware that in many units the quota of men sent on leave periodically to the United Kingdom is minute as compared to those entitled; and whether the allocations per unit can be increased.
    Mr. Evelyn Walkdenasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now make any statement as to how and by what ratio the allocation of leave places in S.E.A.C., C.M.F., and India has been increased during the past three months; and if for security reasons he cannot supply actual figures similar to the Air Ministry, will he by any other method show what are the actual increased chances of men getting home leave.
    Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for War whether men serving overseas are selected for home leave according to rules made by commanders-in-chief or by unit commanders; and whether he will publish the rules in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for War (1) if, in order to assist Members of Parliament in clearing up misunderstandings on the question of home leave from overseas, he will circulate in HANSARD a summary of the methods by which the ballot is conducted in the various theatres;
    (2) if he is aware that some hardship has been caused to men who have been serving overseas for a considerable period but miss their chance of inclusion in a home leave ballot through being transferred from one unit to another; and if he will consider recommending to commanding officers the practice, which has been followed successfully in some units, of including in each ballot a few blank cards to cover such cases.
    Major Mott-Radclyffeasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the apparent widespread misunderstanding and anxiety among British troops in Italy regarding the leave scheme now in force, he will take the necessary steps to ensure that the scope and application of the scheme is fully explained by unit commanders to all personnel concerned
    The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): As the Prime Minister said in his original statement on 17th November, the total leave quota which it was practicable to allot for theatres, other than B.L.A., is 6,000 a month. Prior to this announcement there was no leave scheme for these theatres. It should have been clear, therefore, that from these theatres only a small proportion of men would get leave in any one month. It is unlikely that for the time being it will be possible to increase this number. I am very sorry if a contrary impression has got abroad. This was certainly not the intention of the Prime Minister or of myself. In all theatres, subject to the most general guidance, the nature of which was set out in the Prime Minister's statement, the responsibility for the allotment of vacancies within the quota has been left to commanders-in-chief and I am sure that this is wise because they must know the different local conditions better than I do. These alter from time to time as a result of operational and other circumstances and may lead to changes in the leave arrangements. In view of this I do not think an attempt to publish in this country the details of the application of the scheme
    1884
    in the various commands would help. I will, however, suggest to commanders-in-chief that they should take steps to make sure that officers and men have had the scheme explained to them and that they know what their local arrangements are.
    There is no special allotment for cases of compassionate leave from the more distant Commands overseas, but I understand that in a few Commands compassionate circumstances are taken into account in selecting men to make up the ordinary leave quota. It is the case of course that, in extreme cases of compassion, commanders-in-chief overseas can and do post men to the United Kingdom, as distinct from giving them leave. There is no fixed quota to cover such compassionate postings but as these men have to be replaced in the overseas theatre, the number who can be so posted to the United Kingdom is necessarily limited by man-power considerations. I am not aware that men are in fact losing their chances of leave by being transferred from one unit to another, but if the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) will send me particulars of what he has in mind I will certainly look into it further. As regards the Question asked by the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson) this is as I have said a matter for the commander-in-chief concerned. I cannot, however, see that there is anything unfair in the practice to which he refers.
    As regards repatriation to the home establishment on long service grounds, though we shall lose no possible opportunity of reducing the tour of service abroad it is clear that no dramatic change is at present possible and so I am not able to add to what I said on 26th September. I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will assist me in dealing with these matters. If unfounded expectations are created disappointments are inevitable and these we must all wish to avoid. There is, I assure hon. Members, every desire to shorten the tour of service overseas but at this climax of the war the right policy is surely to put our utmost effort into securing victory at the earliest date. Moreover, early victory is the best means of accelerating the return home of those who have been abroad for long periods.
    Mr. Hugh Lawson: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that in the 21st Army Group an order was issued stating

    1885
    that leave was not to be by ballot of those eligible? Is that not likely to cause very great dissatisfaction when a matter like the ballot is departed from by individual units?
    Sir J. Grigg: I actually looked up this instruction of 21st Army Group. There was a provision for varying the allotment in accordance with operational and other circumstances.
    Captain Prescott: One fully appreciates the difficulties of my right hon. Friend, but may I ask how it happens that an allocation is sometimes made to a unit, and the men are informed of the number who will be sent on leave; subsequently men return to the United Kingdom on compassionate grounds and thereby prevent other men going on ordinary leave under the scheme? Does he think that is fair?
    Sir J. Grigg: I do not know to which theatre of war my hon. and gallant Friend is referring
    Captain Prescott: The C.M.F.
    Sir J. Grigg: I do not think that in the C.M.F. compassionate leave interferes in the least with the allotment of people for ordinary leave.
    Mr. E. Walkden: Is the Minister aware that men serving abroad believed, when they heard the Prime Minister's statement, that the chances of leave would be stepped up very considerably? Will he tell us the reason for not informing the House of the ratio of opportunity, and could this not be done without, in any way, giving information to the enemy?
    Sir J. Grigg: In the Prime Minister's original announcement he gave the total allotment of leave vacancies per month, which was 6,000. If you make an analysis of that, either generally or for particular theatres, it would be quite easy to calculate the strength of our Forces.
    Mr. J. J. Lawson: Is the Minister aware that there is a well-established belief among soldiers that by the present kind of selection for leave men actually get leave after two years' service? Has he any explanation of that state of affairs?
    Sir J. Grigg: I am not seeking for a moment to deny that there are possibilities, in some theatres, of getting leave
    1886
    after two years. I know, for example, that there is, in at least one theatre, a great desire for a leave scheme that will encourage people who have seen long periods of fighting. If my hon. Friend is referring to the theatre from which he has just come, that is particularly the case in that theatre.

    Canteen Assistants (References)
    Mrs. Tateasked the Secretary of State for War why applicants to serve in service canteens are asked to supply references from two responsible British male persons, such as a minister of religion, doctor of medicine, justice of the peace, barrister-at-law, solicitor or bank manager; and why women in these professions are not permitted to act as such references.
    Sir J. Grigg: I am not aware that N.A.A.F.I. or the Council of Voluntary War Workers make any such stipulations but if the hon. Lady will send me particulars I will make further inquiries.
    Mrs. Tate: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that War Office letter 103/General/6107 (M.I.11) dated 1st August, 1943, specifically states that references must be from two male persons, and as that is a War Office letter I could not but conclude that it means what it says?
    Sir J. Grigg: Naturally, I do not carry in my head all the details of the many thousands of War Office letters which are emitted in the course of a single year, but from the hon. Lady's description it looks to me as though she is referring to the stipulation of the Foreign Office to applicants for passports.

    Missing Personnel (Italy)
    Mr. R. C. Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of officers and other ranks reported missing on the Italian front during 1944, concerning whom no further information has been obtained; and, in view of the anxiety of their relatives, whether further steps are being taken to ascertain whether they are in prisoner-of-war camps, or hospitals, or in hiding.
    Sir J. Grigg: The answer to the first part of the Question is approximately 600. As regards the second part, I have every sympathy with the anxiety of the relatives of missing men. When a man is reported missing, his next-of-kin is sent a

    1887
    leaflet explaining the steps that are taken to trace him. The fact that no information may be received for a long time does not mean that there is any remission of the efforts to trace missing men. Inquiries are made among those who were serving with the missing man and also through diplomatic channels, the International Red Cross Committee at Geneva, and all other possible sources of information.

    Discharged Men (Greatcoats)
    General Sir George Jeffreysasked the Secretary of State for War whether soldiers, discharged as unfit for further service from the Army during the summer months but detained in hospital until the winter, are given greatcoats on leaving hospital or whether they are given civilian clothing on the summer scale.
    Sir J. Grigg: The old scale of clothing issued to men discharged from the Army included no greatcoat except for men discharged during the winter on medical grounds. But the new scale which has been in issue since the middle of last October provides a raincoat for all men irrespective of the time of the year when they are discharged.

    Sick-Leave (Medical Boards)
    Sir G. Jeffreysasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that wounded officers and other ranks on sick-leave are ordered to attend before Medical Boards at the hospital in which they were treated on their first return to this country, regardless of the distance from their homes or places of residence; and whether he will arrange, in future, for such officers and men to attend both for any necessary treatment and for Medical Boards at the nearest suitable hospital to the address at which they are residing whilst on sick-leave.
    Sir J. Grigg: Whenever possible Medical Boards on wounded officers and other ranks returning to this country are held before they are sent on leave, whether this is disembarkation leave, normal privilege leave, or, in the case of officers, sick-leave. If at any time, owing to the numbers involved, this it not possible, the rule is that the patient should have his Medical Board at the hospital to which he is assigned for treatment. This should be as near to his home as possible, except in cases where he requires special treat-
    1888
    ment and must be sent to a hospital with the appropriate facilities. I am, however, aware that in a few cases this procedure has not been properly carried out, and that some men have been returned unnecessarily to the hospital where they were first treated on return to this country. Steps to prevent this are being taken.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it was a real hardship on persons, especially invalids, to have to travel long distances and stay awake at nights on journeys of this kind in the recent balmy weather? Is the organisation being perfected?
    Sir J. Grigg: That, I think, is the general sense of what I said. I also said that there have come to my notice cases in which those rules have not been properly carried out, and that I was taking steps to see that this did not happen.

  GERMANY (ALLIED BOMBING POLICY)
  Mr. Purbrickasked the Prime Minister when we and our Allies will be in a position to give Germany indiscriminate bombing by robots and rockets; and will he notify them of our intention so to do unless they immediately cease this form of attack on us and the liberated countries.
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): As regards the first part of the Question I am unable to discuss new weapons which might be used against Germany. As regards the last part of the Question I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him on 12th December last in reply to a similar question.

  CIVIL AVIATION (PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS)
  Mr. Treeasked the Prime Minister to whom Questions should be addressed concerning civil aviation pending the appointment of a Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Civil Aviation.
  Mr. Attlee: Pending the appointment of a Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Civil Aviation, Questions should be addressed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production, who will reply on behalf of my right hon. and Noble Friend the Minister for Civil Aviation.
  Mr. Tree: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that legislation will be introduced at an early date?
  Mr. Attlee: I have already given that assurance. I did so when I spoke on this matter in the House. It is our intention to introduce legislation in due course.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Maintenance Payments (Income Tax)
    Mr. Oliverasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider extending the provisions of Section 25 of the Finance Act, 1944, which provides for the deduction by the taxpayer of sums paid to a wife under an order of the court for her maintenance, to cover cases of husbands living apart from their wives and who are making payments of maintenance under a Deed of Separation or other binding agreements; and whether he is aware that the present system of deducting tax from the gross amount paid causes a great deal of friction and confusion between the parties.
    Sir J. Anderson: I do not think that it is either necessary or desirable to extend the provisions of Section 25 of the Finance Act, 1944, as suggested by my hon. Friend. Where maintenance payments are made under a deed of separation or other binding agreement, it is to be assumed that the Income Tax factor will have been taken into account in the negotiations between the parties as to the conditions of separation.
    Mr. Oliver: Does not my right hon. Friend appreciate that much friction and hardship are caused by the deductions which are made before payment to the wife is made? Sometimes, as a result, a wife who should be paid £2 a week receives only £1, and an adjustment is subsequently made, and a great deal of friction and hardship is caused.
    Viscountess Astor: Sometimes they pay it to someone who is not a wife.
    Sir J. Anderson: If I may answer the question, I do not see why greater difficulty should arise in this class of case, than in other cases in which Income Tax is collected by deduction.

    Smuggled Goods (Confiscation)
    Mr. Bowlesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, where a naval
    1890
    rating offends against the Customs Duty on imports on, for instance, stockings, which he was bringing home as a present for his near relatives, and he is punished by his commanding officer by losing his leave, he is also obliged to have the stockings confiscated.
    Sir J. Anderson: Smuggling by naval ratings constitutes a breach of naval discipline and naval ratings caught smuggling are reported forthwith to the naval authorities for disciplinary action. Goods forming the subject of attempts at smuggling are confiscated by the Customs, whether the offender is a naval rating or any other person.
    Mr. Bowles: Here is a naval rating who, over two and a half years, has managed to save £8 with which to buy some stockings for his mother and sister. He is punished by the Department which the right hon. Gentleman represents. Does the right hon. Gentleman, who is a Member of the War Cabinet, and to whom this Question has been transferred, think this rating should also be punished by the loss of leave which he had earned?
    Sir J. Anderson: That is obviously not a matter for me. I am concerned with the Customs law. The answer is that where an attempt is made to smuggle goods those goods are confiscated. I see no escape from that.
    Mr. Bowles: No one would disagree with that reply, but the Question was put down to the First Lord of the Admiralty. It was transferred to my right hon. Friend, presumably because it was a matter for the War Cabinet.
    Sir J. Anderson: As the hon. Member should know, Questions are put to the Minister who has special responsibility. This Question was transferred to me because the central point appeared to be the confiscation, which is a Customs matter.
    Mr. Bowles: If I now put down a Question to the First Lord on the question of leave, will the right hon. Gentleman refuse to answer?

    Service Personnel (Post-War Credits)
    Sir Adam Maitlandasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an assurance that immediately after the end of the war with Germany he will make available for officers and men in His Majesty's Forces any Income Tax post-

    1891
    war credits to which they may be entitled, so that they may use this money towards the purchase of a house.
    Sir J. Anderson: I am afraid I cannot make an exceptional arrangement such as my hon. Friend suggests.
    Sir A. Maitland: Will my right hon Friend, at the appropriate time, take note of the suggestion?
    Sir J. Anderson: Yes; opportunities will arise for discussing these matters.

    War Damage Contribution
    Lieut.-Colonel Dowerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that cost-of-works repairs, other than essential first-aid repairs, to dwelling houses cannot now be carried out, and that no date has yet been fixed for value payments to be made, and will he therefore consider temporarily suspending the collection of War Damage contributions or reducing the amount of contributions or the assessments upon which they are based.
    Sir J. Anderson: I should not feel justified in introducing legislation altering the basis upon which contribution is paid. I would moreover draw the attention of my hon. and gallant Friend to Sections 63 and 64 of the War Damage Act, 1943, which provide for the suspension of collection of instalments of contribution in cases where it is likely that a value payment will fall to be made or where the property is rendered and remains unfit, as defined in Section 64, by reason of war damage.
    Lieut.-Colonel Dower: As half of this contribution is paid for by the insurance, could not something be paid on account, at any rate, in a case where people have lost their homes entirely?
    Sir J. Anderson: I have explained on more than one occasion, and quite recently, that it has always been contemplated that value payments should not be issued until a much later stage.

    Bank Notes (Higher Denominations)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why notes of £10 and over are being withdrawn from circulation, and not the smaller denominations.
    Sir J. Anderson: The reasons are that the notes of higher denominations afford a readier means of evading the Exchange
    1892
    Control and other Regulations, and that, in view of modern banking facilities, such notes are no longer essential for use as currency within this country.
    Sir W. Smithers: If the object of this withdrawal is to stop hoarding and black-marketing, does my right hon. Friend not realise that unless the whole currency issue is withdrawn and reviewed, his whole object—with which we all agree—will be vitiated?
    Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir. I have explained what the object is. It is more limited than my hon. Friend suggests, and those advising me think that the purpose will be achieved.
    Sir W. Smithers: Why does my right hon. Friend not take steps to make it a broader issue?

    Excess Profits Tax (Post-War Credits)
    Mr. Higgsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to distribute the 20 per cent. refund on Excess Profits Tax.
    Sir J. Anderson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the provisions of Section 37 of the Finance Act, 1942, from which he will see that the Excess Profits Tax post-war credit is not payable until after the end of the war, and that the date of the payment has still to be prescribed by Parliament.
    Mr. Higgs: Is the Chancellor aware that the control of the purchase of commodities, particularly machine tools, has been relaxed, and that the release of this money would give considerable assistance to manufacturers in preparing for post-war production?
    Sir J. Anderson: That is as may be; but, as has been pointed out, no change can be made without a departure from the conditions under which these post-war credits are to be given.
    Mr. De Chair: Will my right hon. Friend consider the case of farmers in relation to this rebate, because many of them are in need of this capital for replacements on the farms?
    Sir J. Anderson: I will take note of my hon. Friend's point.
    Mr. Woodburn: Has there been any change of principle in connection with the repayment? The assumption seems to

    1893
    be that this is an automatic payment. I thought it was conditional on the amount required in the particular industry.
    Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir; no change has been made.

    Government-Controlled Corporations (Taxation)
    Mr. Stourtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what authority directors of Government-controlled corporations receive a substantial part of their remuneration free of Income Tax.
    Sir J. Anderson: The same rules of the Income Tax law apply, and are applied, to directors of Government-controlled corporations as to other company directors. No part of their remuneration is exempt from tax. If my hon. Friend has in mind the position of an expenses allowance paid in addition to ordinary remuneration, I can only say that the question whether, and to what extent, such an allowance represents taxable remuneration depends on the facts of the individual case, and in particular on the consideration whether the performance of the duties of the office necessitates the expenditure covered by the allowance.
    Mr. Stokes: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the whole practice of expenses allowances is thoroughly pernicious and ought to be abolished?
    Mr. Speaker: That is a matter of opinion entirely.

    B.O.A.C. Ferry Pilots (Income Tax)
    Sir H. Williamsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will look into the circumstances of those employees of B.O.A.C., who are engaged in flying between the United Kingdom and Canada and who, when based on Montreal, are subject to Canadian Income Tax and also have United Kingdom Income Tax deducted as well; and will he take steps to remedy this grievance.
    Sir J. Anderson: I would remind my hon. Friend that provision is made, in Section 27 of the Finance Act, 1920, for granting relief in respect of the payment of Dominion Income Tax in cases where a person has paid Dominion Income Tax in respect of a part of his income and is also liable for United Kingdom Income Tax thereon.
    Sir H. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his answer does not deal with the point at issue, which is that these people live part of the week in Scotland and part of the week in Montreal, and that they are presumed to be living simultaneously in both countries, when in fact they are constantly travelling to and fro? Ought they not to be treated as being domiciled in one country only?
    Sir J. Anderson: That is a very wide question. I understood the Question to be concerned with relief from the burden of double taxation.
    Mr. Silverman: Would the Chancellor say why he thinks this is a very wide question? Surely, the number of persons concerned is very few, and the point which the hon. Member makes is an obvious one.
    Sir J. Anderson: I said I thought it was a wide question because questions of law under which domicile or residence is determined go beyond the point in my hon. Friend's Question.
    Sir H. Williams: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there are only a small number of people whose residence has to be determined in one country or the other, although they, perhaps, sleep two nights in Canada and two in the United Kingdom?
    Sir J. Anderson: My hon. Friend has over-simplified the matter.
    Mr. Silverman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is manifestly unfair to a small number of people who are doing a very valuable service to charge them double Income Tax, one lot in the Dominion and another in this country, for circumstances which they cannot control themselves?
    Sir J. Anderson: The point of my answer shows that they are not charged double tax.
    Mr. Silverman: Oh, yes, they are.
    Sir H. Williams: Does the same standard apply to the Prime Minister when spending a lot of his time in other countries?

    R.A.F. Organisations (Taxation)
    Mr. Stourtonasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the

    1895
    profits of the R.A.F. fishing organisation at Scarborough or Torquay have been assessed for income tax; and, if so, upon whom will the tax be levied.
    Mr. Peake: I would remind my hon. Friend that no information can be furnished as to the Income Tax liability in particular cases. He may rest assured that whatever legal liability may exist will be duly assessed.

  FINANCE CORPORATIONS

    Capital Issues
    Mr. Douglasasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the whole of the nominal capital of the Finance Corporation for Industry, Limited, and of the Industrial and Finance Corporation, Limited, respectively, will be issued; whether the shares will be fully paid; whether the issue will be subject to the consent of the Capital Issues Committee; and whether loans made by these two companies will be subject to the consent of the Capital Issues Committee.
    Sir J. Anderson: The matters raised in the first two parts of the Question are for the decision of the companies concerned when they have been formed. Issues of capital (including issues of securities in the exercise of borrowing powers) by either Corporation will be subject to any Treasury consent required under the regulations or other provisions in force at the time of issue, but the promoters have been informed that such consent will in fact be given. Persons desirous of obtaining finance from either Corporation will need to make application to the Capital Issues Committee for Treasury consent in accordance with the regulations in force for the time being.
    Mr. A. Bevan: Are definite regulations and conditions being drawn up for the operation of these companies, before we have a discussion in the House?
    Sir J. Anderson: There is no question of regulations being drawn up. These companies will be treated under the ordinary provisions.
    Mr. Bevan: Are these companies proposed to be operated and conditions of finance established, before a Debate takes place in this House?
    Sir J. Anderson: I do not know. That depends on when the Debate takes place.
    Mr. Douglas: Has not the right hon. Gentleman been consulted about the matter referred to in the first two parts of the Question?
    Sir J. Anderson: I do not think so. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Levy: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer imply that the industrial facilities, so far as banking is concerned, with regard to the two corporations which he has been good enough to set up, are wholly and entirely dependent upon what consent the Capital Issues Committee gives to them? Where does the Treasury come in at all, if the right hon. Gentleman has passed the ball?
    Sir J. Anderson: This Committee acts on behalf of the Treasury.
    Mr. Stokes: Are we to understand that the Capital Issues Committee is going to function indefinitely after the war?
    Sir J. Anderson: That might well be the subject of a separate Question.

    Operations (Scope)
    Mr. Douglasasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the operations of the Finance Corporation for Industry, Limited, and of the Industrial and Finance Corporation, Limited, respectively, will be confined to the making of loans, or whether they will undertake the purchase of shares in other undertakings.
    Sir J. Anderson: I understand that the memorandum of association of each company will cover the provision of finance by means of loans or the subscription of loan or share capital.

    Ministerial Responsibility
    At the end of Questions—
    Mr. A. Bevan: May I raise a point of Order with you, Mr. Speaker? I think it is a matter of some constitutional importance, but I appreciate that you have not had sufficient notice concerning it, and that you may not be, therefore, in a position to make a reply to-day. I want to raise the question of the relationship between this House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the operations of the Finance Corporation for Industry, Limited, and the Industrial and Finance Corporation, Limited. Questions on these have appeared on the Order Paper and, in the course of his replies to them, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that

    1897
    he was not responsible either for the establishment or for the administration of these corporations. I want to know, therefore, under what Rule these Questions can be placed on the Order Paper at all, because Questions can only be put upon the Order Paper to a Minister who is responsible. The Minister denies the responsibility; yet we have had Questions and a number of supplementaries to those Questions. The result is that the House is given the form of responsibility for the behaviour of these corporations, without the reality of control.
    It is my respectful submission to you, Sir, that here is a position which requires to be cleared up. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced to the House, in the first instance, as a piece of information, that these corporations were to be established, I asked him whether he proposed to devise any instrument by which their activities might be reviewed by the House from time to time. The right hon. Gentleman replied that, as this was a private act of private persons, for which he was not responsible, there would be no such instrument, and yet, subsequently, we have had a number of Questions on the Order Paper concerning a matter for which neither this House nor the Minister is responsible. May I submit, Sir, that we ought to have this matter cleared up, and that we ought not to involve ourselves in public discussions about matters for which there is no precise and particular responsibility?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member realises, as he has said, that it is quite impossible for me to give an answer at short notice. I do not know whether the Chancellor has any explanation to make, but all I can say is that I shall make such inquiries as I can, and go into the matter.
    Sir J. Anderson: Perhaps I might say, Sir, that it is perfectly true, as I made clear in the first instance, that I have, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, no responsibility for the establishment of these corporations or for their conduct. I have a general responsibility for capital control, the control of capital issues and the regulation of capital issues, and some of the Questions on the Order Paper did, quite definitely, involve matters within my responsibility. But, in regard to the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised, I think he was perfectly right in saying, as I myself made clear, that I have no re-
    1898
    sponsibility. I did, however, in the first instance, think it proper, as a matter of convenience, to give to the House certain information, and I believe that that is not infrequently done by Ministers.
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: May I say that the position of the Bank of England is really anomalous, and that in many cases Questions relating to the Bank of England have been put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? If I might suggest it to you, Mr. Speaker, the fact that the Bank of England is going to play a large part in this proposal does entitle this House to get a certain amount of information with regard to it from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. A. Bevan: In reply to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in my submission to you, Mr. Speaker, for your further consideration, may I point out that a very difficult constitutional issue is raised because an institution over which the Treasury has a direct control participates in activities for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer denies he is responsible? We have growing up in this country a form of practice which does invalidate effective Parliamentary control over certain aspects of Ministers' activities and it is necessary to bring our constitutional behaviour into conformity with the actual facts of life and to put the responsibility upon the Minister on whom it lies, and not permit him to dodge it, whenever it is convenient for him to conceal what he has done.
    Mr. Molson: May I point out that there has been a case—the case of the Unemployment Assistance Board and a number of other boards set up by this House—in which this House has expressly deprived itself of the power of asking questions?
    Mr. Bevan: No, that was by Act of Parliament.
    Mr. Speaker: I think, from what I have heard, I must have a little time to consider this point. It looks to me to be a matter of scrutinising rigidly Questions put in at the Table.

