Sitting of 6 November 1945

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

SUPREME COURT: PRIZE, ETC., DEPOSIT ACCOUNT, 1939–1945
Account ordered,
"of the Receipts and Payments of the Accounting Officer of the Vote for the Supreme Court on behalf of the Admiralty Division in Prize for the period from 3rd September, 1939, to 31st March, 1945, with a Copy of a Letter from the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  LONDON SQUARES (CLOSING)
  Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he is aware of the recent closing of Berkeley Square Garden to the public; and if he will prevent the closing to the public of other London squares which have been open to them during the war years.
  The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Silkin): On the advice of the curator of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, the Westminister city council, who are at present responsible for the maintenance of Berkeley Square Garden, have temporarily closed the garden for a period of six months to ensure the preservation of the trees. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Waterloo (Captain Bullock) on 29th October, of which I will send him a copy.
  Mr. Davies: While appreciating that reply, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that the property surrounding
  1058
  many of these squares is today occupied by commercial concerns, so that the uses to which the squares were put when they were residential no longer exist, and many office workers will be deprived of their use if they are closed?
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the acquisition of those squares which are surrounded by commercial premises, to save them from being closed?
  Mr. Silkin: The Question referred to one particular square, the closing of which is temporary. As regards acquisition, I am in favour of it.

  REQUISITIONED OFFICE SPACE, LONDON
  Captain Gammansasked the Minister of Works how many rooms are occupied by his Ministry in Lambeth Bridge House, Cleland House, Westminster, and Dean Stanley House, Westminster; and the total number of staff employed therein.
  The Minister of Works (Mr. Tomlinson): The number of rooms occupied by the Ministry of Works in Lambeth Bridge House and Cleland House, Westminster, is 591. The total number of staff employed therein is 2,027. Dean Stanley House, Westminster, is not in use, but two rooms in Stanley House are occupied by 12 staff.
  Captain Gammans: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of the Government setting a good example by vacating some of this property?
  Mr. Speaker: That is a matter of opinion.
  Sir Harold Webbeasked the Minister of Works how many square feet of office space, at the address in Westminster of which he has been informed, are now under requisition; by what Government Departments they are now occupied; and what was the average number of staff working there during each of the last three months.
  Mr. Tomlinson: In the building referred to 230,128 sq. ft. of office space and 16,170 sq. ft. of basement space are held on requisition. The accommodation is mainly occupied by the Ministry of

  1059
  Supply but a part is used by the Petroleum Board and a small area by the Ministry of Fuel and Power. The staffs of the Ministry of Supply and Ministry of Fuel and Power in occupation numbered 1,855 on 1st August, 1,774 on 1st September and 1,794 on 1st October. It is understood that Petroleum Board staffs in the requisitioned space number about 200.
  Sir H. Webbe:Is the Minister aware that that density of occupation is grossly lower than is common in many commercial concerns, and will he take steps to prevent this absurd and extravagant waste of space by Government Departments in view of the tremendous need of commercial concerns for that space?
  Sir Frank Sanderson:Would it not be more economic to use temporary structures for temporary Government offices, rather than to use buildings which are designed for the general convenience of the public?
  Mr. Tomlinson:I should want to look into that. With regard to the first supplementary question, I am looking into the question of space occupied with a view to making Government Departments as uncomfortable as other offices.

  HOUSING

    Uni-Seco House (Cost)
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Works whether he will break down the cost of the Uni-Seco house mentioned in the White Paper on the temporary housing programme under the following headings: site preparation, payment to contractors for hull, kitchen-bathroom unit, erection and installation on site, any other charges, Ministry of Works administration and overheads, giving the original estimates which made the total cost in January £772 and the revised estimates given in the White Paper to total £1,020.
    Mr. Tomlinson:No, Sir. Orders for a a large number of temporary houses and their fixtures and fittings have still to be placed, and many tenders for site preparation and house erection have yet to be invited. It would, therefore, not be in the public interest to publish details of the estimated cost of any one type of temporary house. It may be assumed,
    1060
    however, that the superstructure or hull represents only about one-third of the cost and that the components and services provided by the Ministry of Works account for the remainder.
    Mr. Bossom:Could the right hon. Gentleman say what is the cost put on to this charge by the Ministry of Works itself for its own administration?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I shall be answering that on a later question.

    Repairs, London (Dry Rot)
    Lieut.-Colonel Dowerasked the Minister of Works whether his attention has been drawn to the many houses suffering from dry rot in the London area; and will he take steps to have such repairs carried out at once or give permission for such repairs to be carried out without licence provided notice is given.
    Mr. Tomlinson:My Ministry are normally prepared to admit applications for licences to eliminate dry rot and licences are also granted freely by the local authorities who deal with such applications where the work costs less than £100. I should not be prepared to give permission for such repairs to be carried out without licence.
    Lieut.-Colonel Dower:Is my right hon. Friend aware that many houses may have to be pulled down unless this problem of dry rot is tackled ruthlessly; is he also aware that unless it is tackled when it first appears it spreads rapidly, and will he consider allowing this as emergency work?
    Mr. Tomlinson: The difficulty is to differentiate between dry rot elimination and other repairs.

    Requisitioned Flats, Westminster (Release)
    Sir Harold Webbeasked the Minister of Works how many flats at the address in Westminster, of which he has been in formed, are now under requisition; whether they are still occupied or how long they have been unoccupied; and how soon it is proposed they should be made available for residential purposes.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Six flats are held on requisition at the address in question. They have been vacant since the end of August and arrangements had been made to reoccupy them immediately. Efforts

    1061
    will be made to house the proposed occupants elsewhere and if this can be done the flats will be derequisitioned as quickly as possible.
    Sir H. Webbe: For what purpose is it proposed to reoccupy these flats which are so urgently required for residential purposes?
    Mr. Tomlinson: It is to make room for a move which is taking place on the part of another Government Department.
    Sir H. Webbe: Is this a case of "general post," one Department moving into the room occupied by another, and shall we ever get rid of any of them?
    Mr. Tomlinson: While I appreciate the desire to remove Government Departments, while they are in existence they have to be housed somewhere.

    Manpower (German Prisoners)
    Mr. Butcherasked the Minister of Works what is the total number of German prisoners of war at his disposal and also the number of German prisoners which he has been unable to supply in response to requests from local authorities and statutory undertakings.
    Mr. Tomlinson: There are at present 27,700 German prisoners of war at my disposal. The number of prisoners which cannot at the moment be supplied to local authorities and statutory undertakings is 18,634, of which 4,208 are required for work directly in connection with housing.
    Mr. Butcher: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is assured of the fullest co-operation from the War Office in securing this German prisoner labour, so that housing plans now held up, may go ahead without further delay?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I am asking all the time for full co-operation, and assuming that I am getting it.
    Mr. Stokes: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether these men, when employed, are paid a full and proper wage, or whether they are being used as slaves, and whether he can tell us when they will be sent home? [Interruption.] I know some hon. Members do not care a damn about slaves.
    Hon. Members: Order!
    Mr. Speaker: That was a most improper remark.
    Mr. Stokes: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, but I was provoked.

    Plumbers
    Mr. Harold Sutcliffeasked the Minister of Works whether he is aware of the position in some districts owing to the call-up or transfer of skilled plumbers which is causing delay in the installation of water supplies and in the repairs to last winter's damage by frost; and what steps he is taking to meet this difficulty.
    Mr. Tomlinson: No specific cases of work of the kind referred to being held up have been brought to my attention but if the hon. Member will send me particulars I will have investigations made. I am aware, of course, that, in common with other building trade occupations, there is a shortage of plumbers for building work.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has already had a communication from one urban district in my constituency which was sent on from the Ministry of Health stating that no less than 70 houses still had frost damage from last winter unrepaired?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I was not aware of that, but I will look into it.

    Prefabricated Houses
    Mr. Studholmeasked the Minister of Works what are the agency fees charged by his Ministry for each type of pre-fabricated house; and why such fees are charged.
    Mr. Tomlinson: All expenses incurred by the Ministry of Works in providing and erecting temporary houses are chargeable to the Temporary Housing Account. The work includes the preparation of drawings, specifications and quantities, the ordering of supplies, the placing of contracts, the supervision of works and the settlement of accounts. It is not possible to apportion these expenses to each type of house individually, but it is provisionally estimated that they will amount overall to about 2 per cent. of the total cost of the programme.
    Mr. Bossom: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that he can do that work for 2 per cent. of the total cost of building?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I am hoping so.
    Mr. De la Bère:That is a very different matter.
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Works whether he has already placed orders for all of the 158,480 prefabricated houses, together with all their component parts, as listed in his White Paper, Cmd. 6686, on Temporary Housing.
    Mr. Tomlinson: No, Sir. The number of temporary house hulls ordered is 128,830 but negotiations are in train with the manufacturers for the extension of the existing orders to cover the further number required. Except for small balances, orders have been placed for all component parts required for the hulls that have been ordered.
    Mr. Bossom: Is the Minister sure of his statement that all the component parts for 100,000 odd houses, which he said had been ordered, have already been ordered?
    Mr. Tomlinson: Except for small balances.
    Mr. Bossom: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how small the balances are?
    Mr. Tomlinson: Not without notice.

  CENTRAL HALL, WESTMINSTER (UNITED NATIONS ASSEMBLY)
  Captain Gammansasked the Minister of Works for what purpose, and for what period, the Central Hall, Westminster has been requisitioned.
  Mr. Tomlinson: Arrangements have been made to use the Central Hall for the first part of the first session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. The hall will be required for the period of the Assembly and for such time as is necessary to prepare it for use and to reinstate it.
  Captain Gammans: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the requisitioning of this hall is causing great inconvenience to the Methodist community; and would it not have been possible to requisition the Albert Hall or some other building?
  Mr. Tomlinson: As a good Methodist I appreciate that point, but we looked all round before we decided to take it.

  LYCEUM THEATRE (CONVERSION)
  Mr. Butcherasked the Minister of Works whether a licence has been granted for the reconditioning of the Lyceum Theatre for use as a dance hall; and what is the amount of works which have been sanctioned.
  Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir, for £3,450. Of this only £390 is general building work. The rest is specialist work which does not compete with housing. The dance hall will fill a great need, especially for troops on leave in London.
  Mr. E. P. Smith: Can the Minister say why this theatre was not allowed to continue as a theatre, for which there is also a great need?
  Mr. Tomlinson: I am given to understand that it would cost something like ten times the amount to make it into a theatre.

  MINERS'TRAINING CENTRE AND HOSTEL, CRESWELL
  Mr. Henry Whiteasked the Minister of Works why he has decided to transfer the Miners' Training Centre and Hostel at Creswell, Derbyshire, to a firm; for what purpose it is to be used; from what date does he intend to let the tenant or owner take over; how many persons are now engaged on the premises; and to what extent fixtures and fittings are being removed from the hostel.
  Mr. Tomlinson: There appears to be some misunderstanding as the hostel at present is occupied by the War Office and nothing is known of any suggestion to lend it to a private firm.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (BRIDGE STREET STAIRS)
  Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Works when the stairs from the Palace of Westminster to the south side of Bridge Street will be re-opened to Members.
  Mr. Tomlinson: The work of removing the concrete emplacement will be commenced in the very near future, and the stairs will then be re-opened.

  FUEL AND POWER

    Miners (Coal Allowance)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether Durham miners receiving an average of 14½ tons of free coal per year and Northumberland miners receiving an average of 12 tons, may also, as members of the public, register with, and buy additional coal from, a coal merchant.
    The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): There is no legal prohibition on the registration of miners' premises with coal merchants but, in general, those which receive free or cheap miners' coal are not so registered.
    Mr. Keeling:Do the Government intend to continue this dual source of supply which is made use of and which enables miners to receive so much more coal than other members of the public?
    Mr. Shinwell: There is not any dual source of supply. It is very rarely that miners who receive this free or cheap coal under the usual district agreements exercise their right.
    Mr. Glanville: Will my right hon. Friend attempt, by all possible means, to convince hon. Members opposite that there is no such thing as free coal, and that it is part of the wages?

    German Synthetic Oil
    Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Foxasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether consideration has been given to the possibility of reversing P.L.U.T.O. and temporarily continuing the output of the German synthetic oil plants and using the wartime system of pipelines to bring petrol to this country from Germany to increase the basic ration.
    Mr. Shinwell: The pipeline system known as P.L.U.T.O. has been discontinued and much of the equipment has already been removed. None of the German synthetic oil plants in the British zone is working and accordingly supplies of petrol from Germany are not available.
    Sir G. Fox: Is the Minister aware that petrol rationing is strangling the economic life of the country?
    Mr. Shinwell: That is quite a different question.

    Petrol Supplies
    Sir G. Foxasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what are the total stocks of petrol in this country capable of being used in road vehicles; the monthly consumption of such vehicles in 1938 and at the present time, respectively; and what has been the import per month of petrol over the past three months.
    Mr. Shinwell: I could not give this information without disclosing particulars of military requirements, but I may say that stocks of petrol available in this country for civilian consumption are now somewhat lower than the figure for 27th September quoted in my reply to the hon. Member's Question of 9th October.
    Sir G. Fox: Is it not time that this plea of military security stopped now that we are at peace? What is the Minister trying to hide? Why not give us the figures?
    Mr. Shinwell: I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I have nothing to hide. It never was the custom to disclose military requirements before the war, and it is not intended to do so now.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many gallons of petrol were saved during the last week in September due to restrictions in travel imposed on taxicabs and privately owned motor cars; and what percentage this saving represents on the total petrol consumed throughout the country during that same week.
    Mr. Shinwell: Removal of the present restrictions on the movements of taxicabs and private hire cars would lead to an increase in the numbers of such vehicles in operation. It is, therefore, not possible to estimate the savings of petrol resulting from the restrictions.
    Sir T. Moore: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Three weeks ago the right hon. Gentleman gave me a categorical undertaking that he would give roe this information if I put a Question on the Order Paper. The Question has been on the Order Paper ever since, and now I claim your help in trying to get the information.
    Mr. Speaker:That is not a point of Order. It has nothing to do with me. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has Parliamentary ways of raising the matter on the Adjournment, if necessary.
    Sir T. Moore: Is the Minister aware that he seems to know much less about his Department now than he did before he took office?
    Mr. Shinwell: The hon. and gallant Gentleman may rest assured that what I have learned, I will disclose in due course.
    Mr. Turner-Samuelsasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in view of the fact that there is now no likelihood that such information will be of any use to our former enemies, he is prepared to give figures of the military needs of petrol and the fullest information as to the demand and available supplies of petrol.
    Mr. Shinwell: In the special circumstances of this country it has not been the practice at any time to disclose information about military needs and supplies of petrol, and I would not be justified in departing from this practice.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: Will not the Minister take into account that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction about this matter among the business community; and does he not think it desirable to take them into his confidence, and satisfy them that there will be greater supplies of petrol available to them for business needs?
    Mr. Shinwell: I have already given the House, in reply to Questions, particulars of the petrol available for civilian consumption. There is no reason to believe that trade has been impeded because of petrol rationing
    Captain Bairdasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what increase there has been in the consumption of fuel by commercial users since the basic ration was reintroduced.
    Mr. Shinwell: The relaxations which my right hon. Friend the Minister of War Transport has been able to make in the rationing restrictions on commercial goods vehicles have led to an increase in the total consumption of these vehicles amounting to about 6 per cent. since last June.
    Captain Baird: Can my right hon. Friend give the reason for the increase?
    Mr. Shinwell: We are very anxious to stimulate trade, and transport enters into it.

    Electricity Supplies (Rural Areas)
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in connection with the installation of electricity in farms and buildings in the rural areas, he will introduce legislation, with a view to abolishing the high charges for installation and long-term guarantees, which are at present demanded by many undertakings.
    Mr. Shinwell: I am considering these matters in connection with the general reorganisation of the electricity supply industry.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these matters have been considered year after year and that the rural areas have never been able to get electricity?
    Mr. Shinwell: I am well aware that there has been a great deal of delay, but I am going to see that the matter is dealt with very shortly.
    Mr. De la Bère: There has been a great deal of wrong-headedness.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Fuel and Power the total number of applications from villages throughout the country to have electricity supplied which have not been fulfilled; and the reasons for the non-fulfilment of these applications.
    Mr. Shinwell: These applications are made to electricity undertakings and not to the Electricity Commissioners or to my Ministry. The information asked for is, therefore, not in my possession.
    Mr. De la Bère: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that he should have this information, and that otherwise nothing will be done and the matter will go on from year to year, as I have already complained?
    Mr. Shinwell: If the hon. Gentleman is very anxious to obtain the information, I shall make inquiries, but in fact it would make no difference to the present position because, owing to a shortage of plant and labour, we cannot get ahead with a lot of work.
    Mr. De la Bère: May we have a nice little inquiry together?

    Aviation Fuel (Private Aircraft)
    Lieut.-Colonel Lindsayasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether a basic petrol ration can now be made available for private aircraft.
    Mr. Shinwell: Discussions have been taking place with the Ministry of Civil Aviation in regard to the arrangements for supplying aviation fuel for civil aircraft when the ban on civil flying is removed. I am not yet in a position to indicate what the arrangements will be.

    Colliery Officials (Negotiating Machinery)
    Mr. Championasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he has considered a letter from the Midland Counties Colliery Officials' and Staffs' Association, complaining of difficulties in establishing means of negotiation with their employers; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
    Mr. Shinwell: I am arranging for the matter to be investigated at an early date.

    Coal Output
    Major Guy Lloydasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will, in future, publish weekly the figures of total output of coal per week, along with the output per manshift, for the whole country, together with the figures for the corresponding weeks in the years 1944 and 1943.
    Mr. Shinwell: I have decided, as I have already announced, to issue output figures and other key statistics at monthly intervals.
    Major Lloyd: Will the output per manshift be included?
    Mr. Shinwell: Yes, Sir.

    Shop Window Lighting (Christmas)
    Mr. Boardmanasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if, during the Christmas shopping period, he is prepared to relax the restrictions on shop window lighting.
    Mr. Shinwell: I regret that for the present at any rate the fuel situation does not justify any relaxation of the restrictions on shop window lighting.

  FARM WORKERS (WAGES)
  Mr. Butcherasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that whilst a
  1070
  national minimum wage has been fixed for agricultural workers, miners and railwaymen, there is a wide difference in the wages payable; that this is likely to lead to industrial unrest; and whether he proposes to take any steps to raise the wages of farm workers so that they compare favourably with those received by industrial workers.
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I am aware that rates of wages vary in different industries including the three mentioned. The rates for railwaymen and miners were fixed by voluntary collective bargaining followed in the latter case by an arbitration award; the rate for agricultural workers was fixed by a statutory board operating under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act. I have no authority to override that board in the exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Parliament, and the last part of the Question accordingly does not arise.
  Mr. Butcher: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when he proposes to institute a reasoned plan for a wages policy for this country?
  Mr. Isaacs: That is quite another question.

  DEMOBILISATION

    Period of Service (Civil Employment)
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Minister of Labour why military personnel who have been allocated to civilian duties during their military service are not permitted to count the period so covered towards demobilisation.
    Mr. Isaacs:I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. G. Roberts) on 23rd August, a copy of which I am sending him.
    Sir T. Moore: How can this obvious injustice be justified, since these men did not choose that particular method of serving their country, and were directed?
    Mr. Speaker:The hon. and gallant Member is now arguing with the Minister and not asking a question.
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider the advisability of allowing periods of release from the Forces to types of civil employment involving considerable personal

    1071
    risk, such as the repairing of gas mains during the heavy air raids on London and other towns, to count in determining the order of release from the Forces.
    Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. I am afraid I could not draw a distinction between civilian employments based on the relative degree of danger to which those engaged in them were exposed.
    Mr. Warbey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these men felt that they were doing their country a service by volunteering for duties involving just as much personal danger and hard work as if they were serving with the Colours; and is there not a special case for the consideration of men such as these?
    Mr. Isaacs: Such consideration would apply with equal force to the Fire Service, Civil Defence Service, and to engineering workers and others who continued to work during the air raids, and it would be very difficult to draw a distinction.
    Mr. Shurmerasked the Minister of Labour if, in view of the recent concession given to men of the R.A.F. that time spent in industry during temporary release shall count as service for grouping, he will consider giving the same concession to men in the Army.
    Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air to the hon. and gallant Member for Waterloo (Captain Bullock) on 10th October, a copy of which I am sending him.

    V.A.D. Members
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Minister of Labour the policy of the Government in regard to the demobilisation of V.A.D.s.
    Mr. Isaacs: Members of the V.A.D. will be released like other members of the Forces in order of age and length of service. They may also be released in Class B if they are willing and suitable to be trained for nursing. The programme of releases and discharges up to June, 1946, is set out in the statement I made on 2nd October, a copy of which I am sending the hon. and gallant Member.
    Sir T. Moore: Has this statement been communicated to the various members of the V.A.D. service?
    Mr. Isaacs: I really could not say, but if it has not been done, it will be done.
    Captain Crowder: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, if these V.A.D.s are released under Scheme A, they are liable, when they get home to this country, to be redirected by the Ministry of National Service?
    Mr. Isaacs: I shall be glad if the hon. Member will put that question on the Paper, and I will get him the information.

    Class B Releases
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Labour how many of the 17,946 persons released in Class B between 18th June and 30th September had been serving in S.E.A.C., in C.M.F., in other theatres overseas and in the United Kingdom, respectively; and if he will give an assurance that potential Class B releases are not prejudiced by reason of distance from home, transport difficulties, or other causes, but are granted on the merits of the individual cases alone, in whatever theatres the persons concerned may be serving.
    Mr. Isaacs:The information asked for in the first part of the Question is not readily available. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative.
    Mr. Driberg: Is it not obvious that, in the case of block releases, Service Departments will tend to release whole groups of men who are serving in the United Kingdom, because it is more convenient to do so; and will my right hon. Friend look into that aspect of the question?
    Mr. Isaacs:I think, from information already in my possession, that that is not the case, but they are doing the best they can to bring the men home from overseas, in harmony with those who are displaced at home.
    Lieut.-Colonel Byersasked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement showing the age and service groups in the Army, Navy and R.A.F., according to classified occupations, which will be released in Class B under block arrangements over the next nine months and giving the approximate dates by which each occupation in each Service may expect release.
    Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. I am afraid this would not be practicable.
    Lieut.-Colonel Byers: While appreciating the difficulties involved, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware of the considerable anxiety which is being experienced by certain people in high release groups who feel that they ought to be released under block release by virtue of their occupation only, and will he consider some simpler form of statement in order to prevent this sort of anxiety and unnecessary trouble arising?
    Mr. Isaacs:I would regret it if there were anxiety and unnecessary trouble. The problem is that we try to get out the numbers that are required from the lowest groups at the beginning and then we go up, but I will look into the point the hon. and gallant Member has raised and if there is any way of simplifying it, we will do so.

    Vocational Training Scheme
    . Major Gatesasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the hardship caused to recently discharged ex-servicemen and women through the delay in organising the Government Vocational Training Scheme; and whether he is prepared to authorise the payment of allowances immediately their applications for training have been accepted and they are awaiting joining instructions, in order to save them from drawing too heavily on their war gratuities, which are, in many cases, their only means of livelihood when their demobilisation leave has expired.
    Mr. Isaacs:I can assure the hon. Member that I will do all I can to speed up the admission of demobilised men and women to training courses but I could not agree to payment of training allowances pending admission.

    Blacksmith (Application)
    Mr. Proctorasked the Minister of Labour whether he has now considered the case of 1545828, L.A.C. Walker, K. F., details of which were sent to him by the hon. Member for Eccles on 11th October; when he expects to be in a position to reply to this letter; and if he will authorise the immediate release of L.A.C. Walker.
    Mr. Isaacs: I wrote to my hon. Friend about this case on 31st October.
    Mr. Proctor: Will the Minister, in view of the anomalies in his instructions, which
    1074
    stand out clearly in this case, consider amending them now? I would also like to ask if he is aware of the fact that this application would not be sponsored by the agricultural committee because of the fact that only one-third of the work of this blacksmith was performed under that Department, and would not be sponsored by the Minister of Works because he does not—
    Hon. Members: Order.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot go into all the details of a case in a supplementary question; it takes up too much time.

    Work Direction
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Labour whether he is satisfied that the number of men entering the mines, agriculture and the building trades, on demobilisation, will be sufficient to provide for the national requirements of these three services during the coming year; whether any improvements in wages, conditions of work or social services are contemplated; and whether it is the intention of the Government to arrange, continue or extend the direction of labour for these industries.
    Mr. Isaacs: The return to their former employment of men demobilised from the Forces whose previous occupation was in the three industries mentioned by my hon. Friend would substantially assist in fulfilling their manpower needs. Whether their full requirements will be met in this way depends on the number of men released in Class A who, though free to take whatever employment they choose during their period of paid leave, do in fact return to their former employment and also on other factors including wastage, normal recruitment from young persons and through training schemes. The question of wages and conditions is one for each industry to settle through its recognised machinery but subject to that my right hon. Friends the Ministers concerned are in close touch with the industries in order to render any assistance possible. The last part of the Question is bound up with the Government's general policy on the control of labour.
    Mr. Bossom: Could the Minister inform the House how young people directed into the Services can go into these three industries?
    Mr. Isaacs: I do not think that this applies especially to young persons.
    Mr. Bossom: But the right hon. Gentleman said that in his answer.
    Mr. Isaacs: I will look at the point again.

    One-Man Business Owners
    Colonel Stoddart-Scottasked the Minister of Labour, if, in view of the misapprehension on the results, he will restate the position with regard to the demobilisation from the Forces of men with one-man businesses.
    Mr. Isaacs: I propose to include a statement about owners of one-man businesses in the pamphlet on demobilisation questions which will shortly be made available to hon. Members.
    Colonel Stoddart-Scott:While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that in one of our great national newspapers, there was a front page headline, on 21st September, saying, "Men who run little businesses to get release?" Will he take steps to see that these men are told the truth?
    Mr. Isaacs: I have enough troubles of my own without trying to teach newspapers how to run their business.
    Mr. Peake: Can the right hon Gentleman say when this pamphlet will be available, because many Members are being troubled about this question at present?
    Mr. Isaacs:We are anxious to get it into the hands of Members as quickly as we can. No delay will be permitted, but we want to make it as full as possible. I cannot promise the date, but it will be out as quickly as we can get it done.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart:May we take it that the Class C release scheme, now in operation for Service men, will continue?
    Mr. Isaacs: I cannot answer that off-hand.
    Lieut.-Colonel Byers:Is there any reason why the House should not have an advance copy of what is to be put into the pamphlet?
    Mr. Isaacs: If there is to be an advance copy, why have the pamphlet?
    Lieut.-Colonel Byers: On this specific point, I mean?
    Mr. Isaacs: Do not let us have any penny numbers.

  UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS
  Sir G. Foxasked the Minister of Labour if he will state for the latest convenient date the number of persons registered as unemployed on the employment exchange registers in Oxford and Merthyr Tydfil, with details as to the numbers of unemployed in the various trades affected.
  Mr. Isaacs:A count of the unemployed was made on 15th October, and I will send the figures to the hon. Member when they are available.
  Sir G. Fox:Is it the fact that the hard core of unemployment is already at Merthyr Tydfil, and is not this an example of another Socialist Election pledge being broken?
  Mr. Daggarasked the Minister of Labour the number of registered unemployed men and women, respectively, at each of the Newbridge, Abertillery and Blaina and Nantyglo exchanges; and also the steps taken to provide these people with employment.
  Mr. Isaacs: A count of the unemployed register was made on 15th October, and I will send my hon. Friend the figures he asks for as soon as they are available. As regards the second part of the question, I understand from my right hon. and learned Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, that three new factories to be built in these areas will provide a substantial volume of employment, and that efforts to secure other new factories or otherwise to provide additional suitable work for workpeople in these areas are continuing. Further, my Department is circulating to these Exchanges vacancies in other parts of the country, so that those workers who are in a position to move to suitable work elsewhere may be submitted.
  Mr. Bossom:May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in regard to these new factories which are to be built, there are no other factories available?
  Mr. Isaacs: I do not think I meant to convey that. I was in part of the area

  1077
  on Sunday, and what is being done is to make use immediately of any factories that can be used, and, at the same time, try and find an opportunity of building other factories for the use of other industries that are willing to go.
  Mr. Bossom: Why build new factories when there are other factories in existence?

  RESETTLEMENT ADVICE OFFICES (REQUISITIONED SHOPS)
  Major Guy Lloydasked the Minister of Labour how many shop premises in this country have been requisitioned for the establishment of the labour advice bureaux; and what is the annual rent of these shops and the annual wages and salaries bill for their upkeep.
  Mr. Isaacs: The Minister of Works, who is responsible for providing accommodation for my Department, informs me that 66 of the 371 special resettlement advice offices have been accommodated in shop premises held under compulsory requisitioning powers. The annual cost of compensation payable to the owners of these premises is about £12,000. The annual cost of their upkeep is not known at the moment.
  Major Lloyd:Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the attitude when the owner of a shop is anxious to get it back; are the Government still as stubborn about it or not?
  Mr. Isaacs: I am afraid that I would have to ask my colleague the Minister of Works about that.

  ARMED FORCES (INTAKE)
  Mr. Garry Allighanasked the Minister of Labour what percentages of this and next month's intakes are to be allocated to the three Services, respectively.
  Mr. Isaacs: The intakes to the three Services for November and December have been apportioned as follows:—

  November:

  Per cent.

  Navy

  18

  Army

  49

  R.A.F.

  33

  December:

  Navy

  21

  Army

  52

  R.A.F.

  27

  Mr. Allighan:In view of the fact that owing to the disparity between the Services relating to releases, the R.A.F. is not in such an advantageous position as the other two Services, will my right hon. Friend consider increasing the percentage intake of the R.A.F.?
  Mr. Isaacs: That is quite another question.
  Colonel Ropner:Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether boys who intend to choose the Army as a life profession are likely to be directed into the Navy or the Air Force?
  Mr. Isaacs: That is another question and involves a number of other factors, but if the hon. and gallant Member will put a question down, I will have the matter looked at.
  Major Wilkes: In view of the serious discontent which exists in the R.A.F., and of the undertaking given by the Under-Secretary for Air, would my right hon. Friend look into this matter and see that a considerable proportion of the new intake is directed into the R.A.F.? Will not the Minister of Labour look into this extremely serious matter of increasing the intake into the R.A.F.?
  Mr. Isaacs:I cannot deal with an undertaking given by my colleague on behalf of the R.A.F., but we have to supply the requirements that are submitted to us by the Departments, and whether the Ministry of Labour has any right to say who should go from one Department to another, I do not know.

  PALESTINE (SITUATION)
  Sir Ralph Glynasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the general situation in Palestine.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies on 2nd November.
  Sir R. Glyn: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the anxiety in all parts of the House, and the importance of this House having a statement, if possible, before he goes to the United States?
  Earl Winterton: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will explain why it was that, a week ago, in reply to a question by me, he said that there would be a definite statement at a very early date, and, if it is not possible to do that, will he issue a communiqué in order to contradict the unwarranted assertion that the cause of the delay is that 400 Socialist Members premised something that cannot be performed?
  The Prime Minister: I can deal with that one straight away. It has nothing to do with it. A statement will be made as soon as possible.

  WAR SERVICE OFFENCES (SENTENCES)
  Mr. Maxtonasked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the granting of an amnesty to all Servicemen serving sentences of imprisonment, penal servitude or detention for offences committed during their war service.
  The Prime Minister: I have given further consideration to this point, but regret that I am unable to add anything to the reply I gave on 10th October to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aston (Major Wyatt), in which I said that under existing instructions all sentences awarded by courts-martial are reviewed automatically at periods of not more than six months by a superior military authority. At each review such superior military authority has power to remit, suspend or commute the sentence of the court.
  Mr. Maxton: May I take it that that is routine? I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether, apart from an amnesty, he will consider some general act of clemency which could be operated by these boards in the various Services, or in some other way, maybe, under the Royal Prerogative by the right hon. Gentleman recommending His Majesty along those lines?
  Commander Marsden: Before the Prime Minister replies, may I ask him to look into this matter himself? Will he consider, for example, an amnesty to certain men who would never, in the first instance, have been charged under the civil criminal code of this country, though they may have committed Service offences?
  The Prime Minister: That, of course, is a special case. What I am being asked for here is a general amnesty, and I am not of the opinion that it is the best way of dealing with these cases. I think the right way is constant and careful review of these cases. Not all the facts are the same. It is no use sweeping the whole lot away as if they were all exactly the same.
  Mr. Thurtle: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many of these offenders are cases of nervous affection, and will he see that they are looked upon with compassion?
  The Prime Minister: Very great care has been taken throughout this war, and we have had experts in these matters to look at these cases which are cases rather for the psychiatrist or psychologist, and not for military punishment. They are looked into very carefully. If the hon. Member has any special cases for the attention of the Service Ministers, I hope he will bring them to their notice, but, in dealing with the general points, I am not prepared to accept the proposition that a general amnesty would be fair.
  Mr. Eden: Is it not a fact that throughout the war these cases were dealt with on their merits and were under constant review, and is it not much better to adhere to that practice, which is much fairer to the men themselves?
  Mr. Maxton: The war is over.