  EX-SERVICE PERSONNEL (WAR GRATUITIES)
  Colonel Sir A. Lambert Wardasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is yet in a position to make

  1899
  any further statement about the benefits to be given to men and women released from the Forces under the scheme announced in Cmd. 6548.
  Sir J. Anderson: I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend to await the statement which I will make at the end of Questions.
  Later—
  Sir J. Anderson: This is the answer to Question No. 59.
  As was indicated in the White Paper referred to by my hon. Friend, members of the Forces, when released in their turn, will have 56 days' paid leave, in addition to foreign service leave on the approved scales for those who have served overseas for six months or more. Those who have served in the ranks since the 1st January, 1942, will receive in addition as a release benefit the post-war credits announced in Command 6336 of February, 1942. Provision has been made on a comprehensive scale for reinstatement in civil employment, for further education or training, and for the completion of apprenticeships. Moreover, the final details are now being worked out, and will shortly be announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service, of a scheme of resettlement grants up to £150 to ex-members of the Forces wishing to re-start in business on their own account, and to ex-members of the Forces who are attributably disabled and wish to start in business for the first time. These release benefits alone, apart from the other extensive resettlement measures, but including the Service Post-war Credits and the civilian outfits which are being provided in cash or kind for all members of the Forces on their release, will mean a capital expenditure approaching £500,000,000.
  The aim of the Government has been to design the provision for resettlement so as to cover all the needs of members of the Forces on their return to civil life; and they have had in mind for some time past to complete their arrangements by a scheme of gratuities somewhat on the lines of that which was in force after the last war. It is of course the case that the provision made for the Forces in other ways was much less generous after the last war than the schemes which the Government have already announced for forthcoming releases from the Services.
  1900
  The wider ambit and different approach of the present schemes have regard to the changed circumstances of the times; but in the view of the Government it would not have been right to omit from their plans a scheme of gratuities—of which indeed there has been a general expectation. They have now determined, after careful consideration and in the light of all the circumstances, to supplement the sum of £500,000,000 which I have mentioned by making available a further sum, of the order of £200,000,000, for the purpose of providing war gratuities for Service men and women after the present war. The gratuities will depend on length of war service as well as on rank, so that any unexpected prolongation of the war will inevitably involve some increase over estimates based on present expectations. Legislation will be introduced to exempt the gratuities from tax.
  I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT an outline of the scheme (which will be more fully elaborated in the regulations to be made by the Service Departments), together with the scale of gratuities for each rank. I am also circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT some typical examples, showing the extent of the financial benefits which will be received on release. Regular and ex-regular officers and men are included in the scheme of war gratuities. The issue of war gratuities, which will be in the form of depositis in the Port Office Savings Bank, will begin as soon as possible, for those who are released in their turn, after the start of releases under the Reallocation Scheme announced in Command 6548. Gratuities proportionate to their length of service will be granted also to officers, ratings and other ranks who have been honourably discharged before that date. Proportionate gratuities will similarly be payable to the estates of those who have died and who were otherwise eligible. In the case of members of the Forces who have been discharged or who have died in or since leaving the Service, written application in a prescribed form will be invited on or after a date to be announced on the wireless and published in the Press when the time arrives. Payment will be made as soon as administratively possible after the receipt of the forms.
  This scheme of war gratuities rounds off the Government's comprehensive plan

  1901
  for the resettlement of all men and women on their return from the Services to civil life. The plan is incomparably wider in scope and more liberal in its benefits than the arrangements made after the last war, and I am glad to have had this opportunity of presenting to the House a complete picture of the provision which is being made.
  Sir A. Lambert Ward: Are we to understand that the benefits as well as the gratuities will also be paid free of any deduction of Income Tax or Surtax?
  Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir, the benefits, in so far as they take the form of capital payments, will not be subject to tax. The benefits which take the form of leave pay and allowances will be dealt with under the ordinary law applicable to pay and allowances. The gratuities might be regarded as payments by way of income and therefore legislation will be necessary to exempt them from Income Tax.
  Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I put this point to my right hon. Friend? I gather that in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow there will be a statement whch is now not within the knowledge of the House and in those circumstances I see little value in pursuing questions and answers on it now. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the desirability, whenever the House has had an opportunity of considering the full statement, of some discussion in the House of Commons prior to the formulation of the regulations to which my right hon. Friend refers?
  Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir, but, of course, discussion in the House is a matter for arrangement in the ordinary way. I thought I had given the impression, which I intended to give, that the Government have made decisions and have drawn up a scheme, the details of which will be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. Greenwood: May I then press this point? The scheme exists. My right hon. Friend has made that perfectly clear. My point is that before any regulations which are to be submitted become operative the House might in its wisdom wish to have a discussion on the effects of any regulations there might be on the operation of the scheme. It is a matter which affects a very large number of people and the House naturally would desire to discuss it before it became operative.
  Sir J. Anderson: That seems to be very reasonable. I do not wish to give the impression that I dissent in any way.
  Sir W. Davison: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that any benefits or gratuities payable to men in the Forces on their discharge are paid promptly on their discharge, as is the case in both the American and Canadian Forces; will he see to it that they are not paid after considerable delay, which prevents men taking up employment or new businesses?
  Sir J. Anderson: No doubt my right hon. Friends who are responsible for the Service Departments will be responsible for the details and the matter will be borne in mind.
  Mr. Graham White: Having regard to these provisions, which the Chancellor has rightly described as being much more complete and also more substantial than those after the last war, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the large number of schemes made by civic and other authorities throughout the country who are proposing to do much the same kind of thing?
  Mr. Bellenger: Would my right hon. Friend clear up one or two points in his statement which were not quite clear to me? He mentioned that the Minister of Labour would issue re-settlement grants. Do we understand that these will be in the nature of loans?
  Sir J. Anderson: No, I said "grants"—payments outright.
  Mr. Granville: In view of the fact that HANSARD has a limited circulation, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the issue of some form of White Paper, and give an assurance that it will contain at least the details which were published in the whole of the Sunday Press and in the "Daily Mail" this morning?
  Sir J. Anderson: It is the intention of the Government to put all this information together in one document in a convenient form, so that it may be available not only to Members of this House but to those likely to be concerned. It is in hand and will be available shortly.
  Major C. S. Taylor: My right hon. Friend stated that those who were honourably discharged from the Services will also get the grants. Can he say whether the sums of money due to them will be

  1903
  paid now, or whether they must wait for them until after the war, because many of those who have been honourably discharged want to set up in business now and the grants will help them to re-establish themselves in industry?
  Sir J. Anderson: I really think that at this point I should leave hon. Members to gather for themselves from HANSARD the full bearings of the scheme.
  Mr. Bowles: May I ask just two questions? The first is whether the amounts paid to the estates of deceased serving men will be exempt from any death duties—that was not mentioned; and the second is, Will the Chancellor give an assurance that they will make no difference at all to the pensions drawn by the dependants of deceased serving men?
  Sir J. Anderson: I think those are questions of detail which had better be dealt with separately. I cannot answer them now.
  Mr. Stokes: The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that after the last war there was discrimination against the Regular Serviceman, who got less benefits than the temporary. Can he assure the House in a general way that there will be no such discrimination on this occasion?
  Sir J. Anderson: I purposely included the statement that the scheme will apply to Regulars.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: May I ask whether the scheme of credits will extend to native troops like the King's African Rifles and others of that type?
  Sir J. Anderson: I do not know. That is not a question for me, but should be put to the Colonial Secretary.
  Mr. Driberg: With regard to the 56 days' discharge leave, which the Chancellor dealt with early in his statement, could he reconsider the position of men who have to spend those 56 days ill in bed in hospital and, therefore, feel to some extent cheated of the benefit? Would he consider in this connection the practice in the Canadian Forces?
  Sir J. Anderson: I will certainly look into the point.
  Earl Winterton: May I ask whether we are to gather from the answer which the
  1904
  right hon. Gentleman gave to the last question but one that this very important matter of the African and Indian troops who are within the pay of His Majesty's Government has not been discussed by him with the two Cabinet Ministers concerned? Many of us attach great importance to these people being properly provided for.
  Sir J. Anderson: I have no doubt that my noble Friend will not be surprised to hear that the details of this plan have been the subject of discussion amongst all the Ministers concerned. The statement which I have made on behalf of the Government is confined to the case of members of Forces for which His Majesty's Government are directly responsible. It does not include the others.
  Following is the scheme in outline:
  War gratuity on the scale set out below will be granted to officers and men who have had at least six months' approved war service and who are released or honourably discharged from the Forces. The gratuity will be assessed on the total period or periods of war service in the Forces, on full Service pay, from the 3rd September, 1939, up to the date of release from a dispersal centre (or from the unit, etc., for those who do not pass through dispersal centres). Periods of unmobilised service in the reserves and other periods without Service pay, and service which has been forfeited and not restored, will not count.
  The basic rate of gratuity for ratings and other ranks will be 10s., and for the lowest rank of officer 25s., for each complete month of service as above. Officers and men who have held paid rank above the lowest will qualify for higher rates of gratuity, based upon the substantive or war substantive rank held at the date of release, or, if more favourable, upon the highest paid rank held during the war for a period or periods amounting to not less than six months in all. Where service has been given both in the ranks and as an officer the gratuity will be calculated separately for each period of service. Women members of the Forces and nursing officers will in general receive two-thirds of the rate for corresponding male ranks. Boys, including naval boys before draft to sea, will in general receive half the rate for privates and equivalents: naval boys after draft to sea will receive the rate for ordinary seamen.

  ANGLO-FRENCH CONVERSATIONS (FINANCE)
  Mr. Douglasasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any statement to make on his talks with the French Minister of Finance.
  Sir J. Anderson: I took the opportunity of the recent visit of the French Minister of Finance to London to have a number of conversations with him on matters of common concern, and in particular on methods of promoting Anglo-French co-operation in financial and economic matters. Our talks were in general terms; and the only definite conclusion arrived at concerned the possibility of assisting the French Government in the proper enforcement of the measures taken by them for the purpose of controlling their foreign assets and ensuring that they are used in the best interests of their country. M. Pleven drew my attention to the importance which his Government attach to this matter, and it was agreed that, when arrangements have been completed for the mutual reinstatement of property interests which have been interrupted by the war, His Majesty's Government will make available to the French Government, at their request, information relating to the assets of French nationals which has been furnished to His Majesty's Government
  1910
  under Trading with the Enemy legislation, and the French Government will furnish reciprocal information to the British authorities.
  Earl Winterton: Did the talks cover the calamitous state of France at the present time, and the destitution and mal-nutrition that exist; and were any proposals put forward by the French Finance Minister for us to come to the rescue of that country in its dire distress?
  Sir J. Anderson: I am fully alive to those questions; but my talks with the Minister of Finance were concerned, as I said, with financial and monetary questions.

  STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS
  Lieut.-Colonel Dowerasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many Statutory Rules and Orders were laid before the House during 1944 up till the setting up of the Select Committee on Statutory Rules and Orders on 21st June, 1944, and how many between that date and 31st December, 1944.
  Mr. Peake: The figures are:
  From 1st January, 1944, to 21st June, 1944: 97.
  From 22nd June, 1944, to 31st December, 1944: 141.

  N.A.A.F.I. CLUB (ITALY)
  Mr. Dobbieasked the Secretary of State for War if he will have inquiries made in regard to the complaints of members of His Majesty's Forces in Italy, details of which have been forwarded to him, regarding the conditions of a club, run by the N.A.A.F.I., in which members of His Majesty's Forces are allowed to purchase tea and buns only, whilst the members of Allied Forces are able to purchase teas and dinners; and will he take steps to get the same facilities for our troops as are allowed to other Forces.
  Sir J. Grigg: My hon. Friend is mis-informed about the position. In the town to which he is referring, there is a station restaurant at which all men with a leave pass may buy full meals. Others may only buy tea and buns. This restriction, which applies to troops of all nationalities, is necessary to safeguard proper facilities for men from the front. There is, however, another club in the town at which all British troops may obtain full meals.
  Mr. Dobbie: If I give the Minister further particulars, will he look further into this matter?
  Sir J. Grigg: I am willing to do anything I can. I have sent out for the particulars to the theatre concerned, and have got back a perfectly categorical answer.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to authorise the imposition of estate duties in India and to make provision as to the distribution of the net proceeds thereof."—[India (Estate Duty) Bill [Lords.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  WAGES COUNCILS BILL
  As amended, considered.
  WAGES COUNCILS BILL

    CLAUSE 9.—(General provisions as to commissions of inquiry.)
    12.15 p.m.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I beg to move, in page 9, line 29, at end, insert:
    "including, so far as it considers necessary, the hearing of oral evidence."
    This Amendment is moved in order to meet the wishes of hon. Members which were expressed during the Committee stage.
    Mr. Erskine-Hill: I should like to take the opportunity of thanking the Minister for this Amendment which, I think, does meet a great many of the points about which I was speaking during the Committee stage.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 11.—(Effect and enforcement of wages regulation orders.)
    The Solicitor-General (Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I beg to move, in page 12, line 36, leave out "the actual offender," and insert:
    "a person to whose act or default the offence was due."

    1941
    This Amendment, and the following Amendment which is in exactly the same words, introduce words which in our opinion are more apt to deal with the problems raised in Clauses 11 and 16. They follow the words indicated as being proper in these circumstances by a decision of the High Court.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Consequential Amendment made.

    CLAUSE 12.—(Permits to infirm and incapacitated persons.)
    Mr. Bevin: I beg to move, in page 13, line 25, leave out "that he," and insert:
    "on application being made to it for a permit under this section either by the worker or the employer or a prospective employer, that the worker."
    There is a consequential drafting Amendment following. These words have been devised to meet a request put forward by hon. Members during the Committee stage. They make it clear that either the worker or the employer may apply for a permit.
    Major York: May I express my thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for this Amendment and also ask him one question? Do the words to be included here mean that an application can be made in writing as well as orally?
    Mr. Bevin: Yes, certainly.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In line 27 leave out "to him."—[Mr. Bevin.]

    CLAUSE 14.—(Employers not to receive premiums.)
    Mr. Bevin rose—
    Captain Duncan: On a point of Order. I understood that on Clause 13, an Amendment was to be introduced to meet points which were put forward on the Committee stage.
    Mr. Speaker: There is no such Amendment on the Order Paper.
    Captain Duncan: I was wondering whether the Government were ready with a manuscript Amendment.
    Mr. Speaker: We cannot discuss that now.
    Mr. Bevin: I beg to move, in page 15, line 2, at end, insert:
    1942
    "or to any such payment made at any time if duly made in pursuance of any instrument of apprenticeship approved for the purposes of this proviso by a wages council."
    I hope to make a statement on Third Reading on the question which the hon. and gallant Member has in mind. The Amendment which I have just moved has been introduced in order to meet the difficulties arising from the apprenticeship of young persons by charitable or educational trusts where the payments were spread over and not limited to four weeks.
    Captain Duncan: In one sentence may I thank my right hon. Friend for inserting this Amendment? My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Summers) and I moved Amendments relating to ten points in the Bill and the Minister has met us on seven of them, and I am grateful to him.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 15.—(Records and notices.)
    Mr. Bevin: I beg to move, in page 15, leave out line 14.
    This Amendment limits the period to three years, which I understand was acceptable to hon. Members in Committee, and takes away the power to extend the period by Order.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 16.—(Criminal liability of agent and superior employer, and special defence open to employer.)
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 15, line 25, to leave out Sub-section (1).
    This Amendment and the two following Amendments—in page 15, line 43, leave out
    "whom he charges as the actual offender,"
    and insert:
    "to whose act or default he alleges that the offence in question was due."
    and in page 16, line 18, at end, insert:
    "(4) Where it appears to an officer acting for the purposes of this Part of this Act that an offence has been committed in respect of which proceedings might be taken under this Part of this Act against an employer, and the officer is reasonably satisfied that the offence of which complaint is made was due to an act or default of some other person and that the employer could establish a defence under subsection (2) of this section, the officer may cause proceedings to be taken against that other person without first causing proceedings to be taken against the employer.

    1943
    In any such proceedings the defendant may be charged with and, on proof that the offence was due to his act or default, be convicted of, the offence with which the employer might have been charged."
    —are connected. The first point the Amendments deal with, is the necessity of making it clear that the persons to whose act or default the offence is alleged to be due can be prosecuted without the necessity of prosecuting the employer at the same time. The omission of Sub-section (1) deals with that point and also with the point foreshadowed in the Amendments to Clause 11 already dealt with, namely the improving of the wording. The Amendment to line 43 improves the words, as is shown. The new Sub-section (4) not only instils the improvement but also clarifies the point, making it clear that a prosecution can take place without the prosecution of the employer.
    Mr. Naylor: I am not clear who is to be made responsible for a contravention of the law. In many industries there are several degrees of management. There are the manager of the concern, the overseer of a department and the foreman over a certain number of men. In some cases it might be the foreman, and not the overseer or the manager, who had contravened the law. Are we to understand that proceedings will be taken against the foreman or against the manager—the manager having the greater responsibility in such a matter?
    12.30 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General: If the House will allow me to clear up that point, perhaps my hon. Friend would look at the wording of the new Sub-section which says:
    "Where it appears to an officer acting for the purposes of this Part of this Act that an offence has been committed in respect of which proceedings might be taken under this Part of this Act against an employer …"
    that is, where there has been an offence of paying wages lower than the amount—
    "and the officer …"
    that is, the officer of the Ministry of Labour—
    "is reasonably satisfied that the offence of which complaint is made was due to an act or default of some other person …"
    that is the point which is applicable to the question in the mind of my hon. Friend—it would then be for that officer to consider the situation. If he were reason-
    1944
    ably satisfied that it was the default of the foreman, he would prosecute the foreman. If he were reasonably satisfied that it was the default of the manager, he would prosecute the manager. Of course, my hon. Friend appreciates that the employer remains responsible for the unpaid wages, and therefore the worker does not lose his right of getting anything which he has not received paid up afterwards. It only ensures that the person who has really been at fault, and is to blame, is brought before the court without also bringing before the court somebody who has no moral obliquity, although he retains his financial responsibility. I hope that clears up my hon. Friend's point.
    Mr. Naylor: I am afraid I am not quite clear even now.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has spoken once; he cannot make more than one speech at the Report stage.
    Mr. A. Walkden: This may clear up the point. It has been explained to me that in some workrooms, particularly in the tailoring trade, a master craftsman tailor may employ a sort of "Man Friday" or helper whom he pays. If this master tailor is not paying him what he should, then this Clause would apply, not to any foreman, manager or employer, but to the man who is employing a special man.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 15, line 43, leave out "whom he charges as the actual offender," and insert:
    "to whose act or default he alleges that the offence in question was due."
    In page 16, line 18, at end, insert:
    "(4) Where it appears to an officer acting for the purposes of this Part of this Act that an offence has been committed in respect of which proceedings might be taken under this Part of this Act against an employer, and the officer is reasonably satisfied that the offence of which complaint is made was due to an act or default of some other person and that the employer could establish a defence under subsection (2) of this section, the officer may cause proceedings to be taken against that other person without first causing proceedings to be taken against the employer. In any such proceedings the defendant may be charged with and, on proof that the offence was due to his act or default, be convicted of, the offence with which the employer might have been charged.—[The Solicitor-General.]

    CLAUSE 19.—(Re-enactment with modifications of Part III of S.R. & O. 1940, No. 1305, as amended.)
    Mr. Bevin: I beg to move, in page 18, line 24, leave out "of five years."
    This gives effect to the undertaking I gave during the Committee stage. Instead of inserting five years, the Amendment makes the period certain until the end of 1950, and then subject to the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. The next Amendment is consequential.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In line 24, at end, insert:
    "and ending on the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty, and no longer unless Parliament otherwise determines."—[Mr. Bevin.]

    CLAUSE 24.—(Application to Scotland.)
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 22, line 24, leave out from beginning, to "were," in line 5, and insert:
    "subsections (2) and (3) or any other person charged as a person to whose act or default the offence was due."
    The object of this Amendment is to bring the Scottish application Clause into line with the wording which the House has already accepted for the English Clauses. The next three Amendments are consequential.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 22, line 27, leave out from beginning, to "Where," in line 29, and insert:
    "subsections (2), (3), and (4) were omitted and the following subsections were inserted:—
    (2)
    In page 22, leave out lines 40 and 41.
    In page 23, leave out line 7."—[The Solicitor-General.]
    12.38 p.m.
    Mr. Bevin: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    I want first to make two explanations. In Clause 13, where the question of deduction is raised, a very difficult legal point has arisen because we cannot agree to any whittling down of the protection of the workers under the Truck Act, and we would like a few more days to look at
    1946
    the problem. We propose, therefore, to introduce an Amendment in another place, which I hope will meet the desires of the hon. Members concerned.
    The other explanation I would like to make is that in the Committee stage, I made an error when dealing with Clause 10, largely, I think, due to confusion between the functions of the Commission and those of the wages council. In reply to the hon. and learned Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine-Hill), who asked whether the Clause meant that if the complaint was made in writing, there would be a right, unless the complaint was a frivolous one, for the man to be heard. I said, "Yes, that is so." I am afraid I had in my mind the Amendment that I have moved this morning on Report dealing with the Commission. On a wages council there is no right to give oral evidence, and there never was such a right in the whole history of the Trades Boards. When you make a wages order, you affect many thousands of people both on the workers' side and the employers', and you have to give the same right to both sides. It becomes quite obvious, therefore, that if a right to give oral evidence were granted, the whole machine would break down, so that the procedure to be followed is that when the order is proposed, it has to be posted to every employer concerned, who has to put it up in the workshop, or the shop, or wherever workers are, and both sides have a right to make written objections. These the wages council must take into account and, if necessary, they make a further investigation. I regret misleading my hon. Friend and I could not allow the error to go out without a correction on Third Reading, or it might be argued by the people affected, that I had given an undertaking which it was impossible to carry out.
    I would like to express my thanks to the House for the help they have given in carrying through this Bill, and for the very valuable Amendments which have made it more workable. I hope it will give general satisfaction to millions of people in this country and make for stability during the post-war period of resettlement.
    12.42 p.m.
    Mr. Erskine-Hill: I wish first to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the Amendment he has

    1947
    been able to make in Clause 9. With regard to Clause 10, it was with a certain amount of disappointment that I heard he found himself unable to give effect to what had been stated in the Committee stage, but in view of the enormous number of people concerned, and the fact that we all want this Bill to work properly, I am impressed with the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. However, what he is trying to do, and what this House would like done, is to see that the small trader, with every other interest, is fairly treated. I would like to ask him, or somebody on his behalf, to give the House this assurance: in view of the fact that he cannot implement the promise he made, if it is found in the working-out of this Bill, that hardship does accrue to the small trader, that he will then be willing to introduce legislative Amendments, so as to ensure that the small trader has a fair deal.
    12.43 p.m.
    Mr. Alexander Walkden: On behalf of the Labour Party, I would like to thank the Minister for this great Bill and to congratulate him on the success he has had in passing it through its various stages. The Bill has occupied far less time than one imagined it would. I would also like to say how greatly the Measure will be appreciated in the country as a general guide to industry. Captains of industry will know how they should proceed; they can go on an even keel, without being upset by sweating competitors, who would, otherwise, create anarchy with wages conditions and upset the balance of many important industries. It will be a blessing and comfort to many millions of workpeople.
    In that regard, one of my age cannot but feel what an enormous step forward the Bill is from the days of one's boyhood. When I was a lad, I read a book called "Alton Locke," which is the story of a boy who was nearly killed by the insanitary conditions of the tailor's shop in which he laboured. The suits of clothes made there went up to the West End of London, and carried disease into its stately homes. That has been changed in our time and this Bill has, I think, crowned those changes by establishing permanent machinery and stabilising conditions, so that never again can this country go back to the awful state of
    1948
    affairs that existed in the 19th century and was summed up in Hood's "Song of the Shirt" published in "Punch" many years ago. It described how poor women laboured for about a penny an hour, under shameful conditions which were a disgrace to our country. At about the same period, Elizabeth Barrett Browning wrote a poem called "The Cry of the Children." Charles Kingsley wrote other books in addition to the one I have mentioned, and Walter Besant wrote "The Children of Gideon," which disclosed the horrible, sweated conditions under which many workers then existed. Now, let us rejoice that all that belongs to the past, and that after 100 years our country is well away from those dark waters and can go forward to a far better industrial career.
    12.45 p.m.
    Major York: With a great deal of what has been said by the hon. Member for South Bristol (Mr. A. Walkden) I agree, and I have no doubt that provided this Bill does not cause any undue and dull uniformity throughout our wages structure, it will be of untold benefit to the workers of this country. There is still a fear in my mind, which has been glossed over so far as we are concerned here, because the Clause which has interested a number of my hon. Friends and myself, could not be dealt with during the Committee and Report stages. When I was reading through the report of the Debate on the Committee stage, and considering some of the remarks made by the Solicitor-General, it struck me that there would be a great deal of uncertainty in the minds of employers and workers as to which forms of deduction from pay are likely to be legal, and which are likely to be illegal. When this matter is raised in another place I hope there will be some clarification of the matter for the benefit of those who are involved.
    There is another point, which deals with the possibility of undue uniformity being practised by the wages councils. If the councils were to have too much of an urban bias, they would not give sufficient weight to the customs which are well-known and popular in country districts. I hope, therefore, that some provision which does not appear in the Bill at the moment, can be inserted in another place, to make quite certain that there shall be no undue attempt on the part

    1949
    of wages councils, to bring unnecessary and, indeed, harmful uniformity into the wages structure of our country.
    12.49 p.m.
    Sir Geoffrey Mander: I would like to join in the congratulations which have been offered to the Minister of Labour on the passage of this Measure. It is a really great achievement and a landmark in the history of industrial relations and the wages structure of this country. Its operations will have a great effect for many years to come on the lives of millions of people. The only people who will be disappointed at the passage of this Bill will be the bad employers, for whom nobody will have any sympathy. It will tend to make them, compulsorily, into good employers. I am sure that my right hon. Friend realises that there are certain gaps in the Bill which might have been filled in a manner which I cannot elaborate at this stage, such as, for instance, a national minimum wage. He has, nevertheless, taken a big step forward, and I hope that some day he will fill in the few gaps which do remain.
    12.51 p.m.
    Mr. Leslie: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour on having introduced a Measure of such real importance to stability after the war. Workers and fair-minded employers welcome this Bill, calculated, as it is, to prevent cut-throat competition by low wages. No class of workers will be affected more than distributive trade workers. During the Committee stage the hon. and learned Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine-Hill) expressed concern about the position of small traders. He seemed to imagine that the co-operative societies and multiple firms would dominate the wages councils, and that the small traders would have little say. I want to put his mind at rest. Take the joint industrial councils. In the distributive trades, to-day, every section of the trade is represented, and in actual fact co-operative societies and multiple firms are in a minority on those councils. Small traders who employ staffs are well-organised, and they are the traders who will be affected by the wages councils. I know of no section of the distributive trade which has not got an organisation. When the Sunday Trading (Restrictions) Bill was passing through
    1950
    the Committee stage, we were amazed at the number of organisations connected with the distributive trades.
    The hon. and learned Member for North Edinburgh said that the natural representation in the distributive trade is that of the large organisation, and that small men, who are not organised, would have no representation at all. Well, if the trader is not in an organisation, what could he represent? Only himself. His knowledge would be confined within the four walls of his own shop. He could not speak for his fellow traders. What have the small traders to fear? We have had experience of trade boards in fixing rates of wages, and always the small man has had to be considered. On some boards it was insisted that the rates should be such as would enable the smallest man, in the meanest street, to pay them. Instead of moaning and groaning and fearing the worst, let the small man get into his trade organisation, and he can be assured that his interests will not be neglected. This Measure is the best possible safeguard that the small man can have against unscrupulous competition, which has been the curse of the distributive trade.
    12.54 p.m.
    Dr. Russell Thomas: I do not feel that I can join in the praise which has been given to the Minister with regard to this Bill. All the way through, people have sounded his praises; the only discordant note was that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea (Sir L. Jones), who brought out some cogent arguments against the Bill. We have had nothing but sickly sentimentality from one hon. Member after another. It has been said that this Bill would complete the work of the Trade Boards Acts dealing with sweated trades, but I would remind the House that special conditions existed in regard to those sweated trades of long ago and that we are now dealing with organised industry, which has had a fair deal for a long time past, and, frequently, high wages [Laughter]. If what I say is so irritating to hon. Members, they need not stay here to hear me. The Minister said on the Second Reading that there was a moral obligation in regard to all these matters. Of course there is, when one enters into an agreement voluntarily. If I do so, I consider that not only have I a legal obli-

    1951
    gation, but also a moral obligation, but there is no moral obligation upon me as a rule to enter into an agreement, if I do not want to, which is a very different matter. That disposes of the lecture I received, on the Second Reading, from the Minister.
    We have heard a great deal about the retail trades. An hon. Member said that the small trader will not suffer, and another said that the small trader should be protected. It is highly necessary that that point should be looked at, but when another hon. Member said on the Second Reading that the retail trade was longing for this Bill, I would point out that the retail trade in this country is practically inarticulate, despite what has been said. It is only the multiple shops and the co-operative societies who can make their voices heard, not the small retailer—
    Mr. Leslie: There is no section of the distributive trade which has not got its organisation. If traders are outside that organisation then they have only themselves to blame.
    Dr. Thomas: Hundreds of thousands of small retailers have not expressed an opinion on this Bill, and never could do so—many are in the Services. The big shops will fix a high minimum wage which the small retailer will not be able to afford to pay, and, bit by bit, he will be driven out of business—a good example of the combination of trades unions and monopoly. I seem to have met this Bill before, but not in this country. I remember a certain country I used to visit where I saw the provisions of this Bill at work. I had considerable knowledge of the industry of that country. Not only were the traders and business people in that country taxed, but they had to keep a certain number of employees, whether there was work for them to do or not, and also had to pay certain wages, whether they had any business or not. If they could not do it, or if they under-cut a little and made their own arrangements, they were reported to the local association, not to the magistrates' court. That local association was not known by the name "association." If traders were penalised by that so-called "association," more than once they had their businesses taken away. They had an appeal to another "association"—I will con-
    1952
    tinue to call it by that name for a moment—
    Mr. Speaker: It is very interesting, but it is not in the Bill. We are discussing what is in the Bill, not a local association in another country.
    Dr. Thomas: With deep respect, Sir, I was trying to make a fair comparison with the effects of this Bill. In the country I was referring to an "association" was called a corporation, and the State, a corporate State. However, I will not enter into any further details, except to say that my hon. Friends opposite above the Gangway well know the type of philosophy on which this Bill is based. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir W. Beveridge), who is not in his place—but I am sure he will not mind a compliment—well exemplifies what I say. The Minister of Labour during the last three or four years, fateful years, has endeavoured to accomplish in this House what he has failed to do in the years before. He says that the unstable period for wages will be five or six years after the war. He gave dates in regard to the last war, and mentioned 1919 to 1926, 1926 being, no doubt, a date he well remembers, and is fixed indelibly in his mind. I present this Bill with no garland; I give it no posy. On second thoughts, I will give it a sprig of rosemary—"that's for remembrance."
    1.00 p.m.
    Mr. Naylor: It would be a great pity if this discussion ended on the discordant note which has just been sounded by the hon. Member for Southampton (Dr. Russell Thomas). He seems to have overlooked the fact that this Bill has been introduced in order to protect workers, and not for those who employ workers. If he is here in the interest of those who employ workers, I claim to be here representing the workers employed by those whose interests he represents. I represent a constituency which will benefit very largely by a Bill of this kind and I enter the discussion only for the purpose of identifying myself with the praise given to the Minister for having introduced the Bill. It will make industrial history. We congratulate the Minister on having established what is, virtually, a national minimum wage. He has taken the part of those who are unable to defend themselves, and has made it impossible for helpless men and women to be exploited by unscrupulous em-

    1953
    ployers, and we thank him. The hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major York) hoped that there would not be a dull uniformity in the administration of the Bill. If the wages are sufficiently high to guarantee a satisfactory standard of living for those who are going to benefit, I do not regard that as dull uniformity. We want to stabilise the standard of living of every man and woman in the country as far as it can be accomplished. My right hon. Friend has already, as a result of certain regulations he has made, given his name to a certain group. We know that there are "Bevin boys," and we are never allowed to forget it. There will now be Bevin men and women—who will thank him for the Bill.
    1.3 p.m.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. McCorquodale): With regard to the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Erskine-Hill) we could not possibly pledge a future Government. We do not expect that there will be any difficulties in regard to small businesses but, if such difficulties did arise, we would certainly look into them. I thank the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Sir G. Mander) for his kind words of welcome. The hon. Member did his best to bring in some new ideas; they were out of order, but I congratulate him on his ingenuity in getting an advertisement for them. With the exception of one lone voice, we have had in these discussions unanimity. It is remarkable that the House should show such unity on a great industrial question. I believe it augurs well for unity, co-operation and agreement in industry in the post-war years and I am convinced that, if we obtain that co-operation and peace in industry, one of the most important steps towards our national recovery, welfare and prosperity in the future will have been attained.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) [MONEY]
  Resolution reported:
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the definition of contributory service for the purposes of the Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1925, to extend
  1954
  the enactments relating to the superannuation of teachers to certain persons employed in connection with the provision of educational services otherwise than as teachers, and to make other amendments of the law relating to the superannuation of teachers and such persons as aforesaid, it is expedient—

  (a) to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums required to be so paid (whether in respect of expenses incurred by the Minister of Education or otherwise) by reason of any provision of the said Act relating to the service which may be reckoned for the purposes of the enactments relating to the superannuation of teachers, to the persons who may qualify for benefits under those enactments, to the relationship between those enactments and other superannuation schemes, to the repayment of sums paid on account of contributions under those enactments and of interest upon such sums, and to the employment of teachers and other persons after benefits have become payable to them under those enactments;

  (b) to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by the Minister of Education in respect of or in lieu of contributions under the said enactments, other than sums paid on account of contributions under the Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1898; and

  (c) to authorise any charge upon the Consolidated Fund which may be occasioned by any amendment of the said Act of 1898 relating to the definitions of 'recorded service' and 'certificated teacher.'"

  Resolution agreed to.

  TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]
  1.10 p.m.
  Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL

    CLAUSE 2.—(Superannuation of certain persons serving in the educational service otherwise than as teachers.)
    The Minister of Education (Mr. Butler): I beg to move, in page 3, line 34, after "shall", insert:
    "if he makes application to the Minister for that purpose within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner."
    The purpose of inserting these words is to secure that an organiser of the kind to whom this portion of the Sub-section refers shall not be automatically brought within the scope of the teachers Superannuation Act but he is enabled to continue under the terms of the local government Superannuation Act if he so

    1955
    wishes. The Amendment will bring the effect of Sub-section (1) into conformity with the provisions of Section 14 of the principal Act.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 38 to 43.
    I move this because I feel that there is an anomaly in the Clause as it stands. This is a point which I took up on the Second Reading, and to which the Parliamentary Secretary addressed himself, but I am bound to say he did not deal with the matter in his usual convincing way, and left me quite unrepentant for taking the point. I hope he will not mind if I return to the attack now. The Clause consists of two parts. It deals in both cases with persons whose service to a substantial extent involves the performance of duties of an organising or advisory character in connection with the provision of education or services ancillary to education. In the one case the person is employed by a local authority and in the other he is not. They may for years have been engaged in doing exactly the same type of work, yet in the one case my right hon. Friend demands that he should have had three years' teaching experience before taking up the position and in the other case no such demand is made. I wonder why this requirement is necessary. If it is necessary in the case of a person employed by a local authority, it seems to me equally necessary in the case of a person not employed by a local authority.
    I think my right hon. Friend takes the view that a person employed by a local authority is already provided with superannuation under the Local Government Act and therefore presumably his case is not so pressing, but is that really an answer? I assume that, as certain persons are given an option to change over from superannuation under the Local Government Act to the Teachers' Superannuation Act, there must be some advantage in so doing, otherwise he is given an empty option. If this proviso remains, the class of person who would otherwise gain by being allowed to go on to teachers' superannuation loses that gain, although other people not employed by a local authority are allowed to get superannuation under the Teachers' Act. I know that the proviso is conditional. It is in the 1925 Act and my right hon.
    1956
    Friend may feel some difficulty in taking it out of this Bill when it is in Section 14 of the 1925 Act, but I have no doubt that he could meet that difficulty if he desired. If he finds himself unable to deal with it in the manner I propose I ask him to modify the Regulations at present in force. Under them the three years' service has to be full-time service. There is nothing in the 1925 Act and there is nothing in the wording of the proviso that requires full-time service. Nevertheless, full-time teaching service for three years has always been insisted on, with the result that certain persons who ought to have had the benefit of this or the 1925 Act have been deprived of it. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will not insist on three years' full-time teaching but accept into the scheme persons who may not, for very good reasons, have done the full three years' full-time teaching?
    Mr. Messer: I feel that unwittingly there is a possibility that an injustice has been done and will be continued unless the Amendment is accepted. This paragraph continues Section 14 of the 1925 Act. A teacher may spend part of his time teaching and, as is later defined, work of some other sort for three years, and he is then covered, but a teacher may spend two years in teaching and then be called into the Services. He may still be considered as being employed as a teacher by the authority and his salary even may be made up, yet, because he has not been in control of a class and has not been defined as a teacher for the full three years, he has suffered. That has happened before and I hope it will not be allowed to happen, as it might, during this war.
    1.15 p.m.
    There is the possibility that teachers might have two years of teaching, and then go into war service. In consequence of that fact, as they are not actually engaged in teaching, their period will not be counted for superannuation. I do not want to say any more after what has been said by my hon. Friend with regard to the other aspects but this is one thing which should receive special attention. There is no intention, I am sure, that men who have been prepared to do what they can in rendering national service should suffer, as against those who have

    1957
    not been called upon to the service of their country. I have pleasure in supporting the Amendment in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman, if he cannot accept it, will give an assurance that, at any rate, an anomaly which makes this differentiation will not be allowed to continue.
    Mr. Cove: If my memory is correct, I think an Act which was passed at the beginning of the war, safeguards the class of person that my hon. Friend has mentioned. It was at a somewhat hurried moment, at the beginning of the war when legislation went through to make sure that service of the kind referred to was covered and would be treated as contributory service. I want to make one main point and that is that this Bill, or I should say the whole superannuation scheme, is based upon teaching service. It is not a general pension scheme but it is a scheme directed particularly to the service of teaching. As a matter of fact, the basic qualification is that you must have been a teacher and I believe that is fundamentally so.
    Mr. Silkin: I should like to question this particular point. Would my hon. Friend look at Clause 2 (2), which says:
    "Where the Minister is satisfied with respect to service of any particular kind that it is not service as a teacher but is service which to a substantial extent involves the performance of duties of an organising or advisory character in connection with the provision of education or of services ancillary to education."
    Mr. Cove: I am not at all concerned at the moment with the technical legalities. I am making the main point, and I stick to it, that the basis of the superannuation scheme for teachers is that they are teachers and are in the teaching service. They are contributing to a special scheme which applies to the service of teachers, and I, personally, do not want anything to be done which would weaken that fundamental basis.
    Mr. Butler: Various points have been raised by hon. Members opposite but I will deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) before I deal with the substantive point of the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin). The position is, that war service counts as a contributory service for the purpose of a pension. That answers that
    1958
    point, which is covered by the Teachers' Superannuation War Service Act, 1939, so that the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) is correct in his assertion.
    I will now deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Peckham which certainly needs an answer. The position here is governed by the traditional method of handling the question in the Teachers Superannuation Act. As I understand it, it was agreed at the time of the 1925 Act that this qualification should be included, and there is no reason why we should alter that basis upon which the Teachers Superannuation Act is worked. What we are doing in this Bill is to deal with the position of advisers and organisers. We are not trying to alter the whole basis of the Superannuation Act and, therefore, on that main ground I fear the Amendment will have to be rejected.
    Now let us examine the more detailed argument of the hon. Member for Peckham. He claims that it is unfair to have this condition in the first Sub-section of this Clause, and not in the second. If he reads the Clause with his customary legal acumen, he will see that it refers to those who might be employed by a local education authority, a type which I described in my Second Reading speech and he will see that that covers a very large field. The Clause refers to service:
    "which to a substantial extent involves … the performance of duties of an organising or advisory character in connection with the provision of education or of services ancillary to education."
    The question of employment is not the issue. The question at issue is from whence and how these people are going to get their pensions. If they had three years' service as teachers, then they will come under the Teachers Superannuation Act. If they have done some teaching, but have also done some other work they will then come under the Local Government Superannuation Act and that is what the proviso to the first Sub-section of the Clause is really concerned with. The alternative would be that the large part of the staff of the local authority would come in under the wrong Act and that would upset the whole basis of the Act.
    Coming to the second Sub-section, which deals with the voluntary workers, we do not want to restrict the field of employment of voluntary workers. It might be desirable where a person, who had not

    1959
    three years' teacher's experience but was on the staff of a local authority, might have transferred, for some reason or other, to the service of a voluntary organisation. It is for these reasons that we have made the proviso for the first Subsection but not the second, and I hope that this explanation will lead to the hon. Member not insisting on his Amendment.
    Mr. Gallacher: I think the Minister is likely to create an anomaly which is not necessary to the working of the scheme. You have for instance physical training and school feeding. There are those who are responsible for the whole system of physical training, or for advising on the correct method of feeding, calories, vitamins, etc. But this does not bring in the cooks who are cooking the food and those who are serving it. If you keep the Clause as it is, the organisers or advisers associated with any of the ancillaries will have had to be teachers. You will have a situation in which advisers or organisers who have had three years or some such period as teachers, come in under the scheme, while other advisers or organisers carrying on exactly the same task, and accepting the same responsibility, will be left outside. That is an undesirable anomaly. As I see it, staff engaged in advisory or organising capacities, whether they have or have not had teaching experience, should be treated alike, and in view of the limited number who would come into these categories, I think the anomaly should be removed.
    Professor Gruffyd: I think the hon. Member is looking at the question from a wrong angle altogether. This is not a scheme applying to those people who have been teachers and who have become advisers. Obviously their position must be regarded, because they have left their first occupation to study teaching, and this Bill covers teachers only. The other advisers will come in under the local government scheme.
    Mr. Silkin: I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would deal with the other point I made. If the Amendment cannot be accepted, could he devise a method which could deal with the matter by regulation so as to give the Minister some discretion. As I understand it at
    1960
    present he has no discretion at all. It has to be three years' full-time service. There may be some very hard cases where, perhaps, some will have given three years' service but not all at full time. In such cases the Minister might be prepared to make a concession, but as the law stands at present he could not do so. That is why I ask him if, failing the acceptance of the Amendment, he would include a regulation which will give him the necessary discretionary authority.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Ede): The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) raises the question of people who have not been teachers and their position in the service of a local education authority. Everybody in the service of the local authority has now to be in the local government officers' superannuation scheme. That is to say everybody in full-time service—a whole-time cook or any other assistant in the meal service—has to be brought into the local government officers' superannuation scheme, which, actuarially, is equally valuable.
    1.30 p.m.
    No person in the permanent employment of a local authority is outside that scheme unless he is in some other scheme, like teachers' superannuation. Similarly, an adviser in the employment of the local education authority, if he has had three years' teaching experience, can come under the Teachers (Superannuation) Act if he so desires. If he has not had three years' teaching service, he comes automatically under the Local Government Officers Superannuation Act and gets a benefit which is actuarially as valuable, although it is paid in a slightly different way. There is no real differentiation. We have to secure the position of the person who has had three years' teaching experience and then passes over to the administrative side of education. We allow him under this Measure, if he remains in the service of the local education authority, to come into that provided he has had three years' teaching service. That is the minimum service required by the principal Act in order to secure any benefit under that Act. The person who has had three years' teaching experience qualifies for one of the smaller benefits under that Act. That is why three years has been chosen.

    1961
    My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), with a perseverance which would be praiseworthy were it in a better cause, has asked my right hon. Friend whether he will not take power under the Regulations to deal with the situation. It would be introducing a new principle into the position of teachers in this service if we were to take anything less than three years' full-time service as the basis of the establishment of a right under the Teachers (Superannuation) Act. This matter was the subject of careful negotiations between bodies that represent organisers, secretaries, chief education officers, directors of education and that class of person, when the Act of 1925 was drafted. My hon. Friend the Member of Aberavon (Mr. Cove) was in the negotiations on one side and I was, I will not say in them, but very near, where I was consulted by some people on both sides. That minimum qualification was included in the Act of 1925 as the result of those negotiations and was welcomed by the directors and secretaries as a recognition of their past teaching service. It would, I am afraid, be too fundamental a departure from the arrangement on which the whole of the teachers' superannuation has been built up since the last war for us to undertake even to take discretionary power to vary that requirement.
    Mr. Gallacher: Are we to take it from that reply that someone employed as an adviser, who has had two years and nine months' occupation as a teacher, will get local government superannuation, and that another one, with three years, will get teachers' superannuation, but that there will be no difference in the superannuation?
    Mr. Ede: The hon. Member's chronological exercise is worked out quite correctly. A minimum of three years' teaching service is required to establish the right to remain under the Teachers (Superannuation) Act. If he has less than that the organiser or whoever he is comes under the local government Officers Superannuation Act.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Butler: I beg to move, in page 4, line 8, after "shall," insert:
    "if he makes application to the Minister for that purpose within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner."
    1962
    This follows upon the Amendment which I moved previously and meets a point which was raised in the Second Reading Debate. It will secure that no organiser employed by a grant-aided voluntary body, whose service under the second Sub-section of the Clause should be treated as contributory service, will be automatically brought under this Bill. Thus, it will be open for any person working under a voluntary organisation to apply, and he will not be under a compulsion to obtain the benefit of the Act. The Amendment is desired by the voluntary organisations and is an improvement to the Bill.
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I should be less than grateful if I did not say "Thank you" to the Minister.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Provisions with respect to independent superannuation schemes.)
    Mr. Butler: I beg to move, in page 4, line 43, at end, insert:
    "or, as the case may be, in accordance with the corresponding provision of the local Act scheme, together with compound interest on those contributions, calculated to the date on which he ceased to be a contributory employee or a local Act contributor, at the rate of three per cent. per annum with half-yearly rests."
    This Amendment and two which I will move to Clause 6 fill in a slight gap in the wording of Sub-section (4) of Clause 3. As at present worded, it does not cover the case of a contributor under a local Act where repayment of contributions has to be made, and it is felt that a reference should be made in terms to the corresponding provision for repayment under the Local Act scheme. There is further provision in this for repayment of contributions with compound interest. These matters have been brought to our attention by those who are familiar with the intricacies of the question, and I think that they are probably a great improvement to the Bill. I am grateful for the suggestions that have been made to me.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Saving for superannuation rights of teachers employed by managers of public elementary schools.)
    Amendment made: In page 5, leave out lines 39 to 41.—[Mr. Butler.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Reckoning for pension of certain service which was not contributory or recognised service.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Edmund Harvey: I want to appeal to my right hon. Friend on behalf of a very limited class of teachers. In the course of his Second Reading speech, he expressed his regret that it was not possible to go further to meet the difficulty of those old teachers, who would have to make back payments. In many cases it will be very hard. It is admitted, in some cases, that they might not be able to do it at once, and for two years they might make the back payments without interest. After that, however, interest will be charged. I think that the Minister felt great sympathy for these teachers, and I want to ask whether it will be possible for him under the regulations to extend the period, in which they make make these back payments without interest. These teachers have been terribly underpaid in the past, and it is just these underpaid elderly women who will have the greatest difficulty in making back payments.
    I hope, therefore, that the Minister in framing the Regulations will give favourable consideration to their case and will use all the power that he has to give them favourable terms. The Minister said in introducing his Bill that it was a measure of simple justice. It is a measure of tardy justice, and I think that it needed all his imagination to say that it was simple justice. It will be difficult for these people to understand unless they have a simple White Paper explaining what the alternatives are before them. I beg the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, to undertake to see that a White Paper which even an elderly supplementary teacher can understand is issued.
    Mr. Butler: I will certainly do my best to meet the hon. Gentleman's second request and will see that the same clear conception of the Bill which is shared by His Majesty's Ministers is shared by those who will profit by it. We shall do our best to make clear the benefits that are likely to accrue to supplementary teachers under this small act of simple justice. In regard to his first point, he will remember that in my Second Reading speech I said that rules would be made under the Act by the Department and that, if payment was made within the two years, no interest would be charged. Let us examine the case of a supplementary teacher who suddenly learns that by the payment of a considerable amount of past contributions without interest she may be entitled to a pension, a thing she had never looked for before. It would be difficult to make much more generous terms; there is a two-year period in which we do not demand interest. Therefore, I cannot hold out any great hope that we can give better terms. All I can say is that this matter is not actually settled by the terms of the Bill. It will be laid down in rules, and in view of the hon. Gentleman's interest I will examine his proposal, provided that he and the Committee do not take it from me that it is likely the Government will depart from the arrangements I have suggested.
    Mr. Cove: I would like to support my hon. Friend in his plea. This is an act of tardy justice to these people, who are not a great number. I have not been into the details of the finance, but I imagine that it will be difficult for them to pay out any money at all. It is notorious that they have had very low salaries and, after all, the State has tolerated them in the schools. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman in bringing them into this scheme. It will relieve a large number of the women of great difficulties, and if it is possible to make even more generous concessions to allow these people to enter the scheme, I and many Members of the House would be more than grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Payment of employer's contributions in respect of past service which is treated as contributory service under this Act.)
    Amendments made:
    In page 8, line 18, after "includes," insert:
    "in relation to a contributory employee."
    In line 21, at end, insert:
    "and, in relation to a local Act contributor, shall be construed accordingly."—[Mr. Butler.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Provisions as to grant of a second or subsequent annual allowance.)
    Amendment made: In page 9, line 7, leave out "representative," and insert "representatives."—[Mr. Butler.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 8 to 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 12.—(Interpretation.)
    Amendment made: In page 11, line 42, at end, insert "the."—[Mr. Butler.]
    1.45 p.m.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Service before 1st April, 1945, which may be treated as if it were Contributory or Recognised Service.)
  Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 14, line 10, at end, insert:
  "2. Full time service in the employment of a former authority (not being service which was contributory service or recognised service) in any capacity in which it was the principal duty of the person employed therein to attend any establishment for providing social or physical training and either to provide or to supervise the provision of such training therein."
  The purpose of the Amendment is to bring into account for pension purposes, the back service of persons who may have been employed by local education authorities in the kind of service which, after 1st April, 1945, will become pensionable, through the Bill, under the principal Act. This should have been provided for when the Bill was drafted, and the Amendment is moved to rectify the omission.
  Professor Gruffydd: May I ask for some enlightenment about the phrase "former authority"? I gather from the Amendment that it brings in a people who were not pensionable before 1st April, but will then become pensionable. I want to know whether people who were in the employment of the same authority, and who are not pensionable, will be included.
  Mr. Ede: The hon. Member will recollect that under the Act of 1944 we abolished certain authorities. They are alluded to as "former authorities." In addition there are still a few people who were employed by the school boards, before 1902, and have some service even as far back as that. All those are "former" authorities.
  Professor Gruffydd: Is a county education authority under the new Act a different authority from the same county authority before 1st April? For instance, is the Caernarvonshire county education authority, a different authority after 1st April, 1945, from what it has been before that date?
  Mr. Ede: No, but the service of a teacher under the Caernarvonshire County Council is covered throughout the period of that service, if the teacher was employed by whoever was the authority responsible for providing education in the district in which he was employed.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the First Schedule to the Bill."
  Mr. Silkin: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he will explain to the Committee the difference between the expressions "additional woman teacher" and "additional female teacher"?
  Mr. Ede: It is due to a softening in the use of the English language. There was a time when in Acts of Parliament women were alluded to as "female" teachers. Now they are alluded to as "women" teachers. It is necessary to include both expressions, in order to make sure that in the time when they were females and not women, their services are included.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Second Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

  LICENSING PLANNING (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair]
  1.52 p.m.
  Clauses 1, 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  LICENSING PLANNING (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL

    CLAUSE 4.—(General duties of licensing planning committees.)
    Mr. Rhys Davies: I beg to move, in page 3, line 18, at end, insert:
    "and to the wishes of the residents in the area, with reference to each of the premises it is propose to license after a poll has been taken of those who are entered on the register of electors and who reside within the limits prescribed by the licensing planning committee."
    The Amendment raises a subject with which we dealt briefly on the Second Reading of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill on that occasion referred to the subject, when I raised it, almost as if we were treading on dynamite. It was as if, when one raised the question at all as to the rights of the people to say whether they wanted public houses or not, one was on the edge of very dangerous, volcanic ground. If the right hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary would care to read the language used by the Minister of Town and Country Planning when we were dealing with the matter on Second Reading she would see that he said that the drink traffic had a very emotional history. I would, however, bring before the Committee the real problem, as I see it. The public have a say at present, through the brewster sessions, before any decision is arrived at, whether they desire to have a public house in their area or not. This Bill takes that right away, or rather removes it until a decision has actually been taken. We say that the rights of the people ought to be safeguarded before, and not at the end of the transaction. We are astonished that the Government have not carried out the recommendation of the Royal Commission of 1929–31 to do this. I understand that the Home Secretary was a member of that Royal Commission. I ought to say that in that Report the Royal Commission came—
    The Deputy-Chairman: I called the Amendment, but I would remind the Committee that it is only on a narrow
    1968
    and temporary Bill. We cannot use it as a peg on which to hang a discussion on the whole question of local option, Royal Commissions and that kind of thing. We can discuss only the very narrow problem of whether this should be done according to the wishes of the residents.
    Mr. Davies: I do not wish to hang or peg anything outside the Amendment, and I will come at once to the point at issue and to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman on Second Reading. I am glad to see that he is now in his place. When he was absent I made some comments on his speech, but they were not at all derogatory. Without going into the larger question, let me repeat that the Government are assuming that the Bill will last for only five years because it is a temporary Measure, and they do not wish to put large schemes of local option into operation at this stage. Let me say, as one who has been here for some time, that I have never believed the promises of any Government of any political—
    The Deputy-Chairman: That is really going too far away from what may be discussed on this point. We cannot get into a discussion here of what temporary Bills are, or how long "temporary" Acts may be in operation.
    Mr. Davies: I am very sorry, Mr. Williams, that I appear to be running contrary to the wishes of the Chair. I will therefore merely ask the Government to take into consideration that when a new licence is to be granted for a new district which will replace a bombed district—which, of course, covers London more almost than anywhere else and certainly Coventry, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, and Bootle—they will consider their attitude on this problem. Instead of saying that the local inhabitants shall have a say when the whole transaction has been decided, they should say that the people in a locality shall have their say before the transaction is completed.
    Knowing a little about some of these difficulties, let me give an example. About two miles from where I live, at Withington, Manchester, is, I suppose, the finest local authority estate in the world, called Wythenshawe. If it were proposed to transfer public houses from the City to Wythenshawe, the people, or even those who take drink, might not like

    1969
    to see too many public houses dumped down in their new area. I would like to see the Government therefore come down in favour of giving the local inhabitants some say as to whether they want a public house or not. I think at least that I have kept well within the bounds of Order, Mr. Williams, although I would like to have handled a little more of the dynamite involved in this question which the Minister suggested on the Second Reading.
    Mr. Edmund Harvey: I support the Amendment, and I would urge upon the Government that it is right to give the very fullest opportunity for taking into account all the relevant factors in planning these areas. In order that that may be possible, is it not desirable that there should be, what I may call an informative poll, the results of which could be taken into consideration when the plans are drawn up? It would not involve any decision by a bare majority being necessary or anything of that kind, but it would allow the authority to have clearly before it the expressed views of the residents of the locality and that is surely the most important of all the considerations that they ought to have in view in making their arrangements.
    2.0 p.m.
    I therefore beg that this Amendment should not be lightly rejected by the Government. We want to see these new areas rebuilt under the best possible conditions. One of the ways of casting light on the subject is to have an informative poll such as is suggested in this Amendment. It is quite possible that the residents might be quite prepared to have a certain licensed house in one part of the area, but would strongly object to two or three others being dotted about the neighbourhood. I hope that favourable consideration will be given to the Amendment.
    Viscountess Astor: I deeply regret not having been here for the Second Reading of this Bill. I am astounded that a Government made up of all the talents—Labour, Liberal, and some of the best Tories—should have been in such a hurry and should have handed over so much to the vested interests to the drink trade. I want to explain what I mean. I belong to a bombed area where a great many houses have been—
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the Noble Lady, but what she is saying sounds like the beginning of a Second Reading speech. This Amendment is concerned with a very small point, and does not raise the whole question of licensing and brewing and that sort of thing.
    Viscountess Astor: It may be a small point but it is a very important point.
    The Deputy-Chairman: No, the Amendment is concerned with a small point. I was not saying that what the Noble Lady was stating was a small point, but I was showing that she was trying to put far too many pints into one quart bottle.
    Viscountess Astor: That is just what I do not want to do. I do not want to put too many pints into one quart bottle. I would like to remind the Government that this Bill is based on the report of the Morris Committee. All licensing has hitherto been under the licensing magistrates. The Morris Committee was composed of 13 members. Three of them were connected with the drink trade, and the others were ordinary people. When a Royal Commission was set up to look into this question the churches and temperance and social workers were represented. I consider that the Morris Committee has paid too much attention to the drink trade and not enough to the Royal Commission and to the feelings of the people of the country about where the new public houses are to be. I feel that as long as these new houses are to be given over to the drink trade there ought to be an informative vote.
    It seems to me that the best thing would have been for the Government to have said, "We have got to have the new houses, and we want them where they are wanted, but we are not certain about that, because we do not know what the neighbourhoods are to be." Some people may want to drink with meals, and others may want to drink without meals; some may want community centres and so on. If the welfare of the community had been the only consideration, surely it would have been safer to have put these new houses under the Carlisle system or the Trust houses. Then, after they had been established, when there was no doubt as to whether the people wanted them or not, an informative vote could be taken and the people could have what they want.