  BRITISH BUILDING TECHNICIANS, HAMBURG
  Mr. Medlandasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many civil, mechanical and technical engineersand architects are employed in Hamburg by the Military Government or Allied Control Commission, in supervising the work of German engineers employed in connection with the city's building administration, housing and other public utility services.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): Thirteen.
  Mr. Medland: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the recruitment of these very technical people for work in Germany interferes with the rebuilding of such devastated towns as Plymouth?
  Mr. Hynd: The policy of the Control Commission in Germany is, as soon as possible, to make the Germans work for themselves, but hon. Members should appreciate that it is impossible to maintain our policy of de-Nazification and control the many aspects of life in Germany, unless we have the necessary staff.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Income Groups
    Sir Frank Sandersonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total number whose income, after the deduction of tax, ranges between £250 and £500 per annum, and £6,000 and over, for the year ended 5th April, 1939, and the year ended 5th April, 1945.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton):Figures for the years 1938/39 and 1942/43, the latest year for which information is at present available, are given in Table 26 of this year's White Paper on the National Income and Expenditure (Cmd. 6623).

    Income Tax
    Mr. Keelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it will always be necessary to propose changes in Income Tax several months in advance in order to give time for new Pay as you earn tables to be prepared; and whether an annual autumn Budget is therefore contemplated.
    Mr. Dalton: I am going into this question, but I do not contemplate an annual autumn Budget.
    Mr. Dainesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will relieve from the incidence of Income Tax all pensions attached to all war medals and decorations.
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. Income Tax is levied, subject to personal allowances and other adjustments, on all income, and I can see no good reason for exempting this particular category of income, as such.
    Major Bruceasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the non-recurrent nature of the benefits given to personnel of the Armed Forces on demobilisation, he will consider issuing instructions to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that, in addition to those amounts paid or payable as war gratuities,
    1082
    the sums paid or payable in respect of demobilisation leave be exempt from Income Tax as casual receipts within the existing provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1918.
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. This is not possible under the present law, and I do not think that there is sufficient ground for exempting from Income Tax what is, in fact, a continuation of Service pay.
    Major Bruceasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the expenses allowed to individuals and companies assessable under Schedule D of the Income Tax Act, 1918, are on a more generous scale than those allowed to employees assessable under Schedule E; and whether he will consider amending Rule 9 to Schedule E in order that clerical and manual workers and other persons in receipt of wages or salaries assessable under Schedule E shall be entitled to claim as deductions for Income Tax purposes all expenses necessarily incurred by them in connection with their employment.
    Mr. Dalton: Under Rule 9 of Schedule E an employee is already entitled to claim an income tax deduction for expenses incurred by him wholly, exclusively, and necessarily in the performance of the duties of his employment. It is true that the Schedule D rule governing expenses is somewhat wider, and I am now considering whether this can be justified.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will a doctor be allowed to deduct the cost of Purchase Tax on his motor car?

    Lord Nelson (Annuity)
    Mr. Wilson Harrisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total sum paid in annuities to the descendants of the brother of Horatio, Lord Nelson; and whether, in view of the fact that the present beneficiary has no issue, he will consider terminating the arrangement.
    Mr. Dalton: The total sum paid by the taxpayers since 1806, when this annuity was instituted is £700,000. It is, I think, high time that the present arrangement was reconsidered and I propose to take the matter up with the present Lord Nelson.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, with his dying breath, Lord Nelson commended to the

    1083
    generosity of his country someone quite other than the Rev. William Nelson, D.D.?
    Mr. Gallacher:Will the Chancellor see to it that there is no question of buying this present gentleman out, as was proposed in a previous instance, because, if he is bought out, the Chancellor knows that he will remain in just the same position?

    Cost of Living
    Sir Wavell Wakefieldasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the percentage rise or fall in the standard of living for the decade after the 1914–1918 war; for the decade prior to the outbreak of war in 1939; and for the period since the outbreak of war in 1939 to the nearest convenient date.
    Mr. Dalton: I am circulating in the Official Report the particulars requested by the hon. Member in terms of the cost of living index.

    Following are the particulars

    Cost of Living index changes

    index

    July,1914

    100

    1919 average over year

    215

    1928 average over year

    166

    1930 average over year

    158

    1939 average over first eight months

    154

    September 1st, 1939

    155

    Octobetr 1st,1945

    203

    British Museum (Expenditure)
    Sir John Graham Kerrasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer which of His Majesty's Ministers is responsible to Parliament for the expenditure of public money upon the British Museum.
    Mr. Dalton:This responsibility rests with me.

    Newsprint Imports (Dollar Exchange)
    Mr. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make available the necessary dollars for English paper manufacturers to purchase new and modern machinery in Canada and the U.S.A., particularly since large amounts in dollars have been provided to purchase newsprint from North America, which English manufacturers feel should have been made in this country.
    Mr. Dalton:The Treasury provide foreign exchange to pay for any imports licensed by the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Osborne: If I bring a special case where one has been turned down to the notice of the Chancellor, will be consider it?
    Mr. Dalton:That is automatic. If my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade licenses imports, my officials automatically provide the exchange.

    Purchase Tax (Motor Cars)
    Major Tufton Beamishasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will arrange for qualified medical practitioners to be allowed to buy motor cars free of Purchase Tax for use in their professional duties.
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. All motor cars sold in this country are subject to Purchase Tax, regardless of user.
    Major Beamish:Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House any good reason why a doctor, who requires a car for use in his practice, should pay Purchase Tax, where a tradesman who requires a van for delivering groceries does not have to pay this tax?
    Mr. Dalton:A private car is clearly defined. It would, administratively, be very difficult, and I would not advise the House to attempt it, to remit the tax on certain classes of user. Administratively, it is very troublesome.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Is it not desirable that Purchase Tax on London taxicabs should be removed at the earliest possible moment?

    American Films (Purchase)
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he has authorised the expenditure of over £20,000,000 per annum for the purchase of American films.
    Mr. Dalton:Remittances in respect of films are governed by the same rules of exchange control as other transactions. If we have the films, we must pay for them. The amount remitted last year was £17,000,000.
    Mr. Boothby:Can the right hon. Gentleman say what possible justification there can be, in the present food shortage and with the present shortage of dollars, for spending £17,000,000 a year on the importation of these not very good films from the United States?
    Mr. Dalton: We must, within wide limits, meet the public desire for entertainment, and it so happens that a lot of people go to see these films.
    Mr. Boothby: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

  MINISTERS (MOTOR CAR ALLOCATION)
  Lieut.-Colonel Dowerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the prewar practices with regard to the allocation and use of motor cars provided at public expense for Ministers of the Government will now be resumed.
  Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. But arrangements have been made whereby cars are now only allocated to Cabinet Ministers and Ministers of Cabinet rank for official use.

  MEMBERS' EXPENSES (GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS)
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now make a statement on secretarial assistance and other matters affecting Members of Parliament and their conditions of work.
  Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, His Majesty's Government are anxious that Members of this House shall have proper facilities for the discharge of their duties, and I shall propose, in the next few days, the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the whole question of hon. Members' expenses and conditions of work.
  There are, however, two matters on which I can make a statement now. First, as regards postage I wish to make it clear—in order to remove any doubts which may exist—that any hon. Member wishing to send a letter on an official matter to a Government Department may send it post free, marking the envelope "O.H.M.S.".
  Second, as regards travel; His Majesty's Government have decided to propose to the House to extend the existing right to free railway travel between Westminster and an hon. Member's constituency to include railway travel between his home and his constituency and between his home and Westminster, and to cover travel by scheduled air services as well
  1086
  as travel by rail. I shall ask the House to approve a Resolution to give effect to this proposal.
  Mr. Nicholson: That Resolution will be debatable, I suppose?
  Mr. Dalton: Certainly.
  Mr. Gallacher: May I ask whether this concession on railway journeys between the Member's home and his constituency includes buses?
  Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. A bus is not a railway.
  Colonel Erroll: Does the facility of free postage include the sending of free telegrams?
  Mr. Dalton: I do not want to promise too much all at once. The Select Committee which we are proposing to set up will have verywide terms of reference and will be able to review all these matters. I am anxious, while setting up the Select Committee with these wide terms of reference, to make two short moves in a direction which I think will generally be regarded as desirable, and I had hoped that these two short steps would be non-controversial. Other matters which come before the Select Committee may be more controversial.
  Mr. Cocks: Is the Chancellor aware that the first concession he announced, that is, sending letters without stamps to Ministers, is a common practice?
  Mr. Dalton: Not of all hon. Members. I, myself, have done what the hon. Gentleman suggests is a common practice and have never been pulled up for it, but other hon. Members have not done it and, in order to remove doubts, I desire to say that in the view of His Majesty's Government it is proper and legitimate that an hon. Member writing to a Government Department on official business writes "O.H.M.S."

  CONSULATE-GENERAL, BARCELONA (MR. P. H. G. DORCHY)
  Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Information whether Mr. P. H. G. Dorchy is still employed at His Majesty's Consulate-General in Barcelona as Press Attaché or in any other official capacity.
  The Minister of Information (Mr. E. J. Willams): Mr. Dorchy is still employed as Press Attaché at His Majesty's Consulate-General in Barcelona.
  Mr. Driberg: Without casting any reflection at all on the ability or character of this gentleman, may I ask my right hon. Friend if he is aware that this gentleman served in Franco's artillery during the civil war and holds strong pro-Falangist and pro-Fascist views; and is it suitable that a man with such views should be an interpreter of British policy?
  Mr. Williams: My answer to that is that he has served the Ministry for five years in Europe and, as far as I can ascertain, he has served the Ministry satisfactorily.
  Mr. Vernon Bartlett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, whatever Mr. Dorchy's past may be, in the war he has been instrumental in bringing a great number of British prisoners of war across the Pyrenees and in keeping them out of Franco's gaols when they reached Spain?

  BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION

    National Programme (Wavelength)
    Colonel Errollasked the Minister of Information, whether he will arrange with the B.B.C. to change the wavelength of the transmission now broadcast on a wavelength of 261 metres.
    Mr. Williams:No, Sir. This is the medium wavelength allocated to the national programme and I see no reason why the B.B.C. should be asked to change it.
    Colonel Erroll: Is not the Minister aware that this wavelength is very difficult for the owners of utility sets, as the sets do not take this wavelength at all well, and as a change of wavelength would cause a great deal of satisfaction, would he not go back to the old one?
    Mr. Williams: I was under the impression that the hon. and gallant Gentleman obtained satisfaction from the President of the Board of Trade yesterday on this matter. It is not really a matter of wavelengths but of sets. Apparently that can be rectified now if the sets are taken to the right people and an adaptor purchased.
    Colonel Erroll: Has the Minister tried to take a set to the right people to get an adaptor?

    Forces' Educational Programmes
    Major Tufton Beamishasked the Minister of Information by whom the subject matter of the Forces' educational programmes being broadcast daily by the B.B.C. is selected and approved.
    Mr. Williams: The subject matter of the Forces'educational programmes is selected and finally approved by the B.B.C. who, however, are regularly assisted by an Inter-Services Advisory Committee.
    Major Beamish: Will the Minister say whether he is aware that several recent broadcasts have had a distinct Left-wing political bias, that this sort of thing has been going on too long, and will he assure the House—
    Hon. Members: Speech.

    Foreign Affairs (Talks)
    Mr. Studholmeasked the Minister of Information whether he will state the policy adopted by the B.B.C. as regards subject matter for talks on aspects of foreign affairs which may be simultaneously the subject of official negotiation; and whether he is satisfied that this policy is in the national interest.
    Mr. Williams: The B.B.C.'s policy is to provide informative and expository talks on matters of interest to the public, and the Corporation considers it to be an important part of its duty to help in keeping the public informed about foreign affairs. The subjects selected are normally of topical interest and the B.B.C. do not consider that the fact that official negotiations may be in progress is necessarily a reason against the explanation of the background and of the issues involved for the benefit of the public. The B.B.C.'s aim is to present a fair picture of the issues involved, in accordancewith their trust of impartiality. In questions involving foreign affairs, the normal channels of the Foreign Office are, of course, available for consultation. I am satisfied that this policy is in the national interest and is in keeping with the duties of the B.B.C. under their Charter.
    Mr. Studholme: Is the Minister aware that the broadcast talks on foreign affairs

    1089
    recently given by Professor A. J. P. Taylor and the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus) whilst the Conference of Foreign Minister was still sitting, were mischievous and anything but helpful?

    Engineering and Equipment Expenditure
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Information if he will state the amount of capital expenditure on engineering and equipment by the B.B.C., from 1st September, 1939, to 31st March, 1945, inclusive.
    Mr. Williams: I am informed by the B.B.C. that the Corporation's capital expenditure on engineering works and equipment during the period mentioned was about £3,550,000. In addition, Lend-Lease equipment to the value of £350,000 was brought into service by the Corporation.
    Mr. Davies: Was this expenditure sanctioned and paid for out of the grant in aid?

  WIRELESS MECHANICS (ROYAL AIR FORCE)
  Mr. Garry Allighanasked the Minister of Labour whether his Ministry will ensure that, on being called up, all men who are fully trained wireless mechanics will, if otherwise suitable, be drafted into the R.A.F.
  Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. Wireless mechanics will be posted according to the respective needs of the three Services.
  Mr. Allighan: In view of the fact that there is already such a shortage of wireless mechanics in the R.A.F. that those in normal group releases are having their release deferred, would it not be wise to see that trained wireless mechanics are sent into that Service?
  Mr. Williams: I cannot accept the statement made by the hon. Member, which is not, I think, in accordance with the facts.

  IRON FOUNDING (MAN POWER)
  Captain Charles Smithasked the Minister of Labour whether he has examined the skilled labour position in the foundry trade; whether he is satisfied that the number of younger men within the trade is sufficient to meet the future needs; and whether he proposes any steps to attract youths into the trade.
  Mr. Isaacs: I assume that my hon. Friend refers to iron foundries in which there is an urgent need for labour, both skilled and unskilled. I have recently arranged for a Committee, on which both sides of the industry are represented, to consider abnormal methods of recruitment of men to meet the immediate problem. Another Committee is inquiring into conditions and amenities in iron foundries. Both sides of the industry are actively engaged in considering the recruitment of new entrants.

  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (LOST TIME)
  Sir W. Wakefieldasked the Minister of Labour how many man-hours of work have been lost to the nation since 1st August due to strikes and industrial disputes.
  Mr. Isaacs: On the basis of such information as is available in my Department, the aggregate number of man-days lost during August and September due to stoppages of work arising from industrial disputes is estimated at about 220,000. Statistics as to the number of man-days lost subsequently are not yet available, but it is provisionally estimated that the number of man-days lost since the end of September through the stoppage of work at the docks is rather more than 1,000,000.
  Sir W. Wakefield: Could the Minister give the number of man-hours lost, which is what I asked for in the Question?
  Mr. Isaacs: Because of the variation of hours from day to day it was not possible to give the number of man-hours, so we did our best by giving the number of man-days.

  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS
  Mr. Manningham-Bullerasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons registered as conscientious objectors whose pre-registration occupation was that of schoolteacher.
  Mr. Isaacs: I regret that this information could only be obtained by a considerable amount of research.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: Is the Minister prepared to give the figures now, because

  1091
  he invited me last week to put a question on the Order Paper so that he could provide the necessary information?
  Mr. Isaacs: With respect, I think I promised the hon. Gentleman that if he would put a question on the Paper I would look at it, and see what was possible. I am not saying that what he has asked for is impossible, but it would require a great deal of research in the Department at a time when we are hard pressed.

  SILICOSIS AND PNEUMOCONIOSIS CASES (TRAINING)
  Mr. D. J. Williamsasked the Minister of Labour how many men suffering, from silicosis or pneumoconiosis have been admitted to Government training centres; what occupations they have been trained for; and how many of them have been placed in suitable jobs.
  Mr. Isaacs:A search of individual records is necessary to obtain this information, and when I have it I will communicate with the hon. Member. I can, however, say that about 80 men suffering from silicosis and pneumoconiosis have recently been placed in two new South Wales factories, where they are being trained mainly as gas and electric welders.

  FILM ARTISTS'EMPLOYMENT (REGULATION)
  Mr. O'Brienasked the Minister of Labour whether a joint council for the regulation of the employment of film crowd artistshas been set up, as recommended by the court of inquiry set up by the then Minister under the Industrial Courts Act, 1919, in its Report, dated 8th January, 1945; and, if not, what steps are being taken to carry out that and other recommendations of the court of inquiry.
  Mr. Isaacs: The court's report as a whole was referred to the parties in the hope that it would provide a basis for a full settlement by mutual agreement of the questions between them. I understand that no joint council of the kind recommended by the court has been constituted to date, and so far no request for further assistance has been made to my Department by either party.
  Mr. O'Brien: Would my right hon. Friend answer the last part of the Question?
  Mr. Isaacs: I think the answer I have given covers the point. Until we get a request from either side, we cannot intervene. This is not a command performance.

MILITARY COURTS (REFERENCES BY MEMBERS)
Earl Winterton: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you are now in a position to give a Ruling on the point of Order which I raised last week on the subject of the admissibility under Section 155 of the Manual of Procedure of a question criticising the president of an Allied court in Germany?
Mr. Speaker: Yes. I was asked by the Noble Lord on Tuesday of last week for a Ruling on the question whether the president of a military government court is protected against criticism of his official conduct in the same way as are judges and other persons of high authority, whose conduct cannot be challenged by question in the House or in any other way than by a substantive Motion.
I have been into the matter, and I have delayed giving my Ruling until now, in order to get authoritative information as to the precise status of the president of a military government court. I find that these courts derive their authority from the military commander of the Forces occupying the territory concerned, and are administered by subordinate military commanders. Thus, they are not to be considered as courts in the sense in which we apply the term to a judicial body sitting as a court in this country. All the members of the court, including the president—I apologise for giving a rather long answer—are answerable to the convening officer, namely, the militarycommander of the Forces occupying the territory concerned, for the conduct of the proceedings of the court, and so ultimately to the Secretary of State for War. Their sentences are subject to review by officers of senior rank, appointed for the purpose by the military government, and in certain cases are subject to confirmation by the Supreme Commander.
It does not seem to me, therefore, that either in respect of their status or their responsibility, they can be held to be

1093
analogous to judges of courts in this country who are not responsible to any administrative officer, and whose sentences are only subject to review by superior courts of law. While making no comment upon the subject matter, which elicited the request for this Ruling, I must hold that it is a matter which cannot be excluded from Questions on the grounds submitted by the Noble Lord.
Earl Winterton: May we then gather, Sir, that if any of us wish to put down a Question criticising the composition or the obiter dicta of anything that may occur in connection with the Allied military courts who will try war criminals, we shall be entitled to do so?
Mr. Speaker: That is quite a different question. Allied military courts, I gather, would be somewhat analagous to the Supreme Court. I should require notice of that question, because I have been dealing only with a military court appointed by the military commander of the occupied territory.
Earl Winterton: Then may I formally ask you, Sir, to give a considered Ruling
1094
on the point I have put, as to whether this Allied court would or would not come within Section 155 of the Manual of Procedure?
Mr. Pritt: The noble Lord has referred to Section 155 of the Manual of Procedure, which says that a Member "while speaking on a question" must not castaspersions and so forth. Your reply, Mr. Speaker, covered the matter in a general fashion, but did not specifically refer to that Section. May we take It that you are not ruling that a Member putting down a Question is "speaking on a question," as it may make a difference with regard to other questions that might arise?
Mr. Speaker: I should have thought myself that it included everything, and that if a Member puts down a Question he is speaking on it.

NEW MEMBER SWORN
George Edward Peter Thorneycroft, esquire, for the county of Monmouth (Monmouth Division).

BILL PRESENTED
EMERGENCY LAWS (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL
"to provide for the continuation of certain Defence Regulations during a limited period notwithstanding the expiry of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts, 1939 to 1945, and for the extension and amendment of certain enactments the duration or operation of which depends on the duration of the said Acts or of the war; for the permanent enactment of provisions contained in certain Defence Regulations; for establishing the ownership of the Crown of goods requisitioned under emergency powers; for empowering local authorities to remove war works and restore land; for the repeal of certain emergency enactments; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, "presented by Mr. Ede; supported by Mr. Herbert Morrison, Mr. Westwood, the Attorney-General and Mr. Oliver; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 33.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.22 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Major Sir Frank Soskice): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This Bill is of a rather technical nature, dealing with certain aspects of what is referred to in this House as delegated legislation. The House recently has devoted a considerable amount of time to considering that type of legislation, and is anxious to watch it, to be sure that it proceeds on statutory lines and does not transgress certain interpretations which can be put upon it. This particular Bill is designed to clarify and introduce uniformity with regard to certain aspects of that type of legislation. The aspects which it deals with are the laying before the House of Orders made by Ministers, and Orders in Council made under powers conferred by an Act, and the machinery for requiring numbering, publication and sale of copies of such Orders, so that they are made readily accessible to the public, and all persons who have occasion to make use of them.
  1096
  The House will be aware that the Select Committee on Statutory Rules and Orders, familiarly known as the Scrutinising Committee, has been doing valuable work in this regard. Its general terms of reference may be summarised by saying that it is to "keep an eye" on delegated legislation and statutory rules made under powers conferred on Ministers. That committee, which has been sitting since 1944, in October, 1944 presented a special report, in which it called attention to certain anomalies affecting delegated legislation, particularly in relation to the laying before Parliament of Statutory Orders made under powers conferred on a Minister. I propose to refer to these as "statutory instruments" because in the Bill that term has been adopted to describe them. By statutory instruments, I mean all rules, orders, bylaws and Orders in Council, made hereafter under Acts passed hereafter or Acts passed heretofore by Ministers or by His Majesty in Council pursuant to powers conferred by such Acts making such statutory instruments. I propose to refer to them comprehensively, for convenience sake, as statutory instruments. The scrutinising Committee as I say presented a special report in October, 1944. The Coalition Government devoted a great deal of time and thought to the recommendations in the report, and, in particular, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) worked on the questions raised. Now the present Government have inherited that problem with many others from the Coalition Government, and the "Caretaker" Government.
  The Bill is designed to deal with these anomalies, and to provide a remedy for certain unfavourable features to which attention was called by the scrutinising committee in their special report. Briefly, the object of the Bill is in the first place, the removal of these anomalies, or supplying some sort of solution for the problems raised by the scrutinising committee. In the second place it seeks to repeal and reproduce what was valuable in the Rules Publication Act, 1893. The report of the Select Committee dealt with the matter, which, so far as present legislation is concerned, rests very largely upon the Rules Publication Act, 1893. Therefore in dealing with the anomalies to which the special report calls attention, the Govern-

  1097
  ment, in this new Bill, which I am recommending to the House, starts off by repealing the Rules Publication Act and bringing back again all that was good and should be preserved in the Rules Publication Act, and it provides its own remedies for dealing with the other anomalies which are referred to by the Select Committee in its special report.
  With that general introduction, I want to examine rather more particularly the recommendations in the special report, and the anomalies with which it dealt. Hon. Members are familiar with the usual forms taken by statutory instruments. They will know that, broadly speaking, if a statutory instrument, that is to say, an Order made by a Minister, under power conferred upon him, is to be laid before the House, it is laid before the House or before Parliament, if it is to go before both Houses, in this form: It has to remain before the House for so many days, and then there has to be a negative Resolution which will put an end to its life, or alternatively, it has to be laid before the House, and then it is brought, shall I say, into permanent life by an affirmative Resolution. The Minister produces the statutory instrument and the power under which he produces it, requires that it shall be laid before Parliament in one of these two forms. That is to say, the Regulation or the Order which the Minister makes under the powers conferred on him, is to lie before Parliament. Sometimes in the first class of case it is said that it shall be valid for the object for which it is passed, unless after the expiry of so many days, a negative Resolution of the House is passed, with regard to that statutory instrument, in which case it comes to an end. The other case is that in which the statutory instrument lies before Parliament but does not have any statutory effect unless, within a certain period, Parliament passes an affirmative Resolution bringing that statutory instrument into effect. Broadly speaking those are the two forms which have been adopted in past and present legislation. It is these two forms to which one must address oneself, in dealing with the matters in the special report.
  The scrutinising Committee in their Report called attention in the first place to this; that there is no sort of uniformity in the periods for which statutory instruments have to be laid before the House.
  1098
  If we examine the various Statutes which have been passed, which have conferred upon Ministers or upon His Majesty in Council the power to make a statutory instrument, we find that some provide that they shall lie before Parliament for 20 days, 21 days, 30 days, 40 days, a month and so on. There is also no uniform provision, as the law at present stands, which states how you are to reckon that period, whatever it is, that is whether you are to take into account the days on which the House is in Recess, when Parliament is prorogued, or when there is a Dissolution and so on. The first anomaly to which the Special Report called attention was that disparity in the periods for which a statutory instrument ought to be laid before Parliament and the disparity in the method of reckoning the periods whatever they were.
  The first object of the Bill which I am commending to the House is to remove that anomaly by introducing the necessary legislative machinery to provide that, hereafter, whenever a statutory instrument is made and is laid before the House, under whatever terms the relevant enactment provides, a uniform period shall be adopted in every case, and that that period shall be 40 days; that there shall be, in relation to the period, a uniform method of reckoning the days and that that period shall be reckoned in terms of the days during which the House actually sits, apart from week-ends. That is the first change which the present Bill introduces.
  I now invite the House to look at the second anomaly, to which the special Report called attention. Hon. Members will, no doubt, be familiar with the fact that when a Minister has to lay a statutory instrument before the House, in which powers are conferred upon him, it is simply said that he will lay it before the House "as soon as may be." There is no specific time limit imposed upon him. I emphasise that there is no method, within this phraseology, which gives a specific time limit, and as hon. Members no doubt remember, it has in the past led to unfortunate results. On one particular occasion a statutory instrument was not laid before the House for a number of years, because under such phraseology it is reasonablyeasy to overlook the period of time. The special Report drew attention to the very vague phraseology

  1099
  of the expression "as soon as may be" which is so often found in these instruments, and to the necessity of finding some more specific phraseology for the future so that there shall be a special time in which Ministers shall say that they will lay a statutory instrument before the House. That is the second matter to which the special Report calls attention.
  The third matter with which I shall deal in passing, and which was specified in the special Report, is this. It was stated by the Committee that there was no sort of uniformity in enactments, in choosing between cases where the affirmative Resolution procedure is adopted, and cases where the negative Resolution procedure is adopted. I want to dispose of that right away, by saying, quite frankly, that the Bill does not attempt to meet that third criticism. It does not, for this reason, that Parliament must, in its choice of affirmative or negative procedure, depend on the actual type of Regulation which is in question, and the actual type of enactment under which the Regulation is made. I will make no further reference to that third criticism by the Committee. I would point out to the House that the very nature of the problem does a priori mean that, in legislation of this nature, it is better for the Minister to decide what procedure he will or will not adopt. The first two objects of the Bill then are, in the first place to introduce a period during which a statutory instrument must be laid before the House and the method of assessing that period; and in the second place to deal with the phrase "as soon as may be."
  I now want to refer to the second set of criticisms because they are also relevant to the matter. I have referred to the Rules Publication Act. That Act has now been in force some 50 years. It has done its work well in some respects, but I ask the House to say it is high time that the Measure should be reviewed and if necessary repealed. This Bill does, in fact, set out by repealing the Rules Publication Act of 1893, but as I have said, it reintroduces its good features. Perhaps I may remind the House of some of the provisions of the Rules Publication Act. It enacted that statutory instruments they were called by another name but I am adopting that term—must be sent to the King's, or in those days to the Queen's printer; that they must be numbered; that
  1100
  they must be printed, and that copies must be prepared so as to be readily accessible to members of the public, and to any of the people who would have to make use of them. That is one of the good features of the Act and it has worked well, and one of its results is the compilation of that series of Statutory Rules and Orders, which now runs into many volumes and with which hon. Members are familiar—at any rate I hope they are, because it is obviously necessary to have them in some accessible form. That compilation was brought about by the provisions of the Act, and it is provided for, in the present Bill.
  The Bill however leaves this out, which was contained in the Rules Publication Act of 1893. That Act provided that in cases of certain statutory instruments—not all, but certain of them—the Minister must before they come into effect, arrange for them to be inserted in the "Gazette" and that information should be given where copies of them could be obtained and representations made by the parties interested to the Minister or the Department which was drafting the statutory instrument in order to help in deciding what its final form should be. That, I might say, was a sort of antecedent publicity which could take place 40 days before the Act was passed. That is what that Act provided and that is what this Bill leaves out. I propose later to give the reason for that omission. Section 2 of the Act is a corollary to Section 1, which provided that notwithstanding that a Minister had to give these 40 days antecedent publicity he neverthless could, in urgent matters, have the power to make what was called a provisional Order, that is to say that where normally he had to give 40 days antecedent publicity, in such urgent cases he could immediately bring the provisional Order into operation. Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew (Ayr and Bute Northern): A provisional Rule.
  The Solicitor-General: I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman—that is correct, a provisional Rule. In order to clear up any possible confusion, I ought to say that the provisional Rule procedure specified by Section 2 of the 1893 Act, has nothing whatever to do with the procedure which is called the provisional Order procedure. That is altogether different. While I am in the course of this digression, may I also point

  1101
  out to the House that the Bill which I am submitting has nothing whatever to do with the Special Procedure Bill, which the House considered not so very long ago. This is a very wide field and the present Bill is concerned solely with this procedure, and not with the special procedure being set up under the other Bill I have mentioned. I was informing the House of the procedure provided by the antecedent publicity procedure. That procedure has been omitted from the present Measure. It was severely criticised by the special Report, and it has, in my submission to the House, flaws which cannot be remedied except at an excessive cost. It has not really any great value—not sufficient to justify its retention. I will give my reasons later for saying that.
  I would like the House to consider briefly the provisions of the Bill. For the benefit of hon. Members who have not copies, I will indicate briefly, by reference to the Clauses, how it sets about achieving the objects I have outlined. Clause 1 defines the application of the Measure generally. It introduces the term "statutory instruments" which I have been using, and it provides that hereinafter where an Act uses that term the provisions of this Bill shall be attracted to that statutory instrument, and shall apply in regard to it. That is for the future. It also applies to statutory instruments such as are dealt with by the Rules Publication Act, 1893. Without being technical, I may say that the net effect is that Clause 1 of the new Measure means that it is to have a general application to all statutory instruments, with very few exceptions with which I need not trouble the House. Generally speaking, from now on all statutory instruments are to be covered by the Bill, and the provisions of the Bill shall apply to all statutory instruments.
  Clause 2 introduces the provisions of the Rules Publication Act, 1893, relating to the publication, numbering and the furnishing of copies of statutory instruments. This is a Clause in which is introduced that which was good in the old Act. Without going into it in detail, I can tell the House that it introduces with it an amendment which improves the whole procedure, because curiously enough, the Rules Publication Act, 1893, when it set up this procedure for the publication of statutory instruments, was expressed so as to apply only to statutory instruments
  1102
  made by the Minister. I am trying not to become too technical. The alteration made by this present Bill is that now not only statutory instruments which are made by the Minister but also statutory instruments which are confirmed or approved by a Minister, are brought within the ambit of the publications procedure. That is the difference between the present Bill and the old Act to which I called attention. It is in the nature of an improvement, because there are sometimes provisions in an Act which provide that a Minister shall have power to approve and confirm an Order made by a subordinate body, and that would not have required publication under the terms of the old Act. It is now required, so that publication is much more comprehensive and embraces all those statutory instruments heretofore not included within the ambit of the scheme.
  To hon. Members who have had an opportunity of reading Clause 3 of the Bill, it may seem rather complicated. At first sight it may not be altogether easy to define what its purpose is. I will endeavour to explain it to the House. As I informed the House, one of the points of the special Report was the vagueness of the phrase "as soon as may be." Clause 3 is designed to remedy that position. The special Report suggested that the proper way was to provide that the statutory instrument should be laid before the House within a certain period after it had been made, say five days, a fortnight, or something of that kind. That remedy has not been adopted for the purposes of the present Bill, because it is considered to be unworkable. I will explain what I mean by that. Supposing it is provided that a statutory instrument shall be laid before the House within 10 days after it is made, there must be some sort of sanction to make sure that that provision will be complied with. Obviously you cannot start sending a Minister to prison if he does not comply with it. [Hon. Members: Why not?] That may be a remedy which some hon. Members think appropriate, but we hope to devise a remedy which will be acceptable to all sides of the House. At all events, that is a remedy I would not venture to urge on the House. It is not the one which has been adopted.
  It is clear that there must be some sanction; otherwise it is a waste of time to say that a statutory instrument has to