    1971
    Once these houses are under the trade we have played into the hands of vested interests and it will be difficult to get a change.
    The Minister says this is a temporary Measure. There is no reason for making a temporary Measure so secure for the drink trade. I feel it is unfair that there are to be 50 per cent. licensing magistrates and 50 per cent. local authority representatives on these new committees. After all, the members of the local authorities may not be those of the old authorities. The Home Secretary has told us that they may be new ones, and they may be entirely ignorant of temperance matters and licensing laws.
    The Deputy-Chairman: We really cannot go into the whole question of the licensing laws.
    Mr. Magnay: With all respect, Mr. Williams, why not?
    The Deputy-Chairman: This is a temporary Bill, and we are now dealing only with an Amendment to one Clause.
    Viscountess Astor: Does this Committee think that this will be a temporary Bill?
    The Deputy-Chairman: At the moment it is not a matter of what the Committee thinks; that has to be decided at another time. We are dealing with a point on the Committee stage. I have no doubt that the Noble Lady could have discussed the question of whether the Bill is a temporary Measure or not on Second Reading, or possibly she may be able to do so on Third Reading, but she cannot do so on this point.
    Viscountess Astor: May I beg the Government and the right hon. Lady to accept this Amendment? It really is important. I know that Plymouth is one of the areas where new public houses are to be built. The people themselves would back me up in saying that they should have an informative vote. Matters will be much more difficult as a result of the Morris Committee, which has played into the hands, as we think, of the vested interests of the drink trade. I ask the Home Secretary, "Why do you do this? You believe in the Carlisle system and the Trust houses." I maintain that the Committee know very little about this; Members have not thought about it, and when
    1972
    it comes to a question of legislation, we ought to listen to the social workers and to people who know what the drink trade is, what it wants to do and what it has always done up to date. I implore the Government to accept this very small Amendment.
    Mr. Graham White: I wish to commend this Amendment to the Committee for the reasons which were given by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) and the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. E. Harvey). We all agree it is very important that in this new experimental venture the bodies which are to administer the scheme should command the confidence of the people concerned in the areas which are to come under this plan. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Kensington (Captain Duncan), in the Second Reading Debate, put in a plea that the representatives on those authorities should be highly qualified, broad-minded people, capable of an intelligent outlook. People in that position will find themselves very much handicapped if they do not know the pressure of public opinion in the area. I cannot imagine anyone in that position who has given any thought to this matter not saying, "I wish I knew what people were thinking about." It is for that reason that this Amendment, among others, is proposed. I do not wish to delay longer the reply of the Government, as I have no doubt they wish to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Richards: I should like to support the Amendment. It is important for us to remember that it is not always true that local planning authorities, and certainly licensing justices, are representative of a particular locality. I have a strong feeling, based on experience, that too often they dwell on Olympian heights, quite remote from a particular locality. I do not see that there can be any harm in having the views of the locality concerned. That is what the Amendment suggests—that those views should be ascertained and should be available for those who are to decide the question eventually. It is an eminently reasonable Amendment, and I should like to appeal, as other hon. Members have done, to the Government to accept the Amendment, because it would be very useful for the people who have to admin-

    1973
    ister this Measure to know exactly what is the feeling of a particular locality.
    Mr. Viant: I hope the Government will be prepared to accept this Amendment. I have sat on licensing authorities for about 15 years, and I know that on occasions the bench has been very doubtful indeed as to what public opinion was about the claims of certain interests in regard to the establishment of a public house or a hotel. We are embarking on what might be called an experiment. Nothing of this kind has operated previously. It is perfectly true there are to be representatives of local authorities, and the licensing authorities are also to be represented, but I am anxious that under this new departure the inhabitants of the various localities shall not have a feeling at any time that a public house or hotel has been imposed upon them. The safest thing at all times is to endeavour to find out exactly what are the desires of people in an area, and this will also reinforce the new licensing planning committees in regard to what the desires of the people are. I cannot understand why the Government should in any way offer any opposition to this proposal, because within this last 12 months we have been passing Measures through this Committee with a view to ascertaining what were the views of people on different subjects. This is but another step in that direction. Therefore I entreat the Government, for the purpose of feeling that they have, as it were, the mandate of the people, to accept this Amendment, let it go through unchallenged. I am firmly convinced that it would be a source of strength in the future, because we should at all times know that when a licence was being granted it was in keeping with the desires of the local community.
    Mr. Leslie: I also share the views of the other hon. Members who have spoken, and I ask the Government to accept this Amendment. It is a very reasonable Amendment. Surely, in all fairness the views of the people of the district should be heard as to whether they want a public house or anything else of the kind dumped down on their particular area. I believe in local option, and that people should have the right to say whether these premises should be there or not, rather than that they should be imposed upon them. This is a most reason-
    1974
    able request, and I hope that the Government will agree to it.
    2.15 p.m.
    Mr. Hugh Lawson: I want to add my voice in support of this Amendment, but from a slightly different angle. The Amendment has been supported, in the main, as being necessary from a licensing point of view: I think it is a very good Amendment from the town-planning point of view. The more public opinion can be associated with town planning the better. A lot of opposition to town planning comes from people who imagine that it means remote planners in Whitehall offices imposing upon them some future that they do not desire. I know that town-planning committees are elected representatives, but if there is a specific issue, upon which there is strong feeling and difference of opinion, any planning committee must be reinforced if they have an informative poll on the matter. It is also known that, in certain areas anyway, there is very strong feeling, either from the temperance point of view or from the point of view of preserving the amenities of the district or the rateable value of the property, on the question of whether licensed premises should be erected.
    I lived at one time in the urban district of West Bridgford, near Nottingham, and there was an association of ratepayers, established primarily for the purpose of opposing the grant of licences—whether it is a good thing or a bad thing is beside the point. The brewster sessions used to take on the effect of a first-rate criminal trial with King's Counsel briefed to appear for the Defence Association, as the local residents called their organisation. Very often each side would come reinforced with petitions and polls, taken by themselves; and very often these polls were quite contradictory. On one occasion the local authority, wishing to find out what the people desired, took a postcard ballot themselves. I think they were wise to do so. If we do not have an official poll we shall get the various interests arranging their own petitions; and that will be most unsatisfactory. It would be for the good of town planning and of licensing to have an informative poll on this issue. The poll would not be a binding veto, which would tie the hands of the local planning committee. The committee would take it into consideration with other matters. I should imagine that if the poll were fairly

    1975
    equally balanced, the local committee would not say, as we do in Parliamentary elections, "One side is in a slight minority, so they will get no representation." Surely also in a temporary Measure, like this, dealing with only a few areas, this is an excellent opportunity to try out this proposal and to see whether the principle of informative polls will achieve the result which we desire.
    Mr. Magnay: I hope that the right hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary will look with favour on this Amendment, which I support largely on the ground stated by the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson). I have had something to do with petitions, for and against this sort of thing, at brewster sessions. The way in which the so-called petitions are got up and signed is unsatisfactory. I have thought that there was a great similarity in many of the signatures. It would be far better to have a proper poll, organised in the right way. I am a great believer in the ballot; I always insist on a poll at any meeting with which I am connected. I have seen long friendships severed because men have had to hold up their hands against their real opinions. I do not see what objection there can be to this proposal. If it is accepted it does not bind the authority, and nothing but good can result.
    Mr. Tom Brawn: I rise to support the Amendment. This is not an issue of teetotallers versus drinkers, but of acting in a commonsense way. Many of us sit upon licensing benches. We always find oursedves up against the difficulty, when applications for licences are submitted, of not knowing whether we are doing the right thing in the interests of the public. Here is an opportunity of ascertaining what the general public think about an application. The Amendment does nobody any harm, and gives wider scope for people in a locality to raise their voices as to what they think should be done there.
    Mr. Marshall: I am very sorry to disagree with so many hon. Members. I feel that on this matter the majority has not the right to impose its will on the minority. Jack Smith and Joe Stokes may be living in a street; one may be addicted to going into a public house and having a glass of beer, while the other may be a teetotaller. The
    1976
    Amendment will confer on the teetotaller the right to say that Jack Smith will have to walk three miles for his glass of beer. That is an unwarrantable interference with the liberty of that man, and Parliament has no right to impose it. If the licensing justices do not know their job they should not be on the bench; and if the local authority cannot take a wide outlook upon its city, and consider all the needs of the citizens, and plan in accordance with the well-established desires of the people, it is not capable of doing its duty. The Amendment tries to give an overriding power to both the local authorities and the licensing justices. It says: "We will give the majority the right to interfere with the personal habits of the minority." I object to Jack Smith, next door, imposing his habits on me. [An HON. MEMBER: "So do we."] The hon. Member has no need to go into a public house if he does not want to, but he is taking the stand that he will prevent another man going in who wants to do so. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, in the interests of personal liberty, will not accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Silkin: If the Amendment really meant what my hon. Friend says it means I would oppose it, but I invite him to study it again. It would be a considerable assistance to a licensing planning committee to know the views of the inhabitants of an area with regard to the provision of licensed premises. That is all that is proposed by the Amendment. People living in a district have some rights to say how their area should be planned. If a vast majority of the inhabitants do not want licensed premises in that area they would be perfectly entitled not to have them. I lived for many years in a certain street. If it had been proposed that licensed premises should be put in that street I should have had a good deal to say against it, even though I occasionally indulge in alcoholic refreshment. Licensed premises may be objectionable in a particular street, even though one does not object to licensed premises in general. The proposal is that the inhabitants should be entitled to a say in the location of licensed premises, as well as on the general principle of whether there should be licensed premises. This puts the emphasis rather on having a voice in the location of the premises. I should imagine that if people were teetotallers, and said that they did not want any

    1977
    licensed premises, the planning committee would ignore that, but that if people said: "We think that this is an unsuitable place for licensed premises and that they should be put somewhere else," the planning committee would pay attention to that opinion.
    This is a temporary Measure, under which it is possible to try out something of that sort, without necessarily committing ourselves to the principle for all time. This principle of going to the inhabitants of a locality and asking for their opinion on a specific matter has already been accepted as regards Sunday opening of cinemas. My hon. Friend may say, "Why should I vote for the closing of cinemas and prevent somebody who wants to go to the cinema from going there?" But that is already the law of the land. It is possible for people who have strong opinions about the opening of cinemas on Sunday to express their views, and to get those views accepted. Finally, I think there is some social value in getting the inhabitants of the locality concerned in the planning of that area. Those of us who have some responsibility for town planning, and who imagine that we are helping the present generation, as well as posterity, by the improvements we are effecting, occasionally have doubts as to what the people for whom we are planning really think about what we are doing. Many of the planning proposals are so complicated that it is difficult for people to appreciate what is being done on their behalf. I think that the more we can associate the inhabitants of an area with the work of the local authority the better it is, and I feel that this is a step in the right direction and hope it may be possible for the Government to accept this Amendment, or something like it.
    2.30 p.m.
    I do not think the wording of the Amendment is altogether applicable to the kind of thing I want. I do not want people to say: "We want a public house" or "We do not want one." That is not a very important fact, because the voting would merely go on the pro-licence and anti-licence basis. What I would like is some expression of opinion from the inhabitants on whether they want licensed premises to be here or there, and whether they want six or four. I would listen to that sort of expression of opinion, but I would not
    1978
    listen to the people who say "We want none at all." If we could get that principle into the Bill I think it would be a very great improvement.
    Captain Duncan: Surely, what my hon. Friend wants is already in the Bill, in Clause 5. The licensing planning committee would send up their proposals and, if there was no objection, the Minister would authorise them to proceed, but, if there were an objection—and it is the simplest thing to make an objection—then there would have to be a public inquiry. The hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson) talked about King's Counsel being brought in. I have no objection to King's Counsel at public inquiries, so that the views of the locality may have expression, but I should hesitate to support this Amendment if it demands a poll about licensed houses, because it seems to me that it would be extremely unwise and completely unworkable in London.
    Mr. Silkin: They had a poll in Croydon on Sunday cinemas, and what is the difference?
    Captain Duncan: It would be different if the whole of the County of London were in one planning area, but, as it is, it seems to me to be quite impracticable and quite unworkable. The hon. Member for Sedgfield (Mr. Leslie) spoke about local option. I do not think this is local option, but I have had some experience of local option in Scotland, and, as a result, I would be definitely against it.
    Mr. John Dugdale: I support the last two speakers in opposition to this Amendment. I want, particularly, to draw attention to the remarks of the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson), who advocated it on the grounds of town planning and was supported by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin). The hon. Member for Peckham has himself been chairman of the London Town Planning Committee, and I am not certain that he is not now, and I really cannot possibly see how he can advocate this Amendment on the grounds of town planning. It might be possible for other reasons, but to try to do so for reasons of town planning is ridiculous. If we are to have a Measure which asks for a poll when any suggestion is brought forward that a public house should be placed in a certain area, we should have

    1979
    a similar poll when proposals are brought forward for theatres, hotels or even butchers' shops, because, after all, vegetarians may object to them, and for chemists' shops or book shops. It seems to me quite ludicrous that we should distinguish this particular shop, selling a particular sort of goods, and I think the only reason I can give—
    Viscountess Astor: Why are the Government bringing it in for public houses? Why do not they bring it in for chemists' shops and so on?
    Mr. Dugdale: I suggest that the only reason why the Noble Lady is anxious for the Amendment is not because she wants to consult the inhabitants on town planning, but because it is another stick with which to beat her hated drink traffic. That is a perfectly genuine reason, but to mix it up with town planning is entirely irrelevant, and I hope the Government will turn it down.
    Mr. Magnay: Would it be in Order for me to speak on that point? The hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. J. Dugdale), who is a young man, does not know the law of the land. We are all prohibitionists in this country. It is a prohibitionist country. With the best character in the world, I question whether I could get a licence, and I have to be licensed before I can sell this dangerous stuff. Why is a licence not needed for a chemist's shop? Because we live in a prohibitionist country. Only men with the best character, without any black marks against them, can have licences, because we are prohibitionist.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Miss Wilkinson): I can assure the Committee that we appreciate to the full the sincerity and depth of feeling of those who have supported this Amendment, which, I can assure them, has been the subject of consideration. Certainly the Amendment is one that the Government cannot accept, but that is not a decision that has been lightly come to. I would like to underline the ruling which was given by your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Williams, when he said that this was a narrow Amendment in a temporary Bill. Therefore, it is not possible to raise—and we do not think it either possible or desirable—the whole general principle of local option
    1980
    by informative polls, which is a new principle in English law. It has been accepted in Scotland; local option has been accepted in the Scottish licensing law, but not in English licensing law. It is not wise to consider it in relation to what is a temporary Bill dealing with a particular situation left us by the war.
    Is it really a fact, as those who have so heartily supported the Amendment suggest, that the Government is proposing to ignore local opinion? Really, that is not the case. So far is it from being the case that, on this very Clause, at a later stage to-day, a Government Amendment will be moved to make sure that the Licensing Planning Committee shall, in fact, consult all the organised bodies that can really claim to have some say in the matter. That will give, probably, a better-balanced and a more informative view than a hasty poll of the inhabitants, in which there might be, as we often have had, long petitions for and against and, sometimes, the same name appearing on both.
    I have been rather surprised to see some colleagues of my own, Members of my own party, proclaiming, as one did, that the public representatives were Olympian and far away in the clouds and did not know what their constituents were thinking. We are not discussing Members of Parliament here; the people who are being taken into consideration are local councillors, and they, surely, are, on the whole, thoroughly in touch with local opinion in their wards. Many of them live in their wards, and even those who do not are generally pretty closely in touch with them. There are always exceptions, but, if a councillor were ignoring public opinion, that would be a very good point to be taken up at the next election by those who want to get rid of him. We think we have an ample safeguard in the fact that, on the Licensing Planning Committee, not only are licensing justices represented—and they have many years of experience in this matter—but for the first time they are joined also by the councillors of local authorities.
    Viscountess Astor: Will this come into force before the next municipal elections, because, if it does, there will be many people totally out of touch with this problem to-day? We have them in every locality. We shall be handing over to old, ancient councillors a job for which

    1981
    they are not fit, of which they know very little and with which they are completely out of touch.
    Miss Wilkinson: The new councils, I presume, will be elected in November. Whether all the machinery under this Bill will be ready before November I cannot, at the moment, say, nor can anyone else. I can say that the very pertinent remarks of the Noble Lady may act as a clarion call to local people to see what their "co-optees" are doing. If they do not do what the local people want it would be one reason for removing them in November.
    There are certain difficulties in accepting the Amendment which none of the speakers have mentioned, but which are very real difficulties. For example, it would impose a heavy administrative burden, and would considerably prolong the period before the licensing planning committees would be in a position to submit proposals to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. Hon. Members, in asking these questions, ought to see that
    they are not placing such a burden on the licensing planning committees as would hold up their work and very greatly embarrass the Minister. There is also another point in connection with the proposals for a planning removal of licence. The premises for the people which the removal licence is to serve, may not, in fact, have been erected at the time the plans are passed, because we are considering areas where a large amount of planning has to take place. This is one of those things where, by attempting to get a large general principle accepted in what everybody admits is a narrow Clause of a temporary Bill, you would raise a whole host of troubles about which many of those who support the Amendment would be the first to complain. I hope the Committee will agree with me and the Government in rejecting the Amendment.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 30; Noes, 215.

    Division No. 7.]

    AYES.

    [2.48 p.m.

    Acland, Sir R. T. D.

    Horabin, T. L.

    Sloan, A.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Barr, J.

    Lipson, D. L.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

    McKinlay, A. S.

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

    Viant, S. P.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    McNeil, H.

    Walkden, E. (Doncaster)

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Magnay, T.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Gruffydd, Professor W. J.

    Owen, Major Sir G.

    White, H. Graham (Birkenhead, E.)

    Hardie, Mrs. Agnes

    Pearson, A.

    Harvey, T. E.

    Richards, R.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—

    Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown)

    Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey, W.)

    Viscountess Astor and Mr. Hugh Lawson.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. Sir G. J.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Agnew, Comdr. P. G.

    Chater, D.

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Albery, Sir Irving

    Chorlton, A. E. L.

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

    Barnes, A. J.

    Clarke, Colonel R. S.

    Edwards, Walter J. (Whitechapel)

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Emmott, C. E. G. C.

    Beattie, F. (Cathcart)

    Cobb, Captain E. C.

    Erskine-Hill, A. G.

    Beaumont, Hubert (Batley)

    Cocks, F. S

    Etherton, Ralph

    Beaumont, Maj. Hn. R. E. B. (P'tsm'th)

    Colegate, W. A.

    Evans, Col. Sir A. (Cardiff, S.)

    Beechman, N. A.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Fermoy, Lord

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

    Conant, Major R. J. E.

    Foster, W.

    Bird, Sir R. E.

    Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

    Fox, Squadron-Leader Sir G. W. G.

    Blair, Sir R.

    Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.

    Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

    Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    Fyfe, Major Sir D. P. M.

    Bower, Norman (Harrow)

    Cundiff, Major F. W.

    Galbraith, Comdr. T. D.

    Broad, F. A.

    Davidson, Viscountess (H'm H'mst'd)

    Garro Jones, G. M.

    Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.

    Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

    George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G. Lloyd (P'b'ke)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Davison, Sir W. H.

    Gibbons, Lt.-Col. W. E.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

    De Chair, S. S.

    Glanville, J. E.

    Bull, B. B.

    De la Bère, R.

    Glyn, Sir R. G. C.

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Doland, G. F.

    Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

    Burden, T. W.

    Donner, Squadron-Leader P. W.

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Burke, W. A.

    Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G.

    Gretton, J. F.

    Burton, Col. H. W.

    Drewe, C.

    Grigg, Rt. Hon. Sir P. J. (Cardiff, E.)

    Butcher, H. W.

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Gunston, Major Sir D. W.

    Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.

    Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

    Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

    Cadogan, Major Sir E.

    Duckworth, W. R. (Mass Side)

    Harris, Rt. Hen. Sir P. A.

    Campbell, Sir E. T. (Bromley)

    Dugdale, John (W. Bromwich)

    Headlam, Lt.-Col. Sir C. M.

    Cape, T.

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. (Kens'gton, N.)

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (Northwich)

    Henderson, J. J. Craik (Leeds, N.E.)

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

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray & Nairn)

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Mott-Radclyffe, Major C. E.

    Studholme, Major H. C.

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

    Murray, Sir D. K. (Midlothian, N.)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Hewlett, T. H.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Tate, Mrs. Mavis C.

    Higgs, W. F.

    Neal, H.

    Taylor, Major C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'd'ton, S.)

    Hopkinson, A.

    Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

    Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'th'm'tn)

    Hurd, Sir P. A.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)

    James, Wing-Com. A. (Well'borough)

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Thurtle, E.

    Jeffreys, General Sir G. D.

    Petherick, M.

    Tinker, J. J.

    John, W.

    Peto, Major B. A. J.

    Touche, G. C.

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

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Keeling, E. H.

    Plugge, Capt. L. F.

    Tufnell, Lieut-Comdr. R. L.

    Kerr, Sir John Graham (Scottish U's)

    Power, Sir J. C.

    Turton, R. H.

    Key, C. W.

    Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

    Wakefield, Sir W. W.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.

    Walkden, A. G. (Bristol, S.)

    Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

    Price, M. P.

    Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Lawson, J. J. (Chester-le-Street)

    Prior, Comdr. R. M.

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

    Leach, W.

    Pritt, D. N.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Lees-Jones, J.

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Watt, F. C. (Edinburgh, Cen.)

    Levy, T.

    Pym, L. R.

    Watt, Brig. G. S. Harvie (Richmond)

    Liddall, W. S.

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

    Wayland, Sir W. A.

    Lindsay, K. M.

    Riley, B.

    Wells, Sir S. Richard

    Lloyd, Major E. G. R. (Renfrew, E.)

    Robertson, D. (Streatham)

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

    Loftus, P. C.

    Robertson, Rt. Hon. Sir M. A. (M'ham)

    White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham)

    Lucas, Major Sir J. M.

    Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)

    Lyle, Sir C. E. Leonard

    Ross Taylor, W.

    Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

    MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

    Salt, E. W.

    Wilkinson, Rt. Hon. Ellen

    McCallum, Major D.

    Sanderson, Sir F. B.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    McCorquodale, Malcolm S.

    Savory, Professor D. L.

    Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)

    McEntee, V. la T.

    Scott, Donald (Wansbeck)

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

    McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

    Scott, Lord William (Ro'b'h & Selk'k)

    Windsor, W.

    Maclay, Hon. John S. (Montrose)

    Salley, Sir H. R.

    Windsor-Clive, Lt.-Col. G.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Shepherd, S.

    Wise, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    Maitland, Sir A.

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

    Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

    Marlowe, Lt.-Col. A.

    Shute, Col. Sir J. J.

    Woodburn, A.

    Marshall, F.

    Sidney, Captain W. P.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P.

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W. D.

    Wootton-Davies, J. H.

    Mills, Sir F. (Layton, E.)

    Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

    York, Major C.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Snadden, W. McN.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—

    Montague, F.

    Southby, Comdr. Sir A. R. J.

    Major A. S. L. Young and

    Morrison, Major J. G. (Salisbury)

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Mr. Cary.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Major C. S. Taylor: I beg to move, in page 3, line 18, at end, insert:
    "Provided that in carrying out such review as is mentioned in this Section the licensing planning committee shall have full regard to the nature of such licensed premises in their area as offer substantial facilities by way of food and accommodation, and in that connection to the requirements of travellers and visitors from overseas."
    The main reason for the Amendment is to draw a distinction between public houses, those houses which only serve drink, and the hotels—those houses which give accommodation and serve food as well as drink. It must be realised that as far as this Bill is concerned there is a very distinct difference between these two types of houses that cater for the general public and I hope that the Minister will see her way to accept the Amendment.
    Miss Wilkinson: The Amendment really divides itself into two parts, one of which is to have "full regard to the nature of such licensed premises in their area as
    1984
    offer substantial facilities by way of food and accommodation," and the second to have regard "in that connection to the requirements of travellers and visitors from overseas." The Minister of Town and Country Planning said in the Second Reading Debate that the Bill itself is not concerned primarily with these objects, but the Amendment reflects the general interest which was expressed, for example, in the Debates on the Catering Wages Bill, as to the need for the post-war development of the catering and hotel industry.
    Under Clause 4 (1), the Licensing Planning Committees are already required to consider the nature of the licensed premises, and this was intended by the Government to give them the right and the duty to take into account the facility for food and accommodation. If, however, it is felt by the Committee that while that is our intention, it is not quite clearly stated, I think we should be prepared to reconsider the wording on Report stage and to introduce an Amendment accordingly.

    1985
    3.0 p.m.
    With regard to the second part, I think that by the time we have dealt with the Government Amendment on this Clause the hon. and gallant Member who has moved it will see that we have the point he has made fully in mind. The Secretary of State informs me, however, that he is willing to draw the attention of the Licensing Planning Committees especially to their function under this Bill. So I think that with that assurance the hon. and gallant Member may perhaps be satisfied.
    Viscountess Astor: May I ask the Government to be very careful about this Amendment, because it will be remembered that during the Debate on the Catering Bill there was a lot of talk about overseas visitors? I know a lot about overseas visitors—
    Major Taylor: The hon. Lady is one herself.
    Viscountess Astor:—and I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I am not at all ashamed of being a Virginian. I wish there were more in this House, and then there would be more moral courage. The overseas visitors, if I know them, would far rather get good coffee and a good glass of pure milk and good food, and that is not what the hon. Members who have put down this Amendment are interested in. It is the same group that tried to do away with the Catering Bill—I do beg the Government to remember what that cost them—and to do away with the wage boards for the catering trade. I do beg of the Government to watch carefully what they are doing. It seems to me that they are on the slippery road leading far away from those noble and high ideals to build a better world. I know that group. I have fought them for years, and I wish to heaven that I could fight them with more people in the House than we have at present.
    Major Taylor: I shall not enter into an argument with the Noble Lady. She and I have different opinions about what is good for us. I would not dispute that there are certain things which are good for her, but which are not good for me. The Noble Lady has admitted herself that she is a visitor to this country—
    Viscountess Astor: May I ask why the hon. and gallant Gentleman says I am a visitor to this country? He only said it
    1986
    to be rude. I do not care how rude anybody is, as long as I am not rude myself.
    Mr. Gallacher: Intruder?
    Major Taylor: I do not want to enter into an argument about this, so, in view of the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary has stated that this matter will be considered before Report stage, and that the Government are prepared perhaps to introduce the principle behind this Amendment before the Report stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Mr. McKinlay: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman mind stating the principle? We are all interested to know—
    The Chairman (Major Milner)rose—
    Mr. McKinlay: Surely, if the mover of an Amendment states that there is a principle involved, and the Parliamentary Secretary says that the Minister will look again at the words, in view of the principle involved, I can ask this question. I am not the only one who wants to find out exactly what is the principle involved.
    Major Taylor: May I just answer that point? I did not want to take up too much time, and I thought that in introducing the Amendment I had made the principle perfectly clear. [HON. MEMBERS: "No.".] Will hon. Members listen now, not having listened before?
    Hon. Members: Order.
    Mr. McKinlay: The hon. and gallant Member must not be rude.
    Major Taylor: Will hon. Members, then, allow me to make the distinction quite clear now? Will they do me the honour of listening now, obviously not having listened before?
    Mr. Tinker: On a point of Order. I heard the hon. and gallant Member speak before and he did not explain what the Amendment meant; we are all waiting to hear. There is no need for him to be rude to us by saying that we did not listen.
    The Chairman: I am afraid that is not a point of Order.
    Major Taylor: I did my best to try to explain that there was a distinction between public houses which serve drink only and other houses—hotels and so

    1987
    forth—that serve not only drink but food, and also provide accommodation. That is the distinction. We are merely asking that in this Licensing Planning Bill the distinction should be made between the two different kinds of licensed premises, if you like, one of which serves drink and drink only, while the other caters for the accommodation of visitors and also serves food.
    Mr. Gallacher: I do not think the hon. and gallant Member has made his point at all clear. If we are to discuss this question, the principle must be laid down, because there are any numbers of publicans who are prepared to put forward the argument that the liquid they are selling is food, good food. I do not believe them, but they say it is. I remember a publican in my own home town who had a few lads round his bar discussing the cost of living. He was putting down so much for clothing, so much for food, so much for coal, so much for gas, and one of the lads said to him, "What about a little for beer, Harry?" Harry said "That is included in food." So we want a principle laid down that distinguishes clearly the kind of food which is involved, and to find out whether it is not possible that in every licence the same conditions should be laid down so far as the conduct of the premises is concerned. Just to say that some hotels provide food, particularly pubs—as though that makes any real difference in principle as to the character of the establishment—is nonsense.
    Amendment negatived.
    The Solicitor-General (Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I beg to move, in line 21, leave out "any other licensing planning committee," and insert:
    "such authorities or bodies as may be specified in the directions."
    The Clause, as it stands, provides for consultation between licensing planning committees, and it was felt that there should be first of all a more extended power—that is, that the licensing planning committees should be able to consult the whole of the local planning authority or the whole of the bench of licensing justices if they wanted. I think this point of view has been held by local authorities and, indeed, this will, in part at any rate, meet one of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Peck-
    1988
    ham (Mr. Silkin) in his speech on the Second Reading, when he said that he hoped that the licensing planning committees would consult the local planning authorities specifically, before they gave certificates for temporary premises. We want the widest general consultation, and in that way we hope that it will meet the object which my hon. Friends who moved the first Amendment also had in mind. We think it is useful that there should be power for the Home Secretary to direct what consultation shall take place, so that he can, on his side, ensure that the consultations actually occur. I hope that this is a non-contentious Amendment which everyone will feel is for the improvement of the Bill.
    Mr. Silkin: I only want to ask whether in fact there will be contained in the directions, a direction to consult the appropriate authorities. If my hon. and learned Friend can give me that assurance, it will save time later on, because I have an Amendment down which will be rendered unnecessary if that assurance is given.
    The Solicitor-General: That is the intention of the Amendment, just to effect what my hon. Friend has said.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Submission and approval of proposals by licensing planning committees.)
    Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 4, line 9, after "them," insert:
    "afford to any person making an objection an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed for the purpose by the Minister or, if it appears to the Minister that the matters to which the objection relates are such as to require investigation by public local inquiry,"
    Clause 5 provides for the licensing planning committee making the proposals for various types of licences, planning removals, and for surrender. It provides, further, that when no objection is made, the Minister may confirm the proposal,
    "either with or without modification, but in any other case …"
    that is, if any objection is made, then the Minister shall, before confirming the proposals, cause a public local inquiry to be held. In my view, that condition is too wide. It compels the Minister to hold

    1989
    a public local inquiry whatever the nature of the objection may be, whatever the point of the objection may be, whether the objection is frivolous, whether it may be made in any other way—the Minister is bound to hold an inquiry if an objection is made. The person objecting, according to the wording of the Clause, may have no locus in the matter at all; a person from John o' Groats may object to a licence being given in Birmingham or London and, if he does object, the Minister is compelled to hold an inquiry. I submit that is ridiculous and that the Minister ought to have some discretion in the matter. Let us consider the type of objection that might be made. It might be the type of objection which the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) might make. She objects to all licences. She could, if she were sufficiently well-organised, give notice of objection to every single licorice throughout the country—
    Viscountess Astor: I would not be such an idiot.
    Mr. Silkin: —and my right hon. Friend would be compelled to hold an inquiry in every case. Obviously that is not the purpose of this provision. There might be an objection on the ground that the premises are not suitable. That is a matter which would normally, and under this Bill, be dealt with by the licensing justices. Nevertheless, if the objection were made, my right hon. Friend would be compelled to hold a public inquiry. It is not my intention to point out objections. Indeed, in the observations I made on an earlier Clause, I expressed the opinion that it was desirable that the public should have full opportunity for expressing their views about the provision of licences.
    3.15 p.m.
    This Amendment is not designed to remove from the public any right of objection, but to remove from the public the right to an automatic public ideal inquiry every time an objection is made for any purpose whatever. It will still be an obligation on the Minister to consider every objection and hear every objector, but if he made up his mind that the objection was frivolous, or not a matter for which a local public inquiry was necessary, he would have the right to say that he would deal with the matter in some other way. There is a precedent
    1990
    for this provision in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, and a further precedent in the Housing (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1944, which remove the obligation to hold a public inquiry for two years. Therefore, if my right hon. Friend accepts the Amendment she would not be creating any difficulty or awkward precedent.
    There is another point, and it is that it may well happen that the subject matter in connection with the granting of licences may have already been dealt with in a previous local inquiry. This Bill deals specifically and particularly with war damaged areas, and it may well happen that the Minister of Town and Country Planning may have held a public inquiry in connection with a war damaged area, in which the question of licences in general may have been raised. There may have been an objector specifically on the licensing point, and to be compelled to hold a second public inquiry, possibly on the very same point, will not speed up the working of this Measure. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will see her way to accept this modest and reasonable Amendment, so that we can get on with the Bill.
    Mr. McKinlay: I hope the Minister will not accept the Amendment, because it is too simple, too ingenious. If I understand the position, it will leave absolute discretion to the Home Secretary to determine what, in his view, is an objection to an inquiry. To leave to the Home Secretary the right to determine whether an objection is trivial or not is wrong. If I may say so without offence, heaven help some objectors if they have to deal with the kind of persons who have held the office of Home Secretary in the past. There should either be an inquiry or not, but it is dangerous to place this discretion in the hands of one man.
    Miss Wilkinson: In spite of the fact that the two hon. Members who have just spoken have put forward diametrically opposed points of view I think I may be able to satisfy them both. The speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) has been most helpful. He has called attention to a very real difficulty. It is not good to be compelled to go to the expense and trouble of holding an inquiry, at which there may be not only frivolous but a highly organised series of objec-

    1991
    tions to defeat the Measure by sidewinds, as it were. We are in agreement with the general purport of my hon. Friend's speech, which is to reduce the number of occasions on which it will be necessary to set in motion the somewhat cumbrous machinery of a public inquiry. I want to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) that while it is true that under the proposed Amendment, which we shall accept, objectors may be heard by only one person, that person will be specially appointed, and it will not exclude a public inquiry being held. It will apply to a full hearing of all objectors and will enable individual objections which do not raise matters of principle to be dealt with quickly and expeditiously. We think it would be in harmony with the general proposals of the Bill, and after consultation with the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, which also takes this view, we feel we can accept the Amendment. It is obvious that if an objection has substance and backing no Home Secretary will say that the matter is frivolous or has no real substance. If he does there is always the remedy in this House, where the matter can be raised and ventilated. It is to nobody's interest to make the Bill so cumbrous that it will not work quickly in this awkward transition period.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 4, line 10, leave out "objections," and insert, "objection."
    In 4, line 11, leave out "holding the inquiry," and insert:
    "before whom the objector appeared or the person holding the inquiry, as the case may require."—[Mr. Silkin.]
    Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 7.—(New licences in licensing planning areas.)
    Mr. Graham White: On a point of Order. Is it not proposed to call the Amendment to this Clause in my name, in page 5, line 20?
    The Chairman: No, the Amendment is beyond the scope of the Bill and is, therefore, out of Order.
    1992
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. White: I ask to be acquitted of the intention of arguing on this Clause an Amendment which you have just ruled out of Order, Major Milner, but in the course of the Second Reading Debate I raised the question of the position of Excise licences under this Clause, and my right hon. Friend, for the Government, said that the matter would be looked into, as it apparently had not been considered up to that point. It struck me as being a little odd that it should not have been considered, because as long ago as the Royal Commission on Licensing it was reported upon and was further reported upon by the Morris Committee, on which this Bill largely rests. They definitely recommended that the question of Excise licences should be considered. It may be that the point I am raising comes under another Statute or Regulation.
    The Solicitor-General: I am not quite sure whether I fully understand the point which the hon. Gentleman is making.
    Mr. White: We know that before a grocer's shop is opened a licence, or permit, has to be obtained, and it may be that an Excise licence would require to have the same authority, in which case, for the life of that order, this question would not, presumably, arise. It is an untidy and disorderly proceeding that if a licensing authority plans an area someone should be able to come along and, on payment of a small fee, open as many places as he likes. Such procedure should be condemned. This point has given rise to considerable anxiety among many licensing authorities, and perhaps my right hon. Friend can give us a little guidance or enlightenment.
    Miss Wilkinson: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that we have this matter in mind and that the position will be carefully watched. If it is found that wholesale dealers are taking advantage of the provisions of this Bill to prejudice the field of the licensing planning authority the problem will have to be considered again along those lines.
    Mr. White: Can there be a check-up as to whether these businesses are covered by the Businesses Registration Order?
    The Solicitor-General: I think that what my hon. Friend has in mind with regard

    1993
    to Excise licences is that under Defence Regulation 55B the Commissioners of Customs and Excise have discretion to refuse a licence to wholesalers where they were not in business before September, 1939. They have discretion as regards new entrants to this particular class of business, and that still remains when they are not controlled by the licensing justices.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Surrender of licences in licensing planning areas and suspension of provisions as to compensation fund)
    3.30 p.m.
    Mr. Hugh Lawson: I beg to move, in page 5, line 42, leave out Sub-sections (2) and (3), and insert:
    "(2) Where a licence has been extinguished under the preceding Clauses of this Act, it shall be referred for compensation under Section twenty-one of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910 (which relates to the compensation levy), and where any compensation authority applies to the Secretary of State for power to increase the statutory levy or for powers to borrow on the credit of the compensation fund, he shall have power to make regulations to meet such application, notwithstanding any provision in the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910."
    This Amendment deals with the rather difficult subject of compensation values. As I see the position, it is this. Up to the present, if in any area a public house has become redundant, compensation for the extinction of the licence has come out of the profits of the trade at large, and this seems to me a very reasonable provision. In spite of it, I am of the opinion that the dividends on brewery shares have been fairly considerable and no one would suggest that it has been in any way a penal levy because, as new housing estates are built up, and licensed houses are built on up-to-date lines, the profit has been as great, or possibly greater, when small places have been closed down as redundant. The Bill has a different principle for the extinction of these licences. It is going to be a question of arrangement between those who own the licensed premises, the licensing justices and the planning authority, and the suggestion is that probably five or six licensed houses which have been in a bombed area will be exchanged or two or three, or more, when the area is rebuilt. I do not think there is any objec-
    1994
    tion at all to this procedure where all the parties concerned are agreed about what they are going to do.
    The point which was made on the Second Reading and which my Amendment seeks to cover is this. Suppose an agreed scheme has been arrived at, no doubt there will be unofficial means of compensating the owners of the premises that are going to be done away with. Then suppose there is a public inquiry and objection is made to the erection of particular premises, and suppose that objection is sustained and the agreement is upset; compensation will then be necessary and I think it should be from the compensation fund on the basis of the levy. If this is not done what I can see happening is as follows. If any money were to be required from public funds to pay for the extinction of a licence which had been agreed upon by the planning authority, that would be a reason which would defer the Minister from upholding the objections at the inquiry. I want an assurance that there are no circumstances in which public funds shall be called upon. If the Amendment, and the proposed new Clause—[Extinguishment of certain licences]—consequent upon it, were accepted, it would make it quite clear that the compensation fund would be carried on, that the levy should be made and licences, when redundant from any reason whatever, should be extinguished out of the aggregate profits of the trade. I think also that a very great many premises which will fall into the provisions of the Bill would in any case have become redundant very soon if they were in a congested area.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): Does the hon. Member consider that the proposed new Clause is consequential on this Amendment? I think it is and I think he said so.
    Mr. H. Lawson: Yes.
    Mr. Silkin: I should like to associate myself fully with the very well-reasoned case the hon. Member has made. I think he was on a first-class point. Agreement may well be reached, and the result of the public inquiry may undo the agreement, and it would not be possible to provide a new licence as intended. But I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to look at the matter from an even wider angle. The assumption behind the Bill is

    1995
    that a large population is going to be moved from one place to a large number of other places and that, consequently, the licences will follow the population and, roughly speaking, the plan of the Bill is that that should happen. You will be depopulating certain areas as the result of your planning and the population will go to specific housing estates round about the congested town and you transfer the licences. You give the brewers the same number of licences, or give it them in the form of equivalent value. But I think the scheme breaks down, because it does not in the least follow that the population is going to the different housing estates in accordance with your plan. The normal population of the County of London is about 4,250,000, and the number of licensed premises in existence, or suspended, is equivalent to the requirements of a population of that size. The present-day population is probably not more than 2,500,000—it may be less. The rest of the population is scattered all over the country and some abroad. There is no guarantee that that population is coming back at the end of the war. I rather think that it will not. Certainly you will not find the difference between 2,500,000 and 4,250,000 scattered among the different new housing estates that are going to be put up.
    I very much hope that the "de-congestion" of London will not require to be as great as appears to be necessary, for the reason that many people will not be coming back. They have possibly made their homes in more desirable parts of the country and have employment there, and will remain there. It will almost certainly be the case that the requirement of licensed premises for London and other large towns will be substantially less than before the war. Therefore it will not be possible to make agreements with the brewers to give them in the new housing estates equivalent facilities so as to make the total facilities that they will enjoy equal to what they enjoyed previously. In other words, a certain quantity of facilities will have to be extinguished, and it will not be possible to give the brewers any quid pro quo. Therefore it is a matter which it will not be possible to settle by agreement. I cannot conceive the brewers merely accepting the position that a certain number of licences are to be extinguished and that they are to get
    1996
    nothing for it. They will want, and will probably be entitled to, compensation. Who is to pay it?
    I suggest that the proper method of paying it is the compensation fund, which was designed for this express purpose. I know that the Morris Committee, which my right hon. Friend has followed fairly closely, has reported in favour of the step that is being taken, in Clause 8, the temporary suspension of the compensation fund. I suggest that my right hon. Friend has taken the easy course of following that recommendation, but it is not easily defensible. After saying that in their opinion the matter will be dealt with by agreement and mutual good will, which I do not dispute—brewers are not unreasonable; one could more easily do a deal with them than perhaps with many other people—the Committee felt compelled to recognise that there would be cases which it would not be possible to deal with by agreement. Then they come to this rather weak conclusion:
    "Moreover, the chances of agreement may be prejudiced and general uncertainty be created in the minds of all those taking part in the negotiations if there is always the possibility that some of the licences under discussion may be dealt with under entirely different machinery."
    Really, is that a reason for suspending the compensation fund, that there may be uncertainty in the minds of the people who are negotiating? After all, this machinery of negotiation has been in operation for many years. I have had considerable experience of these very negotiations. There has always been this fear of uncertainty, but that has never prevented reasonable agreements being made. I cannot see why it is necessary to suspend the compensation fund in order to facilitate negotiations. I think it is a non sequitur. I am really shocked that the Committee should have arrived at such an illogical decision in an otherwise excellent document.
    3.45 p.m.
    They also refer to the fact that to invoke the machinery of the compensation fund might involve delay. Anyone, of course, can put up the argument of involving delay but there is no desperate hurry about all these things. You have to know where you stand, but the question of compensation in isolated cases, where you cannot renew licences, should not hold up the general planning of the area, and I

    1997
    cannot see any real reason why it should. No one accepts the position that the licensed industry is not to be compensated for the extinguishing of licences, but I cannot see why there should be any delay. I hope, therefore, that for both of the reasons given by the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson) and for the reasons I have given, which I think are fundamental, careful consideration will be given to the Amendments desired. You are going to get these movements of populations, vast dispersals of populations, but there is no guarantee that the people are going to any particular place, and, therefore, no possibility of giving the brewers equivalent licensing facilities. The Government have to face up to this, and I hope it may be possible to do away with the suggested postponement of the operations of the compensation fund and enable the matter to take its normal course—that where a licence is extinguished the matter can be dealt with in the ordinary way.
    Viscountess Astor: I should have thought that if any trade in the world was able to pay compensation or to have a compensation fund, it was the drink trade. I should like to give the Committee a few figures of what has been spent on drink in the country during the war and—
    The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think this is a matter on which we can discuss such figures. That is going a bit too far.
    Viscountess Astor: This is a question of someone compensating the drink trade, and that case has been very well put by the Member for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson). This trade, of all trades in the world, is in a position to compensate itself. If it has not a compensation fund of its own, the money is going to come out of the local inhabitants, and as, during the past 10 years, the drink trade has doubled its profit, I think it should pay its own compensation. If this is not done we shall have a position like that which arose when Mr. Chamberlain had a profit of £1,000,000 to deal with, and instead of putting it into social security, took a 1d. off beer. What was the result?
    The Deputy-Chairman: We really cannot discuss the result of a 1d. on or a 1d. off beer now.
    Mr. Cove: On a point of Order. I would like to take what is to me the rare pleasure of supporting the noble Lady. Surely, if she seeks to advance an argument that the trade can well afford to compensate itself, it is fair and legitimate in support of that contention to point out what its sales and its profits have been.
    The Deputy-Chairman: We are discussing the question of compensation under this Clause. To raise the whole matter of compensation would seem to me to make it rather wide, too wide, in fact. That is why I think we cannot go on discussing this particular question.
    Viscountess Astor: The trade has made enormous profits and unless they are compelled to pay out their own compensation they will do what they have been doing right along, and have a regular campaign to make the children of this country beer-minded, and this Government will be responsible for it.
    The Deputy-Chairman: That is just the point. This is not a matter for discussion under this Clause.
    Viscountess Astor: It is very, very difficult to know what does or does not come in under the Clause. The case has been made out very clearly, and I hope this Committee will see to it that whatever compensation is paid, will not come out of the local inhabitants but will come from the drink trade itself.
    Captain Duncan: I am not sure that I support the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) entirely, but the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson) has made his point clear. I want to raise one question. This Bill is temporary and is to operate for five years after the date of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939. The licensing planning committees may have completed their work before the end of that period, but, according to this Bill, the compensation fund and the levy cannot start again until the end of the period which may be six months or may be a year. I think it is generally agreed that the compensation fund must start again sometime to deal with redudancy, and some of those changes of policy, and the other wider questions which the hon. Member for Peckham has raised. It seems to me that under the provisions of the Bill, as it stands, they cannot start

    1999
    this again before the end of the operation of the whole of the rest of the Bill. I would just ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to clear up that point.
    The Solicitor-General: We are proceeding on the basis of the general question of compensation. I think it was the basis on which the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) made his speech, not limiting it to the matters which are raised in the actual wording of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson). I only want to say and I hope he will not take it amiss with regard to that Amendment, before I deal with the points raised to support it, that certain difficulties will arise. The hon. Member raises by his Amendment the position of justices being compelled to refer licences and that is a new conception, which would be taking away completely the discretionary and judicial character of the justices functions. However, these are only points which arise on the wording of the Amendment, for I know the hon. Member would immediately, and quite properly, ask me to deal with the substance of his point. I only wanted to tell him there were these difficulties in his Amendment, before going on, to meet, as well as I can, the substance of his point.
    With regard to the general position, I should like the Noble Lady to appreciate that there is no provision in the Bill for brewers or licence-holders to be compensated by the local authority or the local people. The position the hon. Member for Peckham has raised is that, in his view, the scheme on which the Bill depends is a scheme which might break down in part and, therefore, may leave the Licensing Planning Committee with the only sanction left, a public acquisition by the local authority. That I think fairly puts my hon. Friend's point. I do not want my Noble Friend to think that the Bill contains a provision out and out for compensation from local funds; it does not.
    I want the Committee to consider with me the merits of the two forms of getting rid of licences. The present compensation proposals relate to licences which were in existence before the coming into force of the Licensing Act, 1904. They are roughly 40-year-old licences. Their renewal cannot be refused. What
    2000
    the justices can do is to refer them for compensation, in which case the amount of compensation is considered by the compensation authority and it is eventually paid out of the fund which is collected by the levies from the various houses. That system applies to this class of licence, which, I readily admit, is a big class.
    I want the Committee also to understand that that system did not work alone for many years before the war. There were licensing justices who, when they were considering the question of an ordinary removal from one premises to another, or considering the grant of a new licence, even where monopoly value was paid, said to the brewers, "It is no good coming before us with this removal or with this application for a new licence, unless you are prepared to propose the surrender of other licences." That was criticised as being bargaining by people in a judicial capacity, but it was done, and we all know it was done. We have all seen it done, and the results were good in regard both to distribution of licences and serving the needs of the people. That, however, was only one section of it, as nobody knows better than my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham, whose great experience in this matter has been such an advantage to us all. The local authorities were also in a position to secure redistribution. They controlled the land and they could offer the brewers a new site, and in many cases they could not only offer a new site but the conditions of a special removal, because they took possession of the old site under one improvement scheme or another.
    We had these two systems of redistribution working before the war, one by the justices and one by the local authorities who provided the new land. I would like my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham to remember that in no case was it on a hard and fast barrelage basis. I agree that I took an easy example where the barrelage equalled out. He was right in saying that that was too easy an example for me to take. But in many cases there has been a ready surrender of a greater amount of existing barrelage in order to get a new position which seemed to meet the needs of the future, and the results in many cases have been perfectly amazing. I do not want to mention names, but I have in mind one local authority which

    2001
    got 18 extinguishments, out of 26 licences they were considering, by the proper removal of the others to places where they were wanted. That was the sort of work that was going on, and that was one matter which induced the Morris Committee to take the line that they did. I indicated in moving the Second Reading of the Bill that here the licensing planning committees have got very strong weapons. No removal is to be allowed, except one that is done in this method, during the period of this Bill in a licensing planning area, and the new licence can only be granted if the licensing planning committee does not object. In addition, there has been an offer to the trade of co-operation. I ask the Committee to remember, and I ask my Noble Friend to remember, that in the example I quoted where 18 licences were extinguished, not one penny of compensation was paid to the trade by anyone. They were got rid of without any payment of compensation at all. That is the sort of thing for which we are working in this Bill, and I ask my Noble Friend, before she imputes a certain lack of care to the Government in considering this matter, to remember these facts.
    4.0 p.m.
    What was the other point that impressed the Morris Committee? I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham had this in mind. They found from their inquiries that the old method of compensation, that is, payment from a compensation fund out of the levy, was not working during the war. They said that 75 out of 152 authorities were not making any levy; that is, they were not attempting to make the old system work. A large number more were making reduced levies, and, while I agree that there are exceptions, my hon. Friend and I have one city in mind where a different policy has been pursued. We have, however, to regard the whole field, and when we find, as the Morris Committee did, that this system was not working in these abnormal conditions, we had to take that into account and consider whether the other method would not work better. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham that one argument in the Morris Committee to which he referred, that the chances of agreement would be prejudiced by the compensation working at the same time, is at least a double-barrelled argument. I am not complaining that he should use that as a point of doubt, but I am asking
    2002
    the Committee to consider it on the general problem—and to bear in mind the way we used to work before and the position that the Morris Committee found by reviewing the country as a whole.
    I now come to consider the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham has specially in mind, and I will link it up with the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton as to the failure of the scheme before the Minister is asked for a public inquiry. My hon. Friend was rightly concerned with the possibility of the local authority having to purchase. I do not want to repeat what was said by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning and by myself, but there is, first, the position at the point when the licence exists. In many cases the brewer or the licence-holder will not want the licence to stay where it is because there is not any population. Many licences are in suspense under the Finance Act, 1942. In addition to that, one has the sanction that this is the only way they can get removals, and indeed, without the approval of the licensing planning committee they cannot apply for a new licence.
    One must try to put oneself in the position of the intransigent brewer, who is not prepared to co-operate. I do not know whether the experience of my hon. Friend is the same as mine, but I have always found that the optimism in brewers about the chances of houses in a new area is one of the most surprising human characteristics. They are always very ready to take into account what they can do there, and they are pleased to go there.
    Viscountess Astor: Hear, hear.
    The Solicitor-General: I quite agree. I am trying to be dispassionate. My Noble Friend knows that I am not trying intentionally to colour the picture in any wrong way. I said that they were anxious to go there. I am always reminded of a quotation from Dr. Johnson, when Mrs. Thrale's—now Barclay's—Brewery had to be sold. He said:
    "We have not come here to sell a parcel of boilers and vats but the possibility of getting rich beyond the dreams of avarice."
    The point has a real relevance for my hon. Friend, because people are always prepared to take chance of a new area even if it means giving up chances in the area where they were before. The prospects always seem much brighter.