  1103
  be laid before the House in five days. The only sanction suggested is the sanction that if that is not complied with a statutory instrument should cease to have effect. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members say "Hear, hear," but I respectfully suggest for their consideration that in point of fact that really would not supply the remedy at all. It would lead to the most impossible difficulties in the matter of proof. In every court in the country which had to consider a statutory instrument the person who asserted it and relied on it would have affirmatively to prove that the statutory instrument had come into force. Hon. Members shake their heads, but I do not see how that would be avoided, and in order to do that, they would have to prove affirmatively that the statutory instrument had been laid before the House in the specified period. Whether they would call the Clerk of the House or not I do not know. In any police court throughout the Kingdom where it was necessary to rely on a statutory instrument that procedure, which is obviously a completely impossible one, would have to be resorted to, if that premise is correct. I see hon. Members shake their heads but I venture to suggest it would have to be done and that would be—
  Mr. Molson (The High Peak): In the case of an Act of Parliament, which is printed, that is taken as prima facie proof that an Act was duly passed. Could not the same thing apply to statutory instruments?
  Sir Harold Webbe: Would it not be possible to prove that a document had been laid by reference to the records of the House, and not by summoning any person such as the Clerk at the Table to give evidence?
  The Solicitor-General: Perhaps I unwisely and indiscreetly built up a house of cards, and started knocking it down. It is not the remedy I am suggesting. If I may put before the House the remedy I am suggesting in the Bill, and hon. Members think it satisfactory, the question of whether some other remedy might work will not be relevant. Clause 3 provides that in the printed copies which are printed by the King's Printer, there will always be certain information shown on the outside of the Bill. That information.
  1104
  will be a statment showing the day on which the statutory instrument came into operation.
  Mr. Pickthorn: Or will come into operation.
  The Solicitor-General: Also it will contain, if I may quote the words of the Clause:
  "either a statement showing the date on which copies thereof were laid before Parliament or a statement that such copies are to be laid before Parliament."
  Mr. Pickthorn: The date on which it was laid before Parliament, or the date on which it has to be laid before Parliment?
  Sir H. Webbe: Without limit of time?
  The Solicitor-General: I can conceive, as an exercise of the imagination, that the statement might run something like this: "This shall be laid before Parliament at the end of the year after next," but if it did, it would not really be assisting Members very much. If one reads the thing reasonably, it has to be within some reasonable time. It has either been done or is going to be done.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: If the Bill provides that the Order shall have printed on it the date when the Order was laid before Parliament, does not that dispose of the difficulty with regard to proof?
  The Solicitor-General: No, not at all. I was very unwise to embark on a discussion of a solution that I had not adopted. I was trying to make the point that it is no use providing a specific period unless a sanction is provided. The sanction suggested was that if the requirement as to the specific period was not fulfilled the statutory instrument should automatically become void. Therefore, whenever in any court a question arose whether a person had committed any offence in relation to a statutory instrument, it would be necessary for the prosecution to show that at the particular time the statutory instrument had not become void because it had not complied with any specific time limit. That will not apply under the method adopted by Clause 3, because that Clause does not make a statutory instrument void. It says that a statutory instrument shall not be void, in connection with the negative resolution type of statutory instrument, but it

  1105
  says that on the copy which is published, this information must be shown, so that Parliament and members of the public shall know where they stand with regard to it.
  In addition, the Clause says that the Treasury shall make a return to Parliament at specific periods, calling attention to any statutory instrument which has not been laid before Parliament, and explaining why such copies were not laid before Parliament. What is the net result of that? There is no avoiding procedure. Once a Minister has made an Order and it is an Order which would come into effect under the terms of the powers under which he makes it, it shall be in effect. If he forgets to lay it before the House there will be a report to that effect laid before the House by the Treasury, and the Minister will have to explain why he has not complied with the requirements. That is the way in which it is suggested it would work—[Interruption.] Some Ministers might be extremely embarrassed. He will be required to explain why it was not done. Once it has been brought to his attention that it has not been done he will immediately do it. Not only will his attention be called to it by the Treasury's report, but he will have it constantly pressing on his mind, because it is printed outside the statutory instrument that it had come into operation. Therefore, there is provided a procedure whereby everybody is reminded about any statutory instrument that has not been placed before the House, if, in fact, it has not been, and the possibility is thereby lessened.
  It is intended to provide against a statutory instrument not being laid before the House through inadvertence because that is the only cause which is likely to lead to its not being laid before the House, and it is in respect of that, that it is proposed to lay down this new procedure. That is the remedy which is proposed in the Bill to meet the complaint or comment contained in the Special Report as to the possible consequences of using this particularly vague language "laid before the House as soon as may be." I want, at this stage, to adumbrate what the scheme is that we propose.
  Sir C. MacAndrew: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman leaves this point, I would like to ask him whether I am right in thinking that now "as soon as may be" means any time within twice a year?
  The Solicitor-General:I accept that from the hon. and gallant Gentleman. It can be construed rather according to one's temperament and point of view.
  Sir C. MacAndrew: That is the fact?
  The Solicitor-General: Yes, I accept it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's criticism was what he had in mind, because he was very largely responsible for making the comment—an invaluable comment—and he had that in mind. A phrase like "as soon as may be" is extremely indefinite; some people construe that phrase against themselves, and some people construe it very much in their own favour. Possibly, to construe it as meaning six months hence, is going a little far but, in fact, the substance of the criticism remains that we do not want a vague phrase of that sort which, in the past has led to Orders not being laid before the House. One wants to provide by the system which is introduced in the Bill, something which will minimise the risk of that sort of inadvertence, and the sort of inadvertence which led to an unfortunate case during the war. I respectfully ask the House to take the view that the system which is outlined in Clause 3 does, in fact, bring that about. It constantly brings it prominently to the notice of everybody concerned, whether a member of the public who is affected by it, or the Minister or persons in his Department, or Members in the House, that the instrument has or has not been laid before the House, and that it is or is not in force. There is also this report by the Treasury, which, in the event of the statutory instrument not being laid before the House, will ensure that a question is asked and the Minister will have to scratch his head and give an answer.
  Sir H. Webbe: If the report is not to be published, members of the public will have no notice whatever.
  The Solicitor-General: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Treasury report. The Treasury report will be published, so that hon. Members will know of any case in which there has been failure to lay the statutory instrument.
  Sir H. Webbe: And the public?
  The Solicitor-General: And the public.
  Mr. Maude: How does the Treasury obtain this information, in order

  1107
  to make the report if there has been no publication? If the Minister has not done his duty, and has made an Order but kept it under his hat, how does the Treasury know?
  The Solicitor-General: The Order will be published. Later in the Bill one sees that it will be published and, therefore, the Treasury has only to compare those instruments which, in fact, are laid before the House in the usual way, with the ones which are notified as having been published, and by comparison of the two it will know which ones—
  Mr. Maude: I am sorry if I have not made myself plain. I am dealing with the troubles we had in the old days arising from non-publication, and, if I may use a slang expression, where the Minister had kept the thing entirely under his hat. Then, I am sure it must be that the Treasury would never know.
  The Solicitor-General:Clause 2 requires that they must be sent to the King's Printer. [Hon. Members: "As soon as may be."] If it is assumed that the Minister is going to commit a double fault and be guilty of a double inadvertence it may be that the Treasury will not know, but it is most unlikely, I suggest to the House, that in the first place it should not be sent to the King's Printer, and so remain on the file in that sense, and that nobody who is affected by it and in relation to whom the Department or the Minister concerned seeks to exercise powers, should not have it brought to the notice or made public that, in fact, an Order had been made. If it is assumed that there is no publication of an Order, that it has not been laid before the House and that it has not been the subject of discussion in the House, then if one finds that under the terms of the Order the Minister seeks, for instance, to requisition somebody's premises, the owner who has his premises requisitioned, without any statutory authority for so doing, will naturally "raise a song and dance" which will bring to light the fact that something has gone wrong.
  Sir H. Webbe: But to carry out that requisition a statutory authority will have to exist.
  The Solicitor-General: It may be. The question put by the hon. Member was:
  1108
  How will it come to light and how will the Treasury get to know?
  Sir H. Webbe:By someone committing a breach of an Order.
  The Solicitor-General: In the case of the Minister being guilty of a double slip-up, I should think it is possible that the first time it would be brought to the light of day would be when somebody committed a trespass.
  Mr. Molson: May I put a question, because this is very important? Would the hon. and learned Gentleman say, if this Bill had been in operation, would the fact that the National Fire Service Regulations were not laid, as in fact they were not, be known? My submission is that it would not.
  The Solicitor-General: I am told that the National Fire Service Regulations were published.
  Mr. Molson: They were.
  The Solicitor-General: What happens is that those who were charged by the Treasury with that duty, by comparison of the Regulations which have been, published, with those which have been laid before the House, would very soon ascertain whether those Regulations should or should not have been the subject of a report before the House under Clause 3 (3) of the Bill. That is my answer. In other words, I put it to the House that it is in the highest degree unlikely and is next to impossible that it should come about that a Statutory Instrument should not be laid before the House, and that everybody, including the Treasury, should be unaware of the fact. There is here a scheme which charges a particular Department with the duty of making a careful comparison and analysis, and reporting at regular intervals to the House whether or not there have been instruments which, by inadvertence, have not been laid before the House.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can my hon. and learned Friend say whether there is in the Bill any obligation on the King's Printer, when he has printed a Statutory Instrument, put a number on it and put upon the face of it the number of days which are allowed for sanction by Parliament, to supply the Treasury with a copy; and if not, ought not there to be such an obligation?
  The Solicitor-General: The answer is "No" to both parts of the question. There is no obligation on the King's Printer to provide the Treasury with a copy. The Treasury can find out and, in my submission, such an obligation is not necessary.
  Mr. Silverman: Ought there not then to be an obligation on the Department to send a copy to the Treasury?
  The Solicitor-General: One answer is that the Stationery Office comes under the Treasury, and, therefore, it would be putting an obligation on the Treasury to furnish a copy to itself.
  Sir C. MacAndrew: Could the King's Printer not send a copy to the Library here?
  Mr. Speaker: I think we have been long enough discussing these points, which are really Committee points.
  The Solicitor-General: It is not a point of substance in my submission and, in view of Mr. Speaker's Ruling, I will not pursue it further.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: Would it not prevent a possible loophole, if the Bill provided that no Statutory Instrument should come into operation until it had been printed?
  The Solicitor-General: I appreciate the point of the question, but the difficulty is that one occasionally; does get instruments which have to come into operation with the utmost urgency, and printing, however quickly it is done, must of necessity take some time. Therefore, I suggest that is not the ideal solution. Admittedly, it is difficult to find a solution, but here we have a solution which should cover 999,000 out of 1,000,000 cases. It is a simple and workable solution and I commend it to the House. I am not suggesting that it is ideal, because no human instrument is ideal, but it is a workable one.
  I now pass to Clause 4 of the Bill, which is designed to introduce a uniform period for which the instrument is to be laid before the House. Hon. Members will see that the period chosen is 40 days. Turning to Clause 6 hon. Members will see that in reckoning the period of 40 days,
  "No account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or pro-
  1110
  rogued or during which both Houses are adjourned far more than four days,"
  so that there is a uniform period and a uniform method of reckoning that period. Applying that to Clause 4, hon. Members will observe that the Clause in terms relates only to one of the two classes of laying before, and not the affirmative Resolution class, as I described it earlier. It purports to introduce uniformity only in the negative class and not in the affirmative class. The reason for that is to be found in the nature of the two categories. In the case of the negative type, the instrument is effective and remains effective unless and until within the specified period there is a negative Resolution which puts an end to its life. In respect of that type, the necessity arises for having some uniform period uniformly assessed so that hon. Members may know where they are and how the time which is allotted for introducing their negative resolution is going, if they think the case calls for such procedure.
  In the case of the affirmative type of resolution, I suggest to the House that there is no similar need, because in the case of the affirmative Resolution type the instrument is of no effect, remains of no effect and remains a complete nullity unless and until at some time or other there is introduced an affirmative Resolution which brings it to life and stops it being annulled. Therefore, I urge upon the House that there is a fundamental distinction between the two types. Where as in the case of a negative Resolution there must be some uniformity and some uniform method of assessing the time, in the case of an affirmative Resolution that necessity does not arise because if there is no affirmative Resolution nothing happens, and it is so much worse for the Minister because he does not get his powers effective.
  When we turn to Clause 4 we find that the time is only in relation to the negative Resolution type of procedure. Clause 5—and I will not go into details about it—is consequential on Clause 4. Clause 4 relates to the case where the instrument itself has been made and is subject to the negative Resolution. Clause 5 relates to the case where, not the instrument itself but a draft of it, has been prepared, or where the draft of an Order in Council has been prepared. It is in relation to the drafts of Orders in Council that Clause 5 is necessary. Therefore, Clauses 4, 5 and

  1111
  6 achieve the first object of the Bill, namely, to meet the first criticism of the special legislation which was made in the special Report of the scrutinising Committee. That really deals with the substance of the Bill. Clause 7, looked at very shortly, is a simple regulations Clause, which gives power to make Regulations relating to publication. I have already referred to Clause 8 because it brings within the ambit of the publication scheme statutory instruments confirmed or approved by the Minister as distinct from those which are made by the Minister. Clause 9deals with commencement, Clause 10 with interpretation and Clause 11 repeals the Rules Publication Act, 1893.
  Those are the observations I want to make on a scrutiny of the Bill itself. I intimated earlier that I would give the House an indication of the reasons which led the Government to think that it was not desirable to reintroduce the antecedent publicity provisions of the Rules Publication Act. In the first place, as Sections 1 and 2 of the Act stand at the moment, they are defective. They contain very serious flaws. I will indicate briefly what those flaws are, without going into them. Section 1 does not apply to Scotland, and it applies only to a limited class of instrument. It does not, for example, apply to an instrument which has to be laid before the House for a specific period before it comes into operation. It applies to an instrument which has to be laid before the House but not to an instrument which has to be laid for a specific period. Therefore, it applies only to some of them. When one looks at the Provisional Order Procedure one sees that it is defective at present. [An Hon. Member: "Provisional Rule."] Yes, I am sorry. I see that I have introduced a confusion which I may ask the House to be wary of. I should have said the Provisional Rule Procedure. No term is introduced into Section 2 of the Rules Publication Act during which a provisional Rule may operate. Therefore, a Minister may, in a matter of urgency, make a provisional Rule and may forget all about it, and the provisional Rule may remain in operation for ever. That, obviously, is a serious defect.
  There is another defect which has led to a good deal of controversy and diver-
  1112
  gency of opinion among Ministers who have had to use the Section embodying the Provisional Rule Procedure. It is not the least bit clear from Section 2, when you have made a Provisional Rule, and later come to the House to make your final Rule, whether you have to relay your final Rule, or whether the making of the provisional Rule is the "laying" before the House. There is a divergency of opinion on that point. I think I have said enough to show that, as the Act stands and in its present form, it is defective, and that in any case it would require drastic overhaul.
  The Government have also taken the view that the antecedent publicity procedure is not worth retaining, for the general reason that, normally, when Ministers or Departments have laid a statutory instrument, they have always discussed the thing in considerable detail with all parties affected. Whatever the nature of the instrument is, public and private bodies will be affected by it when it comes into operation. The normal practice is that the Department will thoroughly consider objections and carefully go into the matter with all those interests who are concerned, before they get to the stage of making a statutory instrument. That process works well in practice, and that fact is reflected in the further fact that although at present there are 200 enactments which attract the antecedent publicity procedure of the Rules Publication Act, in no less than 60 enactments at present in force has it been specifically excluded. That shows that the persons who were concerned regarded the procedure as inapplicable and inconvenient to the purpose of the delegated legislation which they wished to use for the purpose of a particular enactment. Therefore, it was thought that it was not worth retaining that procedure at all.
  In substance, what would happen if you retained it is this: You would get the Department discussing the matter with interested parties. The Department, already having discussed it fully and having come to the stage at which they can prepare the instrument, prepare it and publish it. Then 40 days have to elapse, during which nothing takes place. It is a complete blank and a complete waste of time, because the discussions with the interested persons have already been completed and the instrument has been

  1113
  fashioned as a result of those discussions. You have 40 days, during which you must notify it in the "Gazette," but nothing takes place. Practice and experience have shown that only in the very rarest cases has it been brought about that, during the 40 days in which an Instrument has been notified in the "Gazette" any further point of view has been advanced by any person, any member of the public, as a result of the publication, which has not already been completely traversed and discussed in the preliminary talks with the interested parties. Therefore, the scheme is to jettison all that antecedent publicity as not being worth while retaining.
  Those are the observations I want to make with regard to the Bill and I commend the Bill to the House. This Bill is of more importance than might appear at first sight. It is a technical Bill but it deals with an aspect of legislation which is extremely important now-a-days and is likely to grow more important. It is a Bill designed to regularise an aspect of delegated legislation which needs regularisation. That part of the Bill which introduces a standard period, which has been badly needed over a period of years, cannot possibly come in for any criticism. The Bill leaves out altogether a procedure which experience has shown to be not worth retaining, the antecedent publicity procedure. It retains the publicity procedure which consists in the King's Printer making copies and numbering them and so on, so that all Instruments are readily accessible to members of the public and other people who have occasion to use them. It does, in so doing, confer a distinct advantage. It is a useful small Bill, not really controversial in nature, and it is one which, in my submission, should commend itself to the House. In those circumstances, I ask the House to give it a Second Reading.
  4.25 p.m.
  Mr. J. S. C. Reid:I think that the learned Solicitor-General has said enough to show that the present state of the law and practice with regard to delegated legislation is very far from satisfactory. Everyone has agreed, for a long time now, that a Bill to put this matter on the right lines is overdue, but so long as delegated legislation occupied a minor role in our affairs, the defects which existed, while irksome, were not extremely serious. It has now become
  1114
  clear that the great growth of delegated legislation which took place during the war is regarded by the Government as a good thing and that it is likely to continue. We oppose it and shall continue to oppose it. But if a mass of delegated legislation is to be thrust upon us in the coming years, the case for complete overhaul of the present system is overwhelming.
  Therefore we welcome the fact that a Bill has been introduced so as to give the House a chance of considering the fundamental questions—because they are fundamental—which underlie the whole of this matter. It is, indeed, the first opportunity since 1893 that the House has had for such an overhaul. We must treat the Bill on the footing that it ought to provide for a complete overhaul of the principles and procedure within the field with which it deals. The Donoughmore Committee in 1932 made detailed recommendations on this question but few, if any, of those recommendations have received effect in the Bill. Some are probably not now needed, but some are needed very badly. Two important questions of principle emerge at once as we read the Bill but neither—certainly not the first one—has received any consideration from the Solicitor-General. I think the second has not received very much, and then, from a different angle altogether. Therefore the Bill as it stands falls very far short of what it ought to be.
  The first point arises in Clause 2. I do not think we have heard anything about it. The Bill permits an Order to become law before it has been published. We regard that as completely wrong in principle. There are many reasons why it is wrong, and other Members who will follow me may give a number of them. I shall limit myself to giving the one which seems to me to be the most important. It is obviously unjust that any man should be prosecuted for having done something at a time when the law against that something existed, but he could not possibly know that the law existed because it had not been published. I cannot believe that anybody in this House can defend that state of affairs, which brings the law into complete disrepute. Therefore, it should not be permitted.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): The right hon. and

  1115
  learned Gentleman mentioned Clause 2. Was he not referring to Section 2 of the 1893 Act?
  Mr. Reid: No. I am undoubtedly referring to Clause 2 of the Bill. The Clause says:
  "As soon as may be after the making of any Statutory Instrument, it shall be sent to the King's Printer."
  I wish to digress for a moment to follow the Solicitor-General in his own digression. I was struck by the fact that he made reference, and drew the attention of the House, to the disadvantages that attended the words "as soon as may be", but I find in Clauses 2 and 3 that those are the operative words. It is very odd that the Solicitor-General should commend to the House a Bill yet go out of his way to pour scorn upon the leading words of his own Bill. That is a digression, and I pass to something more important.
  I want to be fair. It is not a new thing for a law to come into operation before it is published. I admit that. But this was a much less serious matter before the war than it is now. Before the war there was much less interference with the affairs of the ordinary man by departmental regulations. Therefore, the importance of this question has grown enormously. Further, in a great many cases before the war the things which were prohibited by these regulations were things which an ordinary man would regard as wrong independent of whether they were made illegal, and there is no great hardship perhaps, although it is constitutionally objectionable, in prosecuting a man for doing something which he certainly ought to have known was wrong but did not know was illegal. Today, however, the whole essence of this complicated legislation is to prohibit things which no ordinary man would ever consider wrong, and which are not in the least wrong morally and only become wrong because they have been made illegal. During the war the matter of inadequate publicity of this multitude of Orders gave rise to a good many difficulties. They were got over one way or another, and, in any case, during the war one had to put up with a number of things because events moved so quickly.
  1116
  Now that we have, I hope, returned to peacetime, it is really intolerable that this old abuse should continue. I ask the Government to think again about this matter, if, indeed, they have thought about it at all. There is no indication from what the Solicitor-General said that they have even considered it. I do not think it is irrelevant to say this. The greatness of this country is to a large extent founded upon our universal respect for the law. People will not continue to respect the law unless they have a fair opportunity of knowing what the law is. There are two matters which we have to consider: is the law readily available, and, once it is available, is it intelligible? I leave to the Junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) the question of the intelligibility of some of these Orders. It would be out of Order to discuss it on this Bill. The question of availability, however, comes in directly. As a bare minimum, you must have a law published and the Order on sale to the public before you can enforce it. The whole of our legal system is founded on the proposition that a man is presumed to know the law and, therefore, he is not entitled to say, "I was ignorant of the law." It is a complete farce to say that a man is presumed to know something which has never been published.
  The true position is that if we are to retain the respect of the ordinary citizen everybody must be able to know what the law affecting him is if he chooses to take a little trouble. We should make the amount of trouble he has to take as little as possible. I am sure that the Government will not dissent from that as a general proposition. I should be very surprised if they did. I trust, therefore, that they will agree to incorporate in Clause 2 some drastic Amendments which will give effect to the principle which I have been enunciating. I cannot think what the objection can be. It can only be some kind of administrative inconvenience. If it comes to a conflict between administrative convenience and justice, then, in peacetime at least, administrative, convenience must give way. What is the inconvenience? It is nothing at all. If you want to print an Order urgently, even a long Order, it can be done over night. If the Minister signs the Order at 6'clock in the afternoon, he can have it printed and on his desk next morning, so there is no difficulty about it.

  1117
  The thing can be done in Hansard every day, and it can be published at the forenoon. Therefore, any possible delay need not be more than 24 hours. There are so many hordes of publicity officials attached to the various Ministries, that the Order can be brought to the notice of all concerned that very day if they choose to exert themslves.
  If it were the case that this diligence and expedition were always used by Departments, I should not press the point as I do. In point of fact, because there is no mandatory injunction from this House, Departments are extremely slack in this matter, and we really must take steps to see that it is brought to an end. I find, for example, when I look at the Donoughmore Committee's Report in the Appendix, that as long ago as 1921 the Treasury were drawing the attention of Departments to their slackness in this matter:
  "The Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have had under consideration cases in which complaint has been made of delay in the supply to the public of copies of draft statutory rules and orders…My Lords see no reason why copies should not be placed on sale within the period (normally 24 hours) required by the Stationery Office to print off copies."
  Therefore, there is no justification for saying that Orders can be brought into effect before copies are on sale in the Stationery Office. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will see fit to give assurances that this Bill will be radically amended in the Committee stage. The Bill should contain a general rule that no Order is to be law until it is published. We can discuss the machinery for that on the Committee stage. How we are to define publication is a pretty easy matter for the draughtsman to solve, but it must be published in some form or other. I am supported in that by what the Donoughmore Committee says in regard to delegated legislation. It has never been challenged by any authority. They say, on page 66 of their report:
  "Publication—possibly in the Gazette—should be a condition precedent to the coming into operation of a regulation."
  They lay that down as a general rule, and I am sure that it is a good one.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman be good enough to read the subsequent passage of that recommendation?
  Mr. Reid: Certainly:
  "…although in the case of a regulation which has been published in draft in compliance with Section I and is ultimately made substantially in the form in which it has been published, a public notification of the making might be substituted for publication of the text."
  I did not read that because I agree with the learned Solicitor-General that we do not require Section 1. All that qualification says is that if you use Section 1 procedure, you need not have republication, but, as we are not going to use that procedure, I did not think that that part was relevant. I am sure that nobody in any quarter of the House can regard this as a political question. I do not see how any right-minded man can dissent from the general proposition which I have put forward. Therefore, I have considerable hope that the Government will be able to give a satisfactory assurance on this question today.
  I come to the second question to which the Solicitor-General devoted some attention, namely, Clause 3. It is true, as he said, that there are widespread provisions in many Acts which require the laying of Orders before Parliament. It is true that there are many differences of procedure, and this Bill is a good Bill in so far as it unifies that procedure. Laying may be purely for the information of Parliament, or it may be a preliminary to a negative Resolution for annulment. In either case it is essential that these Orders should be made known to Parliament if Parliament is to perform its essential duty of supervising delegated legislation. I am glad to say that it has been recognised in, I think, all the Bills which this Government have produced, that the supervision of delegated legislation is a proper and necessary part of Parliament's duty. It cannot do it, however, unless it knows what it is it has to supervise. I cannot see any argument against the Departments being required to lay all these Orders on the earliest possible day after they become law. One would have thought that that was an obvious thing for a Department to do, even if they were not told to do it. What do I find, however, in the Special Report from the Select Committee which was published a day or two ago? In paragraph one on page three, they say:
  "Your committee has had occasion to note, in this as in a previous Session, instances of unpunctual compliance with statutory

  1119
  directions for laying before Parliament Statutory Rules and Orders, whether in draft or in final form. They believe that the House will attach importance to due promptness in this respect inasmuch as the laying is the first stage in Parliamentary supervision."
  As Departments have been exceedingly dilatory in the past, it is essential to put something in the Bill that really has teeth in it to make sure that this practice does not go on. I see no reason why it should not be made obligatory that every Order which has to be laid shall be laid on the first sitting day after it comes into effect. I see no reason for any delay. All a Department has to do is to send copies of the Order round to this House by a messenger. There is no difficulty about that, and no reason why it should not be the very next day that Parliament is sitting. That will avoid any questionof forgetfulness on the part of a Department. If any day is good enough, people tend to forget, but if they, know that it has to be done today or never, they will do it today. Therefore, it will help very much to keep Departments up to the scratch if we stated that on the very first day that it can be done all these documents shall be laid before the House. I cannot see any objection to it.
  This Bill is much too weak in Clause 3. There is no sanction at all, as the learned Solicitor pointed out. The only thing it says is that if a Department is slack, the Treasury will lay on the Table a report saying why. There is no opportunity of discussing it. It does not come up in the House in the ordinary course. One may ask a Question of the Minister at Question time, which may never be reached, or one may put a question down for discussion on the Adjournment, and then find that there is something which makes the day fixed unsuitable. Why should we not have a sanction and say that, just as if the Order had been annulled, it becomes void if it is not laid on the first day? The learned Solicitor seemed to think that there would be difficulties about proof in a police court. There is no difficulty in a police court if it is alleged by a defender that Parliament had annulled an Order. The accused person has to prove that it has been annulled. In the same way, why should not the accused person have to prove that the Order was not duly laid? That would solve the whole difficulty. This requirement for laying is not in the interest of accused persons at all. I am
  1120
  not interested in giving them the right to plead this technical defence. This requirement with regard to laying, is in order to enable this House to carry out its essential constitutional functions. We are not going to be put off by some imaginary difficulty about the conduct of police courts; the draftsmen can perfectly well get over that if they want. If that is the only reason the Solicitor-General can think of for not adopting this rule, he might just as well change his mind and fall in with our point of view on this matter.
  Neither of the two suggestions I have made can in any way embarrass any Government in the conduct of its business—not in the least. Neither of those suggestions can in any way prejudice good administration by Departments; on the contrary, they will assist it because they will make it clear that Departments must keep up to scratch, and do their duties promptly and efficiently. The first suggestion will preserve the essential rights of the individual to justice, which otherwise cannot be preserved, and the second will preserve the indispensable control of this House over delegated legislation which is otherwise gravely impaired. I suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman should give us a definite assurance today that both my suggestions are accepted in principle, and then we can discuss their working out on Committee stage. If he will do that, all our other points are Committee points; we have various points to bring forward on Clause 7 and otherwise, but on none of them need I dwell at this moment. If however the Government are not prepared to accept these two particular principles, this Bill has such great defects that it is in our view a thoroughly bad Bill and we shall undoubtedly vote against it.
  4.47 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: This is a very technical subject and I am sure the House is indebted to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for the very able and lucid way in which he has explained the provisions and intentions of this Bill to the House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Hillhead Division of Glasgow (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) has drawn attention to a Treasury circular of 1921 and to the remissness of Government Departments when there was a Conservative Government supported by an overwhelming Conservative majority

  1121
  in this House. I should like to congratulate His Majesty's Government on introducing this Bill into the House at this time. The Government, with all their preoccupations, have thought it right to take these long overdue steps to simplify, and introduce a large measure of uniformity into, the regulations with regard to delegated legislation. His Majesty's Government are thereby fulfilling a task which has been long and scandalously neglected by a series of Governments supported by hon. Members opposite, and it is very curious therefore to find that, apparently, hon. Members opposite have not decided whether they are going to support this Bill or whether they are going to oppose it. [Hon. Members: "Oh, yes, we have."] It certainly was not clear from the speech of the right hon. Member for Hillhead.
  Mr. J. S. C. Reid:Perhaps I did not make myself clear. As this Bill stands, we will definitely oppose it. We will not oppose it if we get from the Government an adequate assurance that our two objections on points of principle are accepted, but on no other terms.
  Mr. Fletcher:Now that we know exactly where we stand, I should like to address reasons to the House why I hope that hon. Members will support the Second Reading of this Bill. Primarily the reason for doing so is this: this House has been returned with a mandate from the electorate for a large legislative programme. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite may say that they will oppose delegated legislation, but the programme to which this House is committed by the wishes of the electorate necessarily involves a great deal of delegated legislation, because that is the essential machinery by which the task for which this House is responsible can alone be carried through. Therefore I think that His Majesty's Government, knowing that an increasing amount of delegated legislation is inevitable, are to be congratulated at this early stage in their career on introducing this Bill for the purpose of simplifying and codifying the machinery of delegated legislation and removing the anomalies that have existed since 1893.
  As the question of the fundamental principles that underlie this Bill has been raised, I should like for a moment to ask the House, to consider what were the fundamental principles which were con-
  1122
  sidered necessary as safeguards in 1893 and how they are dealt with today. As I understand the position, the Act of 1893 concerned itself, as indeed did all subsequent Acts conferring rule-making power on Government Departments, with three safeguards. First of all, the obligation for antecedent publicity; secondly, the necessity for adequate publication of delegated legislation, and thirdly, provisions designed to secure adequate Parliamentary control. Let us take these three safeguards which have been considered necessary at various times and see how they are dealt with in this Bill and how the practice now suggested compares with the anomalous, diverse and confusing procedure which has been allowed to grow up during the 50 years or so which have elapsed since 1893.
  My hon. and learned Friend has given reasons why this House is now being asked to abandon the principle of antecedent public notification, and I gather that there is no real dissent on the part of hon. Members opposite in that respect. All I would say about that subject is this: I agree with the essential reasons which the learned Solicitor-General has given why it is no longer in practice necessary as a safeguard to insist on antecedent publication. The practice has grown up, as a matter of wise administration, for Government Departments to consult with trade and other interests before Statutory Rules and Orders, or Instruments as they are in future to be called, are promulgated. It seems to me necessary, now that the principle of antecedent public notification is being abandoned, that all Government Departments should be even more circumspect than they have been in the past in making sure that all interests are consulted.
  The danger about consulting trade interests is that some interests are tolerably well organised while other interests are not so well organised. One cannot always assume that a combination of trade interests in reality represents any more than the particular vested interests upon which the organisation centres. Therefore it behoves Government Departments, as a practice, not only to make sure that the interests which they consult in these matters are representative of the larger interests, but also to make sure that minority interests which are not so well organised are consulted. Incidentally