    2003
    That is the position with regard to that point. My hon. Friend might well put to me the position of the free house. Many hon. Members are concerned about the free house. There, it might be, we could get an arrangement between various brewery companies whereby somebody who owned the free house might be put in a very difficult position. It is a very small problem, because there are now only very few free houses left. In the layout as we see it, we think that there will practically always be a place for that house either on its present site or, if it has to be moved, on a corresponding method of working on a new site. That really applies to the position envisaged by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson). He put to the Committee that we might have a nicely balanced scheme put up by the licensing planning committee. They have arranged say, that five licences will be extinguished and two or three new licences will appear in different parts. What happens when there are objections at the public inquiry and the Minister does not agree with the situation of the two or three new houses? The obvious thing would be for my right hon. Friend to refer the matter back to the licensing planning committee and to tell them to find another place to which the same objections would not apply. That, he could do; but if he did not agree, there would be, first of all, the question of whether the house could remain and you should have one piece of your plan which would be wrong. The idea, of course, is that the licensing planning committee shall consider the whole area.
    That would be unfortunate, but you would have to deal with the matter. You may have to leave it there. As has been pointed out, these provisions last only for some five years. At the end of that period the question of compensation for redundancy will arise again. The only possibility that you have to consider is that the matter is not something which you can leave over. For some reason, my right hon. Friend has not sent it back to the committee. It cannot be left over and the public house cannot be left in that situation. It is a somewhat difficult concatenation of circumstances to imagine, and my hon. Friend is quite right to take the difficult case; but in that case, and in that case only, where it is
    2004
    essential for you to get rid of the matter at once, do you have the question of acquisition of both premises and licence. I grant my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton that it is a possibility, but it is such a shadowy possibility on the practical position as I see it, that I cannot myself, and I respectfully so advise the Committee, see that there is any real danger of public funds being wasted. Then I want to say to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Captain Duncan), that the idea is that the suspension of the compensation fund and the levy should only be while the planning committees are operating. I will consider in detail whether it is necessary to meet his point, but that is the way in which it appears to us.
    Viscountess Astor: I would like to ask the Solicitor-General a general question. I know that the Bill is the outcome of the Morris Committee and he has told us, who are deeply interested in temperance reforms, that the Morris Committee had 13 members representing the trade and not one representing the churches. This is important—
    The Deputy-Chairman: Undoubtedly, it is important, but not for now, and the learned Solicitor-General would not be in Order in answering the question.
    Viscountess Astor: He can answer it any time, when he knows about it.
    The Solicitor-General: I am deeply conscious that I have detained the Committee, but I hope that they may think that the question of compensation is one of the central committee points in the Bill. I have tried to give the views as clearly and as fully as I could, on what is a very difficult and very technical matter.
    Mr. H. Lawson: I am obliged to the Solicitor-General for having dealt so fully with the point I put. I have listened very carefully to him, and it seems to me that he did concede the point which I made, but said that it was very unlikely to arise. Suppose it does arise? Would it not be possible to compensate the licensee from the existing fund without introducing the levy? There may be very few cases, so I imagine there will be sufficient money in the fund to buy out any odd licence without introducing the levy during the next five years. I put that point to the Government and I suggest that, before the Bill is passed, some provision along those lines could be introduced.
    The Solicitor-General: The general picture that I have is that the levy has not been enforced at all, in those areas, 75 out of 152, because of the difficulties that licensees were in general undergoing in those years. I will check it, because it is very difficult to carry everything in one's mind. In most of the areas there is not a big reserve. I think my hon. Friend has another Amendment on the Paper on the subject of borrowing powers. At the moment we hope we shall be able to get this re-distribution without any payment of compensation at all. We think that it can be done and I have conceded, as my hon. Friend says, a possible case. I think it is an extremely unlikely case, and I should not like to change our scheme for an unlikely case. However, I will consider carefully what the hon. Member has said.
    Amendment negatived.
    4.15 p.m.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I was interested in what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about "free" houses. Can he add anything on that?
    The Solicitor-General: The "free" house has become comparatively rare—I will not say whether fortunately or unfortunately—and I said that where there is a "free" house which is fulfilling the need of a certain public, the chance of there being a wish to extinguish it in this sort of area is extremely small; that is, there will be a place for the "free" house, either in the same part of the area, or perhaps with not such a big removal as there would be in the case of other houses.
    Mr. Nicholson: I understood my hon. and learned Friend to say that some provision would be made for "free" houses to start de novo, not merely in exchange. Like him I have a great regard for "free" houses, and I desire that they should be encouraged. Is there any chance of increasing their numbers?
    The Solicitor-General: I cannot see how that would be in Order within this Bill.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think we can discuss this point further.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 10.—(London.)
    Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 8, line 17, after "Council," insert "who need not be members of the Council."
    Sub-section (1) sets out the constitution of the licensing planning committee in London, and provides among other things that the committee shall include "twelve members appointed by the London County Council." As it reads, this is at least ambiguous regarding whether it means 12 members of the L.C.C. or any persons appointed by the L.C.C. It is certainly desirable that the L.C.C. should have power to appoint persons who are not members, because to appoint 12 members of the L.C.C.—one-twelfth of its number—for what may be a very heavy task, will add greatly to their duties. It is therefore desirable that it should be possible to appoint people from outside, particularly to cover the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for North Kensington (Captain Duncan) that there might be a wish to appoint people with special knowledge and experience. If that is conceded to be desirable I am not sure that the words of the Bill, as they stand, will provide for it. I hope my right hon. Friend will see her way to accept my Amendment, which makes the position abundantly clear.
    Captain Duncan: I should like to support the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin). As I said on Second Reading, success depends on getting the right type of people on these committees. I wish to say nothing rude about the members of the L.C.C., but the hon. Gentleman appears to agree that they are busy men. While a proportion will no doubt be represented I think it would be difficult to get 12 members to devote a very large amount of their time to this particular job. It is also important that really representative broad-minded people should be on this committee, and I hope the Government will accept this Amendment.
    Miss Wilkinson: When we were looking through the Amendments we took advice on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) has raised, especially as his Amendments have been so helpful throughout the Bill. We are assured that his Amendment is unnecessary. The Bill provides, in respect of the membership of the London Licensing Planning Committee, for "twelve

    2007
    members appointed by the London County Council," but it does not require that they must be members of the Council. If my hon. Friend will look at the Clause itself I think he will see it is really made abundantly clear. Sub-section (1, b) says:
    "twelve members appointed from amongst their number by the Court of Quarter Sessions for the County of London."
    Next comes
    "twelve members appointed by the London County Council."
    and it does not say "from amongst their number." Therefore we are advised that that is perfectly good legal language, and, as it stands, meets the point my hon. Friend has raised. I will have another look at it, but I am sure the hon. Member ber's point is fully met.
    Mr. Silkin: My advice is no doubt not so good as that of my right hon. Friend, but I am advised that the wording is not clear. For that reason I put down this Amendment. We both wish to achieve the same purpose, and if she will look at the point again, I will gladly ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 8, line 40, at end, insert:
    "(5) A planning removal formulated under Section five of this Act by the licensing planning committee for any such licensing planning area as aforesaid may provide for the removal of a licence from any premises situate within the County of London to any area outside that county to which there has been, or is likely to be, a substantial transfer of population, of industry or of other activities from that county."
    The purpose of this Amendment is to make it certain that in dealing with London it shall be within the powers of the licensing planning committee to give removal licences to areas outside the County of London where there is likely to be a substantial transfer of population, of industry, and so on. It is not clear from the Bill that they will have that power. If one looks at Clause 5, which applies to London, one sees in Sub-section (1, a) that the licensing planning committees have power to formulate proposals for "planning removals" from "premises in the area to other specified premises therein"; that is, they can only formulate proposals for transfer within the area, and the area in the case of London will be the
    2008
    administrative County of London. Therefore, it is not clear that the Licensing Planning Committee for London will be able to put forward proposals for licences outside the county. I know that under Clause 3 the Minister has power to add another licensing district to the licensing district of the County of London and so make a joint licensing planning committee. That, it seems to me, would be sometimes a cumbersome way of doing things. It may be necessary merely to transfer one licence from the County of London to, for the sake of argument, Oxhey. Would the Watford licensing district really have to be brought in to form a joint committee so as to make a licensing planning committee of London and Watford for the express purpose of transferring one licence to Oxhey, even though a substantial population may be transferred to that area?
    This Amendment is to facilitate the transfer of a licence from the County of London to any place outside, whether it is an area which has been added to the London Licensing Planning Committee or not. It may be argued that the local people ought to have some voice. Provision will be made for that. They can object, and no doubt the Minister would exercise his discretion to hold a public inquiry in that case. Further, the Minister has already asked the Committee, and the Committee has agreed, to accept an Amendment which lays an obligation on licensing planning committees to confer with such authorities as he may lay down. He would, no doubt, in such a case require that the licensing planning committee in London should confer with any licensing district to which it was proposed to transfer the licence. If the planning of licences is to be made practicable and simple, we must give the licensing planning committee the power to recommend the transfer of licences to places outside London to which substantial portions of the population would be moved, without the cumbersome machinery of adding the district to the London licensing planning districts. I am afraid it is a trifle complex, but I hope that I have made my point clear.
    The Solicitor-General: I thought for a moment that my Noble Friend the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) might have been supporting this Amendment, because Plymouth is geographically the only other

    2009
    place in the same situation as London, with a different administrative county just outside. I thought my Noble Friend might be anxious about the provision of licences in the overspill areas of her city. But the matter which has been put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) is sufficiently formidable. It is very difficult to find a perfect answer, and I would like my hon. Friend to consider the different difficulties that face each possible solution. He has, with great frankness, put the difficulty of his own solution, which is that he would have to have the power of removing to an area without the consent of the justices in that area. It would be taking away from the justices in the Chingford or Watford areas, to give my hon. Friend's own two examples, their right to refuse this removal. That is a quite a serious difficulty. It means cutting into the ordinary licensing law for, possibly, all the dormitory areas of London. The second way that appealed to me was the application for an ordinary removal. But that cannot be done, because it is outside the administrative County of London, just as if it were a case of removal from Plymouth to Cornwall.
    I thought that another method would be an application for a new licence, on payment of monopoly value in Watford. That would meet my hon. Friend's point, assuming, as one ought to assume, that the licensing justices did their work as far as the overspill population were concerned. But my hon. Friend would be left, to take his own example, with a little-wanted, if not entirely unwanted, house in Bethnal Green. That is the final difficulty. The only method, if that situation is really serious, is to add any district that may be necessary ad hoc for the purposes of the removal in a special case. I would like my hon. Friend to let the scheme work, to see how the removal progresses on the present line, and especially what co-operation is received outside, before we change the character of it or interfere with another series of licensing justices—that is, the justices of the dormitory area. I can only tell him that I sympathise with his point; but I hope that he agrees that I have exhausted all possible permutations of how to deal with it, without any more success than he has had; because he has the difficulty of overriding neighbouring justices, and I have the difficulty of an unwanted house. I
    2010
    would ask him to see how these difficulties fare in the light of experience, and not to press his Amendment to-day.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. Silkin: The proposal which my hon. and learned Friend has put forward may mean setting up a large number of ad hoc joint committees. That is not very satisfactory, and certainly not workable. My own proposal is that there should be consultations. I think that people would be reasonable, even licensing justices, and it may be possible to come to some agreement. It may be that my hon. Friend's suggestion will turn out to be the only possible way. Let us try it and see if it works; and if it does not, let us make representations, and something will have to be done. Before we finally accept, I suggest that my hon. and learned Friend should look at the thing again, and perhaps in the quiet of the night something may come to him which will form a satisfactory solution. On the understanding that we may raise the matter again on the Report stage, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 11.—(Regulations.)
    Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 9, line 9, at end, insert:
    "(c) with respect to the disqualification of any person who has directly or indirectly a financial interest in the sale or supply of intoxicants, from serving as a member or as the secretary of the licensing planning committee."
    I think this Amendment needs very little advocacy from me. It provides that persons who have a financial interest, directly or indirectly, in the sale or supply of intoxicants shall not serve on a joint planning committee. It would be most improper that people should be concerned with recommendations for the granting of licences when they have a personal financial interest in what they are doing. This merely conforms to the ordinary principles of good government. As regards the clerk to the justices, or the secretary of the licensing planning committee, who will normally be the clerk, it is well known that some, at any rate, act as solicitors for brewers or for other firms having a financial interest in the sale or supply of intoxicants. The secretary of the Town Planning Committee, especially if he be the clerk to the justices, as he may well

    2011
    be, will be a very important and influential person on such a Committee. The Committee will be guided by his experience and knowledge and will very much lean on him, and it is essential that such a person should be beyond reproach and that it should be impossible for it to be levelled against him that he had a financial interest in the subject matter upon which he was advising the Committee. I ask that, in making Regulations, the Home Secretary shall have this in mind, and shall make sure that persons who have a financial interest are disqualified from taking any part in the proceedings of a licensing planning committee.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I think this Amendment, and the next—
    In page 9, line 9, at end insert,—
    "(c) with respect to the disqualification of any person having a pecuniary interest in the sale or supply of intoxicants from serving as a member or as the secretary of a licensing planning committee."
    —may be taken together.
    Mr. Graham White: I rise to support, very briefly, this Amendment, as one who put down an Amendment in almost identical terms. To be quite frank I am not sure whether these Amendments are really necessary, for the simple reason that it did not occur to me that anybody would contemplate such a change in licensing practice as to bring into the new planning authority a principle which has never existed before and which, I think, would be contrary to the practice of Common Law. It is a principle that the participants in a judicial inquiry shall have no financial interest in the subject of the inquiry.
    Mr. Silkin: On an advisory body they may make recommendations.
    Mr. White: I am obliged to my hon. Friend, but, in the Consolidated Licensing Act of 1920, it was specifically provided that licensing justices should not have this interest. This has contributed in very great measure to the authority and respect in which the licensing bench is held, and it would be a most mischievous and unfortunate thing if in connection with these planning committees, that salutary principle were abandoned. It is a financial interest which is debarred, not an interest of any other kind. It is perfectly in order for a brewer to take part, and, equally, for a temperance reformer. It is the finan-
    2012
    cial interest with which we are here concerned. It may well be that there was no intention, as I believe there cannot have been, to allow this principle to be departed from, but I notice that, in Clause 2, Sub-section (3), the members of the Committees are appointed subject to such terms and conditions as the Home Secretary may lay down. If we were assured that this is one of the conditions, the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) and myself might find it would not be necessary to go on with this Amendment.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I think I had better declare my interest in this subject. My family have made gin in the same way and in the same place for 150 years, and I am interested in the trade, and interested financially, but, at the same time, I oppose this Amendment both on the grounds of equity and common sense. On the grounds of equity, I do not see why members of the trade should be debarred from being members of this Committee, even if we assume that the members of the trade are grossly bigoted and unfair people. They are only making a living out of the trade in the same way as others make a living out of preaching teetotalism. I do not see why they should be debarred, and it seems to me unfair.
    Viscountess Astor: How could anyone make a living out of being a rabid teetotaller?
    Mr. Nicholson: I could give instances. But I refuse to admit that, if I was a member of one of these committees, I should be incapable of giving a perfectly fair and unprejudiced decision. The extraordinary suggestion is that, because I am a member of the trade, I should automatically favour every other member of the trade. It is assumed that I am either dishonest or incapable of being impartial, or, secondly, that I should favour every member of the trade because it is my own trade. Anybody who knows anything about the trade knows that the contrary may well be the case, and that, if I was not an impartial representative, I might well be prejudiced against some other member of the trade. That argument, therefore, falls to the ground. I repeat that I refuse to admit that I am incapable to being an impartial, unprejudiced member of my own trade on such a committee.

    2013
    But there is another and more powerful argument. Nobody knows so much about the needs of areas for licensed premises, or about the way they should be run, as the members of the trade who are engaged in running licensed premises. I can imagine a Bill for zoning chartered accountants. Would this House stand for a provision that no chartered accountant should sit on the committee? The thing is ridiculous. There are enormous numbers of perfectly upright, honest and exceedingly capable men in the trade, and this casts an unwarranted slur upon a body of men who are as honourable and decent as any in the country, and I protest against it most vigorously.
    Viscountess Astor: Surely, the work of solicitors and chartered accountants does not have to be controlled by the State, and the drink trade is the only one which has to be controlled by the State. How can anyone compare them?
    Mr. Nicholson: In dealing with any trade, it would be foolish and a handicap to cut one's self off from the knowledge, advice and experience in that trade. The last thing I want to do is to serve on one of these committees, but to say that I should not be impartial—
    Viscountess Astor: No, not the hon. Member.
    Mr. Nicholson: I thank the Noble Lady very much. I think it is wrong that it should be assumed that the trade is full of people who cannot possibly be impartial and who are, or would be, unworthily influenced by being connected with that trade.
    Mr. Edmund Harvey: I think everyone must know that the hon. Member who has just spoken would be impartial in his judgments on such a committee or any other, and I am quite sure that there are very many members of the trade and people having financial interests who would be perfectly impartial, but the point, surely, is that of the old maxim of English law that not only should justice be done but that it should manifestly appear to be done. It is most undesirable that any licensing planning committee should be under any kind of suspicion or misapprehension, for, if the secretary or any member of the committee happened to have a financial interest, it would be the easiest thing for his position to be misunderstood. It would be most un-
    2014
    desirable that a decision of the Committee should be misrepresented—and it might be—as being governed by financial interests.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. G. Nicholson: Is not my hon. Friend aware that there are other interests besides financial interests? He and I are at one in desiring an impartial committee, but does he call teetotallers impartial? I am grateful to him for the tribute he paid to my impartiality, which I appreciate, but there are other interests besides financial interests.
    Mr. Harvey: I am inclined to think that the perfectly impartial person does not exist, or, at any rate, only exists in heaven. We want to avoid any manifest appearance of the possibility of serious financial interests prejudicing a decision. I do not think it likely that a person known to be an extreme prohibitionist and who is making his livelihood as a prohibitionist would be appointed as a member of such a licensing planning committee.
    Mr. G. Nicholson: If I am a member of "X" brewery, does it naturally follow that I am going to favour "Y" brewery? Why should it be assumed that this would be the case?
    Viscountess Astor: But the hon. Member would be in favour of the breweries.
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: I would like to know whether, as an engineer, I would be precluded from being a member of the committee if I had a great deal of money invested in Nicholson's gin or Bass's beer?
    Mr. Harvey: The hon. Member would not be qualified to sit as a licensing justice if he had a financial interest.
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: Where are you going to stop?
    Mr. Harvey: That is the position, and the purpose of the Amendment is simply to apply to the licensing planning authority the existing law regarding licensing justices. As this is a planning authority, I hope that it will be made quite clear that the Government do accept the principle, even if they cannot accept the words of the Amendment.
    Sir William Wayland: I shall certainly oppose the Amendment.

    2015
    It is very unfair. It says that no person indirectly having a financial interest should become a member of the committee. You can press the word "indirectly" right up to the point where, if a man had a pint of beer a day, he would be indirectly interested in the drink question. I am of the same opinion as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. G. Nicholson). I have been a licensing magistrate for about 30 years, and although there are always some goats to be dealt with, I have a very high opinion of the licensed victuallers as a body. I consider that for integrity and straightforwardness they can compare with any other body in the United Kingdom.
    The position is very different now from what it was with regard to licensed victuallers 40 years ago. A man who wants to become a licensed victualler to-day must be above suspicion, and that cannot be said, I believe, of any other large body of men. These people number between 200,000 and 300,000, and considering that actions against them in the courts are so few, they really have proved that they are worthy of being looked upon as good citizens. Why they should be penalised, even as far as the magistracy is concerned, from occupying a seat on the bench I could never understand, although a licensed victualler who is a mayor can sit as a magistrate. It is said that the Lord Chancellor has always refused to appoint licensed victuallers as magistrates. He has always stated that in his opinion it would be inadvisable, but whenever we see the licensed victuallers acting as a body or sectionally they always carry conviction that they can be independent, are independent and would act independently on any committee on which they were appointed. If expert opinion is wanted on a committee such as is to be formed, it would be better in the general interest that a licensed victualler or someone with an interest in, or knowledge of, the trade should be put on the committee.
    Petty-Officer Alan Herbert: I agreed with the first speaker from the Liberal benches when he said that he was surprised that it was necessary to put the Amendment down, because it suggests a practice which has been followed almost ever since the licensing laws existed. As it has been
    2016
    thought necessary to put the Amendment down, we are entitled to consider this proposal de novo. I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. G. Nicholson). This Amendment and the idea behind it seem to go completely contrary to the modem trend of State control. Everything is going to be controlled by advisory committees, fatherly or not; whether it is the beer trade, the milk trade or the coal trade, there are always to be committees here and committees there. How are they invariably composed? Not of employers, on the one hand, and employees on the other, but of everyone who knows how the business is conducted and who is able to give good advice about it. I support my hon. Friend on the practical ground that you must trust people and can trust people, and if you are to have an advisory body, it is just as well to have on that body representatives of every part of the trade who know how to conduct the business.
    The question is, How are we to get the most efficient and the strongest body? I cannot say that I share the profound respect exhibited by some Members, for licensing justices. We know that not merely the brewers and distillers but, by the terms of this Amendment, the barman, everybody who works in a brewery for a wage, is indirectly interested. You have a great number of people, rightly or wrongly, rabid teetotallers, extreme or very bitter teetotallers, and I cannot say that members of temperance bodies are necessarily the best people to decide these things.
    I have experience of the way in which they do their duties. I have told the story once in the House before, but I would ask for the attention of the Committee to-day. A very small respectable riverside public house, run by a very respectable man, has a little garden, in surroundings where most of the inhabitants have no gardens, and it is a great relief to them, on a hot summer evening, to go into this garden and have a glass of beer. In order to extend the amenities, this publican proposed to give a little music—
    Viscountess Astor: May I ask if this is in Order?
    Petty-Officer Herbert: He proposed to give some music in this garden and, for that purpose, obtained a music licence

    2017
    from the London County Council, who said, "You can have this music licence if you move that door from there to there, for the purposes of a fire exit during the concert." So he went to the noble licensing justices, who had among their number no contemptible brewers or publicans, and said, "May I have a licence to move that door from there to there, to form an exit from the garden in case of fire?"—my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) will know the place of which I am talking. These beautiful justices, with no disgusting brewers, publicans and gin distillers among them, said, "Oh no, we do not care what the London County Council has said about your music licence. This is a structural alteration, and by the laws of the land we are entitled to forbid you to make a structural alteration, and we are not going to allow you to move that door from there to there, because if you give music in your little garden, you will give more pleasure in this horrible, adulterous, alcoholic place by spreading the drinking area." That is the spirit in which—I do not say all, but far too many of these temperance justices discharge their duties. Without going into details, I say that is a prejudice with an improper interest, just as improper as any financial interest could be, and, on the practical ground that we must have these laws discharged without prejudice, I say it is a bad thing that practical people in the trade should be excluded, while people not in the trade, having this improper interest, people who desire only to make pubs more and more squalid and discourage them from stocking food and playing music, sit on these bodies. I say those people are far less worthy to sit upon these advisory bodies than an honest, public-spirited brewer or publican.
    I am sorry I did not notice this Bill before. I count myself negligent in not having put down an Amendment. I do not think there will be much bother about this Amendment, but if there is, I must say that I shall not only vote against the Clause standing part, but against the whole of the rest of the Bill.
    Captain Duncan: I wish also to oppose this Amendment. As the Bill stands, there is nothing in it to give any direction as to who shall sit on the Committee, except that they shall be appointed by
    2018
    the local authority. I think the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) moved this Amendment rather in the hope of shoving the responsibility for choosing these people on to the Home Secretary and the Government instead of having to face the responsibility squarely on the London County Council. I am not sure that he is not right in doing so. I think the Government, in issuing directions, ought to give some sort of directions but it is about the nature of those directions that I am rather anxious, because, from some of the speeches I have heard to-day—particularly that of the hon. Member for Birkenhead East (Mr. Graham White)—it would seem to be assumed that there will be such direction that nobody with a direct or indirect financial interest in the trade will be allowed to sit on these committees. I hope that is not so, because, as I said on Second Reading, it is vitally important that we get the best possible, unbiased, broad-minded people to sit on these committees.
    Let me give an instance which the hon. Member for Peckham will well understand. Take Lord Balfour of Burleigh. He is the chairman of the Kensington Town Planning Committee. He is an admirable man with wide experience of housing and town planning, and all that sort of thing, but he is a director of a bank, and the bank may have some brewery shares or a mortgage on a public house, and therefore he would be directly financially interested under the Amendment. He may have some brewery shares himself, for all I know—I have not the faintest idea. How is the hon. Gentleman going to find out? He would have to write a letter on these lines:
    "Dear Lord Burleigh,
    We are anxious to put you on the licensing planning committee for the county of London, but, before we can do so, will you please disclose to the London County Council whether you have any shares in a brewery or a distillery."
    The hon. Gentleman may laugh, but that is a fact. Under his Amendment that would have to be done.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. Silkin: No. Since my hon. and gallant Friend refers to what we should do, we should draw his attention to the regulations. That is all.
    Captain Duncan: That is the same sort of thing, the same principle is involved.

    2019
    He would have to refuse to serve on that planning committee, for which he is eminently suited, if he had any direct, or indirect financial interest. Then the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford University (Petty-Officer Herbert) mentioned the licensed victuallers, and so on. I think it is really a slur on the trade as a whole, particularly on the licensed victuallers, that they should not be eligible in these days for places on these committees, which are already heavily influenced in the other direction. The whole success of this Bill, as I see it, is that the local authorities should be quite free to choose whoever they wish. Whatever their private business or interests may be, they should be chosen on character, ability and broadmindedness rather than on a financial interest. Only in that event will this Bill, in my opinion, be a success, and for that reason I wish to oppose the Amendment.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: I think the Committee ought to distinguish first of all between what I call bias and material interests. If hon. Members will read the Royal Commission's Report of 1929–31 they will find that the Commission made that distinction. That Royal Commission, by the way composed of three brewers, was unanimously against what the hon. Gentlemen are suggesting this afternoon. They were in favour, indeed, of what my hon. Friend has proposed in his Amendment—
    Mr. G. Nicholson: They did not consider this sort of Bill or these circumstances at all.
    Mr. Davies: They considered the position of licensing justices. What this Bill does clearly is to take us away from the law as it stands in relation to the material interests of licensing justices. Let me point out to the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford University (Petty Officer Herbert) that case after case in this country has occurred recently where an ordinary member of a co-operative society, a member of a local authority, is debarred from voting in the council for a contract in favour of his co-operative society because he is deemed to be materially interested in the society. That is the law. It is a very remote interest to be an ordinary member of a co-operative society with a membership, say, of 100,000 people and to be debarred by law
    2020
    because of pecuniary interest, yet the hon. Gentleman is suggesting putting a brewer on a bench to give licences under this Bill when he is materially interested. I think it is in the interests of the brewers themselves to keep away from the granting of licences. The one thing above all the public detests, not only in relation to brewing but to all manner of businesses, is that men should use their position and material interests for their own financial gain—
    Mr. Nicholson: I beg the hon. Member to keep a sense of proportion. Nobody would dream of suggesting that anybody should be judge in a case in which he holds the slightest financial interest, but I do not conceive that nobody may be a judge in a case in which the firm is in the same trade as himself.
    Mr. Davies: If the hon. Member will look up the records of our courts of law for the last three or four years he will find instances of where undue influence was used to secure licences and men sent to prison because of that.
    Mr. Nicholson: The hon. Member has not answered my point. He is dodging it.
    Mr. Davies: As I have said, I think it would be a good thing for the brewers themselves to keep away from this question, because it would create undue public bias against them. The vast majority of the people in this country, whatever their business, are honourable, but there are others, too; and all that the law does is to try to safeguard the public against about 2 per cent. or so who are evildoers. They wil1 be found among brewers, and sometimes among teetotallers, too. But when we come to the brewer he has a material interest—
    Mr. Nicholson: Not if it is a different firm.
    Viscountess Astor: They all stick together.
    Mr. Davies: I want to appeal to Members of the Committee not to oppose this Amendment, because it would not be in the interests of the community to allow those with vested interests to serve as licensing justices.
    Mr. McKinlay rose—
    The Solicitor-General: I hope my Friend the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) will not mind if I inter-

    2021
    vene at this moment, because I would like the Committee to know where the Government stand in this matter before it is discussed any further, should Members wish to do so. I would like to begin my short remarks by indicating, as exactly as I can, what is the present position. With regard to the licensing justices, who will contribute half the members of the local licensing planning committee, under Section 40 of the Licensing Act, 1910, they can have no interest in the trade in the locality. That is a statutory disqualification. With regard to members of local authorities—my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) has put it quite rightly—a member of a local authority is debarred from voting on, or taking part in the consideration of, any question with regard to a contract or other matter in which he has a direct or an indirect pecuniary interest.
    The Committee will understand that there is a difficulty here, in that although the person is chosen as a member of the local authority he is acting as a member of the licensing planning authority. There may be some technical difficulty about that, but that is the broad position from which we start. So far as half of the licensing planning committee, who are licensing justices, are concerned, they have their statutory disqualification, and I suggest that we do not interfere with that position.
    What about the local authority members? I feel that we could not go further than the restriction on the licensing justices, that is, that the restriction must be limited to trade in the locality, and I suggest it would be reasonable to make the disqualification a little less wide. I am rather disturbed by the idea that someone who has given 20 years of work on a local authority, and happens to hold one share in a firm making malt for sale, should be disqualified from this type of service. Anyone who considers that, or who has a few shares in a bottling business, will, I am sure, think that is going too far, and I ask the Committee to consider that point of view. The dividing line, I suggest, is to disqualify any person who has a major interest in either the wholesale or the retail liquor trade in the district, that is, a substantial interest in the carrying on of the trade in the district. I do not want to go into details of the definition Clause to-day, because that is a matter for regulations,
    2022
    but I hope that that is a reasonable suggestion and a reasonable mean between the different points of view. My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) wants to know how that is to be dealt with before he withdraws his Amendment. Under Clause 2, Sub-section (3) it is provided that:
    "The appointment of a member of any such committee shall be for such term as may be determined by the Secretary of State at the time of his appointment and shall be subject to such conditions as may be so determined."
    What the Home Secretary, through me, suggests is that we should draw up model conditions, and that one of those conditions should provide for the position I have just stated to the Committee. I have no doubt as to the conditions attaching under that Sub-section. As soon as a person joins the licensing planning committee the conditions attach, and if he is outside them he is, ipso facto, disqualified, and must retire. I could not help being struck by what has been said on both sides as to the desire that not only should justice be done but that justice should manifestly be seen to de done. That imports a great responsibility on everyone, whatever his views, and I put the appeal from this Committee to those who have to deal with this matter that, whatever be their views, one way or the other, they will bear in mind what my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey) has said, and approach their duty in that way.
    5.15 p.m.
    Petty-Officer Herbert: Do I understand that the Government are going to put down an Amendment on Report?
    The Solicitor-General: No. Under Sub-section (3) the Home Secretary can prescribe the conditions of appointment. They will be prescribed in the sense that I have indicated.
    Petty-Officer Herbert: Will it not be possible to disqualify persons not on the ground of financial interest but of bias? Licensing justices have been known to act improperly.
    Mr. McKinlay: I am quite willing that the matter should be dealt with as the hon. and learned Gentleman has indicated. People with whom we do not agree are not necessarily biased. One of the amazing things about this is that everyone

    2023
    who does not toe the line in the liquor trade is biased. I was amazed to hear the Solicitor-General offer the comparison of a person holding one share. He is too big a man to get down to such a trivial illustration. I wonder if we could segregate the people in Parliament who have a financial interest. Apparently a person is disqualified from being a licensing justice if he has an association with the trade, but Members with financial interests in all sorts of trades can roll up here in their hundreds and vote in any way they care to.
    Captain Duncan: I hope my hon. and learned Friend will look into the question of London, because it is different from an ordinary town.
    Mr. G. Nicholson: I am not quite satisfied with the constitutional position. A responsible Minister rejects an Amendment but does not propose himself to set down an Amendment saying what the Regulations are to be. It is completely nebulous rather than being in black and white. It is most unsatisfactory and I think it is a wrong way to treat the Committee.
    The Solicitor-General: I should really like to take my hon. Friend up on that. The Amendment is to add to a rule-making Clause, and there is a point about the subject matter with regard to which the Secretary of State can make Regulations. The intention of the Amendment is to give my right hon. Friend directions as to his power of regulation and subsidiary legislation. The Committee have already authorised my right hon. Friend to make certain conditions. I cannot see why it is illogical or treating the Committee with disrespect for the Government to say, "You have already given us powers to deal with the matter, and we intend to deal with it in a certain way, therefore we do not need the extra Regulation-making power with which the Amendment seeks to provide us." There are certain things that one might be ready to do, but to treat the Committee with disrespect is not one of my usual failings.
    Mr. G. Nicholson: I only meant that I thought it was rather a strange way of settling the question. I acquit my hon. and learned Friend of any desire to treat the Committee with any disrespect.
    Petty-Officer Herbert: The Solicitor-General says that those who have a substantial interest will not be allowed to serve on the committees. Will it be possible for the Home Secretary to say that those who are members of definite teetotal bodies should be excluded? If so, I will withdraw my opposition, but, failing that, I think we ought to have a Division.
    The Solicitor-General: I hoped that the whole Committee was with me in dealing with the point in the last words of my speech. I did not mean to omit to deal with the point, because I put it in the form of an appeal to everyone who is concerned with this, on whichever side of the controversy, to approach it in an attitude of impartiality of mind.
    It is difficult at this stage, in a Bill which is temporary and dealing with a special problem, to deal with the broad question of licensing administration. What the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend would mean is that financial interest and mental approach would be put on the same level. That may be very desirable or not. It is a matter for argument. It is a matter which should be considered in a Licensing Bill dealing with the whole problem and not in a temporary Bill which deals with the distribution of licences in war-damaged areas. I ask my hon. and gallant Friend not to consider that I am running away from his point. I do not want to do that. I ask whether the better method of dealing with the special problem might not be to leave the licensing justices in statu quo and to find for members of the local authority, a reasonable middle course which will bring in as many people of both points of view as we can. I am not pretending that this is one of the gigantic Measures of reconstruction, but the Bill will contribute most usefully to the lives and amenities of the people. I therefore ask my hon. Friend on that basis, with full reservation of his rights and privileges, not to press the Amendment when the Committee are in general agreement on the Bill.
    Mr. Silkin: I am sure that the Committee will agree that the Solicitor-General has dealt with this matter in a reasonable and practical way. I therefore have very great pleasure in accepting the compromise which he has put forward, and

    2025
    asking leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    5.30 p.m.
    Miss Wilkinson: I beg to move, in page 9, line 14, after "committees," insert:
    "and the furnishing by those committees to the authorities by whom the expenses of the committees fall to be defrayed of statements of the expenses estimated by the committees to be likely to be incurred by them in connection with their business."
    The Amendment embodies a piece of machinery which should, if accepted, end this interesting afternoon in a generous spirit of conciliation. It relates to the estimate to be furnished for the expenses of licensing planning committees. It is not expected that the expenses will be very great, but it is clear that the expenses have to be met locally. The local authorities must include them in their annual budget.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Remaining Clauses ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed [Bill 21].