  1123
  the Bill which is being commended for Second Reading departs in this respect of abandoning antecedent publicity from the recommendations of the Donoughmore Committee, and therefore it will not do to criticise this Bill on the ground that some of the recommendations of the Donoughmore Committee are not adopted. The whole subject has received a good deal of attention and development since that Committee reported in, I think 1931 or 1932.
  What of the other two safeguards, publicity and Parliamentary control? There may well be legitimate matters in that respect for consideration in Committee, but I hope this House will support the Second Reading of the Bill and allow the Committee to which it is committed to consider whether any improvements of the nature which has been referred to can in fact be made. Speaking for myself, I am prepared to believe that there may be practical difficulties about an absolute rule that all Statutory Instruments should be printed before they come into operation, but I earnestly hope that the hon. and learned Solicitor-General will consider before the Committee stage whether some amendment cannot be introduced to give effect to the rule suggested by the Donoughmore Committee that publication should be a condition precedent to the operation of any statutory rule.
  I would also like to invite the attention of the Solicitor-General to another aspect which has not yet been referred to. As I understand this Bill, it draws a distinction between statutory instruments which are required to be laid before Parliament and those which are not required to be so laid. Those which fall under Clause 3 of the Bill and have to be laid, have to contain a statement showing the date on which the statutory instrument came or will come into operation. The question I want to put to the Solicitor-General is whether there is any reason why that particular part of the provisions of Clause 3, (1) (a), should not equally apply to statutory instruments which do not have to be laid before Parliament. I should have thought it was just as important and necessary in the case of the minor category of statutory instruments that they also should contain a statement showing the date when they come into operation. If it is necessary in one case, it seems
  1124
  to me to be necessary in the other. The date on which an Act comes, into force is either the day on which it receives the Royal Assent or a date which is provided in the Act itself, but curiously, the law is most obscure as to the date on which statutory instruments, as they are now called, come into operation, and I hope that an Amendment will be accepted on the Committee stage whereby all statutory instruments in future bear on them the date on which they come into operation.
  There is a further detail of this matter of publicity on which I ask the Solicitor-General to give the House some information. The Bill provides, as does the Act of 1893, that the Treasury, with the consent of the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker of the House of Commons, can make Regulations with regard to the operation of the Act, and I notice that in Regulation 14 of the Treasury Regulations made under the Act of 1893, there is a provision whereby any statutory rule which is held to be confidential shall be exempted altogether from the provisions of the Act. It is somewhat novel and startling to find that if there is a certificate that a statutory rule is confidential, it should be exempted altogether from any obligation of publication. I would like, therefore, to ask the Solicitor-General whether, in fact, use has been made of Regulation 14 either during the war or before the war, and if so to what extent, and also whether it is contemplated that a similar power will be taken in any Regulations to be made under this Bill when it becomes an Act?
  This brings me to the third and, I venture to think, the most important of the constitutional safeguards upon which it is the duty of the House to insist in a matter of this kind, that is, Parliamentary control. Here I think it will be agreed that the Government are entitled to credit for the steps taken in this Bill to tighten up and improve Parliamentary control over executive Departments entrusted with the power of making delegated legislation. The provisions contained, in Clause 4, secure uniformity and remove a good deal of confusion; those contained in Clause 3 of the Bill are designed to secure, and, in my opinion, do secure, that there can be no repetition of the episode that occurred in connection with the National Fire Service Regulations, and thereby recognition is given, which I am sure the

  1125
  House will welcome, to the principle of securing full Parliamentary control over the actions of Government Departments. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has referred to criticisms of this particular safeguard on the ground that the provisions of the Bill do not go far enough; but the provisions of this Bill go very much further than the provisions of the law as it stands to-day. If improvements are possible, I have no doubt they can be considered on the Committee stage, but in view of the general recognition which this Bill gives to the principles of securing the maximum Parliamentary control over delegated legislation, I hope the House will give it a Second Reading.
  5.07 p.m.
  Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew (Ayr and Bute, Northern): In the course of the Debate, reference has been made by more than one hon. Member to the Special Report of the Select Committee on Statutory Rules and Orders, over which I have the honour to preside. I think it only fair to say that that Select Committee has the great advantage of having the assistance of Counsel to Mr. Speaker. Sir Cecil Carr has, I suppose, the greatest knowledge of delegated legislation of anyone in the country, and although he has a wonderful memory, I think I am right when I say that he has forgotten more about Statutory Rules and Orders than I shall ever know.
  Let me say here that I am speaking entirely for myself and not for the Select Committee, although I am sure the Select Committee would endorse what I have already said. The Bill which we are now considering deals largely with the machinery of delegated legislation. As the Donoughmore Report pointed out, something should be done to simplify that machinery. I think that is true. The Select Committee pointed out in its Report a year ago that the matter was ripe for revision, and I am glad that something is being done in this respect. The first point which the Solicitor-General made concerned the time during which statutory instruments should lie upon the Table. The hon. and learned Gentleman understated the case, because some of them lie for 100 days, but I think 40 days is a good period. The Donoughmore Committee recommended 28 days, but I think that, from the point of view of the scrutinising Committee, 40 day sis the right period, and
  1126
  I hope nothing will be done in the Committee stage to alter the 40 days. The draftsman has had certain difficulties with this Bill, because the Clauses are largely in duplicate, the existing exercises of delegated legislation on the one hand and future exercises on the other, and the draftsman has had to put them all under one hat. I think that has been done satisfactorily. He has picked out a general label for what we used to describe as S.R. & O., and the term "statutory instrument" covers not only S.R. & O. but regulations, schemes, warrants and everything of that kind. By the insertion in future Measures of the phrase,
  "The Minister may by statutory instrument make regulations for the purpose of this Act"—
  it will be possible to bring in everything we are considering under the Bill we are now discussing. As regards making the matter simpler, I asked hon. Members to look at the definition of what is a statutory instrument in Clause 1 (1, b):
  "in the case of a power conferred on a Minister of the Crown, to be exercisable by statutory instrument,
  any document by which that power is exercised shall be known as a 'statutory instrument.' "
  Does that make it simpler? When a thing is denned in terms of itself, it is not a very good definition. It seems to me to be so simple that it is silly. In Clause 1 (1), we find that the present law is being extended, because now the Minister maybe given power, to confirm and approve these statutory instruments. What will be the result of that? It will mean that local by-laws, railway by-laws and so on will now all come under Statutory Rules and Orders. What will be the effect of that on the registration system? Will it not be swamped if all these are brought in? The net is thrown very wide. If we turn to Clause 7 (1, d), we find that many of the things roped in by Clause 1 are being let out again. Could it not be made clear in the Bill what is being brought in and what is not? I see no reason why that should not be done, and it would be a great help if it were done. I hope the Solicitor-General will look into that matter before we come to the Committee stage. On Clause 7 (1, e), who are the persons who are to decide these various matters? Surely we can be given some indication. Is this a new provision? The 40 days' notice is being discontinued, and personally I do

  1127
  not think that matters very much. As far as Scotland is concerned, it was never included, and I have never heard of any complaint.
  There is, however, one thing on which I think we ought to have a promise. The Solicitor-General mentioned that there would be consultation with interested parties. I think some provision should be put into the Bill that there must be consultation. The Solicitor-General gave a very fair indication, but what he said is not the law, and I think it should be included in the Bill that consultations must take place. Consultations, of course, go on today, and Departments have consultations with interested parties out of self-defence, because if things go wrong there will be trouble afterwards.
  I have been very much shocked by what I have heard the Solicitor-General say this afternoon. I came to the House as a friend of the Bill. I did not come to do anything other than help, but really I think the matter of delay is frightfully serious. I really do. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at the Order Paper he will see that there is a Motion down for tonight in my name about this particular point of having the matter considered by the Statutory Rules and Orders Committee. The time of laying has not been put in our terms of reference and we think it ought to be. The phrase "as soon as may be" I have always taken to mean "as quickly as possible." Now we know—and I think I am not being unfair—that it probably means six months. There is no obligation on the Departments to lay their Statutory Instruments before this House. That being the position, the Statutory Rules and Orders Committee which has to deal with all these things which come before the House, does not deal with them until they are laid. Is this a back door way of getting behind the Statutory Rules and Orders Committee? It is that which shocks me.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: One reason is to provide for the fact that the House might be up for Recesses for several months.
  Sir C. MacAndrew:That has nothing to do with it and I cannot really accept that from the hon. Gentleman. These things are not laid when the House is up, and that is no answer. I would like to know what is behind what is being
  1128
  done now. It is a very extraordinary business. On the Committee we have had experience of delay. There were the Fire Orders, as hon. Gentlemen will remember, and the result of that was that it did not matter, it was a mistake and we got a very ample apology from the right hon. Gentleman, and, of course, accepted it. But only this year Ploughing Grant Regulations, which were made on 31st January, were not laid until 6th March. We had the Department up before us, as we are entitled to do, and instead of rather thinking that they had made a mistake we were told that it was the normal practice, and we were so worried that we put in a special report on that matter. Some of the Departments are very lax about this matter and I think, from what we hear today, they are to be allowed to do just what they like. The hon. and learned Gentleman talked about sanctions and putting Ministers into prison. They do not need to be put into prison; we can deal with them here. If they are to be allowed to make orders and not lay them, we shall not know anything about them for perhaps six months, and that is a matter which we cannot tolerate. If the question of the words "as soon as may be" is to be treated in that way, it is very wrong. There is no reason why the laying of Regulations should not be as automatic as the printing of them. I defy any hon. Member to get up in this House and give any reason, and we are not standing for it. That is the position and no one can give any reason for this delay.
  This is not a debating point. I have in my hands the current issue of the list of Orders laid, which comes out every Saturday. We came back after the Recess on 9th October, and I see at the top of page 5 particulars of Orders laid on 9th October, and on page 6 other Orders laid on 9th October. The Financial Secretary must realise that that is the day upon which they should have been laid, the day when we came back. On page 8, nearly all were laid on 9th October, but what happens when we come to Water Regulations? They are dated 29th September and were laid on 16th October. Why in the world were not these laid on 9th October? Who can answer that question? On page 9 the Narrow Fabrics (Maximum Prices) Order, which was dated 25th September, was not laid until 17th October. The Education (Scotland)

  1129
  Amending Scheme, dated 24th September, was laid on 23rd October. There is no earthly reason why the phrase "as soon as may be" should not be taken out and a seven days' limit put in. I hope we shall get some sort of promise that that will be done. The Departments are now to be given more latitude than ever before. It is taking power away from the House of Commons. I have been long enough in the House of Commons to support the House of Commons against the Departments in regard to this sort of thing. We asked for a new rules publication Act and we have got something for which we asked, but I do not think that what has been done is fair, and unless the learned Solicitor-General can give a guarantee that the laying business is to be treated fairly, I shall be very much against the Bill and must vote against the Second Reading.
  5.21 p.m.
  Mr. Pickthorn: I think it can be said without arrogance that the substantial questions involved in this matter are really few and comparatively simple, although what might be called the adjective parts of it, the parts necessary for understanding the main questions, are extremely technical and complicated. I would not take upon myself to instruct this House, and especially its technically learned Members, upon that side of it. For this reason, for the reason of what seems to me to be the simplicity of the main matters concerned and the complexity of the adjective matters, I think one might allow oneself a little more than the normal licence by way of repetition. I hope I shall not repeat arguments already used but I may be forgiven if I re-emphasise what seemed to me, and I think to most people on this side of the House, the main points concerned.
  Perhaps I might be allowed to say a word from the party point of view. There seemed to be a little inclination on the part of a speaker opposite to suppose that those of us who are interested about this, are taking an interrogative line, are doing so because we are in Opposition. That would not be an improper Parliamentary reason, even if it were true, but it is not the fact, and hon. Members, if they had been here a little longer, would know, that it is not the fact. We were just as anxious, and far more tiresome about it, when Governments were of a different
  1130
  party complexion. There is nothing partisan in our excitement about the matter. What are the two branches which seem to us exciting? It is only necessary to state them clearly to prove our case to anybody with an ordinary English education—or Scottish for that matter. The first is that a man ought not to be convicted, or in a civil case lose what would otherwise have been his right or advantage, because he did something which, at the time he did it, he could not possibly have known to be against the law.
  The argument was put much better than I could put it by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke first from this side, but I should like to ask one or two questions. One is, What is the effect of the law as it stands? Can that be explained to us by somebody authoritative from the other side? I have been a perpetual student of the Inner Temple for some 30 years, but I have never passed the ''final" so I have probably misunderstood. I see in the report of cases in the King's Bench Division, V.1, 1918, on page 103, a judgment by Mr. Justice Bailache arising out of one of the statutory instruments which we know so well. It is the case of Johnson v. Sargeant and Mr. Justice Bailache held that Johnson or Sargeant—I have forgotten which—could not have known about the Order which had only been made that morning and therefore judgment could not be given on the ground that something unknowable had been transgressed against.
  Mr. Mitchison: The previous morning. That is the whole point of the case. The Order was made on the 16th and was not known until 17th May.
  Mr. Pickthorn: I do not believe really that this question can properly be dealt with by interruption, though perhaps it could if we were all highly expert lawyers. At any rate I cannot deal with it by way of interruption. That is the first point I want to make. What is the law now? When we say we want this Bill to make it clear that Orders are not to have effect, either in criminal or commercial cases, before they can be known, the first question I put, is: Are we really asking for the law to be made clear, or are we asking for a change of the law? That is an important question and I should like to have it authoritatively

  1131
  answered. With regard to the words "as soon as may be" about which we have had some discussion, I think the learned Solicitor-General, I am sure quite innocently, misled us and rather gave the impression that the words are the same as those in the Rules of Publication. He will remember that there the word is "forthwith." It is not a very good word but rather better than "as soon as may be." I should like to know whether we can have an assurance that instead of "as soon as may be" in future we are to have "X days" in Clauses 2, 3 and so on.
  I should like to say a word about the learned Solicitor-General's point about proving the validity of these instruments in cases up and down the country. I speak subject to correction, but there can surely be no difficulty in doing what was done under the American Act in this connection. The Americans did not have, before the war, so much delegated legislation as we had, and they found themselves getting into a most awful mess in the middle of the war. Under war enactments, they were doing things by delegated legislation and had not been in the habit of doing them and, therefore, had not evolved the routine machinery that we had got. They found themselves in a mess, and had to clear it up and they passed a statute. I should like to ask the learned Solicitor-General whether that statute has been examined, and whether it might not, in some respect, be used to amend the Bill now before us, and in particular whether his difficulty about proving these documents in the courts, county courts and police courts and so on, is not met by the words:
  "the publication in the Federal Register of any document shall be a but table presumption that it was duly issued, presented or promulgated."
  That is the provision in the American law and I would ask whether there is any difficulty in making that provision in our own law?
  That seems to me to be one main question. The other main question, as has been generally agreed, is how to make sure that, if the House fails—and it has often failed—in its manifest duty of supervising and controlling delegated legislation, it is the House's own fault. There, again, we come back to "as soon as may be." Is there any reason why there
  1132
  should not be a simple rule that every instrument of delegated legislation must be laid before the House within x days of its being made or on the day it is made? I have heard a great many suggestions in private conversation, and a great many arguments, against that, and all the arguments have been arguments of administrative convenience. As far as I could judge, they have been arguments which ought to be met by special ad hoc Bills for these cases or by special Schedules to Bills, and, if there is really any argument which has not been thought of in private conversation, or mentioned in the writings of Press commentators before now, it certainly was not put before us by the Solicitor-General today.
  I feel bound to end up, as my predecessors on this side have done, by saying that, unless we can have assurances on these two points, I feel convinced that the House ought not to let this Measure pass its Second Reading. It is quite true that, in general, a man is wise, when hungry, to take half a loaf if not offered a whole one. But there has been so much talk, complaint and argument about this subject in the last five or six years that it has become absolutely essential to pass a new principal Act. If this becomes the new principal Act, if we are to judge by past history, it will be the principal Act for 52 years, more or less. I commend to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who may feel that this is not a matter which they need bother to look into more than to say "I am on this side," the consideration whether we ought, in a matter of this immense and unforeseeable importance, to give to any Government this power, because we think the suggested limitations better than nothing. I think that that argument is hardly relevant and certainly should not be accepted.
  5.32 p.m.
  Mr. Mitchison: As has already been indicated by the Senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), who has just spoken, and as I understand it, the law at present is that no Statutory Order is operative until it is known to the public, and, therefore, an Order conceived and signed within the four walls of a Ministry is not in operation. I believe that, in the one case on the subject to which the Senior Burgess referred, under which an Order was made on one day and published in the newspapers on the following day, the decision

  1133
  in the courts was simply that that Order was operative on the day it was published, and not on the day when it was made. If that is so, and I believe there has been no other decision, then the apprehension of hon. Members on both sides of the House that their fellow citizens will be convicted for breach of some Orders or Regulations, about which neither they nor anyone but those inside a Ministry know anything, must be ill-founded.
  Mr. Pickthorn: If the hon. Member will allow me, perhaps I may remind him of a case which I remember vaguely—the case of the Cornish daffodils. If my recollection is right, I think the man was actually convicted, although he could not possibly have known, when he got into the train at the other end with a suitcase full of daffodils, that it was against the law.
  Mr. Mitchison:I am afraid I cannot remember the Cornish daffodils, but I can assure the Senior Burgess that the case to which he referred is commonly cited as the one authority on that proposition. Representations have been made by a non-county borough corporation in my own constituency, and I believe that there have been other representations by other municipalities, that the repeal of the Section of the Rules Publication Act, providing for 40 days' prior publication, is not altogether advantageous. It is true that, in a very large number of Acts, the Rules Publication Act has been specially excluded, but, none the less, it has, of course, been included in the majority of Acts published since then; and that Section is the most material part of it, from the point of view of local authorities. The reason is that the local authorities may not only obtain copies of Rules or Orders, or, as they are now called statutory instruments, but they also have the special right under the Rules Publication Act of making representations to the Government or the Department concerned, which is bound to take those representations into consideration.
  It is perfectly true that, when there is a question of consulting trade interests or the like, it may be possible to do so for all reasonable purposes, but, when it comes to consulting local authorities, it is surely stressing that principle rather too far to say that consultation with their association is sufficient, instead of consultation on particular points with some
  1134
  local authority or another which may be concerned, not because it is a corporation, but because it is a corporation in some particular place and faced with some particular problems. That is to say, that, though it may be sufficient to consult these associations on matters affecting corporations generally, yet, there are bound to be, particularly under these statutory instruments, matters of a nature which will affect a single corporation or group of corporations in such a way that, in those matters, they cannot be represented by their association.
  The view which they accordingly take, and which, I now suggest to the Solicitor-General, merits some consideration, is that, so far as they are concerned, there might be qualifications to the repeal of that Section of the 1893 Act. I would not venture to go into details about the qualifications that might be made, but I should have thought it might be possible to provide, in Acts affecting local authorities, either that the Orders might be published or circulated to the authorities, and some opportunity given for the right of representation on their side and consideration by the Minister, which seems to them to be of particular importance in this type of matter. I propose to say no more about the rest of the Bill, which has some remarkable features. It may be that the Statutory Rules and Orders, now rechristened statutory instruments, have had their scope enlarged, and it is perfectly obvious that the number of these statutory instruments to be issued on the present legislative programme is not likely to decrease. It is equally obvious that the local authorities will be the chosen instruments for many of them, and it is because they are to be the chosen instruments that they would like to have something to say on the statutory instruments before they are published.
  5.41 p.m.
  Brigadier Low: I apologise, with great humility, for intervening after so many speakers have put so clearly the two main points of this Bill, but the whole subject of delegated legislation is of the first importance, not only to this House, but to all the people of this country at the present time. It was suggested, I think, from the benches opposite that it is odd that we, on this side, should now be making such a fuss on this matter so long after 1893 and so long after the Donoughmore Report, but

  1135
  never before has delegated legislation in peace time been of such importance, and it is for that reason that I believe that all hon. Members of this House, on whichever side they sit, should ponder the reasons for this Bill, and particularly so today.
  As the sphere of influence, if I may use that expression, of delegated legislation enlarges itself, so, to my mind, becomes more important the duty that all hon. Members of this House have of inquiring into and watching over the exercise of the powers which it has given to the Executive, and it would seem odd that anybody should deny it.
  At this present time, the subject of delegated legislation involves a number of interests very closely. Further it involves the efficiency of the Executive and the efficiency of administrative machinery of all types, including the police courts. The Solicitor-General addressed himself to that matter, and we may be quite certain that the Government will look after the efficiency of the Executive. But it also involves the interests of organised bodies, whether trade unions or municipal corporations or bodies such as the Chamber of Shipping and the various chambers of commerce. As a matter of habit, the Government have always taken unto themselves to consult these bodies in recent years and long may they continue to do so. It has been suggested from the Benches behind me that a Clause should be inserted into this Bill that consultation should be compulsory. I have limited experience of legislation, but I should have thought that that is a matter to which the House could address itself as it comes to consider each Bill, and that that general Clause in this Bill would be wrong; it is irrelevant to the subject of this Bill.
  But the two main interests involved are, first, the interest of Parliament in controlling the Executive in its Parliamentary procedure, and the second, and more important, the interest of Parliament in watching over the interests of the private people. In making his very clear statement at the beginning of this Debate, it seemed to me that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General entirely omitted any reference to the interests of the private individual. Let me take that point first, because it is the point which has been taken first
  1136
  throughout in this Debate, and can be summed up as the necessity that publicity be given to these Orders before they are valid. I have been in some doubt, as I believe have all my learned friends on both sides of the House, as to the state of the law at the present time. There is this case to which the Senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) referred, and there is also the case which I knew had to do with flowers, though I did not know they were daffodils. However, whatever view may be taken of those two cases, it is quite clear that there is some uncertainty about the law, and I would ask whoever sums up to give us some authoritative view upon the law. If there is any authoritative view, or if there is not, surely it is the duty of this House, at this time, to clarify a point of considerable uncertainty and of considerable importance. It is surely unnecessary that there should be another case in the courts to try this after we have had an opportunity here of discussing the matter and making up our minds.
  The second point is that of Parliamentary procedure, and I dare to say a few words on that. It seems to me quite extraordinary that there should be any difficulty in a compulsory rule that all Government Departments should lay the Orders which they make immediately they are made. If they can be sent to the King's Printer, surely they can also be sent to this House. I know there are difficulties at the present time, and that Orders cannot be laid when the House is not sitting, but it seems to me not impossible to draft a Clause which will definitely enact that no statutory instrument could be valid unless it had been laid on the first day after it has been made on which the House is sitting. It may be, if it is impossible to get over the rule that it cannot be laid while the House is not sitting, that that Clause would have to be put in a negative way—that the Order will be annulled if it is not laid in time—but I see no difficulty such as the hon. and learned Solicitor-General mentioned, in proving whether the Order was void or valid. Equally, to revert to the first point, I see no difficulty in having a definite rule that no statutory instrument should have any validity at all until it has been published, and published in such a form that the private individual can read and understand it.

  1137
  Those are the two safeguards which I believe all hon. Members owe it, as a duty to the people who elected them, to watch over. As the right hon. Lady who is now Minister of Education said in her annexe to the Donoughmore report:
  "Nothing is so dangerous in a democracy as a safeguard which appears to be adequate but is really a façade."
  It would appear to me that this Bill is really making rather a façade of two of the most important safeguards which this House has against wrongful, perhaps mistakenly wrongful, use of powers it gives, to the Executive.
  Those are the two points which have been made more clearly by other speakers than I can make them, but I would ask the House to think very carefully before giving this Bill a Second Reading unless the Government give us some assurance that, in its final form, the Bill will cater for the views which have been expressed.
  5.51 p.m.
  Mr. Proctor: I feel that we are not this evening debating the question of the desirability or otherwise of delegated legislation; that, I feel certain, is forced upon us by the fact that it takes such a very long time to get legislation through this House by ordinary procedure. The two points made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) at the commencement of this Debate were antecedent publicity and punishment of a Minister who failed in laying the Orders before the House. As far as the antecedent publicity is concerned, I have received a communication from the borough council of Swinton and Pendlebury, asking me to impress upon the Government the necessity for keeping in being the present methods of publicity, or by substituting some other form which would be satisfactory to the general public. I am very much impressed—and I am saying that because I feel it ought to be said from this side of the House just as much as from the other side—that we are concerned this evening with safeguarding the democratic rights.
  While we recognise the necessity for delegated legislation, we must have safeguards placed in it in this House as far as is possible. I think the Government have accomplished the safeguarding of the rights of hon. Members of the House of Commons fairly well in this Bill, but I
  1138
  feel that the ordinary citizen outside this House has the right to the fullest possible protection we can give him, and the only way in which the ordinary citizen can get knowledge of the legislation proposed by the government of the day is to have it published in a form which he can easily acquire. I suggest to the learned Solicitor-General that he should give consideration to this point, and should submit to the House proposals that will be better than the ones he has in the Bill. The only valid objection he seemed to make in his opening speech to my mind was the objection to the period of 40 days' delay. There seems to me to be nothing sacrosanct about that period and he might provide for a lesser period than 40 days and still provide the necessary publication. I would impress upon the Government the necessity for taking that view. I would also point out that there is a very general interest throughout the country in this matter. In the realms of education we had the other evening a very long Debate upon, a matter which I think directly related to these Orders. We had a Prayer the other evening on a matter which comes definitely within these Orders.
  I want to point out that the substitute for publicity as put forward by the learned Solicitor-General was consultation with the interests concerned. Now I object to that method. I object to it very solidly on one ground, and that is the very great difficulty of carrying it out. If you bring in all the questions that arise in education and the Minister has to consult, of necessity, with all the varied interests that would come in on that point, he will have a very busy time, and I am afraid that instead of hastening things, it would delay them. Therefore it would be much better for him to have the clear-cut responsibility of publishing his proposals to the whole of the country rather than to have to the legal necessity—which it is suggested from the other side should be put actually in the legislation—of consulting the various interests, which it would be very difficult to define. I hope the Minister will give us some suggestion that at a later date he will be able to improve this Bill.
  5.56 p.m.
  Sir John Mellor: This Bill appeared in print only on 30th October, exactly a week ago, and that has not given us very much opportunity of discussing its provisions with interested

  1139
  parties. I know that many of the local authorities regard its provisions with some apprehension. It is therefore really most important that all hon. Members should have ample opportunity of discussing the matter with all interested parties, and with one another, before the Committee stage is reached. I hope, therefore, that there will be a long interval before we embark upon the Committee stage, and that it will be taken upon the floor of the House, so that all hon. Members will have an opportunity to participate in it after consulting local authorities and others in their constituencies who are interested.
  The House listened with great interest to the very careful explanation of the Bill given by the Solicitor-General. It took him a long time. Icertainly make no complaint of that; indeed, I feel grateful to him for the lucid way in which he explained its provisions, but I think that when we realised the great complications of this Bill, many of us felt that it should have been accompanied by an explanatory memorandum, which would have made our task of understanding it perhaps easier.
  The local authorities are seriously affected by this Bill because of its repeal of the Rules Publication Act of 1893 and their being thereby deprived of the antecedent publication of draft rules. In a circular letter which I received, and which I expect a number of other hon. Members, if not all, have also received through local authorities in their constituencies, the Association of Municipal Corporations expresses itself in this way:
  "It is suggested that the following principles should be borne in mind whenever new laws are made, whether by Parliament or by any subordinate authority. Before the law is made, all persons likely to be affected should have full opportunity of being acquainted with the proposal, of making representations to the law-making authority, and of having those representations considered."
  I think we ought all to be able to subscribe to what the Association of Municipal Corporations says in that passage; certainly I do. The learned Solicitor-General said that in his view it was undesirable to continue the provisions of the Rules Publication Act with regard to antecedent publication. First of all, he gave a number of particular objections to the Section in question. It seemed to me that all those objections could easily be met by amendment, but the main ground upon
  1140
  which he argued that it was unnecessary to retain provision for antecedent publication was that in practice all Ministries always had ample discussion of proposed rules with all the interests concerned. That is all very well, but I think local authorities and others would prefer not to rely entirely upon voluntary discussion of that order, but would like to have some unqualified right such as, or similar to, that provided for in the Rules Publication Act, some unqualified right of being warned in advance, and of being able to make representations to the Ministry concerned. I see no difficulty at all about embodying a provision of that kind in this Bill, and I hope some such step will be taken in the course of the Committee Stage.
  There is one very grave matter which this Bill does not touch and which, with regard to delegated legislation, I think should be tackled. I mean the provision of a periodic Parliamentary review of existing Statutory Orders. We in this House may or may not have ample opportunity—it all depends—of considering Orders when they are made, and praying against them, but once the Orders have been made we never have any chance of reviewing them in this House. I think we should be far less fastidious about agreeing to the making of Orders if we knew we were to have a chance of reviewing them again in the light of subsequent experience. If the Government were prepared to provide opportunity for a review of the character they would find it very much easier to get their rules and regulations accepted by the House, and we should all feel that Parliament had much more adequate control over delegated powers.
  6.4 p.m.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: It seems to me that both sides of the House are making rather unnecessarily heavy weather over what is really a simple and agreed non-controversial Measure. When my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General was presenting it to the House he said in effect that it was a bequest from the last Government. It is quite clear from the course of the Debate that the principle of the Measure is agreed to be necessary. Indeed it amounts to little more than a tidying up and regularising of the process of delegated legislation, which everybody has been clamouring for all the time I have been in the House. It is true that two

  1141
  points of principle have been raised, and I want to say, quite frankly, that I agree with the criticism of the Bill on those two points for reasons which I do not need to repeat at length but which I will indicate in a moment. What amazes me now is that on a Bill of this kind hon. Members opposite should think it right to talk about voting against the Second Reading, or denying, the Government the Bill, unless they get an undertaking now on those two points which can quite easily be remedied in Committee, if they are to be remedied. I suppose the reason is to be sought in the Sunday newspapers. They have been criticising—
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Which paper?
  Mr. Silverman: Well, "Reynolds" has been treating the Opposition kindly; I was thinking of "The Sunday Times" and "The Observer", both of which have been criticising the Opposition for the weakness, ineffectiveness and indeterminateness of their position. They accuse them of floundering, of not knowing whether they want to oppose or not, of sparring round for opportunities of opposing, and they appeal to them considerably to strengthen their attack. I can only suppose that the ferociousness of hon. Members opposite today is to be attributed to an endeavour to placate the editors of those papers, unless they have been receiving similar criticism from their supporters, or those who are left, in the country generally. I do not understand why on a Bill which, it has been agreed, is non-controversial—[An Hon. Member: "Oh."] The hon. Member says "Oh," and I do not know what he means by that, unless it is that he dissents. I hazard the guess that this Bill is not really very different from the one which hon. Members opposite would have passed, if they had been on this side of the House. I do not know whether it has been altered, but if it has I do not think it has been altered very much from the Bill which was prepared by the last Government. Why, in those circumstances, they should take two easily remediable points, and treat them as a means of opposing a Bill which they have clamoured for for years, is something I cannot understand.
  Nevertheless, I hope the Solicitor-General will consider the two points seriously. I do not know whether he can
  1142
  say anything now, but even if he cannot, I shall vote for the Second Reading, while reserving my right to act in Committee according to the view I have expressed here, unless I see any reason to change it—and so far I have not. I do not believe that it can be right, in this country, to make a man answerable in the criminal courts for an offence which he did not know, and cannot know, he had ever committed. I think that is a sound principle, and I think that we on this side of the House are at least as much interested in it as anybody else. I have heard it said that it is now the law, according to a decision of the Court of Appeal, that the date on which such a statutory instrument becomes valid is the day of its publication, and not the day on which it was made. I do not know, but if that is the law now, I can see no reason why the Government should resist it, because it would be making no change. If that is not the correct view, then it is a change that ought to be made.
  I remember the case of a friend of mine in Liverpool, a much respected trader, who was convicted of an offence against a regulation which had never been published, and which, in fact, had been repealed before the date of his trial. That regulation was in existence for only three or four days, and during that time the Department which promulgated it decided that it was no good and so it was never published. But my friend was in the courts for acting contrary to that regulation during those three or four days. Everybody else in Liverpool was much amused, but it is not a matter for humour. If we can protect citizens against this sort of thing I hope we shall take steps to do so. As to whether such a statutory instrument ought to be deemed to be valid when the Parliamentary stage in making it valid has been omitted, I should have thought that there was no room for serious doubt what was the right course. You might just as well leave out the Committee stage, or the Report stage, or the Third Reading.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: If by any possible chance that did happen, and an Act was printed and appeared to be valid on the face of it, it would be law whether or not, through some technical fault, the Committee stage or the Third Reading had been omitted.
  Mr. Silverman:I assume that is so. It can only mean that, in that event, the House of Commons has a privilege which Ministers of Departments have not up to now. In the analogous case of the National Fire Service Regulations everybody agreed that the failure to present them to this House within what anybody could have called a reasonable time—as soon as may be—was so definitely held to be invalidation of the whole statutory instrument that we passed a special Act of Parliament to validate what had been invalidatedly done. Everybody has regarded the omission of that stage in the case of a statutory instrument as invalid—
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Gentleman has referred to a Debate which took place then. If he will look at that Debate again I think he will find that the Lord President of the Council adhered throughout to the view that failure to lay the regulations did not affect the validity of those regulations.
  Mr. Silverman:I think something of the kind may have been said and, if the hon. Member says so, I am not prepared to dissent from it. But I think that view was held not with regard to the failure to present them, but the failure to present them within a period—according to the phrase, "as soon as may be"—and as nobody knew how soon that might be, it was always possible to hold that that condition had been complied with. But I still say that if they had never been presented, then the whole of the procedure was invalid. The legal advice which the Government had at that time must have been to that effect. I do not like that part of the Bill which says that if you do not do what the Legislature said you ought to do, in order to give validity to a piece of legislation which your Department is carrying out, then you have, nevertheless, properly enacted your legislation and you ought to have the benefit of it. It is all very well to say, "Supposing it is invalid, what inconvenience will there be?" If that induces Ministers in future to take greater care, so much the better. Steps that are taken in other parts of this Bill to prevent them from inadvertently slipping into that kind of error will, no doubt, prevent them from doing it. I think these points ought to be sustained by those on this side of the House who see the inevitable necessity of delegated legislation.
  1144
  Hon. Members on the other side of the House know that we must have delegated legislation. It would be used by them for much more sinister purposes than any delegated legislation to which we are likely to commit ourselves. I think that we, on this side of the House, know that one of the principal instruments for effecting our purposes must be by means of delegated legislation; if ever we are to do the job, in a reasonable time, which we came here to do; and we ought to be especially careful to see that the means adopted to safeguard that legislation are conscientiously and scrupulously observed, so as not to bring the whole thing into public contempt, and so as not to give hon. Members opposite cheap weapons to add to their very depleted armoury. That is why I think it right that these things should be said from this side of the House, and right that the Government should take very great care in this matter. I propose to vote for the Second Reading, because I am sure that, in principle, it is right. I hope that these points can be looked at again before the Committee stage; and I think that, in the end, we shall get a piece of very valuable legislation.
  6.17 p.m.
  Major Conant: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) has expressed the view that this Bill is non-controversial; but I noticed that his speech was directed to criticising several of its provisions, and he concluded by saying that he intended to support the Second Reading.
  Mr. Silverman:I think I said that I agree with everything in the Bill except the two points which I mentioned. I agree with everything else. I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman who led for the Opposition takes exactly the same view.
  Major Conant:I should have thought that the two points to which he referred were the most important in the Bill. Surely people should not be imprisoned for offences of which they know nothing. That is of extreme importance, especially to those who are imprisoned. I am sorry to find that the hon. Gentleman is supporting a Bill of which he cannot approve very much. I would like to add my protest to that of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) at the short space

  1145
  of time allowed to us for consideration of this Bill, which the Solicitor-General has described as highly technical, and of very great importance. I regard it of tremendous importance to everyone who has the liberty of the individual at heart. Just as the old revolutionaries put liberty before equality, I think we must, in these days, put liberty before efficiency. To try to increase the output of legislation in order to seek greater administrative efficiency is going to make great inroads upon the liberties of private individuals, the man in the street.
  We all recognise that, in this modern world, delegated legislation is necessary; and there probably will never be a time when Parliament can retain, in its own hands, the power to make all laws. It is essential, in my view, if we are to represent the man in the street, to preserve control, and full control, over those to whom we delegate our law-making powers. There are two ways in which we can do that. The first is publicity. I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) when he suggests that these orders, rules, and regulations should not be operative until they are on sale to the public. I feel that is the first essential, if we are to retain a measure of control over those to whom we delegate our powers. I am not convinced at all by the suggestion of the Solicitor-General that the recommendation of the Donoughmore Committee should not be carried out because the procedure by which publication precedes enforcement would not be worth retaining, as it is covered by prior consultation. Prior consultation, surely, is with associations, trade organisations, and not with the individual man in the street who is really going to be affected by the Orders made. These are the people whom it is our first duty to protect against the Executive.
  As hon. Gentlemen said, unless this is done people will be convicted of offences of which they not only know nothing but of which they cannot possibly know anything. We can accept the doctrine that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but to convict people of offences which are only known within the confines of a Ministry is a far greater departure from liberty than I can accept. The purpose of our laws must be, I think, not to catch criminals, but to restrain people from taking a certain course of action which is regarded,
  1146
  rightly or wrongly, as anti-social. If we desire to catch criminals, the quicker we can turn our laws, and the more secretive the Government are in doing so, the more criminals we shall catch. If we desire that laws shall be an effective restraint we must give them the maximum of publicity and the minimum of delegated legislation. The other consideration, to my mind, if we are to preserve what little remains of liberty for the individual, is, that the man in the street, through his representative in this House, should have an opportunity within a reasonable time to approve or reject the rules, orders and regulations that are made. I do not feel that in Clause 3 (3) that, in fact, is carried out.
  I would ask the Solicitor-General whether orders would need to be laid for as long as 12 months, because the Treasury, at least twice in every year, shall make a return to Parliament. Is there any reason why the Treasury should not make its return on the 1st and 2nd of January, leaving a full 12 months for orders to accumulate which, in fact, have not been laid? Twice a year does not necessarily mean every six months. I can see no justification for that. In normal cases, I should say there can be no reason why an Order should not be laid on the next Sitting Day after publication. It is perfectly true, as the Solicitor-General said, that there may be cases of emergency, when emergency legislation is necessary; but they must be very rare, certainly in time of peace, and they should be dealt with as emergency legislation by special procedure. It is true that mistakes will be made, and occasionally Indemnity Bills will be necessary; but it would be wrong, I feel, that we should legislate on the assumption that mistakes will be made. The protection of the citizens' freedom is far more important than protection of Ministers against the mistakes of their subordinates.
  One other point, I think, is of some special interest to hon. Members opposite. That is on the question of the amendment of these Regulations. One can assume that hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree with the general principle of nearly all these rules and regulations. They approve the policy of the Government, and they will, therefore, approve, in principle, the regulations through which it is carried out, but it must be appreciated that they will never have an opportunity of doing more

  1147
  than approve a principle. Many of these statutory instruments affect the lives of our citizens to a far greater extent than many Acts of Parliament; and it seems to me quite wrong that we should have the choice solely of accepting or rejecting in to to each of these Rules and Regulations.
  One further point, in regard to what I would describe as subsidiary Orders. It happens, I believe, that a Minister can make Orders for the carrying out of some project, and the Order itself, giving him these powers, is laid before this House; but he may obtain through that Order further powers to make subsidiary Orders, which, in fact, are never brought before this House at all; and it seems to me that is an unjustified restriction on the right of the individual. Therefore, I have no hesitation in opposing this Bill, as I regard it as an unjustified restriction upon the right of the individual to lead his own life and as giving to the Executive powers, which, I believe, in time of peace are totally unnecessary.
  26 p.m
  Sir Harold Webbe: Three speakers in the later stages of this Debate—the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor), the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) and the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison)—have raised a point which had been, up to that stage, tacitly accepted. They have raised the question of the wisdom of the Government's decision not to re-enact the provisions of a present Statute in regard to prior publication, from the angle that such publication was desirable for local authorities. As one who has been interested in local government for many years, I believe the Government's decision to be right, and that prior publication no longer serves any really useful purpose. It is true that the hon. Member for Eccles objected to the failure to re-enact these provisions on the ground that prior consultation, which we all know is a custom of Government Departments, was, in itself, an undesirable thing. He wanted to have the Government's proposal put to the world, as he said, and left for open discussion after that stage. I am quite sure that anyone intimately concerned with local government is satisfied that prior consultations, which, in fact, do take place, save
  1148
  a very great deal of time, a great deal of misunderstanding, and are the only practical method by which regulations and statutory instruments of that kind can be made in relation to local authorities. The hon. Member for Kettering took the diametrically opposite reason. He felt that there was insufficient prior consultation, and there was no guarantee that individual interests among local authorities would, in fact, have an opportunity of making their views known.
  I think we should also keep in mind that one of the great difficulties of the whole method of government by delegated legislation is that when an Act of Parliament provides that certain steps in the administration shall be covered by regulations made by Ministers, it places on the Minister the virtually impossible task of drafting a regulation which is equally and properly applicable to every local authority in the country. It does frequently result that these regulations are either so loosely drawn in order to cover everything as to be virtually ineffective, or so tightly drawn as adversely to affect certain interests. On the whole, I feel sure that the Government are right that this prior publication no longer serves any really useful purpose. In regard to the Bill as a whole, I feel we are still in an unsatisfactory position which I very much hope the learned Solicitor-General will clear up when he replies. I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman). With his conclusions in regard to the two points of principle involved in this Bill I was in hearty agreement. I may say I could not quite understand the logic by which he arrived at those conclusions, still less did I understand how he proposed to vote for the Bill regardless of anything else when it contains on his submission points of substance which are diametrically opposed to the views which he holds. I do appeal to the learned Solicitor-General to give us some assurance that he will meet the practically unanimous wish of the House, on the two points of substance which have been raised by one speaker after another.
  The Bill has certain very obvious merits. It widens and clarifies the definition of a "statutory instrument." It standardises the procedure, but it falls lamentably short in two respects. There is not very much use having a statutory

  1149
  instrument which is to be made and laid for the period of 40 days, if you leave wide open the question of when that 40 days begins. As I listened to the learned Solicitor-General in his opening remarks I metaphorically rubbed my eyes to see if I was awake. He spent many minutes talking of the hopeless vagueness of the phrase "as soon as may be," and yet, as has been pointed out, it is the governing phrase in the two important Clauses of his Bill. Surely this is illogical, and every argument which the learned Solicitor-General used in support of the Bill is an argument for clarifying these two Clauses, and making a definite decision as to when the 40 days are to begin. I cannot believe that the Government Department themselves would not find it actually more convenient to have a precise procedure for laying Orders on the Table of this House, rather than the indefinite procedure which is now proposed. A precise procedure, in any business, is carried out, but an indefinite one is almost invariably broken from time to time, or forgotten, and there seems to be no reason why some formula should not be inserted in this Bill to ensure that when a Minister signs an Order, he should sign a duplicate of it, which could be laid on the Table of this House on the first Sitting Day after it is made. That would be automatic, and would not lapse in the way we know Orders under present procedure and the proposed procedure would lapse.
  Another and equally vital point is one which has been made by practically every speaker from both sides of the House. The principle which governs British justice—one of the governing principles—is that ignorance of the law is no defence. It is incumbent on those who make the law, to ensure that those who are to obey it, know what that law is. There cannot be, in my submission, any answer to the argument that no instrument can be legal, or become effective until those affected by it have an opportunity of knowing what it says and what it means. Reference has been made by the hon. Member for Kettering to a case in which the courts decided that, whatever might be thought here, the fact was that an Order was not effective until it had been made public. We all remember well the daffodil case where men were arrested carrying suitcases full of daffodils and were actually prosecuted,
  1150
  convicted and fined for an offence under an Order which had not been published to any one at all when they entered the train at Exeter.
  I do not want to make any submission on the merits of the case; it may well be that by accident justice might have been done. But it is alarming that that kind of thing could happen in a country in which no man is allowed to plead ignorance of the law in his own defence. I do submit that the learned Solicitor-General, in view of the strength of the opinion expressed from all quarters of the House, should give us an undertaking that when this Bill comes before the Committee he will himself move Amendments, to secure first that there shall be some precision in the procedure for seeking approval of this House to these statutory instruments, and secondly to ensure that no man can be convicted of a crime which he could not possibly know was a crime. It is on those points that I would ask for an assurance and if we can have that asurasnce I, for one, will be happy to vote for the Second Reading. But without that assurance, because these are points of substance, I must agree that this is a bad Bill against which this House should vote.
  6.39 p.m
  Mr. Maude: I would endeavour to make one point which I did raise with the hon. and learned Solicitor-General by way of interruption and which he very kindly dealt with to some extent. I am doubly disappointed, in respect of this Bill, with the attitude taken by the Labour Party over it and for this reason. I cannot help feeling that the hurry with which the learned Solicitor-General introduced the Bill is the reason why the Bill still contains those odious words "as soon as may be" when in fact all of us in this House know perfectly well that it is not possible to have any kind of efficient legislation when those words remain in any Bill. Clause 2 begins:
  "As soon as may be after the making of any statutory instrument, it shall be sent to the King's Printer of Acts of Parliament."
  I submit that those words are absolutely unnecessary; they are an encouragement to delay. But let me turn to Clause 3. It provides:
  "Where by this Act or any Act passed after the commencement of this Act any statutory instrument is required to be laid before Par-

  1151
  liament, a copy of the instrument shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after the making thereof."
  I know what the reason for this may be, since it could be argued that the House might not be sitting, but there is no reason at all why one should leave it to read "as soon as may be." One could easily insert words which would make it imperative that the Order should be laid within so many days after the House assembling. But while I am on this point let me say that Subsection (3) is to my mind quite wrong and should never be allowed to go forward. I will read it:
  "The validity of any statutory instrument of which copies are required under this Section to be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after the making thereof, shall not be called in question on the grounds that such copies were not so laid."
  I do not complain about that but the Clause goes on:
  "But at least twice in every year the Treasury shall make a return to Parliament drawing attention to any such statutory instrument which during the period under review has come into operation on a date earlier than that on which copies thereof were laid before Parliament."
  May I pause there? If the Treasury is omniscient and knows perfectly well all about these Orders—and I suppose would know immediately, if the hon. and learned Solicitor-General is right in his argument, that the requirements of this House had not been complied with—I cannot conceive why a return could not be made earlier. I suspect that, if the learned Solicitor-General consults the Treasury, he will find that they have not got all this knowledge and do not know immediately. The House will notice that having said "at least twice in every year" there is no indication at all when that is to be, and therefore we do not know when the Treasury are to make a return to Parliament
  "explaining why such copies were not so laid on or before the date on which the ordinance came into operation."
  It is my sincere belief that the whole matter could be tightened up as easily as anything. We should then get, in fact, the legislation that I believe many hon. Members have been longing for, really first-class, excellent legislation. Instead of that, what the House will be doing is to hand over to the Executive, not a thing of which they are frightened in any shape or form, but handing over to
  1152
  the Executive an Act which enables them in fact not to get on with these matters as quickly and efficiently as every one of us would wish. There may be some good reason for it, but I confess I do not know what it is. All of us have had experience with Government Departments during this war and I believe every one of us here knows perfectly well that we should in fact have taken more effective steps on both sides of the House, if we had had longer time to consider the proposals in this Bill. Until some assurance is given by the hon. and learned Solicitor-General I feel I must vote against it. It is not a party matter. There are excellent things in it. A lot of it is excellent, but I do say that it is one's bounden duty to vote against a Bill which should be a first-rate Bill, instead of being, in my submission, a thoroughly bad one.
  6.43 p.m.
  Mr. Manninghann-Buller: I have not had the advantage of introducing a Bill but I suppose that when one does one endeavours to disarm criticism in advance. If these were the intentions of the learned Solicitor-General in introducing this Bill, I must confess that I think it unfortunate that, in his lengthy and lucid exposition, he dealt so shortly with the three chief points which have kept us so long in the Debate today. If he had dealt with those points, it may be that the Debate would never have lasted so long. I do sympathise with him because if he had had, throughout this Debate, the assistance of a Cabinet Minister beside him or of any other Minister who could have authorised him to give some assurance, or to give some concession, we might have got through this matter much more speedily. I do not of course know what his attitude will be when he comes, if he comes, to reply. It is obvious, I think, that the particular points in this Bill to which attention was drawn by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. Reid) have met with support not only from these Benches but from the Benches opposite. I do not think the Government have found one supporter amid the serried ranks of the empty Benches behind them.
  What are the three points under consideration? First, there is the question whether some notification should not be given of the making of regulations on the lines of the recommendations of the

  1153
  Donoughmore Report and which the Solicitor-General has said have been discarded in this Bill. I agree that it is not always possible to give notice in advance of the regulations that are to be made but where it can be done it should be. Either some preliminary announcement can be made or it can be prescribed that the regulations will come into effect on a specific date as was done in the case of the Regulations imposing a £10 restriction on building without a licence, thus enabling people to consider the regulations before they became operative. It does enable people to know the law before the law starts being applied. I hope that even though it may not be possible to put some such provision in the Bill, we shall receive some assurance that when it can be done, advance notice of the regulations shall be given. That point was made, not only from this side of the House, but also by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison).
  The second point is one which, although the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman)—who I am sorry to see is not here now—thinks it is merely a Committee point, is one of considerable substance, and affects every man and woman in this land. It is whether an order can be made and become law before anyone can know what it is. We have had considerable arguments about what is the law now, before this Bill becomes an Act. The Senior Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) referred to a reported case with which the hon. Member for Kettering showed he was acquainted. However the law may be now, the question will still arise whether this Bill, if it is passed in its present form, will affect that law. When one sees in Clause 2 the words:
  "As soon as may be after the making of any statutory instrument it shall be sent to the King's Printer…."
  I should have thought that implied that an Order was made before it got to the King's Printer, and so was in operation before anyone could receive it. I hope that notwithstanding the absence of his colleagues, the Solicitor-General will be able to give some assurance that that matter will be put right before this Debate is concluded.
  The third and equally important point, in my view, is in regard to Clause 3. I am sure that all Members of this House will agree it is far better to prevent the
  1154
  commission of crimes than to set oneself to detecting criminals. If the Government wish to abolish the shortage of criminals it is quite easy, by creating offences by making regulations and orders of this sort. But when these regulations are made, there must surely be provision for there being some check upon them. In the majority of cases it is no longer open to the courts to inquire into the exercise of the Minister's powers. The only authority is, and has been for some time, this House of Commons. Therefore, it is of the most fundamental importance that we should ensure that all exercise of delegated authority must come before the House. This Bill does not achieve that object at all. As I understand the Bill, it will still be possible for Fire Guard regulations to be made in a future war, and not be laid for three years after they are made, and there is no sanction, no precaution against that. The Treasury might make reports but what can be done then. The Minister, the Government, the Executive cannot be compelled even then to lay the regulations. No one can pray against regulations until they are laid, and there is no sanction in this Bill to compel the laying of these reports, even if the Treasury gives an adverse report upon them.
  What is the remedy? Surely the one suggested, that there must be some sanction in this Bill, something to say that if this Parliament has decided in its Acts, that is to say, that the regulations shall be laid, and if Parliament is flouted by that not being obeyed, the regulations shall cease to be valid. What is the objection to that? The learned Solicitor-General, when he raised that point, said it could not be done. The only reason he gave was the difficulty of proof in the police court. I suggest that that reason does not justify our relinquishing control over delegated legislation. That is what he is asking us to do. Because of the difficulty of proving that the regulation has been laid, he is asking this House to dispense with all control over the exercise of that power of legislation which we have delegated. There are many ways in which that difficulty of proof can be overcome. I do not propose to take up time in entering into it now, but it is a most unsatisfactory reason for saying that we cannot provide that if a thing is not laid it shall cease to be valid. That is the only sanction which can be operative and

  1155
  can ensure that regulations, when they are made, shall come before this House, and that we, no matter to what party we may belong, shall have an opportunity of checking them.
  The Lord President of the Council, in one of those speeches he used to make at weekends when he was Home Secretary in the Coalition Government, talked a great deal about this delegated legislation, and he emphasised the fact that Parliament will exercise powers of supervision and control of this Departmental legislation. My criticism of this Bill is that it does not provide any more power of control over the exercise of delegated legislation than exists today, no real power at all. Indeed, as I have said, we may still have other Members of the Government coming here, clad in a white sheet, asking for a Bill of indemnity on the ground that the words "as soon as may be" have not been interpreted as meaning "as soon as can be." I hope we shall receive the assurance that both these matters will be remedied at the earliest possible moment. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne quoted, or sought to quote, the effect of certain articles in newspapers, and he talked about floundering. I think he himself rather floundered in his approach to this Bill. He seemed to regard these two matters as mere Committee points. I think they go far deeper than that. I can tell the Solicitor-General that unless he can say that these points will be met he will not get this Bill without those of us who can doing all we can to obstruct him.
  The Solicitor-General The Solicitor-General rose—
  Major Guy Lloyd (Renfrew, East): On a point of Order. I gather that the hon. and learned Gentleman is to speak a second time. I want to ask your guidance on this matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Front Bench has been boycotted by departmental Ministers who are vitally
  affected by this most important Bill. I object to the Solicitor-General speaking again.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I thought the hon. and gallant Member was putting a point of Order. I was waiting to hear what it was.
  Major Lloyd: I am asking for your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The last time such a position arose the present Minister of Health made an exactly similar protest, under exactly similar conditions, and he said that the next time it happened he would be the first to raise a protest on a point of Order.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have not accepted the contention that this is a point of Order.
  Major Lloyd: On a point of Order. May I ask your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? Will you accept a Motion for the Adjournment of the House?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I would certainly not accept that Motion.
  Mr. C. S. Taylor: On a point of Order. Is the House entitled to refuse the hon. and learned Gentleman the right to speak a second time?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The House is, of course, entitled to do that, and the hon. and learned Member will ask the permission of the House before he speaks.
  The Solicitor-General: I was about to rise to ask that permission. I now formally ask the permission of the House to speak again.
  Major Lloyd: I object.
  Mr. Molson: Why is it necessary for the hon. and learned Member to speak on a second occasion, since he has many colleagues on the Treasury Bench?
  Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 270; Noes, 134.

  Division No. 16.]

  AYES.

  [6.56 p.m.

  Adams, Capt. H. R. (Balham)

  Baird, Capt. J.

  Blenkinsop, Capt. A.

  Allen, A. C. (Botworth)

  Balfour, A.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Alpass, J. H.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

  Boardman, H.

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Barstow, P. G.

  Bottomley, A. G.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Barton, C.

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Attewell, H. C.

  Battley, J. R.

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

  Austin, H. L.

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Belcher, J. W.

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Ayles, W. H.

  Berry, H.

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

  Bing, Capt. G. H. C.

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Blackburn, A. R.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

  Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester)

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

  Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

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

  Reeves, J.

  Buchanan, G.

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Burden, T. W.

  Jones, Maj. P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Rhodes, H.

  Burke, W. A.

  Keenan, W.

  Richards, R.

  Callaghan, James

  Kenyon, C.

  Robens, A.

  Chamberlain, R. A.

  Key, C. W.

  Roberts, G. O. (Caernarvonshire)

  Champion, A. J.

  Kinley, J.

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Chater, D.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Sargood, R.

  Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.

  Lang, G.

  Scollan, T.

  Clitherow, R.

  Lavers, S.

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

  Cobb, F. A.

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Shawcross, Cmdr. C. N. (Widnes)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Leonard, W.

  Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.

  Coldrick, W.

  Leslie, J. R.

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Collick, P.

  Levy, B. W.

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  Collindridge, F.

  Lewis, J. (Bolton)

  Simmons, C. J.

  Collins, V. J.

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Cook, T. F.

  Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)

  Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)

  Cooper, Wing Comdr. G.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

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

  Logan, D. G.

  Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Longden, F.

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

  Corvedale, Viscount

  Lyne, A. W.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Cove, W. G.

  McAdam, W.

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A.

  Mack, J. D.

  Solley, L. J.

  Daggar, G.

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

  Daines, P.

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

  Sparks, J. A.

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  McKinlay, A. S.

  Stamford, W.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Steele, T.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  McLeavy, F.

  Strachey, J.

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

  MacMillan, M. K.

  Strauss, G. R.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Stross, Dr. B.

  Delargy, Captain H. J.

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Diamond, J.

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Sunderland, J. W.

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  Marquand, H. A.

  Symonds, Maj. A. L.

  Dye, S.

  Marshall, F. (Brightside)

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Edelman, M.

  Mayhew, Maj. C. P.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Medland, H. M.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

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

  Messer, F.

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.

  Thomas, John R. (Dover)

  Ewart, R.

  Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Farthing, W. J.

  Monslow, W.

  Thorneycroft, H.

  Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

  Montague, F.

  Thurtle, E.

  Follick, M.

  Moody, A. S.

  Timmons, J.

  Foot, M. M.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Tolley, L.

  Foster, W. (Wigan)

  Morley, R.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

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

  Usborne, H. C.

  Freeman, Mai. J. (Watford)

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Freeman, P. (Newport)

  Mort, D. L.

  Viant, S. P.

  Gaitskell, H. T. N.

  Moyle, A.

  Walkden, E.

  Gallacher, W.

  Murray, J. D.

  Walker, G. H.

  Gibbins, J.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Wallace, C. D. (Chislehurst)

  Gibson, C. W.

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

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

  Gilzean, A.

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

  Warbey, W. N.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Gordon-Walker, P. G.

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

  Watson, W. M.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

  Grey, C. F.

  Orbach, M.

  Weitzman, D.

  Grierson, E.

  Paget, B. T.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

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

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

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

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Wigg, G. E. C.

  Gunter, Capt. R. J.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Wilkes, Maj. L.

  Guy, W. H.

  Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.

  Wilkins, W. A.

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

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Pearson, A.

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

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Peart, Capt. T. F.

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

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Perrins, W.

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Hewitson, Captain M.

  Poole, Major C. C. (Lichfield)

  Willis, E.

  Hobson, C R.

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Wise, Major F. J.

  Holman, P.

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Woodburn, A.

  House, G.

  Pritt, D. N.

  Woods, G. S.

  Hoy, J.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Wyatt, Maj. W.

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

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Yates, V. F.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Randall, H. E.

  Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lhampton, W.)

  Ranger, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Rankin, J.

  Mr. Mathers and Captain Michael Stewart.

  1158

  1159

  NOES.

  Aitken, Hon. M.

  Glossop, C. W. H.

  Osborne, C.

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Baldwin, A. E.

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

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

  Pickthorn, K.

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

  Haughton, Maj. S. G.

  Ponsonby, Col, C. E.

  Beattie, F. (Cathcart)

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

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

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.

  Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel

  Hogg, Hon. Q.

  Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.

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

  Hope, Lt.-Col. Lord J.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

  Boothby, R.

  Horabin, T. L.

  Raikes, H. V.

  Bossom, A. G.

  Howard, Hon. A.

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Bower, N.

  Hurd, A.

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

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

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

  Renton, Maj. D.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

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

  Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Jennings, R.

  Robinson, Wing-Comdr. J. R.

  Butcher, H. W.

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

  Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

  Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)

  Kendall, W. D.

  Scott, Lord W.

  Byers, Lt.-Col. F.

  Kerr, Sir J. Graham

  Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

  Carson, E.

  Lambert, G.

  Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

  Challen, Flt.-Lieut. C.

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

  Snadden, W. M.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

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

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

  Lipson, D. L.

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Stoddart-Scott, Lt.-Col. M.

  Cole, T. L.

  Lloyd, Brig. J. S. B. (Wirral)

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Low, Brig. A. R. W.

  Studholme, H. G.

  Cooper-Key, Maj. E. M.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Sutcliffe, H.

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

  MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

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

  MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. M.

  Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.

  Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.

  Touche, G. C.

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Turton, R. H.

  Davidson, Viscountess

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

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

  Digby, Maj. S. Wingfield

  MacLeod, Capt. J.

  Wakefield, Sir W. W.

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

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Walker-Smith, Lt.-Col. D.

  Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  Ward, Hon. G. R.

  Drayson, Capt. G. B.

  Marples, Capt. A. E.

  Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)

  Duthie, W. S.

  Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin)

  Wheatley, Lt.-Col. M. J.

  Eccles, D. M.

  Maude, J. C.

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Erroll, Col. F. J.

  Mellor, Sir J.

  White, Maj. J. B. (Canterbury)

  Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Williams, Lt.-Cdr. G. W. (T'nbr'ge)

  Fletcher, W. (Bury)

  Morris, R. H. (Carmarthen)

  York, C.

  Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

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

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

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

  Fraser, Lt.-Col. Sir I. (Lonsdale)

  Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Gage, Lt.-Col. C.

  Nicholson, G.

  Commander Agnew and Drewe.

  Gammans, Capt. L. D.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That the Bill be com-
  mitted to Committee of the Whole House."
  The House divided: Ayes, 127; Noes,279.

  Division No. 17.]

  AYES.

  [7.8 p.m.

  Aitken, Hon. M.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Hogg, Hon. Q.

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

  Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.

  Hope, Lt.-Col. Lord J.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Howard, Hon A.

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Davidson, Viscountess

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

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

  Digby, Maj. S. Wingfield

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

  Beattie, F. (Cathcart)

  Dodds-Parker, Col. A. D.

  Jennings, R.

  Bennett, Sir P.

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

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

  Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel

  Drayson, Capt. G. B.

  Kerr, Sir J. Graham

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

  Duthie, W. S.

  Lambert, G.

  Boothby, R.

  Eccles, D. M.

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

  Bower, N.

  Erroll, Col. F. J.

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

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Fletcher, W. (Bury)

  Lloyd, Brig. J. S. B. (Wirral)

  Butcher, H. W.

  Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

  Low, Brig. A. R. W.

  Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)

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

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Carson, E.

  Fraser, Lt.-Col. Sir I. (Lonsdale)

  MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

  Challen, Flt.-Lieut. C.

  Gage, Lt.-Col. C.

  MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

  Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

  Gammans, Capt. L. D.

  Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Glossop, C. W. H.

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Cole, T. L.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

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

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

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

  MacLeod, Capt. J.

  Cooper-Key, Maj. E. M.

  Haughton, Maj. S. G.

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

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

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

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

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

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Marples, Capt. A. E.

  Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin)

  Raikes, H. V.

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

  Maude, J. C.

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Touche, G. C.

  Mellor, Sir J.

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

  Turton, R. H.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Renton, Maj. D.

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

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)

  Wakefield, Sir W. W.

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

  Robinson, Wing Comdr. J. R.

  Walker-Smith, Lt.-Col. D.

  Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.

  Scott, Lord W.

  Ward, Hon. G. R.

  Nicholson, G.

  Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

  Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

  Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

  Wheatley, Lt.-Col. M. J.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Snadden, W. M.

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Osborne, C.

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  White, Maj. J. B. (Canterbury)

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Spence, Maj. H. R.

  Williams, Lt.-Cdr. G. W. (T'nbr'ge)

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fib, E.)

  York, C.

  Pickthorn, K.

  Stoddart-Scott, Lt.-Col. M.

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

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J.

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

  Studholme, H. G.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Commander Agnew and Mr. Drewe.

  Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

  NOES.

  Adams, Capt. H. R. (Balham)

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

  Lavers, S.