  Squadron-Leader Fleming added to the Select Committee on Public Petitions.—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

  COUNTY WAR AGRICULTURAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major A. S. L. Young.]
  5.31 p.m.
  Mr. Craven-Ellis: It will be within the recollection of the House that, on 14th December, I raised the question of the relationship between a Mr. Rex Patterson and the Hampshire war agricultural executive committee. The committee complained that Mr. Patterson was not fulfilling the terms of his cropping arrangements. Those relationships went from bad to worse. Perhaps it is as well that I should point out, so that
  2026
  the House may get a proper perspective on the matter, that Mr. Patterson is the largest farmer in Hampshire. I am told that his acreage is more than 9,000. Mr. Patterson is an efficient farmer. That was admitted by the committee because they graded him A. Although he is in that position he has been charged with not complying with the committee's directions. As time went on the friction between the parties became so acute that the Hampshire branch of the National Farmers' Union took interest in the case and decided to intervene. Their intervention resulted in their appointing a committee to investigate the position and to find what was responsible for the disturbed relations between the parties concerned. The committee went very fully into the whole position and their work resulted in a report being made consisting of more than 5,000 pages. In the report reference was made to the
  "vindictive policy of the Hampshire War Agricultural Executive Committee, a policy which is responsible for dispossessing quite a large number of farmers in Hampshire."
  I have no doubt that such would have been the fate of Mr. Patterson had he not been a large farmer. One hears, when moving among farmers, that the small farmer is terrified of the dictatorial methods which are adopted not only by the Hampshire Committee but by war agricultural executive committees generally. If you go through the past experience of the officials in the district offices which operate under the main committee, you will find that many of them have had no relation at all with agriculture. Yet they are given vast powers to dominate and control the agricultural industry. I do not propose to go into the details of the report, but I feel that I would be justified in quoting three of the 10 conclusions which are set out in the report of the National Farmers' Union Committee.
  Mr. Edgar Granville: Will the hon. Member make clear exactly what this committee is? Is it a committee set up by the Minister or an independent and impartial committee set up by the National Farmers' Union?
  Mr. Craven-Ellis: It is a committee set up independently by the National Farmers' Union, the Union having taken a grave view of the Hampshire war agricultural committee, and they decided to have an investigation as an efficient

  2027
  farmer was concerned. There were four members of the National Farmers' Union on the committee, all highly qualified men. The report of the committee definitely and absolutely vindicated Mr. Patterson. The first of the three conclusions was:
  "That the friction which has occurred and given rise to the present inquiry has been due to the methods and attitude of the W.A.E.C."
  The second is:
  "That the treatment of Mr. Patterson by the committee and the Ministry was wholly unwarranted and that his conduct, professional methods and personal integrity are such as to be, in our view, exemplary."
  The third is:
  "That the restrictions exceptionally and unjustifiably imposed on Mr. Patterson should be withdrawn forthwith."
  That is sufficient evidence to show that the National Farmers' Union took a grave view of the treatment of Mr. Patterson. Since I raised this case in the House in December there have been certain negotiations, and certain understandings have been arrived at. In view of that, I regard the case of Mr. Patterson as now closed, but I am going to use it for the purpose of my further remarks. I have been informed this morning that there are two members of this National Farmers' Union committee who are determined that there shall be a public inquiry into the methods and affairs of the war agricultural committee. It is possible—and I understand it is of frequent occurrence—that war agricultural committees pay little regard to the financial results of certain directions which they are empowered to make to farmers. It was reported only recently that a direction was given to a farmer to grow potatoes and that in the four years he has been subjected to this kind of direction to grow potatoes on land which is unsuitable for potatoes he has lost over £600. There is no question of compensating the man for fulfilling a direction when he is dissatisfied and has notified his committee that the land is unsuitable. He has to submit to carrying the loss himself, which is extremely unfair. I put that forward as one piece of evidence that the control by these committees should be seriously investigated.
  Sir Ernest Shepperson: The farmer receives £10 per acre for growing potatoes.
  Mr. Craven-Ellis: Having received the £10 per acre, the farmer to whom I have referred lost over £600 in four years.
  There is a much greater issue at stake in this matter. That is the system of control of agriculture. In some respects the war agricultural committees have served a useful purpose and I am informed that the Hampshire War Agricultural Committee so far as their feeding stuffs department is concerned is carried on very satisfactorily. I submit that the real purpose of the committee should have been to co-operate with farmers rather than to dominate them. The Minister will no doubt tell me that he is satisfied that the committee gives the fullest co-operation. I am informed by a large number of farmers that this co-operation, which is so essential in the industry, has not been given to anything like the extent it should have been given. The committees have these powers and they have abused them with the result that there are over 10,000 farmers who have been dispossessed of their holdings. A few, no doubt, should never have been farmers, but in the main, I submit, it was a great injustice that they should have been dispossessed. Since this case received publicity by my raising it in the House, I have received many letters from farmers setting out the most distressing experiences of the harsh treatment which these committees have imposed upon men who, in the main, are very hard workers. Owing to conditions between the two wars, they have lost most, if not all, their capital, and they found themselves when war broke out in a position in which they required assistance and co-operation. Had that been given nothing like as many as 10,000 farmers would have been dispossessed.
  Although I am opposed to the war agricultural committees and their methods of control, I feel it is rather late in the war period to bring about any immediate alteration. I am not going to say that this control should be removed until we have reached the stage when equilibrium has been reached betwen supply and demand. Whenever that may be, I put forward the suggestion that there should be some method of supervision. The industry has had little or no supervision, and it is essential that it should have. I suggest that the form of supervision should be similar to that which we are accustomed to in relation to property, which has been under supervision since

  2029
  the Public Health Act of 1875. Since that date more stringent powers have been given and local authorities are in a position to demand that houses should be kept at a reasonable standard having regard to the circumstances of the age.
  Why should not that same principle be applied to the proper conduct of agriculture? After all, the man who should have the responsibility is the landlord. I would suggest that there should be county agricultural inspectors, who would be responsible for seeing that the work, as regards ditches, fences, hedges and cropping, is efficiently carried out, and if it is not, the county agricultural inspector should have the power to serve notice upon the landlord, and the landlord, as in the case of a landlord of a house, should be in a position to insist that his tenant should do what work is necessary to see that the land is cultivated and managed in the fullest degree possible, and as efficiently as possible.
  It is not possible for me in the short space of time available to say all I should like to say. I sincerely hope that the Minister, having regard to these 10,000 dispossessed farmers, will do something for them. If there is to be an inquiry, which I think is justified, it would be found that most of these men never should have been dispossessed. I am informed that there have been more than one or two suicides as a result of the harsh treatment which the committees have imposed upon these farmers. Therefore, I feel that a public inquiry is necessary regarding these dispossessed farmers. In particular, so far as the expenses of the war agricultural committee are concerned, we had a White Paper presented to us some months ago showing the colossal expenses of these committees. I am not satisfied that that money is spent judiciously. In view of the large sum of money that is involved, there should be some inquiry into the general methods and conduct of these war agricultural committees throughout the country.
  5.48 p.m.
  Mr. Reakes: The importance of this question is such that I think it merits consideration on a much wider basis than that of taking an individual case as has been done by the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis). I appreciate all that he has said, and there is a great deal of virtue in his sug-
  2030
  gestion that there should be a public inquiry. I would like the Minister to consider the wisdom and justice of giving the dispossessed farmer the right of appeal. That is elementary justice. If a bench of magistrates deprives a citizen of his freedom for even a fortnight or a month, that individual has a right of appeal to Quarter Sessions, so that there can be a check on the decision of the bench. If a man in a certain business is to be dispossessed of it under town planning or some other rules of the local town council, that individual has the right of appeal to the Ministry of Health, with the result that an inspector is sent to conduct a local inquiry. Why should not that principle and procedure be followed in dealing with the dispossessed farmer?
  These dispossessed farmers—I have heard the number mentioned as being in the realm of 10,000—who have been deprived of their living and in some cases ruined, have had no opportunity of appealing against that decision. I am sure the Minister will not tell the House to-night that in 10,000 cases of dispossessed farmers there have not been some wrong decisions. If so, it must be an almighty organisation. I am open to wager that there must be many dispossessed farmers who have been wrongly dispossessed. I know of some cases in which there is at least a prima facie case for the dispossessed farmer to go to an appeal tribunal for the decision to be reviewed and considered, without the local prejudices which surround war agricultural committees. It is a matter of vital importance. It is no use saying that the war is nearly over and that we need not bother about it. I can see the food problem of this country being a serious one for some years after the war. I can see the need for stimulating agriculture and giving encouragement to farmers, instead of discouraging them in this wicked fashion.
  I put this suggestion to the Minister, because his Department has been a success. It has had its failures, but of all the Ministries, it is one of the successes, and he has done very well indeed as Minister of Agriculture. But this is a sore point. In certain journals, "Truth" and others, there have been some candid articles published, showing the injustice of this system in allowing a local committee to condemn a farmer, and not giving a dispossessed farmer the right of

  2031
  appeal against that decision. An organisation has been formed which to me is a healthy sign. I hope to address the executive committee of this association on Wednesday week. I hope it will not be necessary for it to continue, because the Minister can say that he will at least consider setting up some form of appeal tribunal in these cases.
  5.52 p.m.
  Mr. Loverseed: I intervene because I have raised this matter on other occasions in the past, and it is one on which I feel very strongly. I feel particularly that the method of appointment of these committees is wrong. In the first place, instead of being appointed on a democratic basis they are hand-picked by the Minister. Many who are serving on these war agricultural executive committees are men who have failed to make a success of farming themselves. Far from being practical farmers, they are, indeed, broken-down farmers. There are men serving as chairmen who are perhaps engineers or bankers, or who follow some other occupation quite remote from farming. It is unfortunately a fact that there has been, in many instances, really harsh treatment of farmers, and farmers feel themselves utterly intimidated by these committees. Some of the cases which have been brought to my notice rather remind one of the Gestapo methods used in the countries against which we are fighting to-day.
  It would be interesting if the Minister could give figures of the number of suicides among dispossessed farmers. I am certain that if that question were pursued, it would be found that there had been more than an odd case or two. I would reinforce the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Reakes), that appeal tribunals should be set up, so that justice may not only be done but may manifestly appear to be done. I know from the correspondence which has passed between the right hon. Gentleman and myself, that he is quite satisfied in his own mind that complete justice is being done by the existence of the independent land commissioner. I am very sorry that on that point I must disagree, because of some of the cases I have seen. I would put to the Minister a suggestion which was made by the hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. G. Hutchinson), in a recent Adjournment
  2032
  Debate on this subject, that the independent land commissioner, when reviewing these cases, should hold his inquiry in public. That would give some measure of satisfaction. The British farmer is in many ways a curious animal, a very independent person. I feel that better results could have been obtained by leading him, rather than by attempting to drive him. I have been deeply impressed by books I have read about the Tennessee Valley Authority in America. One of the outstanding things in the report of the work of that authority is the way they have dealt with their farmers. Instead of these autocratic committees, they have set up voluntary associations, which have genuinely helped the farmers to raise the standard of their farming, to improve their technique, and, incidentally, to raise their standard of living.
  5.57 p.m.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I do not wish to refer, except briefly, to the general and larger issues which have been raised, but I think it is unquestionable that the quality of these committees varies considerably from county to county. My right hon. Friend might look carefully into the possibility of bringing some of the less satisfactory committees up to the standard of the better ones. Even with the less satisfactory committees, it is the case that you hear all the complaints about injustices and so on, while you hear nothing of the great mass of the good work that is done behind the scenes. I would like to say a word about the Hampshire committee, which has been referred to. I farm 800 acres in Hampshire, as a trustee. I have had nothing but great help from the war agricultural executive committee. My only criticism is that they are not quite harsh enough and soon enough in their criticisms. I have many relations in Hampshire, and have lived there almost all my life, and I think I can claim to know the feeling of the Hampshire farmers about their county committee. It is a favourable one, I can say without question; and the members of the committee are unsparing in the time and trouble that they give.
  But it is only fair to say that, thanks to my right hon. Friend the Minister, the war agricultural committee often have to tell farmers to farm their land badly. That is inevitable in war-time, when we mortgage the future in order to get extra heavy

  2033
  yields at the present moment. Hampshire is a county where a great proportion of summer fallow is needed. It is very difficult to get the committee to grant enough summer fallow to any farmer, because they are pushed on by my right hon. Friend to secure the largest possible yield, at the cost of lowering the general efficiency of the land in the future. So far as potatoes are concerned, it is a difficult point. I always feel annoyed when I find I have to grow a certain acreage of potatoes. Only by luck do I get away without making a dead loss. But Hampshire farmers realise that that is part of the contribution they have to make to the war effort, and part of the price they have to pay for the measure of prosperity that my right hon. Friend has guaranteed them. I did not wish to detain the House, but I did wish to say a word in praise of what I believe to be one of the best agricultural executive committees in the country.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. Edgar Granville: I can think of no better way in which to welcome the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture back from the United States—
  It being Six o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major A. S. L. Young.]
  Mr. Granville: —or whichever part of the world he has been visiting, than by holding another Adjournment Debate on the functions of the war agricultural executive committees. We have had a number of these Debates, and the Minister has nearly always given us an inadequate reply, so that I hope that to-night will prove to be the exception. I think we are indebted to the Senior hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis) for having raised this question in the larger sense, and, in particular, as it affects the case which we have had referred to by Question and answer in the House—the case of Mr. Patterson versus the Minister of Agriculture. There has been some reference to the fact that there is no real appeal, but the House of Commons is of course the place of final appeal for the farmer who has some dispute on his hands, and in cases where the machinery is inadequate, and it is the democratic
  2034
  method of appeal through the representative of that farmer's constituency here.
  In this case, Mr. Patterson is a very large farmer. He farms something like 9,000 or 10,000 acres, and he has made a great success of it. He has used new and effective methods. His war record has proved him to be an efficient farmer, and he is one of the farmers whom the Minister of Agriculture should welcome with open arms, because he has produced a great abundance of food and has enabled the right hon. Gentleman to win the bouquets which he has received from time to time for his good record in war-time food production. Here is Mr. Patterson, who can induce a special inquiry by the National Farmers' Union—I am not sure whether it was a national or a county inquiry—
  Mr. Craven-Ellis: My hon. Friend has raised the point before. It was the Hampshire National Farmers' Union which held the inquiry, and their report was submitted to the headquarters of the National Farmers' Union, which discussed the matter with the Minister of Agriculture.
  Mr. Granville: And approved the county recommendation?
  Mr. Craven-Ellis: N.F.U. headquarters? Yes.
  Mr. Granville: Here we have an important farmer farming a great acreage, and the results of a county inquiry are confirmed by Bedford Square.
  The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Granville: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head.
  Mr. Hudson: The hon. Member is quite inaccurate in his statement.
  Mr. Granville: Well, I shall leave it to the right hon. Gentleman to refute that when he comes to reply. One farmer could get that inquiry by the N.F.U. and its helpful organisation, but what about the hundreds and thousands of smaller men who have been dispossessed up and down the country, and for whom there has been no such machinery which could be put into operation in order to safeguard and protect their livelihood and interests? This is a dispute which has arisen, not hundreds of times, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Reakes) said, thousands of times up and down the country.

  2035
  The whole point of this dispute is that the farmer, large or small, knows what his land will grow better than some individuals sent by the Ministery of Agriculture.
  Mr. Hudson: No.
  Mr. Granville: The right hon. Gentleman says "No." I would like to take him to Suffolk, the place which produces the Suffolk punch, and I agree with an hon. Member that the farmer of this country is like the Suffolk punch. You can lead him, but he will not be driven. I would like to take the right hon. Gentleman to the arable county of Suffolk, and let him meet some of the farmers there and discuss these questions of agricultural opinion with him. They would convince him over and over again that the man who has farmed a particular piece of land, just as his father, grandfather and forefathers had done before him, knows very much better than, say, a rival farmer who is one of the right hon. Gentleman's officials exactly what can be produced out of the particular piece of land.
  I am not going to ask how much money has been lost by the dictum of the county war agricultural executive committees by the cultivation of uneconomic land because it has been considered essential for maximum food production. The right hon. Gentleman knew which produce he wanted and the result is that his officials have had to impose conditions on individual farmers. There have been all kinds of suggestions in the House of Commons as to the sort of body which should be set up to enable the farmer to make his appeal when dissatisfied. There is no body. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman again what we have asked the Parliamentary Secretary, How many times has he had a case of this sort submitted to his Department and has reversed the decision of the county war agricultural executive committee? I do not think that there could have been more than two or three occasions on which that has been done—perhaps none at all.
  I ask the Minister, What he is going to do about these committees in the future? The right hon. Gentleman has the reputation of being a strong man who does not bend the knee, but he is a little coy on this matter. He has been putting over the House of Commons one excuse or an-
  2036
  other. On one occasion he said he was not in a position because, however much he would like to do so, he had received instructions not to give an indication of Government policy. The right hon. Gentleman has now finished his tour abroad and it is time that he told Parliament and the industry of agriculture his post-war policy, particularly with regard to the function of war agricultural executive committees after he has finished his war food production programme. He knows what the National Farmers' Union have decided about this and that their policy is about to be issued, or has been issued, on a long-term programme for agriculture.
  I have heard it said that the National Farmers' Union's long-term policy on agriculture is in favour of a continuation of county war agricultural executive committees, with certain modifications in the controls. If that is the case, is there any other reason why the Minister cannot tell Parliament and the countryside what his policy is to be in the future? He has consulted agricultural workers, landowners and the National Farmers' Union and, in fact, every kind of body. I want him to consult the House of Commons and to make a declaration of policy on behalf of His Majesty's Government; or is it being kept as something to be put into the shop window for the General Election? That is not good enough. The Minister of Agriculture has a good record behind him and I want him to have a good record if he is to continue as Minister of Agriculture in the future. I warn him to-night that there is a growing feeling among farmers and agricultural workers that he is not acting in a completely straightforward way with the industry in this important matter of the declaration of His Majesty's Government's long-term policy. He has given us his four-year plan, or whatever it has been called. He has told us that there are prices up to the harvest of 1947 or 1948, but that in itself is not enough.
  Finally, I want to know what is to happen to all these farmers who have been dispossessed. Are they to be given the first opportunity to get back their farms which are held at the moment by the right hon. Gentleman through his committees? Are they to be given the opportunity to take over those farms when we go into peace production? And what will be the financial arrangements?

  2037
  We have told the Minister over and over again that some of these men were unfairly dispossessed. Some of them had 20 years of unfavourable conditions and depression on their shoulders with mortgages and so on. They ought to be given the opportunity to enjoy the new conditions which the right hon. Gentleman has given to the county committees. He knows the fear which is gripping the hearts of the agricultural economist and agriculturist in this country to-day; it is the fear that he will repeat what happened with the repeal of the Corn Production Act after the end of the last war. Therefore, the time has come for the Minister to make it quite clear whether these committees will continue after the war as part of the set-up. I ask the Minister therefore, in replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, who raised this case and the question of these committees generally, to tell us now plainly what is to be their future in the post-war period. But above all let us have the Government's post-war policy now.
  6.12 p.m.
  The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): It might be tempting to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) but I am quite sure it would be out of Order, because his proposal requires legislation, and an Adjournment Debate is not the occasion for such a statement. The hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis) raised this question to-night and dealt in particular with the case of Mr. Patterson. I do not propose to go in detail into that case because I hope it has been settled and, as at present advised, I understand that Mr. Patterson has agreed with the Committee on his cropping programme, and I do not want to do or say anything that will make future relations more difficult now that this dispute has been got out of the way.
  Mr. Craven-Ellis: May I interrupt—
  Mr. Hudson: No, I have very little time. On the general question, I would say this. The hon. Member for Southampton asked that war agricultural committees should co-operate, and not dominate the farmers in their areas. That is exactly what they are doing. They are co-operating, or endeavouring to co-operate, with farmers, and it is only when the farmer refuses to co-operate that the
  2038
  committee are compelled, in the national interest, to take action. The hon. Member for Southampton suggested that there was something inherently wrong in the idea of a committee issuing directions to a large farmer like Mr. Patterson, farming some 9,000 acres and graded as an "A" farmer. What actually happens, however, is that the local war agricultural executive committees have been entrusted by me with the responsibility of seeing that maximum food production is obtained by the individual farmers in the light of all the circumstances.
  Experience has shown us that the best way to do that is to discuss at the beginning of the year with the individual farmer how his fields should be cropped. If, as in the overwhelming majority of cases, there is agreement between the farmer and the local district committee of farmers, that programme is sent to the executive committee, and sanctioned as a matter of course. In the case of Hampshire, a formal letter is written to the farmer, agreeing to the programme. But if it is decided that the total area of wheat, for example, to be grown by a farmer is 200 acres, it does not mean, as the hon. Member seems to think, that it is sufficient for that farmer to grow 200 acres of wheat in any fields he likes. What he is required to do is to sow particular fields with wheat, and it may as a coincidence happen that the acreage of those fields adds up to 200 acres. If, on the other hand, after a letter has been issued and agreement has been reached, there are other circumstances which result in the farmer thinking that it would be better to alter the cropping of a certain field, it is always open to him to approach his local committee and, through them, the executive committee, put forward his views, and reach agreement.
  The objection we had to what Mr. Patterson was doing was that he was not carrying that out; he was claiming that he was entitled to alter his cropping programme at his own sweet will, and it was only in order to stop that, and to be fair to more than 90 per cent. of the farmers who were loyally carrying out the agreements they had made, that we had to step in. We had to step in and take action because the agreement reached was not being carried out. I quote the Patterson case only to show that we are co-operating with farmers, that we have reached agreement with 95 to 98 per cent.

  2039
  of the farmers and that it is only in the small minority of cases that we have to step in and use the very drastic powers which Parliament conferred upon me and which, in turn, I have delegated to my committees.
  The hon. Member for Southampton and the hon. Member for Eye asserted that they would be interested to know what losses had been incurred by farmers as a result of carrying out instructions and following the advice given to them by the war agricultural executive committees. Well, if you are to make an inquiry into the losses suffered by a few farmers as a result of following advice, it is necessary, at the same time, to make inquiries as to profits made by others as a result of carrying out advice. I do not think that when you put the two sides of the balance sheet together you would have much difficulty in deciding whether the advice of committees has been good or bad.
  Mr. Granville: I was asking the Minister whether he could indicate the losses on farms which were actually being farmed by his representatives.
  Mr. Hudson: I understood the hon. Member was asking about losses made by individual farmers as a result of carrying out advice. But if he is talking about the financial result of farming by my committees, it is relevant to bear in mind that, ex hypothesi, we started with only the worst land, derelict land, which no farmer could be got to take over. The figures of dispossessions include odd fields in towns owned by building speculators, who left them derelict and made no use of them at all. It must not be thought that every single case of dispossession is that of an active farmer engaged on his own farm.
  The hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Reakes) suggested that there were numbers of wrong decisions taken. I have always said that Members in this House form a court of appeal. The real safeguard to the farmer, in my view, is twofold. In the first place, he is not condemned unheard. He has a full written statement of the reasons why we take exception to his particular mode of farming. He has an opportunity of appealing, with friends or anyone to help him, before the executive committee. There is then an independent examination by my land commissioner
  2040
  and, finally, there is this honourable House as a final court of appeal. I have made a number of detailed investigations following complaints from individual Members and I have yet to find a case in which, in my honest and sincere judgment, we have made a wrong decision. I have investigated a number of cases over and over again, because the same man has written to successive Members of Parliament.
  Mr. Loverseed: Is not the investigation made by the same people who dispossessed them?
  Mr. Hudson: No. I have sent independent investigators when there was any shadow of doubt, and I have yet to come across a case in which, on the facts, the decision taken was wrong.
  The hon. Member for Southampton referred repeatedly to the N.F.U. In the Patterson case it was the local branch and not the headquarters of the N.F.U. who raised it. Although the N.F.U. headquarters intervened and asked that we should give it special consideration, I do not think it is accurate to say that N.F.U. headquarters ever told us that they considered the case made by the local branch was well-founded.
  Mr. Driberg: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the point about the possibility of having a simple local inquiry by the commissioner, in public, and, secondly, may I ask on what basis the committees grade farms "A" and "B"? Is it on efficiency of management, or on quantity of output, because the two factors do not always exactly coincide?
  Mr. Hudson: To a great extent, both. There are two farms with which the hon. Member for Southampton is himself associated, one run by him, and one by a tenant. They both happen to be graded "B" plus. In one place the arable cultivation is good but the milk production poor, and in the other the milk production is good but the arable cultivation poor. Taking either one or the other, they would be "A," but the supplementary side of the farms not being good enough brings both down into "B." Both factors are taken into account.
  Mr. Driberg: The local inquiry?
  Mr. Hudson: I do not think that would be a sound idea. Possibly, when we come

  2041
  to consider the post-war set-up the House, or my successor, may decide that on the whole, when supply and demand are balanced, there are advantages The whole question will have then to be discussed. All I can say at present is that I do not see any advantage in it, and having regard to the details of the cases, the very harrowing details in many cases, and of the reasons why we have to dispossess a man, I do not think the man himself would do other than suffer from a public inquiry. At present the person who is dispossessed has the chance of getting something else, and I am satisfied from the cases I have seen that very often, if the full facts came out at an inquiry, his chances of getting another farm would be very small. In the farmer's own interest, therefore, we had better leave things as they are.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): Mr. Loftus.
  Mr. Craven-Ellis: I should like to ask the Minister a question.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think we can have a series of questions after the Minister has sat down and I had called Mr. Loftus.
  6.26 p.m.
  Mr. Loftus: While I admit fully the validity and strength of my right
  2042
  hon. Friend's argument about a court of appeal, I think we all have a feeling that, if possible, there should be, in certain cases at any rate, some kind of further appeal. I therefore suggest that there should be some method of appeal if the county war agricultural committee differ from the district agricultural committee. They are two bodies of farmers, and possibly the men with the local knowledge may differ from the central county committee. I therefore suggest that, if a court of appeal cannot be set up wherever there is a difference of opinion between the district committee and the county committee whether a man should be dispossessed, special inquiries should be made.
  Mr. Hudson rose—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I really do not see how the Minister can make another speech.
  Mr. Driberg: Would there be any objection to the Parliamentary Secretary replying?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: He is showing no intention of doing so.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes after Six o'Clock.