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Alpass, J. H.

  Delargy, Captain H. J.

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Diamond, J.

  Leonard, W.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Donovan, T.

  Leslie, J. R.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Levy, B. W.

  Austin, H. L.

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  Lewis, J. (Bolton)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Dye, S.

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Ayles, W. H.

  Edelman, M.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

  Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)

  Bacon, Miss A.

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

  Lipson, D. L.

  Baird, Capt. J.

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Balfour, A.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Logan, D. G.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

  Ewart, R.

  Longden, F.

  Barstow, P. G.

  Farthing, W. J.

  Lyne, A. W.

  Barton, C.

  Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

  McAdam, W.

  Battley, J. R.

  Pollick, M.

  Mack, J. D.

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Foot, M. M.

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Belcher, J. W.

  Foster, W. (Wigan)

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

  Berry, H.

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  McKinlay, A. S.

  Bing, Capt. G. H. C.

  Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Blackburn, A. R.

  Freeman, P. (Newport)

  McLeavy, F.

  Blenkinsop, Capt. A.

  Gaitskell, H. T. N.

  MacMillan, M. K.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Gallacher, W.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Boardman, H.

  George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Gibbins, J.

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

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

  Gibson, C. W.

  Marquand, H. A.

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Gilzean, A.

  Marshall, F. (Brightside)

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Mayhew, Maj. C. P.

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Gordon-Walker, P. G.

  Medland, H. M.

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Messer, F.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Grey, C. F.

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

  Grierson, E.

  Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.

  Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

  Buchanan, G.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

  Monslow, W.

  Burden, T. W.

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

  Montague, F.

  Burke, W. A.

  Gunter, Capt. R. J.

  Moody, A. S.

  Byers, Lt.-Col. F.

  Guy, W. H.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Callaghan, James

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

  Morley, R.

  Chamberlain, R. A.

  Hall, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Aberdare)

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

  Champion, A. J.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Morris, R. H. (Carmarthen)

  Clitherow, R.

  Hewitson, Captain M.

  Mort, D. L.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Moyle, A.

  Cobb, F. A.

  Holman, P.

  Murray, J. D.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Horabin, T. L.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Coldrick, W.

  House, G.

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Collick, P.

  Hoy, J.

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

  Collindridge, F.

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

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Collins, V. J.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

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

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lhampton, W.)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Cook, T. F.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Orbach, M.

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

  Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester)

  Paget, R. T.

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

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

  Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Corvedale, Viscount

  Jones, Maj. P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Cove, W. G.

  Keenan, W.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A.

  Kendall, W. D.

  Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Kenyon, C.

  Paten, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Daggar, G.

  Key, C. W.

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Daines, P.

  King, E. M.

  Pearson, A.

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Kinley, J.

  Peart, Capt. T. F.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Kirby, B. V.

  Perrins, W.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Lang, G.

  Poole, Major C. C. (Lichfield)

  1162

  1163

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

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

  Walker, G. H.

  Porter G. (Leeds)

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

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

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Solley, L. J.

  Warbey, W. N.

  Randall, H. E.

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Ranger, J.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Watson, W. M.

  Rankin, J.

  Stamford, W.

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

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

  Steele, T.

  Weitzman, D.

  Reeves, J.

  Strachey, J.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Strauss, G. R.

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

  Rhodes, H.

  Stross, Dr. B.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Richards, R.

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Wigg, G. E. C.

  Roberts, A.

  Sunderland, J. W.

  Wilkes, Maj. L.

  Roberts, G. O. (Caernarvonshire)

  Symonds, Maj. A. L.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Wilkinson, Rt. Hon. Ellen

  Sargood, R.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Scollan, T.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

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

  Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

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

  Shawcross, Cmdr. C. N. (Widnes)

  Thomas, John R. (Dover)

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Willis, E.

  Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.

  Thorneycroft, H.

  Wise, Major F. J.

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Thurtle, E.

  Woodburn, A.

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  Timmons, J.

  Woods, G. S.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Tolley, L.

  Wyatt, Maj. W.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Yates, V. F.

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Usborne, H. C.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

  Viant, S. P.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

  Walkden, E.

  Mr. Mathers and Captain Michael Stewart.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE [MONEY]
  Resolution reported:
  "That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue certain expiring laws, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such expenses as may be occasioned by the continuance of Part I of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, and the Cotton Manufacturing Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1934, until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-six, and of the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, and the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1944, until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, being expenses which, under any of the four last-mentioned Acts are to be defrayed out of such moneys; and

  (b) the payment into the Exchequer of such receipts as may be occasioned by the continuance of the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, until the said thirty-first day of March being receipts which under that Act are to be paid into the Exchequer."

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [COLONEL SIR CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  SCHEDULE
  7.23 p.m.
  Mr. W. J. Brown: I beg to move, in page 3, leave out lines 19 and 20.
  The effect of the Amendment, if it were carried, would be to remove from the scope of the Bill an Act of Parliament in which I have a special interest. That Act is the 1944 Pensions (Increase) Act. I do not seek to remove this Act from the scope of the Bill because I want it to come to an end; I seek to remove it because under the Bill the House is confronted with one of two alternatives, neither of which it may like. If it votes for the Bill, it extends those Acts of Parliament mentioned in the Schedule without any kind of alteration. If it votes against the Bill, it will bring these Acts of Parliament, which would otherwise be extended, to an end. That choice may be perfectly proper in regard to most of the Acts mentioned in the Schedule, but, as I shall seek to prove, when dealing with the Pensions (Increase) Act, we ought neither to extend it without amendment, nor bring it to an end; we should insist upon a new Measure which can come before the House in a form permitting of its amendment Clause by Clause if the House is not satisfied with the present Act.
  It will be necessary to explain something of the circumstances in which the Act which I seek to delete was passed. Members who sat in the last Parliament will be fairly familiar with the long par-

  1165
  liamentary battle which led up to the production of the 1944 Pensions (Increase) Act. Members coming to the House for the first time will not, perhaps, be so familiar with what happened, and it may be to the advantage of the House if I recapitulate what happened, and why it happened, in 1944.
  During and after the last war there was a sharp upward move in the price level in Britain. Taking the cost of living figure in 1914 as 100, the cost of living rose to a peak point in September, 1921, when the index figure stood at 276. The cost of livinghad risen by 176 per cent. Because of the acute hardship which that involved for Civil Service and other State pensioners living on modest pensions, the Government were impelled to do something to relieve their position. An Act was passed increasing to amodest extent the size of the various Civil Service pensions in order to give relief to the pensioners.
  At a later stage a sliding scale arrangement was worked out, and agreed upon between the Civil Service trade unions and the Government, under which both the Civil Service cost of living bonus and Civil Service pensions were related to the movement, up or down, of the index figure. That meant that for every five points that the index figure went up, there was a slight increase in the amount of the pensions of our old public servants. From 1921 to 1935, the cost of living, instead of continuing to rise, steadily fell. It fell from 276 in September, 1921, to 155 in 1935. Throughout that period of 14 years, the pensions of Civil Servants were adjusted downwards as the cost of living fell. Nobody grumbled and nobody protested about it. We had had the advantage of more money when the cost of living went up, and it was only fair that we should have the disadvantage of less money when the cost of living fell. Not a groan or a murmur proceeded from the public service or the pensioners during that period.
  In 1935 something else happened. The Government, not by agreement with the Civil Service trade unions, but in spite of their opposition, decided to scrap the sliding scale basis of pay and pensions which I have described, and to consolidate wages and pensions at their then level. Thereafter there was to be no movement up or down because of variations in the cost of living figure. From 1935 until
  1166
  1944 the cost of living figure was rising again, and now stands at a very much higher figure, as every hon. Member is aware, than it did when this war broke out, and still higher than it was in 1935. During all that period the pensioners of the public services received no compensation whatever for the rise in the cost of living. Having had deduction after deduction for 14 years while the cost of living was going down, for the years from 1935 to 1944 they were given no increase whatever, although the cost of living had gone sharply upwards.
  7.30 p.m.
  Up to now I have mentioned civil servants, but in order to make plain the scope of this matter I must tell the Committee that what was done in the Civil Service was imitated in other branches of the public service; for example, a similar sort of arrangement was applied to teachers, and to local government officers, and indeed the Army and the Navy were affected though their circumstances were not the same in detail. The pensions of retired Army officers and men and naval officers and men—
  Colonel Wigg: Will the hon. Member allow me to point out that there is a distinction between an officer's pension and an other rank's pension?
  Mr. Brown: I am very much obliged. I am always willing to acquire information from whatever source it comes, but if the hon. Member will allow me to develop my point I think he will find that his interruption was unnecessary. Although the detailed circumstances in the Army and Navy were not the same as they were in what one might call the "civil" services of the country, there was a certain analogy in principle on one point. What happened in the case of the Army and Navy was that a definite cut was made, a cut in the pension, which remained long after the fall in the cost of living which had given rise to it had been replaced by a steady upward movement. Although the details were different the broad issue was the same, whether you were dealing with officers from the military services or with ex-civil servants, ex-teachers, ex-policemen, ex-prison officers, ex-local government servants and the rest.
  In 1942, after a period of absence from this House, I returned to it. I always felt that the old place was never

  1167
  the same since I left it in 1931, and I rejoiced greatly at the privilege of rejoining the House in 1942. I came back here determined to try and do many things, but one thing I swore I would do. I swore that that issue of the harsh, unjust and ungenerous treatment of the pensioners from the public services should be put right. As all Members of the House will know, I launched an agitation, supported on all sides of the House—it was not a party issue—which ultimately reached the point where no less than 250 Members of this House—which was more than half of its effective wartime strength—had their names on the Order Paper attached to a demand that the Government should do something to deal with those poor pensioners.
  At long last, after many disappointments and delays, after great travail of spirit and exertion of body, in 1944 the Coalition Government brought in a Bill to give some sort of relief to the various categories of pensioners. The Bill passed into law in March, 1944, as the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1944.
  I do not deny, and it would be ungenerous of me to deny, that that Act of Parliament did confer relief on very many of the three-quarters of a million people I am talking about. Perhaps I had better emphasise that. It is not a tiny issue, it affects about three-quarters of a million people of one sort or another. It would be ungenerous and wrong to deny that it gave some measure of relief to that large body of retired servants. There were, however, two things wrong about that Act, and it is because they were wrong that I want to take the Act out of the scope of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Since, if it is not taken outside the scope of that Bill, I cannot get those two wrong things put right. Therefore, as a preliminary to getting the two wrong things put right, I must urge the House to delete the Act from the scope of this Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
  What were the two respects in which that Act was wrong? First it was wrong because it did not restore to the State pensioners what had been taken away from them during the period of declining price levels. The Government did not say, as they ought to have done and as any just Government would have done—but
  1168
  no Government is just, a Government, as I said the other day, is never a good thing, at best it is a necessary evil—a just Government would have said, "we will treat these men and women with the cost of living going up in exactly the same way as we treated them when it was going down." In other words, if they knocked off a bob a week for a decline of five points in the cost of living, they should put on a bob a week for every rise of five points. That puts it as clearly as I can without giving a lot of figures. That Act, however, did nothing of the kind. What it did was to distribute a relief wholly unrelated to the actual risein the cost of living figure, and of a very much smaller amount than would have been the case if we had done the just thing.
  Secondly, and on this I hope to evoke loud and responsive cheers from my comrades on the other side—[Interruption.] Yes, anybody who supports me tonight is a comrade, and as for those who do not—they shall be cast into outer darkness! The second great difficulty about this Act was that even the measure of relief which it gave was given on a "means test" basis. You had to establish need before you got even the modest measure of benefit which the Act provided. Whatever the issues in regard to which I am not at one with my colleagues opposite, there is one issue on which my record in this House has never varied. All the time, from 1931 onwards, I have been opposed to that iniquitous "means test" wherever the ugly thing has shown its head, from the Anomalies Act of 1931, when we were dealing with unemployment, to this Act of 1944 when we were dealing with the retired pensioners.
  That was an abominable feature of that Act. Now the Coalition Government knew—because I have been at some pains to point it out—that I was not satisfied with the 1944 Act. The "Caretaker" Government knew I was not satisfied with that Act, and the present Government knows that I am not satisfied with it. Every one of those Governments has known that I have been animated, ever since the Act became law, by the intention to improve it when the time came to renew it, and that time comes in December of this year. I have made representations to the present Ministers, as I made representations to the Ministers of the last Government,

  1169
  and members of all parties have been associated with me, directly or indirectly, in these representations.
  If the Committee votes against my Amendment tonight, it will mean that we shall continue the Act of 1944—unjust, ungenerous, unworthy and mean as it was—unaltered for another 15 months. If the Committee supports the Amendment, we shall compel the Government—I hope they will not need compelling, but if they need compulsion it should be applied—to bring in the Bill for a renewal in a different form, a form which will enable us to debate the Bill Clause by Clause, and to propose the appropriate improvements which the House thinks the merits of the case require. I do not ask hon. Members tonight to pronounce in favour of my view of the 1944 Act; I ask them to give me and others who are interested in the matter the opportunity of demonstrating to the House what our view of it is in circumstances in which, if we convince the House that we are right, we can secure amendments to correspond to the feeling of the House.
  I have asked myself why the Government have included this Act in the Schedule to this Bill, and I can think of only two reasons that commend themselves as intelligible ones to me. One reason might be that they desire to avoid a discussion on the merits of the 1944 Act. I cannot think that hon. Members would wish to see 750,000 ex-public servants, who have spent their lives in one form or another of State activity, given no opportunity of arguing their case before the new House of Commons. I hope I will not have to argue with hon. Members opposite that the mere fact that the Coalition Government thought something was right is not of itself an automatic proof that it was! I do not have to argue that. That being so, I ask hon. Members to give us an opportunity of arguing the case of these men and women. The other possible explanation is that the Government have not time. I am susceptible to that argument. It is within the knowledge of all sides of the Committee that I have been outspoken in the view that the machinery of the House ought to be speeded up in order to enable us to deal with more legislation than we do, and I proposed in the Debates on the Address that we should have a Select Committee on Procedure, on which I now
  1170
  serve. That is evidence enough that I do not want to impede the passage of legislation. Indeed, with other hon. Members I am doing a good deal of hard work on that Select Committee with a view to finding ways and means of speeding up the processes of Parliament. But I hope the argument that we have not time will not be allowed to prevail when the point at issue is whether we are doing the most elementary justice to 750,000 people who have spent their lives in our service.
  7.45 p.m.
  I want to remind hon. Members that there are some issues on which civil servants and teachers can exercise some pressure. Civil servants have the right to go to the Industrial Court on various issues such as hours and wages, and teachers have the Burnham Committee to which they can take certain types of cases. But there is none of the people to whom I have referred tonight whose unions can take to arbitration an issue affecting superannuation or pension rights. That is excluded from the scope of arbitral questions by the terms of the agreement between the unions and the Government, so that if the Government treat these old men and women wrongly, as I submit the Government are doing, they cannot get a remedy by going to an industrial court or an arbitration board and there insisting on the Treasury turning up and arguing their case, and getting an independent verdict from outside. If they do not get a square deal from the Government, the only place to which they can come, and indeed to which they are entitled to come, is the House of Commons which, in the last resort, is the employer of the men and women I have been talking about. I cannot think that hon. Members will take the view that we have not time to make quite sure that we are doing the right thing (and if we are doing the wrong thing, rapidly to put it right) by the 750,000 people whose position I have described. In all the circumstances, and not out of hostility to the Government, for my attitude to the Government is one of benevolence—
  Mr. Gallacher: After what the hon. Member got at the weekend.
  Mr. Brown: If it were possible for one hon. Member to put an unworthy construction upon the activities of another

  1171
  hon. Member I might inevitably be sure that it would be the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). That is part of the psychology of Communism in Britain.
  Mr. Gallacher: Cheap stuff.
  Mr. Brown: Not cheaper than the character of the interruption warranted. But as the numerical strength of the hon. Member's party is only twice the strength of my own, I will from this point onwards ignore him. This is not a party issue. I beg hon. Members to vote for the Amendment in order that we may insist upon this issue coming before the new House of Commons in a form in which the House can discuss it and make up its mind what ought to be done in respect of the pensions of these people. Many of them have insignificant pensions, and they are suffering great hardship. They look to us for elementary justice, and I hope and believe that from this new House of Commons, that demand for justice will not be denied.
  Major Haughton: As this is the first time I have spoken in this Chamber, I crave the indulgence of the Committee, and in anticipation of that sympathetic consideration which is given so wholeheartedly and generously to new Members, I promise to be as brief as I can and to stick to the point. If the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1944, is continued without Amendment, a grave injustice will be done to certain classes of pensioners, and as I am satisfied that the original injustice was inadvertent, I am equally certain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be willing to consider inequalities which otherwise, as the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) has said, will be perpetuated until March, 1947. Already in the House and in this Committee pensions, in their different forms, have been considered and it is obvious that it is the intention of the Government and the wish of Parliament that the old people shall be treated generously and fairly. I am encouraged by that conviction to ask the Financial Secretary to bear with me while I list the arguments for a revision of pensions, in the hope that the Chancellor will authorise considerable adjustment.
  I have no wish to impede the passage of the Bill and I have not the experience to put down an Amendment, but I feel certain that, if my arguments ring true,
  1172
  ways and means will be found to adjust inequalities and to redress wrongs. Under Section (1) of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1944, a percentage increase, varying according to the size of the pension, was provided, but the total means of the pensioner must not exceed, in the case of a single person, £225, and in the case of a married person £300, the first £52 being ignored as far as this particular calculation is concerned. Civil Servants who retired after 1922 have a further option under the Bill which awards a percentage increase varying with the size of pensions without reference to other means. The reason for that differentiation between civil servants and others was that up to 1944 Civil Service pensions contained a variable element which fluctuated with the cost of living. In 1944 these pensions were consolidated on the basis of a cost-of-living figure of 155, and at the time the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1944, was passed the cost-of-living figure was 200. I suppose it was felt at that time that the pensioners were entitled to an automatic increase without any regard to their own needs.
  Within my certain knowledge the criticisms of the Bill have followed three main lines. The first is on the score of differentiation, the second criticism is the fact that serving teachers are not subject to a means test at all, and the third criticism is that civil servants who retired after February, 1922, have the option of having their pension increase calculated on a basis without regard to sources of other income. It seems radically unfair that retired teachers must submit to a harsh means test while serving teachers and certain groups of civil servants are free from it. Civil servants now serving with salaries up to £1,500, exclusive of their own private incomes, and exclusive of their wives' incomes, receive a bonus of £60 a year, whereas a retired teacher is subject to a means test of £300 a year, inclusive of his own and his wife's private income. That is particularly hard, because it often happens that a teacher is married to another teacher, and it would really be better, from a financial point of view, if a retired teacher lived apart from his wife rather than be under the present scheme. That seems entirely wrong to me and very unfair. Civil servants and teachers now serving have received a war

  1173
  bonus from the time the cost of living started to rise, but pensioners received no increase until 1944.
  I claim that the means test should cither be abolished or applied to both pensioned teachers and retired civil servants, or, in fairness, the limits imposed by the Act should be adjusted on more generous levels. All salaries and pensions of public elementary school teachers and civil servants come from State funds and the incidence of an increase in the cost of living falls on different classes of people with exactly the same severity. It is fair and reasonable to ask the Financial Secretary to consider these inequalities in the Pensions (Increase) Act.
  Little did I think that my maiden speech in this place would be made on this particular subject. I have risen to speak tonight because I feel so deeply about it and fear that an injustice may be perpetuated. I had hoped, in my maiden speech, to follow the fine lead which was given by the hon. and gallant Member for Watford (Major Freeman), when he found an opportunity to speak of his own constituency and of the wonderful things that were done there. I confess that in my amateurish way I might have vied with the hon Lady the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) and told an Irish story to enliven the Debate; but those things must wait. They are luxuries which must give place to the needs of the moment. I may have a chance to urge what the linen trade, as the second exporting trade, might do to bring millions of dollars to this country, and what the exportable surplus of Irish agriculture might do to supply the needs of the people of Great Britain. But all these things must rest, and in my maiden speech, if by chance I have made a point which touches some heartstrings in the Financial Secretary, I should be well content and very grateful.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Callaghan: As one whose maiden speech is only just behind him perhaps I may enter fully into the feelings of the hon. and gallant Member for Antrim (Major Haughton) and say to him on behalf of the whole Committee that if he continues to espouse his cause with the sincerity, eloquence and logical persuasion which has characterised his contribution tonight, and in an accent which I find extremely pleasing, then we
  1174
  shall indeed all be glad to hear his further contributions. I am very glad to find myself on the same side as he is in this matter and to support the contribution which the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) has made, although not necessarily to endorse all the terms in which he made his case. This, as has been truly said, is an all-party matter. I cannot accept the view that this Government is committed, necessarily, to doing something which expediency is pushing it into doing. I think that probably the best way one can make one's case is by referring to the circumstances in which this Act became law, and to expound the argument why it should not find its way, tucked away in Part II of the Schedule, into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. When one looks at the other Acts which are to be continued, either from their relative importance or the amount of money to be expended, one is bound to conclude that this Act is not in the same category.
  I hope I am in Order in referring to the Financial Memorandum on this Bill, for I would like to say that the Coal Mines Act, 1912, which is continued, will cost about £100, the Cotton Manufacturing Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1934, which is continued, will involve us in the payment of only a few small sums, and the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, will involve us in some other small amount. None of these is in line with the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1944, which, as the hon. Member for Rugby said, is a matter of very big moment both on account of the number of people it affects and in the cost which is incurred in putting it into effect. I submit to the Financial Secretary that this Act should not have been tucked away in this manner in Part II of the Schedule. It would probably make the case stronger if I might refer to practical reasons why we should have fresh consideration of this question. Let me do so by referring to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. On the Second Reading of the Bill which he introduced, on 3rd March, 1944, he said:
  "It follows, I think, from, what I have said, that the Bill should be limited in duration—as it is by its terms—so that it may be reviewed from time to time in the light of changing circumstances. Clause 10 (2) of the Bill limits its duration to the end of 1945 and we have made that provision in

  1175
  the expectation that, before that time, the whole position will again have been reviewed and the Government will have announced their decision in the light of the then ascertained facts."
  I know that that was a Coalition Government and does not commit this Government, but, on an all-party or non-party matter of this kind, involving, as it does, so many people, I would say to the Financial Secretary and the Government that that pledge, if I might put it so high, should be honoured and that we should have an opportunity of discussing this matter. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
  "Hon. Members, therefore, are right in regarding this Bill as of a short-term, emergency character."
  Later, in the course of the Second Reading, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "The Bill is an emergency Measure, to meet the position of the small pensioners."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1944; Vol. 397, c. 1763–1773.]
  Finally, on the Third Reading of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "This Bill has been introduced in order that we may go as far as is consistent with present circumstances and with principles which must be maintained towards meeting grievances and relieving hardship on the part of very deserving classes of public servants."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1944; Vol. 399, c. 1520.]
  My point is that there may be, legitimately, differences of opinion between the Government and those of us who think differently as to whether, in fact, the whole position ought to be reviewed because circumstances have changed. They may take the view that, shall we say, the cost of living has not increased to the point where we are entitled to ask for more, but that is not the basis on which they have put this. They have just tucked it away so that we have no opportunity of debating the issue and making our case. Everyone affected by it, and those hon. Members concerned with the increase in the old age pension, must see that this is a similar sort of issue, only affecting a particular class of people.
  I would just say this on the question whether the circumstances have or have not changed. The hon. Member for Rugby, who did so much work on Second Reading and during the Committee stage, will probably remember the basis on which the Chancellor justified fixing his ceiling in regard to an increase. The right hon.
  1176
  Gentleman said that he fixed the ceiling at £x on the basis that the bonus now being given to civil servants is not given to people getting more than x pounds. But, since that, as hon. Members know, the bonus has been increased and people on a higher salary level are now getting the bonus. That is precisely a case of changed circumstances which should be taken into account. I apprecite the Government's difficulty on this issue. Whatever the hon. Member for Rugby says, there are only five weeks left to us, and I do not blame the Government for not having done something about it earlier. True, something should have been done about it earlier, but they only came into office in August and events have been jostling them pretty hard ever since. As a Government supporter I say that I appreciate their difficulties, but I think they have an obligation to help us. There are certain pledges which they ought to carry out, and there is a case which can be established on its merits. Therefore, I hope that the Financial Secretary will give us some hope that we shall not have to wait until the end of March, 1947, before the hardship to which these people are subjected can be looked at again. The old age pensioners will, I believe, get an increase before then. Why, then, should these people wait until 1947, when this Bill will come up for renewal? Can the Financial Secretary devise some method to help these people now, in, order to make sure that something is done for them in the next few months?
  Mr. Lipson: May I associate myself with the congratulations offered by the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callagan) to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Antrim (Major Haughton)? He told us of a great variety of topics on which he might have spoken, but I think we are all agreed that he chose the right one and spoke most eloquently upon it. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), ever vigilant, has performed a public service once again in drawing attention to this Act, and trying to secure a square deal for so many ex-Government employees, ex-teachers and ex-local government employees. I was surprised to find, in my own constituency, how many former employees of the Corporation benefited under this Act. Cheltenham is not a large town, but something like 120 benefited, and, in addition to that, there were many

  1177
  former teachers and ex-officers and others who did so. Therefore, I think, hon. Members will find that there are a great many of their constituents who are vitally interested in the proceedings of the Committee tonight, and who will call the hon. Member for Rugby not "comrade," but, I think, "blessed," if he can succeed in persuading the Government to give further consideration to this matter.
  Many of us thought that the Act gave precious little to these former servants of the community. But even what they were given, when that Act was administered, was not wholly theirs. I drew attention in the last Parliament to the working of this Act as it affected old age pensioners. Some of those who benefited under the Act were men over 70 who were old age pensioners—in some instances they received a few more shillings a week under the Act. What happened to their old age pension? The old age pension was reduced because of the increases given under the Act. That was never intended by Parliament when the Act was passed. The amount given under the Act was little enough, but it was the intention of Parliament that the pensioners should benefit 100 per cent. by the amount provided by the Act, but in point of fact this was not to be so. I raised the matter in the last Parliament and was able to give instances of the following type: Under the Act a former employee was entitled to an old age pension of 10s. a week and he found that 6s., 7s. or8s. of his old age pension was taken away. That sort of thing ought to be put right, and it can be put right. All that my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby is asking tonight is that this Act should be looked at afresh. We have been told that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer intended that the Act should be reviewed if the circumstances changed, and we have had our attention drawn to certain ways in which circumstances have changed. One particular change which has taken place is of very great importance.
  This is a very different House of Commons from the previous one. We were told by, I think, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) that this was a different House of Commons, that this was a different Government. Here is an opportunity for them to show that, instead of
  1178
  just feeling that they are committed to what was done by the previous Government, the Government will either be prepared to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend or at least not to put the Whips on. Cannot this matter be left to a free vote of the House? All the Amendment is asking is that this new House of Commons shall have the opportunity of looking at this problem afresh in the light of the changed circumstances and the fact that the viewpoint of hon. Members is necessarily different from that of those who were in the last Parliament. I do not think there is anything unreasonable in that. I am quite sure that if hon. Members opposite were in Opposition, they would feel there was only one way in which they could vote. Surely, in this matter the party system need not be too tyrannical, and it can allow a little play for the consciences of hon. Members opposite so that they can vote as they want to vote, as their constituents want them to vote, as those who put them in power expect them to vote? This is an opportunity. It is only a small thing we are asking, that the Government show they are worthy of their position, and are not going to use their majority tyrannically. Let them agree to the Amendment which has been moved with his customary eloquence and with more than his customary reasonableness, by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Burden: As one who took some small part in the discussion of the 1944 Act, I would urge the Government to think again on this matter and to help us. The Act was introduced in order to assist retired civil servants, local government officers and others, and that implies, of course, that that type of person was badly in need of financial assistance. However, what do we find in actual practice? As has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson), the fact is that local authorities are obliged to operate in full Section 7 of the Act. As a result, instance after instance is arising where under the Act an amount is given but, on the other hand, it is taken away by a decrease in the old age pension. When the Act was under discussion the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, gave an assurance that such an anomaly would

  1179
  be put right by administrative action so far as the Civil Service was concerned, and I believe that has been done, but local government officers and other similar classes are under a double disadvantage because, while they are provided for in the Act, they are not provided for by administrative action so far as the decrease of their pensions is concerned. Therefore, I ask the Government to think again on this matter.
  I am sorry also that the Act has been included in this way because, when the Bill was under discussion, we had a more or less implied promise that the railway superannuated staff would be considered. Little to nothing has been done in that connection but, coming up in this way, it is impossible for the matter to be reopened as we would reopen it if a Bill were before the House in the ordinary way. Therefore, in view of these anomalies and difficulties which have arisen in administration, I beg the Government to give us an opportunity, as the Chancellor in the late Government said would be given, to review the whole circumstances once again.
  Mr. Butcher: I would like to join from this section of the House in an appeal to the Financial Secretary to reconsider this matter and ascertain whether he cannot see his way clear to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Brown). I was very much impressed by the quotation from the earlier Debate read by the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan). Certainly hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the Committee think we have a better House of Commons and a better Government than when the Bill became law. I am one who does not think so. Indeed, if we had a Coalition Government in Office we would have been able to hold them to their promise of review and, therefore, I urge the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to regard himself and this Government—some of whose most prominent Members were distinguished Members of the Coalition Government—as bound by the pledge for re-examination.
  It is extremely difficult to decide whether the 1944 Act can properly be amended while we are debating the question of whether the Second Schedule to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill shall stand part, and the Committee is in a very
  1180
  great difficulty. I have come to the conclusion that the time for the means test is rapidly coming to an end, if, indeed, it has not already come to an end. However, I am satisfied of this, that it may be that one can find some section of the community to whom it might, under certain circumstances, be proper to apply a means test. I do not say there is such a section, but it might be possible to find such a section [An Hon. Member:" M.P's."] However, I am satisfied that the section to which one ought not to apply it is those people who, drawn from the respectable ranks of the Civil Service and teaching profession, have spent their lifetime in the public service. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury made, if I may say so, a most admirable speech on the Budget. In the Budget Debate, the point was made, either by him or by the Chancellor, as to the difference between gross cost and net cost. The Chancellor told us how much such a concession would cost, and then said, "But I shall recover this at the standard rate of 9s. in the £." I ask the Financial Secretary if he will give some similar figures under this Bill. What would be the cost of paying these increases without a means test? What would be the gross cost? Will the Financial Secretary tell us how much he would recover in Income Tax as a result in order to do away with the means test on these people? I believe this is not the right way in which an important Measure, passed during the war years, should be reviewed, and I therefore hope that the Financial Secretary will see his way clear to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. George Thomas: I would like to pay my tribute to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) for bringing forward tonight this question, which would have passed my observation, at least, as a new Member of the House. I believe that a question of this character, which affects the whole of the teaching profession, as well as the police force, the Civil Service and others, is not one which should have been tucked away in this fashion.I know that at the moment the teaching profession in this country is already making moves towards asking for the abolition of the means test from the pensions of their colleagues, and nobody would be more resentful or bewildered than the members of that profession if

  1181
  they found, tomorrow, that an opportunity of amending the Pensions (Increase) Act had been taken from them. I think this is an attempt, quite innocently, to get us to vote in the dark, and I want to say that so long as I am in this House, I shall never vote for a means test for people whose pensions are already too small.
  The present Act has many inequalities, and needs improving. If it means that by voting tonight against the Amendment no opportunity is given to amend this Act, which is resented by the profession of which I had the honour to be a member, and which has looked towards this House with confidence, then I cannot vote against the Amendment, and I shall not do so unless we have an assurance that an opportunity will be given to us to consider the means test and an improvement in the basic scales of pension for these people. There are uncertificated people in the country whose pension, even when increased under the present Act, leaves them well below the poverty line. In view of the promise which was given when this Act was introduced, and which was long overdue, we have the right to say to the Government, "You must redeem the promise which was given in the name of the Government of the day to people who were in the employ of the Government." For that reason, I wish again to thank the hon. Member for Rugby for bringing to the notice of the Committee the issue which is at stake.
  Mr. Osbert Peake: The hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) referred just now to a statement I made when I was Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and perhaps I might offer a few observations at this stage, although I have no wish to curtail the Debate. This matter has been discussed this evening upon a non-party basis. Sympathy has been expressed in several quarters of the Committee for the Amendment which, I think, puts Members in something of a dilemma, because the method of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) to secure reconsideration of this matter is to move to omit from the Schedule what is admittedly a beneficent Measure. Therefore, whichever way we vote tonight we shall be in difficulties in explaining our actions to our constituents. I, personally, when asked about this matter earlier in the year, when I occupied the position now held by the
  1182
  Financial Secretary, gave a pledge that although this Act expired at the end of the year the then Government would see that it was renewed. Anxieties were then being expressed as to whether the Act would be allowed to expire at the end of the present year.
  Members who support the hon. Member for Rugby in the Lobby tonight will, I think, show rather more confidence and faith in the Government than I myself possess, because they will do so on the footing that if this Act is taken out of the Schedule the Government will, between now and 31st December, bring in a more beneficent Measure, and pass it into law. Although I have sympathy with the case made out by the hon. Member for Rugby I hope the Financial Secretary will beable to make a statement which will enable the Committee to avoid a Division tonight. The Pensions (Increase) Act is admittedly imperfect in one very important particular. When I was at the Treasury several cases were brought to my notice where the effect of an increase of pension under that Act was to diminish entitlement to the non-contributory old age pension to an equal extent and even, in some cases, to a greater extent, than the benefit conferred by the Pensions (Increase) Act. For that reason, if for no other, I hope the Financial Secretary will be able to say that this matter will be looked at again in the near future, long before the date fixed by the Expiring Law Continuance Bill, which is March, 1947, and be able to assure us that the Chancellor will personally look at the matter to see whether the admitted defects in the Pensions (Increase) Act cannot be remedied at an early date. If the hon. Gentlemen were able to take that course it would give great satisfaction in all quarters of the Committee, and enable us to avoid a Division which would be very embarrassing to many Members.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I have no quarrel with my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) who, I think, set down this Amendment largely so that he could put the point of view which he has put with such clarity and force. That point of view is certainly not new to many of us, because the hon. Member put it on more than one occasion in the last Parliament. He also saw, at the Treasury, my right hon. Friend's predecessor, and also

  1183
  saw the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake). He said, and others have said to-night, that this is not a party issue, and I think that is true. But while it is not a party issue it is also not as simple an issue as some would have the Committee believe. It is, I am sorry to say, quite impossible for me to go over the arguments which have been used tonight and to answer them one by one, because if I did I should be wasting the time of the Committee. What the hon. Member for Rugby seeks to leave out has been put into the Schedule of this Bill for one reason only, and that is that this Act should continue in being. This is the only method by which that can be done. It is quite impossible, owing to the congestion of the Government timetable between now and 31st December to consider—that itself would take some time—and then to bring in amending legislation to the Act of 1944. Therefore, the Government have done the only thing they can do, and incidently implemented the promise given by my right hon. Friend who sits opposite some months ago when he stood where I now stand. That promise was to include it in the present Bill.
  8.30 p.m.
  The only change we have made is to put it in Part II Schedule of this Bill instead of Part I, and the reason for that is this: If it were put in Part I it would lapse on 31st December, 1946. This would mean that only nine months of the next financial year would be covered whilst the Estimates covering it would be for a full year to 31st March, 1947. Therefore, purely for technical reasons connected with the financial side of the Act, we have now put it in Part II, which will carry it like the Estimate on to 31st March, 1947. I can assure the House that that does not necessarily mean that the Government intends to go right through to that date without doing something in the meantime. We realise, as has been said by the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden), by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North (Mr. Peake) and other speakers that the present Act has given rise to anomalies which do need ironing out at some time. As indicated in the excellent speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Antrim (Major Haughton), the Government of Northern Ireland is
  1184
  interested in this Act. It is desirable that the British Government should look at it, and this it intends to do as soon as possible.
  One of the points made in the Debate was that the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated it was a temporary Measure to meet the greatest cases of hardship; that it would be looked at, from time to time, in order to see the extent to which, if any, conditions had altered. The plain fact is that when the Bill was introduced in March, 1944, the cost of living index figure then stood, I think, at about 30 per cent. above the 1939 figure. The hon. Member for Rugby is a past master in using the argument that suits him best—and I do not blame him—he went back to 1935; but actually, when the Measure was introduced, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer took the figure as it then existed, and compared it with the figure which existed in 1939—when war broke out. He committed himself to that figure—and it was not challenged at the time—that the cost of living had gone up in the interim by about 30 per cent. The cost of living figure today is much the same—about 30 per cent. above the 1939 figure. The figure laid down by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer in March, 1944, approximated roughly to the figure of today, on which he gave an increase of 30, 25 and 20 per cent. to the various categories of recipients and the same figures apply today. The cost of living is practically the same now as when the Measure was introduced.
  I am not using that as an argument for no change. I am simply indicating to the Committee that, even on the undertaking made by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, namely, that the matter would be looked at from time to time in the light of existing circumstances, even taking his words and applying them to the present time, it is true to say that the situation, so far as the cost of living is concerned, has not changed.
  The position is today quite fluid, and that is one reason, perhaps, for not rushing in too soon in this matter. We cannot be certain what may happen to the cost of living. We do not know how prices are going to go. There is something to be said for waiting until we know more where we are. No-one knows better than the hon. Member for Rugby how difficult these

  1185
  things are to settle finally once for all. One of the troubles has been, and it was implicit in something he said in the course of his speech that pensioners who retired in the early nineteen-twenties, had their pensions based on their existing rates, whilst others, who came out of the Service later, because the cost of living had gone down, found they suffered accordingly, and, naturally, felt aggrieved. That meant a great deal of trouble before that matter was settled, it has, in fact, not been settled even today.
  Therefore, when we do settle this thing, it should be settled, if possible, along just and fair lines which everyone concerned felt were just and fair. All I can say tonight is I hope that the Committee will not agree to this Amendment, but will let us include this Act in the Schedule to the Bill. I can promise the Committee that the Government will look at this—[Hon. Members: "When"?] Give me time to say when. We will look at it as soon as possible; they cannot look at it before then, and, that being so, I think that is as far as the Government can be expected to go tonight.
  Mr. Harry Wallace: May I ask whether this review is to be strictly limited to the cost of living? These pensions are grossly inadequate. I hope that the Financial Secretary is not suggesting that it is going to be restricted merely to the cost of living index figure.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Of course not. All questions that are relevant will be looked at. I was dealing with the cost of living, because it has been said that the cost of living had gone up and created hardship for civil servants, teachers, members of the police force and other pensioners, which this Bill came into being to assist. Quite obviously, therefore, the cost of living will have a lot to do with it. Naturally, however, we do not want to confine consideration just to the cost of living, and go no further than that. The Government will look at this matter during the coming months, and if will look at it with sympathy, because it realises that the present position cannot be continued indefinitely, year after year, in a Bill of this sort. The present Act does contain anomalies and there is feeling about it in all quarters of the House. That being so, the Government will study what has been said during the debate, and will consider what has been said sym-
  1186
  pathetically to see what, if anything, can be done to put this matter on a satisfactory and permanent basis.
  Mr. Brown: I do not want to force an-unnecessary Division, but I am an old enough bird at this business to be able to assess, with some degree of accuracy, assurances from the Front Bench, and I have seldom heard a vaguer assurance. Cannot the Minister go further and do the job in three months? If he cannot do justice to it in three months, something must be wrong, but can he give us an assurance that he will do it in the next three or four months?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am sorry I cannot give any assurance of that kind. I did not go into the matter in the fullest detail, but, quite frankly, now that the hon. Gentleman presses me, the people who are referred to in this particular Act, and are covered by it, are not the only people suffering, or the only people who have a small pension, and find that the rise in the cost of living does not allow that pension to go as far as it previously did. All sorts of people are in the same position. There are the people living on small annuities, or savings, or small pensions not received from the State. The problem is not quite so easy as the hon. Gentleman would lead the Committee to suppose.
  We realise that this Measure was, as the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer said, a temporary one to relieve hardship of a special kind, due to a rise in the cost of living during the war. It was purposely made temporary in character, because nobody knew what the years ahead would bring, and we still do not know that. All we do know is that, thanks to Government policy, the cost of living has not risen to any great extent and is still round about the figure it was when this Bill was passed. Nevertheless, in spite of that fact, the Government give the assurance that during the coming year they will look at the matter with the utmost sympathy to see what can be done to meet the criticisms that have been levelled at it, and at the anomalies, which we all now see are in the measure, and will see what, if anything, in addition must be done. It may be that, when inquiry takes place, it will find little, or nothing, wrong, although I do not think that will be the case. But I do not know; I cannot prejudge the issue. All I can say is that the

  1187
  Government will, at the earliest possible moment, look at this matter with sympathy, to see what can be done, and, when that has been decided on, will, within the limits of the Parliamentary programme, do what it can in the matter.
  Amendment negatived.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.
  Mr. York: On a point of Order. May I ask, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether you intend to call the next Order at this late hour of the night?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am bound to call the next Business on the Order Paper.

  CHARTERED AND OTHER BODIES (RESUMPTION OF ELECTIONS) BILL [Lords.]
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  8.50 p.m.
  Captain Crookshank: On the Second Reading stage, my right hon. Friend raised a question with regard to "satisfactory elections" which appeared in one Clause, and the right hon. Gentleman said he would have a look at it and see if he could change it. As there was no Government Amendment presumably he did not find any reason in his own mind to make an alteration. Perhaps it would not be out of Order, as the words stay in the Bill, if the Home Secretary explained what is meant by "satisfactory elections".
  8.51 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): There have been several examples recently, but what it means in this case is one in which there are adequate and appropriate electors to take part in the election. The Bill is designed to deal with a situation rather with regard to dock and harbour trusts, where, owing to the fact that most of the chartering has been done by the Government, dues have not been paid by the people who used to be the electors. Their eligibility as electors depended upon their
  1188
  paying dues. This Bill is designed to see that those who really ought to take part in the election on any permanent basis shall be the people who do take part. We have searched very earnestly to find a better word than "satisfactory." We are assured it is the only satisfactory word.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

  STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS, ETC.
  Special Report from the Select Committee on Statutory Rules and Orders, etc., considered.
  8.52 p.m.
  Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew (Ayr and Bute, Northern): I beg to move,
  "That the Order of Reference [23rd August] to the Committee be amended in line 17, by leaving out 'of it,' and inserting instead thereof 'or in the laying of it before Parliament.' "
  The Amendment is perfectly simple. At the present time the Statutory Rules and Orders Committee report to the House any unjustifiable delay in publication, and this is to add unjustifiable delay in laying them before the House. I think there is agreement on it on all sides.
  8.53 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: The Government feel that this is a very reasonable Amendment to the terms of reference. They feel that the House should have the assurance that the Committee will be able to make a report on this particular failure, if it should occur, and they advise the House to accept the Amendment.

  MENTAL HOSPITALS
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Mathers.]
  8.54 p.m.
  Mr. John Lewis: In this year of 1945 there are approximately 127,000 mental disorder patients in our hospitals and homes. The majority are treated in wholly or partly rate-aided institutions, and the remainder in institutions under

  1189
  private management. It is an unquestionable fact that the staffs of these institutions, male and female, are working under the most difficult conditions, due to a lack of accommodation and to under-staffing. For that reason it is only possible for them to skim the surface of treatment, because their time is taken up in ordinary routine and giving the patients proper attention and care and keeping them fed and clean. In order to appreciate this problem more fully its social background should be remembered, particularly as it affects public opinion today and therefore the patient. In these circumstances the attitude of mind of those who are brought into close contact with the patient is of vital importance, in view of the fact that very often this is a precipitating factor in the onset of the disorder. I know that among primitive people insanity is regarded with suspicion and fear, and very often is associated with witchcraft, demons or the devil, resulting in maltreatment of the sufferer. [Interruption.] Probably the hon. Member who interrupts knows more about primitive people than I do. We remember that only 100 years ago it was the common pastime to bait the lunatics in Bedlam. We have improved quite a lot since then, but today the whole question of insanity is avoided out of superstition, fear, or ignorance.
  It is vitally essential, if we are to do anything about this tremendous problem, that the whole matter should be put on the same plane as other physical disorders, and the public should be taught that mental illness and mental hospitals are just another part of general hospital work. The figures relating to people in our institutions, although vast, are very misleading, because they represent only a fraction of those people who are in need of mental treatment and attention. For instance, we understand that psychoneurotics occur in 2 per cent. of the population, and few of those people receive the care and attention they need. In addition general practitioners advise us that 30 to 50 per cent. of their practice is concerned with people who are suffering from functional nervous disorders in various forms and manifestations. What is far worse, in our general hospitals 17 per cent. of those referred to general medical outpatient departments are suffering from psychological illness without any serious organic component. Some of them will eventually come into hospital as
  1190
  certified patients. Others will carry on, burdens to themselves and others with whom they come into contact, and will live out their lives without happiness and work without efficiency.
  It has been proved that the greatest opportunities for recovery lie in early treatment. When we look at our mental hospitals today we ask ourselves what inducement there is for patients to enter voluntarily to receive treatment. I maintain that the inducements we have to offer are few and the drawbacks to which we have to confess are many. Reputations die hard and the reputation of a mental hospital as a place of forcible retention is still with us. The very remoteness of the places, with their high walls, bleak premises with their locked doors, makes it absolutely clear to those people who are sufficiently rational to think that those who enter may never return and the very thing we are trying to effect is defeated. Today 40 per cent. of the patients who enter mental institutions return to their families completely cured, and 20 per cent. return home much improved.
  These figures are even more encouraging when we bear in mind that very often these people come to the mental hospitals in a late stage of mental illness and very often in the last stages of senile dementia. If we could only give them early treatment, the prospects of cure would be considerably improved. There is no doubt there is the stigma of insanity which is the predominating feature militating against these people entered for voluntary treatment. There is not the glamour which surrounds the general hospital. People do not mind having an illness like pneumonia, and I believe some people are very proud of any condition which requires surgical interference, but as soon as they are told it is a matter of mental illness the whole matter becomes obsessed with mystery and fear, and people attempt to hide from themselves the fact that that is the illness from which they are suffering.
  Most of our mental hospitals are neither beautiful nor cheerful, nor do they radiate that atmosphere which is vital—the hopeful atmosphere of recovery. We find that 70 per cent. of the inmates of these institutions are suffering from chronic or senile dementia and cannot benefit from any form of treatment other than care and

  1191
  attention. That care is lavished upon them by a devoted mental staff to whom we owe very much but, having regard to those facts, it is impossible to imagine all people in need of attention voluntarily entering mental institutions. We should take steps to amend the system and bring to the light of day what is a most urgent and pressing problem, and with this end in view we must educate public opinion. When I say public opinion I include some medical men, because some insanity seems to be regarded by some of them as a crime or slur. Mental illness must be as much a normal aspect of life as a physical disorder, and we must recognise that it exists in its various manifestations and forms to the extent that it does and not avoid the consequences of such knowledge.
  When we look at the accommodation in many municipal mental hospitals we find it is hopelessly inadequate. There are approximately 1,000–3,000 patients in the average mental hospital. If we compare the space which is allocated to patients in fever hospitals and general hospitals with that in mental hospitals, we find that fever hospitals have 144 square feet per bed, general hospitals 120 square feet, and mental hospitals only 50 square feet. When we remember that some of the dormitories must be less restricted in space, for example, in sickbays, and infectious wards, it is not surprising that in other parts of the hospital the beds are packed still further closely together so that it is impossible to stand up between them. In many dormitories and airing courts conditions are so bad that if people want sitting room they have to squash together.
  Then we come to this most terrible indictment of our present system. Deaths from tuberculosis in 1942 in our mental institutions were 15 times as high as in the normal population. These figures, coming as they do from such a colossal incidence, make our mental hospitals a source of infection. When we remember that approximately 60 per cent. return temporarily or permanently to their normal environment from mental hospitals where there is this high death rate from this terrible disease, we can appreciate the seriousness of the problem. These appallingly high figures have been reduced in instances where the overcrowding has been reduced and where the dietary has been improved. There is no reason why
  1192
  the incidence of tuberculosis in mental institutions should be any higher than among the normal population, and it would certainly be reduced if accommodation and diet were regarded as of essential importance in medical health treatment and if active tuberculosis were isolated. The majority of our hospitals are very old and out of date; some of them are more than 100 years old and they are regarded by people as places of detention and not as places for treatment. When we see how the patients are classified we have every reason to understand why there is this feeling about mental hospitals among the people whom we try to induce to enter for early treatment because patients are not classified according to their type of mental disease, but, as a rule, by their degree of physical infirmity; secondly, by the degree of noise, and thirdly by habits, whether dean, dirty, destructive or violent. Throughout all the wards in these hospitals are many epileptics and potential suicides. They are scattered throughout the whole hospital, the category or classification in which a person is placed depending upon which of the classifications to which I have referred is the dominant feature. It is a most unscientific method of dealing with a vital matter.
  In many hospitals true convalescent wards do not exist. Patients who are presumed to be convalescent are usually sent into the admission ward, and there they stay until they have to make way for newcomers. In these admission wards people often come in and die and this is not the best environment in which to place a person in a convalescent stage. Convalescent patients are often sent into the chronic wards where the permanent residents are clean and quiet. They may be profoundly demented or schizophrenics but so long as they are notoutwardly too disturbing convalescent patients are sent in with them. Needless to say this atmosphere is not the most stimulating and encouraging for a patient who is trying to adjust himself to normal circumstances after a most devastating mental experience. So far as hospital wards are concerned, these are utilised to a large extent for the chronically infirm and not for patients who come into the hospitals for treatment. There you may have people who have been bedridden for 50 years, and they are often noisy, excited, wet or dirty.

  1193
  It is quite impossible to conceive that these conditions are the proper conditions which should exist for people in mental institutions who are acutely ill and necessitous of treatment.
  The patients are, in the majority of cases, fed from great centralised kitchens and the food has to be transported for long distances. It very often arrives cold and has to be served by the nurses. The people who cook the food do not see it served, which is a very undesirable feature. I believe that an advisory committee of the Ministry of Labour have advocated that in general hospitals catering should be under the control of a catering manager directly responsible to the management committee. I suggest to my hon. Friend that that recommendation should apply also to mental hospitals. The standard of diet in many institutions is at the public assistance level and in my view is too low and unsuitable to those whose history prior to admission and resulting condition make a well-balanced and ample diet an absolute necessity, bearing in mind that an improved physical condition is the first step towards recovery. It is absolutely necessary that they should have an ample and well-balanced diet. The low standard of diet has its origin in the fact that some years ago it was believed that low feeding would keep a patient quiet, presumably for weeks. That system still operates today in some places.
  So far as the medical staff is concerned, we find at the present time that the average is one doctor to anything from 300 to 700 patients. That is a quite insufficient number for allowing doctors to spend time on research in psychiatry. They are most generally concerned with general hospital administration. Many hospitals still follow the practice that male patients are nursed by male nurses and female patients by female nurses, whereas it has been quite definitely proved in Maudsley Hospital that that practice is quite unnecessary.
  Dr. Morgan: It is not the general rule.
  Mr. Lewis: In very many cases it is so.
  Dr. Morgan:It is not the general rule throughout the country now that male mental patients should be nursed by male nurses, and vice versa.
  Mr. Lewis: Even if my hon. Friend will not agree that it is the general practice,
  1194
  I think that, in view of the fact that I am advocating that this question should be treated as part of a general health scheme and not be separated from it, we should take the worse conditions that obtain in our mental hospitals when considering this problem. There is also the question of the isolation of mental from general nursing services, for this leads to the impoverishment of both services and a lack of understanding of the tradition and knowledge of either. Colonel J. Ivison Russell, at a recent meeting of the Mental Association, said that 70 per cent. of the patients in mental hospitals who caused the major part of the work, and whom he referred to as settled, were senile dements who only needed care and attention. They are unstable mental defectives who cause trouble at home. There are unstable incurable psychotics who cannot benefit in any way from any form of treatment of any kind. Many of them are bedridden. Some of them are devoid of human faculties. The most depressing spectacle that any one can see are these sub-human wrecks kept alive by the devotion of the nursing staffs and filling our hospitals with an air of unescapable tragedy.
  Patients are expected to enter this sort of atmosphere voluntarily to obtain early treatment. Apart from the emotional associations, there are the general architecture and bleakness of these places which make a person fear their ultimate freedom. The first thing he thinks about is that at all costs he must keep out of them. We must help these people by introducing new methods into the hospitals and a new approach to the subject in order to ensure that they shall not be obliged to submerge their already disintegrated personalities amongst our vast numbers of patients. As far as finance is concerned, we are faced with the depressing fact that, whereas to keep a patient in an ordinary general hospital costs £4 10s. a week, only 30s. is required to keep a patient in a mental hospital. There are patients who can afford to pay, and they have more cheerful surroundings and better furniture, but no better treatment, because it is not available. It is depressing to envisage pauper patients in public assistance institutions having no privileges in regard to the standard of their treatment. They cannot afford to go into proper homes to avoid certification. They are sent by the relieving officer into a public assistance institution.
  It being a Quarter past Nine 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."—[Mr. Mathers.]
  Mr. J. Lewis:Thousands of them are retained in the mental wards of public assistance institutions just eking out their lives without any form of treatment whatsoever. I maintain that if my right hon. Friend is going to give the attention he should to this problem he must budget a great deal more money for improved standards of treatment, nursing, surroundings and research, and at the same time he must make the public understand this need.
  In so far as mental hospitals are concerned, I maintain that they should be built in two separate categories. In the first place there should be hospitals to deal with the 70 per cent. of chronic cases which cannot and will not improve, and in the second place there should be hospitals for the treatment of the acute cases with all the most modern scientific methods that can be employed. It will not be necessary to discard our present hospitals, because some of the inmates have been there for more than 50 years, and, as they cannot benefit from treatment of any kind, it is reasonable that they should be left to end their days there. In regard to hospitals for dealing with these acute cases, there must be an entirely different method of approach. They must be regarded as centres for treatment, training and research, and all departments must work together. As far as we know, hope of recovery depends on early treatment, and for that reason we must make our hospitals attractive, we must do away with this fear of entering which exists at present. There must be that atmosphere which is linked with and derived from being a part of the great centres of medicine and science. New hospitals must be built near to universities or medical schools. A medical superintendent should be a teaching member of a university. Where a chair of psychiatry does not exist it may well be that one will be established. There should be teaching hospitals in the vicinity with adequate outpatient facilities and a psychiatrist provided by the mental hospital, because we must recognise that there is a large field
  1196
  for out-patient work among those who need never be in-patients, who, for economic or psychological reasons, must keep on with their jobs and their daily routine at the same time as they are receiving treatment.
  In so far as nursing staff is concerned, I feel that there should be quite a different approach altogether. There must be two distinct types of nurses, one type who will look after the chronic patients, kind-hearted women who are prepared to minister to the mind-diseased and to devote themselves to their work knowing full well that they will see neither any gratitude nor be rewarded with the joys of recovery. Then there, must be the double-trained sisters in charge of those institutions and double-trained staff nurses, and every possible means must be taken to ensure that the most scientific methods are employed to deal with this terrible problem. A tremendous amount of research must be carried out, and I maintain that every mental hospital should have a bio-chemist and bio-physicist, because I think that these problems are largely problems of biochemistry and bio-physicists. So far as equipment is concerned, a large sum of money must be budgeted to ensure a general system of treatment throughout the country, employing the latest and most modern devices.
  I would like to deal finally with certain matters associated with the general administration of our mental hospitals. If a patient is suffering from tuberculosis and he goes to his doctor who diagnoses the disease, the doctor will send him to the tuberculosis officer, who will send the patient to a sanatorium, or chest hospital as they are now called. If, however, the general practitioner finds that his patient is suffering from a mental disease of any kind, he calls in the relieving officer, who is not a doctor, who places the patient in an observation ward in a county or county borough hospital. There may be an interval of 14 days for certification or discharge and, in the case of a poor patient who, in the view of the relieving officer, is a person in need of care and attention, he may be sent to a Poor Law institution and certified there by bringing in a magistrate, who is not specially empanelled, without the advice of an outside doctor.
  I am pleased to say that in some constituencies, particularly in my own, it is

  1197
  the practice for the magistrate to bring with him an outside doctor for the purposes of certification. The mental health of our nation should not be left, as far as local administration is concerned, to a sub-committee of a public health committee. I suggest that there should be a special hospitals committee, which would be a statutory committee, for, dealing with this matter, and that it should be directly responsible to my right hon. Friend. I think it would be a good thing to keep the regional system going, because in each region there is a hospital officer who is responsible for the general administration in the region, and it would avoid over-centralisation and the whole scheme becoming unwieldy. But there is no doubt that the lunacy laws must be amended, and the Board of Control must be swept away, because it is intolerable that merely a lack of means should be the factor which decides whether a person should lose his freedom or not. There is no doubt at all that this is a gross infringement upon the liberty of the subject which should be taken off the Statute Book.
  In the time available I have tried to deal with certain aspects of this problem as I see them, and we have been gratified with the announcement that my right hon. Friend is to bring in a Bill early next year to deal with the national health question, but I do hope he will give consideration to this matter and that he will bear in mind at all times that mental health cannot in any way be separated from general health, and that specialist treatment rather than restraint should be the dominant factor in the legislation which he will introduce in regard to this matter. If he does that I am satisfied he will have taken steps to remove from our fair land what I believe to be a blot on our national honour and prestige. Common humanity demands that this whole question receive the immediate attention of all those people responsible for the administration of our health services, and I am satisfied that my right hon. Friend, who is applying himself so assiduously to this matter, will do what is expected of him by so many people.
  9.22 p.m.
  Dr. Stephen Taylor: While I cannot go all the way with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton (Mr. Lewis), I can in general agree with him; but in one or two instances he has over-painted the picture a little, for example
  1198
  in connection with tuberculosis. The reasons so many mental patients get tuberculosis, and the reason it is so difficult to treat them, is that it is so extremely difficult to feed mental patients suffering from depression. One is faced with the alternative of persuading them to eat their food or of starting tube feeding, and one is always very reluctant to start tube feeding if it can be avoided because of the dangers of infection of the lungs. One is on the horns of a dilemma. I do not think the high incidence of tuberculosis in mental hospitals can be blamed on either the staff or the facilities. It is part of the nature of the disease.
  Mr. Lewis: What about overcrowding?
  Dr. Taylor: I entirely agree. The overcrowding has been due in part to the existence of the Emergency Medical Service which has used mental hospital beds for general purposes, but it is nevertheless a serious factor in mental treatment at the moment. The difficulties in mental treatment are less on the legal side, I think, than on the question of the physical facilities for the treatment of the mentally sick. On the whole the temporary treatment section of the Mental Treatment Act does not work badly and it has enabled enormous numbers of people to be treated in mental hospitals without certification, and the more people who can be encouraged to be treated under the Mental Treatment Act the better. In the treatment of mental disease we are, in fact, short of almost every facility that is required. There is a terrific shortage of outpatient or advisory clinics. There is a shortage of in-patient facilities for the neurotically ill; indeed, they almost do not exist. In the recent Hospitals Survey published by the Ministry of Health, in the Eastern region, for example, I think there were under 10 psychiatric beds in the whole of the region, apart from mental hospital beds.
  There is one big exception and that is the Maudsley Hospital serving South London, but mostly there are no beds for neurotic patients. I agree that the correct thing to do is to have admission blocks for all types of psychiatric patients in general hospitals, where the people can be treated and put into their appropriate classes. Many of them will recover with modern methods of treatment, including shock therapy, but some will have to be sent

  1199
  to the long-term hospital; however, every patient will then get proper psychiatric attention. What my hon. Friend described about the old-fashioned mental hospitals is true. They are an anachronism. We do not want great mental hospitals like that, and if we are to have mental hospitals, let us have small units, perhaps the size of the Bethlem Royal Hospital, with 250 beds, where a medical staff could properly look after the cases. We should also greatly increase the boarding-out system which has worked in Scotland with regard to the chronically ill with very good results. We can do much more in connection with boarding-out the chronic insane for whom further treatment is not possible. Mental hospitals are very short of nurses of both sexes. And the country is short of adequately trained general practitioners who can make a psychiatric diagnosis. As psychiatrists come from the Forces and get going in medical schools again, this can be made good, but it will take 20 years before every general practitioner can make a good psychiatric diagnosis, unless we get refresher training going for general practitioners very quickly. We are short of research centres. The only main centre with in-patient beds is the Maudsley. There is also the Tavistock clinic which should also be developed.
  It is hard to estimate the extent of the shortage of psychiatric services, but a report was made by Dr. C. P. Blacker to the Ministry during the war and I hope that it will be found possible to publish Dr. Blacker's report. It was a survey of the whole psychiatric services of the country showing the difficulty and how it could be remedied. I hope that the report will be published along with other hospital surveys. The national psychiatric service can only be dealt with as part of the main National Health Service, and it needs to be tackled on the same lines as other specialised services, with outpatient services and specialists to visit the home if necessary. There is need for long-stay hospital blocks exactly as for other diseases of a chronic nature. There are also three special types of mental hospital which present peculiar problems which do not exist in any other hospital field. There are the voluntary registered mental hospitals of the Bethlem, St. Andrews and the Retreat at York type;
  1200
  these hospitals are really non-profit making bodies with boards of governors, taking in middle-class patients on a fee-paying basis. I do not know how they should be brought in, but they should be brought into the National Health Service. There are also the private mental hospitals run for private profit. Some of them are all right, but some are very far from right, and they are maintained on a kind of snob appeal. The middle class people feel they do not want to send relatives to the county institution, so they send them to one of these places and pay six, seven or 10 guineas a week because they think they are going to get something better. The real answer there is to make our national psychiatric service sufficiently good to make these places unnecessary.
  Mr. Lewis: Does the hon. Member mean compulsorily certifying them? Are there not some places where they can avoid it?
  Dr. Taylor:Patients can be admitted to both types under temporary treatment, but they can be certified in both institutions. The third variety of hospital which needs consideration, although it is not a Ministry of Health concern is the psychiatric hospital for criminal lunatics, namely Broadmoor. I think that Broadmoor is an absolute anachronism. It is a fantastic state of affairs to suppose that there is one kind of person who is called a criminal lunatic. Any lunatic may commit an offence against the law, and it just depends on circumstances whether he will end up in Broadmoor or in a place like St. Andrew's Hospital with his relatives paying 12 guineas a week for him. I think we have got to face the fact that Broadmoor is a very bad place for the patient and a terrible strain for the staff, and that the proper way to treat these people is to put them under the ordinary psychiatric service and look after them exactly as one would look after every other psychiatric patient.
  One last word about staff. The staff of the mental hospital service, as the hon. Member for Bolton said, are very isolated, not merely spiritually, but physically, out in these great places in the country. The remedy is to bring them into the out-patient service, the psychiatric clinic service, or the psychiatric block service in the main general hospital, and swing them about between the general hospitals, and the epileptic