COAL INDUSTRY
  Domestic Supplies
  Domestic Supplies
  Directed Labour
  Directed Labour
  Dumped Coal (Prices)
  Dumped Coal (Prices)
  Reorganisation (Minister's Speech)
  Reorganisation (Minister's Speech)
  Opencast Mining
  Opencast Mining
  FRANCE (COALMINES)
  FRANCE (COALMINES)
BRITISH ARMY
  Compassionate Leave
  Compassionate Leave
  Overseas Service (Home Posting)
  Overseas Service (Home Posting)
  Overseas Marriages (Permission)
  Overseas Marriages (Permission)
  R.A.M.C. Officers, India and Burma (Demobilisation)
  R.A.M.C. Officers, India and Burma (Demobilisation)
  Auxiliary Territorial Service
  Auxiliary Territorial Service
  Wounded Soldiers (Discharge)
  Wounded Soldiers (Discharge)
  Substantive and Temporary Rank
  Substantive and Temporary Rank
  British Guiana (British Subjects, Allowances)
  British Guiana (British Subjects, Allowances)
  Helmsley Camp
  Helmsley Camp
  Glider Pilot Regiment
  Glider Pilot Regiment
  War Correspondents (Women)
  War Correspondents (Women)
  Indian Soldiers (Home Leave)
  Indian Soldiers (Home Leave)
  Pipe Tobacco
  Pipe Tobacco
  Regiments (War Service Abroad)
  Regiments (War Service Abroad)
  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR
  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR
  CHINA (WAR SUPPLIES)
  CHINA (WAR SUPPLIES)
  LIBERATED ITALY (FOOD SUPPLIES)
  LIBERATED ITALY (FOOD SUPPLIES)
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (PAYMENT)
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (PAYMENT)
SCOTLAND
  Department of Health (Staff Transfers)
  Department of Health (Staff Transfers)
  Teachers' Salaries
  Teachers' Salaries
  Maternity Services, Glasgow
  Maternity Services, Glasgow
  Smallpox
  Smallpox
  POST OFFICE (SUB-POSTMASTERS, PAY AND CONDITIONS)
  POST OFFICE (SUB-POSTMASTERS, PAY AND CONDITIONS)
  PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICERS
  PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICERS
  FUEL AND POWER (LAMP OIL)
  FUEL AND POWER (LAMP OIL)
  RAILWAY SERVICE, LONDON AND ILFORD
  RAILWAY SERVICE, LONDON AND ILFORD
NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Ministry's Offices
  Ministry's Offices
  Legislation
  Legislation
  Old Age Pensions
  Old Age Pensions
AGRICULTURE
  Post-War Policy
  Post-War Policy
  Derbyshire War Executive Committee
  Derbyshire War Executive Committee
  Local Authorities' Land (Rents)
  Local Authorities' Land (Rents)
  EVACUEE BOY (TREATMENT)
  EVACUEE BOY (TREATMENT)
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Mobilised Doctors (Refresher Courses)
  Mobilised Doctors (Refresher Courses)
  Medical Officers (Service Overseas)
  Medical Officers (Service Overseas)
  CAPITAL SENTENCES
  CAPITAL SENTENCES
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Business Visits Abroad
  Business Visits Abroad
  Women's Handbags
  Women's Handbags
HOUSING
  Prefabricated Dwellings
  Prefabricated Dwellings
  Man-Power
  Man-Power
  PENSIONS AND GRANTS
  PENSIONS AND GRANTS
  LETTER (POSTAL CENSORSHIP)
  LETTER (POSTAL CENSORSHIP)
  BILL PRESENTED
    HYDRO-ELECTRIC UNDERTAKINGS (VALUATION FOR RATING) (SCOTLAND) BILL
    HYDRO-ELECTRIC UNDERTAKINGS (VALUATION FOR RATING) (SCOTLAND) BILL
    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
The Lord Strathcarron—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
WAGES COUNCILS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, before moving that the House be put into Committee on this Bill, I should like, if I may, to reply to a point which was raised by my noble friend Lord Jessel on the Second Reading. He asked whether co-opted members would retire under Section 67 or 68 of the Local Government Act, 1933. I have made inquiries and am informed that neither of these sections is applicable in this instance. All councillors, including those who have been co-opted, will retire in November, 1945, under Clause 5 (2) of this Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl very much for his explanation. It has settled a doubt which has arisen among the various experts in local government, and there has been a good deal of wagering on the question as to which interpretation is right. I believe the sums involved were not excessive, half a crown being the limit. Now, of course, the whole matter is off, because the decision given by the Government,
912
for which I am much obliged, is that neither the one nor the other section of the Act applies. I am afraid that the local government register will be rather complicated under this Bill, though it cannot be helped, because there are four different categories. There is the civilian voter, the Service voter—who, by the way, cannot vote by post, but has to vote by proxy—the business voter, and the noble Lords who belong to this Assembly. So it is rather complicated, but I have no doubt that the registration officers will do their best.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly; Bill reported without amendment.

LAW REFORM (CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE) BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendment read.
2.6 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the business of the House, but I only want to say a word in support of this Bill, because I was not able to be here on the day of the Second Reading. It seems to me such an admirable measure and one so very much needed in correcting a very grave injustice in our law, which has lasted far too long. I think our thanks are very much due to the Government for having taken this matter up, and to the Lord Chancellor himself for having moved in it. I hope he will not be weary in well doing and that he will try to correct a great many other very grave injustices. I hope also that the Government will see to it that this Bill has as eventful and successful a career in another place as it has had here, and that they will not allow it to be crowded out by matters of greater splendour but less importance.
On Question, Motion agreed to: Amendment reported accordingly.

INDIA (ESTATE DUTY) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

FUTURE OF EUROPE.
2.8 p.m.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the need for encouraging the federation of all European democracies; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the question underlying my Motion this afternoon, I submit, is whether we can find some means of preventing a third world war in another five, ten, or fifteen years' time. I further wish to submit to your Lordships' House, that up to the present no means have been discovered of preventing war between nations except that of uniting them in a federation, and if there is one hot-bed from which wars spring it is the Continent of Europe. It is for that reason that I wish to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will not use their influence to try to help in the promotion of a federation of the democracies of Europe, which, one can also hope, will in time lead to a federation of all European countries.
I should like to say that, in moving this Motion, I am speaking for myself, and not for the Labour Party, who have not considered this question yet; and also that I hope it may be treated as a non-Party question. It vitally concerns all of us, and it would be indeed disastrous if it came into the arena of Party politics as a matter of controversy. The chief argument I have heard against this idea is that it is impracticable, that people are not ready for it, and that the idea is still an ideal. But if people are not ready for federation, they are also not ready for peace. I myself cannot take such a pessimistic outlook as that. In regard to its impracticability, if our Prime Minister, during the darkest days which this country perhaps has ever known, offered to France a complete federal union, I cannot believe that the idea is fundamentally so impracticable as people would like to make out. In fact, I suppose any projects for the advancement of mankind have mot with opposition and criticism of all kinds. One has only to remember the tremendous opposition to the proposal for the abolition of slavery, or again the opposition to such accepted things as universal education or universal adult suffrage, to realize that any new idea must invite ridicule, criticism and opposition.
If your Lordships will forgive me for a moment, I will quote a very distinguished Liberal philosopher, a man of letters and a writer, the famous Josiah Tucker, Dean of Gloucester, who was writing at the time when the American States were being formed into a federation or at least when the idea was being hotly disputed both in this country and even more so in America. He said, writing at the time:
"As for the future grandeur of America and its being a rising empire under one head, whether republican or monarchical, it is one of the idlest and most visionary notions that was ever conceived, even by writers of romance. The mutual antipathies and clashing interests of the Americans, their differences of governments, habitudes and manners, indicate that they will have no centre of union and no common interest. They never can be united into one compact empire under any species of government whatever; a disunited people till the end of time, suspicious and distrustful of each other, they will be divided and sub-divided into little commonwealths or principalities, according to natural boundaries, by great bays of the sea, and by vast rivers, lakes, and ridges of mountains."
I quoted that particular passage, because it was not an exceptional opinion, but one universally held at the time in this country and almost universally held among the people of the American States themselves. And yet, in a few years from the writing of this passage, the greatest federation of the world was formed by the genius and the efforts of George Washington and Alexander Hamilton.
The problems of Europe are very great indeed which call to be solved in this way; but no greater than those problems which faced the founders of American federation, which met endless criticism and difficulty but which was finally brought about. Unfortunately, however, those great American statesmen did make one fatal compromise in order to get this measure through, and to get the Constitution confirmed: instead of insisting on democracy throughout the union, they allowed slavery to be continued in the south and this brought such disunity and disharmony into the body politic that it was only finally resolved by a bitter civil war. For these reasons I would suggest that this proposed federation of European States should, and must, be founded on democracy. The Central Assembly, and President, if they had one, must be elected by the people; not chosen by different Governments, but elected by the whole people. The armaments, the armed forces, must be exclusively under the

915
control of the Federal Assembly and the Federal Police must have the right of acting against or seizing the individual. Without those safeguards it would always be possible for some group to try and seize power; and the union would never be truly united.
Once one begins to examine the question of this federal union, it is surprising how many of the problems, which up to now have seemed almost insoluble, become quite easy of solution. I want to give you only one example and it concerns perhaps one of the most difficult problems in Europe to-day—that of Germany. Germany, when she has been defeated, as she surely will be and I hope soon, when the country has been occupied and disarmed and when the Nazi Party shall have been obliterated—what then? I am sure that none of the United Nations in practice will be willing indefinitely to keep enormous Armies of Occupation in that country. It is impracticable. No one would consent to it for ever. You cannot do it. On the other hand, if you split Germany up into little States, then you awaken an uncrushable desire for cohesion, for drawing together again, If you parcel Germany out and give bits to other countries, you have that same desire for cohesion and you add the problem of hostile and oppressed minorities. If, on the other hand, you leave Germany as one State, what is to stop her eventually building up her armaments and power again? If, again, you crush and utterly destroy her means of carrying on heavy industry, you not only ruin Germany but you impoverish all Europe. It is a terrible problem. I submit that this scheme of federal union does solve that problem.
By offering eventually—not immediately but eventually—to the German people, the opportunity of becoming part of the Federation of Europe, you give to the young man and young woman of Germany the prospect of a future, of a decent, prosperous, contented life, with their country one of the European comity of nations; at the same time, the prospect of getting rid of Allied control and supervision is the greatest inducement for the Germans to create a democratic State. Once you have Germany in the federation, a part of it, automatically all her armaments, all her armament factories, and her war potential become actually
916
part of the Federal Government, belonging to and controlled by it; and any armed German men, whether soldiers, sailors or airmen, become merely platoons or companies in federal regiments or divisions. In other words, at one blow you destroy Germany's power of making war and yet you do not give her that feeling of inferiority, of being a State permanently subjected to foreign rule. That is just one problem.
I should have thought the chance of eliminating war from this Continent of Europe alone ought to be enough to make us support this notion of federal union. But there are, of course, very many other advantages. We do find in Europe a Continent that, through the accidents of history and of conquest, has been divided arbitrarily into little States, having arbitrary boundaries or frontiers, and each little State having its ruling clique or group of industrialists, controlling the frontiers, stopping goods coming in and going out purely for their own advantage, and disregarding the advantage of the common man. Now the rehabilitation of Europe is again going to be a fantastic problem for us, and I submit that unless we can use all the resources, all the labour, and all the equipment of Europe to the best possible advantage, this problem is going to be insoluble, and the whole European economic system may very easily go down into chaos and disintegration with incalculable disaster to Europe and the whole world.
For that reason alone I think we ought to support the scheme which gets rid of artificial frontiers and boundaries. For instance, if machinery is wanted in the Balkans and agricultural produce is wanted in Central Europe, exchange must take place easily and quickly whatever frontiers are between the different sources of supply. For that reason alone it is expedient that a federation should be formed. But I would not like to suggest for a moment that countries should be forced into federation. That would be fatal. I do suggest, however, that once this union has been effective, with a sufficient number of countries forming it, the advantages will be so great that the countries remaining outside will beg to join; just as North Carolina and Rhode Island refused originally to join the American Union, which they looked on with grave suspicion, yet when they saw

917
the inestimable advantages that came out of that union, begged to be allowed to come in, and they have remained in ever since.
The question that may be in your Lordships mind is: What is the position of Great Britain to such a proposed union? Should we join in? I submit that every advantage, both of security and of trade, would urge this country to become part of such a union, for it has every advantage that one can conceive of, not only to Great Britain but to the Dominions. That may seem a novel idea, but it is not altogether novel to some of the leading statesmen in the Dominions. The Dominions realize that whatever happens in Europe affects England. We cannot escape being affected by what happens on the Continent, divided from it as we are by such a narrow strip of sea. Surely therefore they would prefer to become part of a big powerful union or federation rather than to remain outside and yet be liable to be dragged into a third world war, through a conflict occurring in Europe which England could not prevent but in which she could not help but be involved, at the same time bringing in the Dominions.
What is the alternative to this idea? I think the old idea of a balance of power by which one nation—Britain, for example—tried to keep the balance between two hostile and powerful groups is now so finally discredited that we need no longer argue about it. Ii3ut two other proposals have been made. One is a revival of the League of Nations and the other is a Grand Alliance for Peace. I submit that for the purpose we should have in view both these schemes are useless. They are useless in regard to keeping the peace because of the very nature of their composition and structure. The failure of the League of Nations was not due, I am convinced, entirely to the ill will or the wrong-headedness of the statesmen or the nations concerned, but to the way it was built up. You have in such a League national sovereignty of every State; in fact the primary object of the League must be, not the maintenance of peace but the maintenance of the sovereignty of those States composing it. That is the difficulty. Therefore delegates remain delegates of the different national Governments. You cannot give executive power and you must preserve unanimity. If you part with that,
918
you part with the national sovereignty of the countries, and this they will not stand.
As a result there is no machinery for stopping hostilities or keeping the peace; or such machinery as there is will be cumbersome because all decisions must be referred back to the different Governments. And supposing that you ever get to the stage, which is highly unlikely, that each country in the League committed itself to attack an aggressor immediately such aggression took place, yet if one country in the League attacks another by the time the League has decided which is the aggressor, and that they are going to take steps to stop it, perhaps two small nations will have been completely overwhelmed by the suddenness of the attack. For that reason small nations are very reluctant to commit themselves. The Grand Alliance, which I do not want to go into to-day in any detail, has many of the faults of the League with this one added, that it tends to bring about a counter-alliance and to make nations which are not included in it extremely hostile to it. A famous caricaturist in this country has epitomized it by saying "Who is to police the policemen?" That is the rock on which a league or alliance must founder.
I do not want in this Motion to discuss the structure of the Federation of Europe, whether it should have a President according to the model of the United States or whether it should have a Council according to the model of the Swiss Federation, or whether we should follow closely the Soviet Union, which has been successful in bringing together different nationalities with their different languages and cultures. Those are obviously questions for a Constituent Assembly. What I wish to urge upon His Majesty's Government is, in the first place, that they should lend a friendly ear or give a helping hand to any efforts which are made to build up this federation, and secondly, that this country should commit itself, to saying it might join such a federation; the moral effect of that would be enormous. Finally, I particularly wish to ask the Minister who is replying to this debate whether he would give facilities to any delegates from this country to attend a conference after the cessation of hostilities, if such a conference could be convened.
We are, I think, at a very critical moment of history and unless we take a great stride forward and look at new ideas

919
we shall face very disastrous results. Machines, and particularly the aeroplane, have brought the world closer together as never before and co-operation is needed; yet we still insist on sticking to the old conception of completely independent national sovereign States which was evolved at a time when there was a world of scarcity and when different nations and groups bickered and fought against each other for the various scraps available. Now we have abundance and I suggest that we must use it. The biggest drawback to our making use of co-operation to exploit the machinery to our own ends is the bogy of national sovereignty. This idea has grown enormously in the last few centuries and in consequence the State has become deified, with such disastrous results as we have all seen in Germany, Japan and Italy, where the State has absolutely ignored the welfare of the individual and this abstraction has become a sort of Moloch to which hundreds of thousands of men must be sacrificed.
A curious thing about it is that the more sovereignty is given up by any individual State the greater the freedom to the individual. That may for a moment sound rather like a paradox, but I would like to give an example. If we compare a citizen of, say, France or Czechoslovakia with a citizen of New York State before the war, the citizen of France or whichever country you like to take could not sell goods throughout the Continent; if he wished to sell to Germany or Spain there were tariffs and restrictions, and he probably had to get export licences and goodness knows what else. If he wished to travel, to go and live or to find work elsewhere, in another country, he had to get a visa or permit and he might well have his permit absolutely refused because another nation did not like his race, his nationality, his trade or his politics. On the other hand, he was also liable to enormous taxation. A big part of his income or earnings was taken to support huge national armies against his neighbour and he might have to dedicate many years of his life to military service.
Look at the citizen in America. He can travel throughout the Union with no restrictions, no visas. He can get work where he likes, sell his goods where he likes in any State, and his relative taxation is far less than in any country in Europe. Finally, he was not subject to
920
military service. He did not have to support a horde of officials guarding frontiers and levying Customs Duties, nor to support a huge army against his neighbours. With all these advantages he slept in security knowing he would not be attacked by neighbouring States. These advantages, I submit, come entirely from the federation of the United States and from the fact that the national sovereignty of Maine and Massachusetts was given up to the greater good of the whole, and of the individual man. It seems to me that the case for federation is almost unanswerable. But an answer is made that the people are not ready for it, that it is a new idea and that we cannot suggest such ideas to the people until they realize more about them. I want to end by giving one quotation. During the great days of the Convention in the United States when this issue of federation was being fought out, exactly the same arguments were being used against it. George Washington then used these words, which are as applicable today as then:
"It is too probable that no plan we propose will be adopted. Perhaps another dreadful conflict is to be sustained. If, to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterward defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair. The event is in the hand of God."
I beg to move for Papers.
2.32 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE)(Lord Cecil): My Lords, I imagine that every noble Lord in this House is in favour of the main aim of preventing future wars which I understand the noble Earl had in mind in tabling his Motion to-day. But I am bound to say that, even after listening to the extremely eloquent plea he has put forward, his actual proposal for the immediate federation of European democracies seems to me so far from the realm of reality that I find considerable difficulty even in framing a Government reply to it. I could not help being reminded as I listened to him—I hope he will appreciate that I say this in no flippant or irreverent spirit—of those subjects that used to be put down for discussion in college debating societies, in which many of your Lordships must have taken part in your earlier years. You will remember very well those subjects. We

921
used to look them up in the reference books and then we spoke out what we had to say; and we all had an extremely enjoyable evening. In academic debates of that kind, no doubt, it might very will be argued that it would be an admirable thing if all the nations of Europe, or indeed of the world, were combined in one federation, with a single Government and a single Legislature.
It is not impossible, as the noble Earl has shown with great skill to-day, to build up paper arguments in favour of a proposition of that kind; and I would be very ready to agree that at some future date that might provide a solution of the problem of Europe. We should not rule it out as an extremely long-term policy. After all, we in this country, incorporated the seven States of the Heptarchy in a single Kingdom, and later we added the principality of Wales and, later still, by mutual agreement, the Kingdom of Scotland. It is not for us to turn down in principle the incorporation of States into larger units. But that process, to which I have referred in the case of our own country, was an extremely lengthy process which took many centuries to complete. It was in no way analogous to the noble Earl's present proposal. Would anyone who has practical experience of international affairs to-day regard the federation of the democracies of Europe as a practical proposition, at the present stage of the Continent's development? I do submit that that to-day is merely a subject for academic debate and no more. And your Lordships' House is not a debating society. It is a body of very different character. It is a body concerned with the moulding of practical policy, the framing of practical laws. We have here to deal with the events of the present and the near future. We have to be realistic. We have to take account of practical possibilities in the present extremely tangled situation. While therefore I would pay tribute to the high-minded impulses which led the noble Earl to raise this subject to-day, I am hound to say that I hardly think his proposal justifies the very serious consideration of your Lordships' House.
Within the whole of my experience of foreign affairs, which goes back a number of years, I have never heard this proposition ventilated by any responsible statesman in any country large or small, either
922
here in London or in earlier days in Geneva. No doubt, to-day, a very definite move in favour of closer international co-operation has set in and we all welcome it. It was the governing impulse behind the League of Nations. It was the impulse behind the Dumbarton Oaks proposals. But some forms of international co-operation come within the realm of practical possibilities; others do not. I should have thought the present proposal of the noble Earl, if he will allow me to say so, certainly comes in the latter category.
The word "federation" is very loosely used nowadays. But what in fact does it mean? It implies a single Central Government responsible for the whole federal area and responsible to every citizen in that area. It implies a single Legislature elected directly, as the noble Earl himself said, by the citizens of the whole area, a Legislature in which decisions are reached by majority vote. It implies, to give an instance, that the votes of Yugoslavs and Spaniards would regulate the domestic affairs of the Norwegians and the Dutch, Is that a practicable proposition at the present time? Is it to be imagined that it would be acceptable to the peoples themselves—not merely to the Governments, but to the peoples concerned? Federation involves a certain uniformity of standards of life throughout the whole area, if the social and other legislation to be passed by the Central Legislature is to be generally acceptable. It involves even more than that. It involves a common outlook on life which does not I am afraid at present exist in the different parts of Europe. The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, referred to the United States of America and quoted an extremely eloquent passage referring to the growth of the federal idea before federation was actually completed. But that was not an analogous situation. In the United States there were certain issues on which there was disagreement. But the solid basis of civilization was the same, or much more nearly the same than is the case in Europe.
I have heard the proposal put forward that there should be federation within the States of the British Commonwealth. There, at any rate, some of the necessary basic conditions prevail. The electors of such a federation would at any rate be people of similar origin, of similar traditions,

923
of similar standards of civilization. But even that proposal, I can assure your Lordships, from my experience at the Dominions Office, is at present entirely academic. The peoples of the Dominions would be quite unwilling to surrender the conduct of their internal affairs to an outside body. And how much more would that be so in the case of the nations of Europe, which are so widely different in their traditions and ways of life. Nor is there any reason that I can see to suppose that continents necessarily constitute the best units for Federal States. On the contrary, as your Lordships know, strategic, economic, even spiritual and cultural interests often cut right across continental boundaries. Arguments can very well be put forward for a Confederation of Europe; but that is a different matter. A confederation is a far more loosely knit institution, based on constituent States, which may differ to a considerable extent in their internal affairs and the internal structure of their Governments. But even a Confederation of Europe is, I am afraid, still a very long way off.
I hope that the House will not feel that I have spoken in any purely negative or captious spirit. I recognize, as much as any one of your Lordships, the need for building machinery for closer international co-operation. That is perhaps the most essential task that faces us at the present time. But the right line of approach, surely, is that represented by the League of Nations, and by the Dumbarton Oaks proposals. The noble Earl, I thought, rather derided the League. He said that it had utterly failed. No doubt, the League was not perfect—I do not think anyone would pretend that it was. But I could not accept the noble Earl's view that such an organization as the League is inherently impracticable, that such a conception as the League could in no circumstances succeed. I would have thought that it was at any rate a great deal more practicable than the proposal which the noble Earl has put forward. He, himself, said—at least I understood him to say—that the League failed because nations were unwilling to agree to any derogation of their sovereignty. How then can he expect them to agree to the abolition of their sovereignty altogether? It seems an extremely illogical conclusion at which he has arrived.
924
I feel certain that the right line of approach is by means of a world-wide organization with provision for special regional co-operation for special purposes. Of course different functions may need different regional boundaries—that is quite a possibility. I do not think that we ought to tie ourselves down to any rigidly uniform structure. We must be ready to try any experiment that seems likely to promote co-operation in the particular sphere concerned. It may be that the Continent of Europe may prove the most convenient unit for one or more of these special purposes. I would give as an instance, land transport. You might have a regional organization for that purpose, and, in such a case, one might fairly hope that the experimental machinery which was set up would, in time, grow into a permanent institution. And there may very well be other ways in which Europe can be knit more closely together. I would not rule out anything that took account of realities. But do let us use common sense on these questions. Do not let us publicly, either as a Government or as a people, recommend schemes which have no chance of general acceptance at the present time or even, I should have thought, in the near future.
To my mind, the proposition which the noble Earl has put forward might very properly form the subject of a few sentences in a speech in a general foreign affairs debate, indicating the ultimate aims towards which our children and our children's children should work in the future. But it provides, I am afraid, no remedy for our present distresses, and for His Majesty's Government to father this policy, as the noble Earl suggested, would be of no benefit either to ourselves or to others. We must put first things first. We must get on with schemes for the reconstruction of Europe which are likely to be acceptable to the countries concerned, and then, after that, we can consider what further steps may be practicable. Therefore, while I fully recognize that the noble Earl has spoken in all good faith, I feel sure that he and we shall be wise to keep our eyes on the immediate future if we are not to fall into the error of Little Johnny Head-in-Air, of whose lamentable fate your Lordships are well aware.
2.43 p.m.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House by any further consideration of this subject. I would, however, like to thank the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, for his very full and courteous reply to this Motion of mine. My justification for bringing it forward is that I do think that in these dreadfully difficult days, when we are facing such dreadful issues, any ideas like these are better to be put forward and discussed rather than kept hidden away in some closed box for future use. There are just two points upon which I would like to touch. First, I forgot to mention that there would be this great aid for the federation of Europe: we have, on the whole, one culture. Owing to the Roman conquest and the spread of Christianity throughout all European nations, in one form or another, there are certain fundamental views which we do share in common. The other point relates to what the noble Viscount said with regard to sovereignty. He said that if nations were unwilling to give away their sovereignty under a league, how much less likely would they be to do so under a federation. I think that if we look at the examples afforded us by America, Russia, and Switzerland, we shall find that they realize that there is mere safety in a federation than there could be in a league. I do not wish to keep the House any longer, and I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL [H.L.]

BUCKS WATER BOARD BILL [H.L.]
NORTH DEVON WATER BOARD BILL [H.L.]
PLYMPTON ST. MARY RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
REIGATE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
SOUTH SHIELDS CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD BILL [H.L.]
Committed: the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

PONTYPOOL GAS AND WATER BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of Parliaments had laid on the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the Bill have been complied with.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
The House adjourned at a quarter before three o'clock.