  1201
  hospitals, the mental defectives' colonies, and even the prison medical service. One would also like to see a general linking up of the psychiatric services with the psychiatric services in the colonies, which are nearly non-existent.
  9.32 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Key): I should be the last to saythat everything was well with the mental hospital services in this country, and, particularly, I have nothing to say in favour of the sort of Poor Law atmosphere that exists around a considerable number of these institutions, but I feel also that one does not do the best, so far as dealing with this problem is concerned, by a serious over-exaggeration of the conditions which really exist. We know some are bad and that they need improving, and a good deal of what has been said tonight will be given very careful consideration in connection with the reorganisation of health services of this country, to which my right hon. Friend is giving very careful attention at the present moment.
  But let us get our picture really fair and clear, so far as this service is concerned. The number of people under care on 1st January, 1939, was, roughly, 133,000. On 1st January, 1945, it had fallen to 127,000, which gives a different interpretation of the problem with which we are faced. There has been a decrease of something like 6,000 cases in those years.
  Now I know that a part of the explanation is that, since there are a great number of people serving in the Forces, those who become mentally ill in the Services are not counted in the numbers I have given; but I also feel that the general improvement in the social standards of people in this country, due to a real continuity of employment amongst them, has led to an improvement in their general standard and, therefore, to a decrease in this problem of mental illness. One of the real ways of tackling this problem is to maintain the general standard of life amongst the people.
  Mr. Lewis: Is my hon. Friend saying that there is now a decrease in the incidence of mental disorder?
  Mr. Key: I am saying that the number of people in the mental hospitals has
  1202
  fallen by 6,000 in the six years during the war.
  Mr. Lewis: Because there was no room for them.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraser: Is not that due to the fact that the lighter cases were sent home in order that these places might be taken over as E.M.S. hospitals?
  Mr. Key: I am coming to the question of the accommodation that is provided. What I am stressing is that the very black picture that has been painted to us is not borne out by the experience in the institutions that we have. It is true that during the war a considerable number of beds in these institutions were handed over to the Emergency Medical Service and, therefore, there has been a decrease in the accommodation provided and, as a result, there has been some inevitable overcrowding in the accommodation available. But that is beginning to remedy itself, and between 1st January and 31st October of this year no less than 2,273 beds have been restored to the Mental Hospital service in this country.
  There is also the problem, which I admit to be a very serious one, of starring the institutions. In this, and in the general hospital services, together with the general health services of local authorities, we are suffering from a very serious shortage of nursing staff. This is one of the problems to which, in the last month or so, we have been giving very serious consideration at the Ministry, and I think that before the end of this week my right hon. Friend will be making a statement with regard to the things we propose to do to deal with improvements, not only in the conditions so far as the nurses are concerned, but in the conditions of the domestic staffs, which has a very great bearing upon the problem of recruitment to the nursing staff generally.
  In the statement which he will make, I think the House will find that we have really got down to very serious consideration of this problem with an idea of so far improving the general conditions of the workers in these institutions that we shall get back into them a great number of the people required. I may say in passing that the number of people at present under training for the nursing profession is greater now than it has ever been in

  1203
  our history, the real shortage of nurses being due not to a decrease in the number of people taking up the profession, but to a very great increase in the demand for nurses because of the great increase in the services which we are providing in the way of day nurseries, radiography, and so on.
  Dr. Morgan: What about the wastage?
  Mr. Key: Now with regard to tuberculosis, it has been said, and I think quite wrongly, that there is no reason why there should be a more than normal rate of tuberculosis amongst the people in mental hospitals. Surely the very condition of these people leads to their spending too much of their time in institutions. They are not living the normal life that people ought to live, and so they have a pre-disposition towards tuberculosis. It is true that the incidence of tuberculosis did increase in the early years of the war, partly due to overcrowding, and because of a reduction in the number of beds available. But since 1941–42 there has been a decrease, not only in the incidence of this disease, but in its death rate among those in institutions. It was said, wrongly, that there were no proper convalescent wards in the mental hospitals—
  Dr. Stephen Taylor: In many.
  Mr. Key: The first statement was that there were practically none. Of the 101 public mental hospitals in this country no fewer than 60 have provided separate admission units, and separate convalescent units. With the return of
  1204
  peace, and a greater number of staff, there is no reason to believe that that steady improvement will not be carried on, and that in the days ahead conditions will greatly improve. Again, serious statements were made with regard to the standard of diet in these institutions. It was said that it had been brought down to the public assistance level. With that I cannot possibly agree. One of the factors which, I am sure, has contributed to the steady reduction of the death rate has been the attention which has been given to the diet of those who have been housed in these institutions. Scientific rationing has ensured a much better standard, and the Board of Control and local authorities have been specially vigilant. The Board of Control itself has analysed in detail the diets of more than half of our mental hospitals. As a comment upon the very black picture which some Members have endeavoured to paint, I want to say that of the patients who have been admitted, and who are being admitted now, to our mental hospitals nearly 50 per cent. are voluntary patients. If the black picture that was painted was really indicative of conditions I do not think that anything like that percentage would go to the hospitals. With what I said at the beginning may I end? I do not claim that conditions are what they should be, but I can assure Members that my right hon. Friend will give his best attention to this matter.
  It being a Quarter to Ten o'clock, Mr. Deputy-Speaker adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

DEMOBILISATION
  Women
  Women
  Age and Service Principle
  Age and Service Principle
  Mining and Agriculture
  Mining and Agriculture
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Nursing Services
  Nursing Services
  STREET LIGHTING, GREAT DUNMOW
  STREET LIGHTING, GREAT DUNMOW
  RESIDENTIAL TRAINING CENTRE (WOMEN)
  RESIDENTIAL TRAINING CENTRE (WOMEN)
  DOCK WORKERS (MEDICAL SERVICES)
  DOCK WORKERS (MEDICAL SERVICES)
  GERMAN DOMESTIC WORKERS
  GERMAN DOMESTIC WORKERS
  UNEMPLOYMENT
  UNEMPLOYMENT
  COTTON INDUSTRY (EVERSHED COMMISSION)
  COTTON INDUSTRY (EVERSHED COMMISSION)
COAL INDUSTRY
  Opencast Coal
  Opencast Coal
  Absenteeism
  Absenteeism
  Coalmining Authority (Salary Scales)
  Coalmining Authority (Salary Scales)
FUEL AND POWER
  Gas and Electric Cookers
  Gas and Electric Cookers
  Smoke Reducing Appliances
  Smoke Reducing Appliances
NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Old Age Pensions (Christmas)
  Old Age Pensions (Christmas)
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Hide Supplies
  Hide Supplies
  Advertising Matter (Distribution)
  Advertising Matter (Distribution)
  GIFT PARCELS
  GIFT PARCELS
  EXPORT TRADE (GOVERNMENT PLANS)
  EXPORT TRADE (GOVERNMENT PLANS)
  ATOMIC ENERGY (INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS)
  ATOMIC ENERGY (INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS)
  WIRELESS LICENCES (RECEIPTS)
  WIRELESS LICENCES (RECEIPTS)
SCOTLAND
  Sheep Stocks (Losses)
  Sheep Stocks (Losses)
  Teachers' Pay and Pensions
  Teachers' Pay and Pensions
  Foreign Trawlers
  Foreign Trawlers
  Agricultural Workers (Controls)
  Agricultural Workers (Controls)
  House Building (Price Limits)
  House Building (Price Limits)
  Carradale (Harbour)
  Carradale (Harbour)
  DEFENCE WORKS (DEMOLITION)
  DEFENCE WORKS (DEMOLITION)
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE)
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE)
  INDIA (SERVICES ARTS AND TECHNICAL ORGANISATION)
  INDIA (SERVICES ARTS AND TECHNICAL ORGANISATION)
  CZECHOSLOVAKIA (DISPLACED PERSONS' CAMPS)
  CZECHOSLOVAKIA (DISPLACED PERSONS' CAMPS)
ROYAL NAVY
  Motor Fishing Vessels (Construction)
  Motor Fishing Vessels (Construction)
  Mine Sweeping (Pay)
  Mine Sweeping (Pay)
  NEW MAIN ROADS (MAP)
  NEW MAIN ROADS (MAP)
  TANKER TONNAGE (CONTROL)
  TANKER TONNAGE (CONTROL)
  TAXICABS (LONDON)
  TAXICABS (LONDON)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Accounts Clerks
  Accounts Clerks
  Civil Flying (Assistance)
  Civil Flying (Assistance)
BRITISH ARMY
  Durdham Downs
  Durdham Downs
  Demobilisation
  Demobilisation
  Captured Vehicles, Greece
  Captured Vehicles, Greece
  Major Frank Thompson
  Major Frank Thompson
  Coastguard Houses, Grain, Kent
  Coastguard Houses, Grain, Kent
  Release Deferment (Leave)
  Release Deferment (Leave)
  Leave
  Leave
  Mail Services, Far East
  Mail Services, Far East
  Overseas Postings
  Overseas Postings
  Compassionate Leave
  Compassionate Leave
  Road Fatality, Cambridge (Inquiry)
  Road Fatality, Cambridge (Inquiry)
  Italian Co-operator (Sentence)
  Italian Co-operator (Sentence)
  African Troops (Repatriation)
  African Troops (Repatriation)
  Requisitioned Properties
  Requisitioned Properties
  Motor Cars
  Motor Cars
  Holiday Resorts (Military Units)
  Holiday Resorts (Military Units)
  Education Scheme, India and S.E.A.C.
  Education Scheme, India and S.E.A.C.
  Compassionate Cases
  Compassionate Cases
  War Office Correspondence
  War Office Correspondence
  Indefinite Leave
  Indefinite Leave
  Donnington Park
  Donnington Park
  Overseas War Establishments
  Overseas War Establishments
  Extended Service (Officers)
  Extended Service (Officers)
  Officers' Releases (Deferment)
  Officers' Releases (Deferment)
  Welfare Facilities, Sherborne
  Welfare Facilities, Sherborne
  Cadets (Political Views)
  Cadets (Political Views)
  Ex-Prisoners of War (Leave)
  Ex-Prisoners of War (Leave)
  Mental Patients
  Mental Patients
  Training Area, Thetford
  Training Area, Thetford
  College, Perugia (Training)
  College, Perugia (Training)
  Sentence (Review)
  Sentence (Review)
  Home Guard
  Home Guard
  Palestine (Civilian Employees, Fines)
  Palestine (Civilian Employees, Fines)
  Director of Public Relations
  Director of Public Relations
  Explosives (Destruction)
  Explosives (Destruction)
  Letters (Censorship)
  Letters (Censorship)
  Rail Travel, Germany
  Rail Travel, Germany
  Invalids, Greece (Evacuation)
  Invalids, Greece (Evacuation)
  Married Service Personnel (Dining Arrangements)
  Married Service Personnel (Dining Arrangements)
  Dental Services
  Dental Services
  Overseas Service Tours
  Overseas Service Tours
  Pay (Increments)
  Pay (Increments)
  Medway Bridges
  Medway Bridges
  Officers (Release Deferment)
  Officers (Release Deferment)
  Missing Soldier
  Missing Soldier
  Closed Road
  Closed Road
  Pioneer Corps (Dock Work, Alternative)
  Pioneer Corps (Dock Work, Alternative)
  Commissions
  Commissions
  War Graves (Visits)
  War Graves (Visits)
  A.T.S.
  A.T.S.
  Python Scheme
  Python Scheme
  Jewish Brigade
  Jewish Brigade
  WAR DECORATIONS AND MEDALS
  WAR DECORATIONS AND MEDALS
  DOCK STRIKES (EFFECT ON SHIPPING)
  DOCK STRIKES (EFFECT ON SHIPPING)
  E.N.S.A.
  E.N.S.A.
  ARMED FORCES, FAR E4St (MISSING PERSONNEL)
  ARMED FORCES, FAR E4St (MISSING PERSONNEL)
ITALY
  Lawlessness
  Lawlessness
  Italian Armed Forces
  Italian Armed Forces
  REINSTATEMENT IN CIVIL EMPLOYMENT
  REINSTATEMENT IN CIVIL EMPLOYMENT
  MILITARY SERVICE (ARTS SCHOLARS)
  MILITARY SERVICE (ARTS SCHOLARS)
  HERRING INDUSTRY BOARD (POWERS)
  HERRING INDUSTRY BOARD (POWERS)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Industrial Finance Corporations
  Industrial Finance Corporations
  Income Ranges
  Income Ranges
  Estates (Duties)
  Estates (Duties)
  Personal Savings
  Personal Savings
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Motor Vehicle Duties (Compensatory Taxation)
  Motor Vehicle Duties (Compensatory Taxation)
  Pensions (Income Tax)
  Pensions (Income Tax)
  E.P.T. Refunds (Use)
  E.P.T. Refunds (Use)
  Games and Sports (Entertainments Duty)
  Games and Sports (Entertainments Duty)
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
  Board of Trade (Staff)
  Board of Trade (Staff)
  Requisitioned Properties
  Requisitioned Properties
  BEREAVED PARENTS (GRANTS)
  BEREAVED PARENTS (GRANTS)
  BRITISH INDUSTRY (SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH)
  BRITISH INDUSTRY (SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
BRITISH SETTLEMENTS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

CIVIL AVIATION.
2.34 p.m.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion moved on Thursday last by Earl Fortesque on behalf of Viscount Cranborne—namely, That there be laid before the House Papers relating to the policy and plans of His Majesty's Government with regard to civil aviation.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, last Thursday the noble Lord, Lord Winster, unfolded to your Lordships the broad outlines of the Government's plans for civil aviation. I must say that over the week-end the consideration given by the country, as reflected by opinions stated in and out of the Press, has not, with the passage of time, made that scheme any more attractive than it looked at its inception: The noble Lord has undertaken to produce a White Paper which will give the details of His Majesty's Government's policy, but from what the noble Lord has said we already know enough to summarize the Government's policy by saying that they have gone for one hundred per cent. Socialist monopoly in regular airlines.
I do not think we can justifiably complain that the harvest of a Socialist administration is a series of Socialist measures, but what we can deplore, and what I believe the majority of your Lordships' House and the majority of the country, on consideration, will deplore, is that the Government have selected for experiment in socialization probably the most unsuit-
652
able industry and national activity of which they could have thought. The Government have not taken in this case 1945. an established industry, Goodness knows, we who do not believe in Socialism would deplore it if they took even an established industry; but they have selected an industry at its very beginning, in which the qualities of tenacity and of adventure, which certainly cannot be found in the pigeon-holes and behind the desks of Whitehall, are essential for the national well-being. Surely with the possibilities of free enterprise willing to pioneer or even go along the lines of the proposals put forward by my noble friend Viscount Swinton, and agreed to by Socialist Ministers in the last Coalition Government, there might have been something better than the sacrifice of the national interest for what is in effect a doctrinaire principle. The Government have ignored the interests of Britain as regards possessing a premier place in the new age of air travel.
The Government have ignored the need of having within our own national boundaries a system of internal airlines and of taking advantage of the great experience of other surface interests in the direction of running transportation. They also seem to be ignoring the services of those who have worked on the problem and are still willing to risk and adventure for the chance of final success. And all this is for what? It is for the fulfilment of a political theory to be accomplished at all costs, including the cost of national well-being. I think the proof of this can be found in the words in Hansard of the noble Lord, Lord Winster, when he said that they—that is, the Government—
"have decided that public ownership shall be the overruling principle in air transport…"
Your Lordships will note that it is not efficiency, it is not economy of operation, it is not safety in operation, and it is not the achievement of best results which is to be the determining factor in the Government's policy; but the fulfilment of a political theory is shown and admitted to be at all costs the ruling motive.
Nothing has been alleged by the Government against the past pioneers in air transport. Nothing has been alleged against the plan of my noble friend Viscount Swinton. Indeed, as my noble friend pointed out in the debate of last

653
week, that plan had the commendation of Ministers who now carry Cabinet responsibility. There is nothing alleged against the surface interests. All there is, is this peculiar craving for nationalization. It seems to me that this plan must inevitably mean Whitehall control right through British civil aviation. I would describe it as bureaucracy run wild.
Here, I think, is the proof. The Minister for Civil Aviation said he was going to form three corporations. All those three corporations are to be Government directed as to policy; they are to have on their boards Government nominees appointed (and if he does not like them, subsequently removed) by the noble Lord—or he can remove them if they do not fit into his exact Socialist pattern—and they are to be Government financed. That, broadly, is the set-up which is proposed. I certainly do not envy the gentlemen who accept seats on the boards of those corporations; they will be, I think, what are known in impolite circles in the City of London as "dummy directors." These will be nothing more nor less than "phoney" boards, because they will not be masters in their own houses.
The Minister himself has said that he is going to govern policy, to remove those he does not like and appoint those he does like. These boards are, therefore, going to be both directed and financed from outside by the owners of the corporations—namely, the Government, acting on behalf of the taxpayer. Therefore Parliament may rightly call upon the Government of the day to give an account of its stewardship at any time. That is essentially Parliament's right. I am sure the noble Lord would not take any exception to that contention. The Minister has said that unless exceptional cause is shown he will not consider it his duty to interfere with day-to-day administration. Let not the Minister think he call decide whether or not he will interfere with day-to-day administration; the Minister is the servant of Parliament and Parliament will call upon the Minister, when it wishes, for an account of his stewardship on matters great or small We have already seen this in British Overseas Airways Corporation matters when, in another place—and if my memory serves me aright, in your Lordships' House as well—the Minister was called to task upon matters affecting individual
654
employees of that Corporation. Therefore the Minister will have to answer to Parliament upon all matters of administration should Parliament insist. I maintain that there is no substance at all in the contention of the Minister that he will make a selection and decide whether or not he will interfere on matters affecting the day-to-day administration of these corporations.
On matters of finance, it is quite clear that Whitehall will control. I am sure you would agree that the Minister need not wait for the White Paper to be issued but should give us some details today of the principles upon which the finance of these corporations is to be established. I want to ask the Minister whether the corporations will work on a grant basis or whether they are going to draw upon the Treasury according to their requirements. I want to ask the Minister whether it is he or the corporations who are going to fix fares and decide whether fares should be on such a low level as to entail a subsidy from the taxpayer or whether, in cases of difficult operations, the fares are going to be so high as to make the operation economic but the cost virtually prohibitive. That is a perfectly reasonable question which I am sure the Minister will he glad to answer. Then I want to know whether the Minister can tell me if the tribunal which was envisaged in my noble friend Lord Swinton's proposal is dead? Does the Minister propose to insert between the socialized body controlling civil aviation and the public a tribunal which will keep a balance between the various interests of the consumer and the operator, or has that been thrown overboard and is Whitehall going to be the sole arbiter of what the public is to be charged?
If these corporations work on a grant basis, Parliament will, quite rightly, inquire how much the grant is to be and will demand from the Minister a justification for the sum it is asked to vote. Indeed the Government of the day will have to justify in detail the amount of the grant and how it has been spent. On the other hand, if the corporations are not to work upon a grant system but upon a system of drawing upon the Treasury for such deficiencies in operation as may be entailed, the Minister will have to explain to Parliament why he requires that particular deficiency payment.

655
Therefore, my Lords, my contention is that in every way the Minister is answerable to Parliament. If the Minister is answerable to Parliament, then he carries the responsibility, and if he carries the responsibility, it is only right that he should be in a position to control policy in order that he may control that for which he is answerable. In matters both big and small there can be no dividing line between where the Minister's responsibility starts and where it ends. I see the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, nodding assent. The noble Lord must agree that there is no substance in the words of the Minister when he says "I will judge that and I will answer for this, according to my dictum." The Minister is answerable to Parliament and Parliament will call upon him to answer in respect of all matters, great and small. That proves that this is essentially a bureaucratic set-up and that the future of British civil aviation, with which much of the prosperity of this country is bound up, will be controlled almost from beginning to end by Whitehall.
In his speech last Thursday the noble Lord, dealing with the expansion of civil aviation, said:
"It may well be found that additional corporations, or subsidiaries of these three, are desirable, and I shall form these at my discretion."
The Minister is taking on quite a lot for himself; he is going to decide not only current policy but also whether British interests demand any expansion. I submit that Whitehall is the least suitable body to judge when British commerce needs expansion and development. It is for those who have to earn their living in commerce and adventure and pioneering to judge whether something is needed for the commercial interests of this country. The Minister has promised to give us full information. He said that on all points, great and small, he would give us all for which we asked in the way of facts. There are one or two points on which I should like to ask for some further information, and the first concerns the single field of commercial air operation which the Government are apparently leaving open for private enterprise, the field of charter aircraft. On the one hand, the Government seem to say "We will allow free enterprise to have the same play in the field of charter work as ourselves;" and on the other
656
hand, they take away what they are giving and make it virtually impossible for any commercial enterprise to go forward with charter work.
What is the reason for this attitude? Under the Act of 1939, the British Overseas Airways Corporation were specifically prohibited from competing in this field, and the argument at the time of the passing of that Act was that it would be unfair to expose those engaged in charter work to the blast of competition from a chosen instrument subsidized by the Government. That is a point of view with which I entirely agree. Now, however, the Minister says that although the field of charter work shall be left open to private enterprise, British Overseas Airways Corporation shall also be allowed to engage in that field. What is the hidden purpose behind the Minister's statement that he will let this remnant of private enterprise face the threat of those who at a political whim can run any charter service under private enterprise right out of the air by competition aided by Government subsidy, and by a Government-owned enterprise? I suppose the real reason why the Minister has done that is that he fears that a charter service may become too efficient. Such services may commit the sin of being so anti-social as to be successful in business enterprise, and therefore must at once get a knock on the head from the Socialist Government, who say that anybody who is so wicked as to succeed in life must at once conform to the Socialist pattern, and if he will not do it voluntarily he must be made to do it by law. That is all I can think of. It is a perfectly reasonable explanation to all except Whitehall, who feel they are supreme in every direction in which their hand wields power.
If a charter service looks like taking traffic away from a regular line, becoming too efficient, or becoming too popular, the person who will judge as to whether that charter service should be virtually extinguished by the competition of the Government-owned instrument will be the Minister. In fact, any individual who now goes into the charter field must face the fact that the Minister is the prosecutor, the Minister is the judge, and finally the Minister is the executioner, as regards any endeavours which anybody puts forward to make a success of an enterprise.

657
This is indeed a monopoly for the Government-owned instrument! The Government have the monopoly of an endless purse against all those who enter this last field left for private effort.
The second point about which I should like to ask the Minister for information is whit is going to be the position of the railways and shipping interests. I understand that they are excluded from sharn4 in operation and the Government have rejected the idea of a complete partnership of surface railway and marine interests with those of the air. Apparently, the Minister is in the process now of inventing some formula regarding which understand talks are now taking place with surface interests. The Minister in his speech said that the railways and other surface interests are to be integrated, they are to be co-ordinated—that blessed word "co-ordination," which the Minister used so freely but was careful not to define!—but they are not to participate in the actual responsibility for operation. It seems to me the railways and the surface interests generally, who can contribute much to this problem, having years or experience of transportation matters, are to be, as it were, the willing handmaidens of Whitehall. The Minister, in effect, said "Let them be hewers of wood, and drawers of water." That is to be the role cast upon those who have pioneered in other forms of transport and are now willing to pioneer in this form of transportation were they allowed to do so by Whitehall.
I was particularly interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, on the last occasion, when he spoke on behalf of noble Lords belonging to the Liberal Party.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I withdraw that at once. It is sometimes hard to know who does speak for the Liberal Party.
LORD STRABOLGI: The split atom!
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: The split atom, as Lord Strabolgi says. I was his view that surface interests should be allowed to participate. I admit that that was rather contrary to the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Sherwood, who seemed to think that surface interests should not be allowed to
658
participate. I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, when he comes to speak later, whether he does so on behalf of his Party or independently. Certainly there is an educated body of opinion in this country, of all political Parties, which holds that the Government should not go forward with any scheme of air transportation which does not give an opportunity to surface interests not only to be coordinated and integrated but to have an actual share of responsibility. I suppose it is a little hard for those concerned with our railways to have to face a situation in which they are asked to be junior partners without any responsibility and without any participation—except, no doubt, in blame if things go wrong—when they know that the Government's programme puts their heads on the block about two from now. I believe that the nationalization of the railways comes about two from now in the Government programme. I think that they must be having an unpleasant time trying to negotiate on that basis.
In my view the least accurate and, if I may say so, the most deplorable part of the noble Lord's speech on the last occasion was when he virtually sneered at the railways and the Mercantile Marine in order to create political prejudice. The noble Lord shakes his head, but let us look at what he said. He said this
"The railways were developed the world over amidst a frenzy of wild speculation which has handicapped them ever since."
I wonder from what handicap British railways are suffering today so far as that "frenzy of wild speculation" is concerned. I cannot recall any history of wild speculation or of frenzied scramble in connexion with our railways; the complaint has rather been that in the nineteenth century the old Tory squires were so backward and conservative that they would not allow the railways to come near their property. I have never heard these stories of a wild scramble, and at any rate the handicap from which the railways are suffering today is not sufficient to prevent the trade unions from investing a large amount of their reserve funds in railway securities! I do hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will be able to enlarge on this handicap from which he claims the railways are suffering today. It is generally admitted in your Lordships' House and in another place, and indeed throughout

659
the country, that the railways have played a magnificent part in this war.
THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD WINSTER): Hear, hear.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Indeed, but for the railways we should not have been able to move our troops and our supplies to the Continent of Europe for D-Day. Impartial experts say that, broadly speaking, our railway system is the finest in the world, and I think it ill befits the noble Lord, Lord Winster, to say to us that our railways have developed under a wild scramble and have suffered from that handicap ever since, in order to achieve some political prejudice and help his particularly weak case.
The Minister went on to deal with the Mercantile Marine and said that it had been built up amidst a scramble for profits. Before this war we were proud of saying in this country that we had the greatest mercantile fleet in the world. It has been built up by co-operation, by hard work, by sacrifice, by a willingness to take risks, and by the adventurous spirit of our forebears; and I do not think it is appropriate for the noble Lord to throw a smoke-screen of political prejudice and verbiage, as it were, over our railways and Mercantile Marine, in order to bolster up a weak case.
Finally, the Minister went on with this barrage of misrepresentation to say that the air crews would do their job better if they knew that they were working for Socialism, for a Government-operated set-up. I do not believe that air crews really are politically minded or that they will care twopence whether they are working for a Socialist Government or for a private and free enterprise, provided that they are given the best possible equipment and the best possible circumstances of employment in order to fulfil their tasks. I do not believe that a pilot trying to make a landing with an aircraft carrying twenty passengers on a foggy night at some airport here or overseas will think to himself with any feeling of satisfaction: "I can really do my job better because I am working for a Socialist Government enterprise." The captain of an aircraft wants the best possible aircraft, the best possible engine and the best possible radio aids. I would hazard a guess that
660
many a British pilot in a few years' time, if this policy goes forward, will be thinking enviously of his American counterpart who may be trying to make a similar landing under similar difficulties but will have all the latest and best aircraft equipment and aids developed under a system of competition and free enterprise; and the British pilot will look regretfully at his own instrument board full of Whitehall sealed instruments, because he has to fly with those and cannot get any others.
The Government are creating with this policy two new classes in the community. They are creating the "untouchables"—those who are allowed within the magic circle of commercial aviation and the pariahs, those people connected with the railways, with shipping and the ordinary world of commerce, who are so anti-social as to wish to participate in and contribute to the essential air supremacy of this country. The 1939 Act gave a monopoly of subsidy to the British Overseas Airways Corporation, but it did not give a monopoly of operation. That is one of the essential differences between the present scheme and the 1939 Act. Under the present proposals the Government are to give a monopoly of the air for commercial operation to a chosen few, and anyone who flies without the Socialist Government ticket will, of course, be punished. There are many noble Lords who wish to speak, and I will conclude by saying this: I believe that the Government have done the worst service they can to Britain by introducing this policy, and that they are condemning to uselessness the experience, the talents and the enthusiasm which, as a nation, we cannot possibly afford to neglect at the present time in the development of our air transport, and which, in the years to come, we shall regret bitterly that a Socialist Government in 1945 threw away and refused to utilize in the national interests.
3.5 p.m.
LORD REITH: My Lords, I have not occupied much of your time during recent years, and it is two and a half years since I spoke on this subject; but I ask for your attention to-day not just because I was the first Chairman of the British Overseas Airways Corporation—and more than another responsible for its establishment—but also because I really know something about these public corporations

661
and have had experience of them. I noticed that Lord Sherwood the other d delivered himself of this observation:
"It is slightly quaint, to me, that they should now suddenly ask the present Government the solution of the problem which they so obviously failed to solve themselves."
"They" presumably were the three preceding speakers, Viscount Swinton, Lord Brabazon and Lord Balfour of Inchrye. Do they merit such a stricture?
A NOBLE LORD: Yes.
LORD REITH: In the opinion of one noble Lord apparently they do. But may I say that I would rather have interruptions from in front than from behind. It is awkward when they come from behind. Now, did Lord Brabazon merit that stricture? Listen to what he says:
"It is not for me to tell the whole story of the delays and the procrastination and the general disappointment which I and ray talented Committee felt about the progress. It would made you weep if I were to t you the full story."
Did Viscount Swinton merit it? He had only been in office five months and to some of us it appears that he moved fast. I observed, however, that The Times the other day remarked that perhaps had he moved faster he would not have found it necessary to make the speech which he did make the other clay. I think there is no doubt in your Lordships' minds that Viscount Swinton during his five months of office did move fast. Did Lord Balfour of Inchrye merit that stricture—Lord Balfour, who was Lord Sherwood's colleague in the Air Ministry for years? If so, that is more than "slightly quaint." And Lord Sherwood himself, as your Lordships will recollect, represented the Air Ministry in your Lordships' House for many years, and rather distinguished himself by the inconsequence of his replies on the many occasions when the subject of civil aviation was raised.
I listened with curiosity and some anxiety to hear what the Minster might produce a week ago. I thought that he might perhaps announce a decision that all operations in all theatres were to be entrusted to the British Overseas Airways Corporation over which Lord Knollys presides with distinction and efficiency. He rejected that for reasons which probably commended themselves to your Lordships generally, but I, for one, would not have questioned such a decision. I
662
believe that Lord Knollys might have handled these additional responsibilities. However, I do not dispute the decision. Or Lord Winster might have adopted Viscount Swinton's White Paper more or less as it stood. Or he might have produced a scheme of his own, which is what Viscount Swinton and others consider him to have done.
I do not quite understand the vehemence of Viscount Swinton's dismay and disgust last week. He made a great point of the three corporations and he prided himself—as he was entitled to do—on this: that despite the fact that the three corporations received a certain amount of criticism and some gibes in this country as to what the Americans would think, in fact the Americans produced three corporations themselves. Viscount Swinton was entitled to feel pleased about that. Now Lord Winster still has three corporations.
The interplay between Viscount Swinton's three bodies, the holding which the B.O.A.C. was to have in the other two, the unspecified degree of authority which the B.O.A.C. was to exercise over the other two, seemed to me to be a compromise sort of arrangement which might lead to a confusion of responsibility that would be unfortunate. Lord Rothermere was puzzled about that and he likened it, if I remember rightly, to the abstrusities of the trinitarian doctrine. I was not quite clear whether the noble Viscount's three corporations were in fact corporations because the terms "corporation" and "company" are used in the White Paper. Were they really public corporations as we understand them to-day? He refers to memorandum and articles of association. Therefore it appears that the other two were not public corporations but companies. Certainly they would have been subject to more control than companies established under the Companies Act would normally have been.
Lord Winster is charged with jettisoning the transportation experience of railways and shipping and travel agencies. Incidentally, there are all sorts of problems in air transport which are not found in surface transport; and we should remember this, that there are twenty-two years' accumulation of experience in Lord Knollys' corporation. Undoubtedly sur-

663
face experience is valuable. Is it only to be given in return for the somewhat doubtful privilege of being permitted to finance air routes in Europe and to South America? Might we await the outcome of the Minister's conversations with these other interests? Might we be permitted to hope that the experience of the railroads, of the shipping lines and of the travel agencies will be available to him, and that the co-operation of which he has announced himself to be in need and anxious to secure is assured? I should think that those other interests would have given it, and that they would have welcomed the opportunity. We may hear from some of their representatives to-day whether that be so or not.
As to Lord Swinton's joint overhaul and joint training arrangement, I do not think Lord Winster mentioned these. I hope it does riot mean that he does not approve of them. It may be, and I hope it is, that the Minister intends to leave that sort of thing to the operators themselves to arrange if they care; and I should have thought that they would consider Lord Swinton's proposals. As to Lord Brabazon's Committee, we know that any Committee of which he is the Chairman would be likely to do excellent work however great the difficulties and we know how great the difficulties have been. I do not think the Minister mentioned that. Perhaps, again, he proposes to put that Committee more directly into touch with the operators because there is something odd in that Committee being advisory to the Minister and not to the noble Lord, Lord Knollys, and his associates.
Apart from all that there are matters in the Minister's decision to which due weight must be given. What he has decided is in line with the political mandate which he and his Government and his Party have. There is no getting away from that and I think you would expect him to decide in line therewith; and when I say "in line therewith," I mean just that and no more. I agree in regretting something of what the Minister said in his peroration; I thought it would be criticized and it has been. But despite what he said I do not believe the Minister was primarily motivated by Party political considerations. If I did think so, I should be talking differently from the way in
664
which I am. There is something much more important. To be motivated by Party politics in this field would be shocking and quite possibly disastrous. This scheme, I submit to you, is quite in accordance with the trend of public opinion generally; and, more important than that, it is in accordance with the hard economic facts of experience in public services.
My conclusion will be this, subject to Lord Winster being able to give me an assurance on two or three points which I will mention very shortly: I feel he has adopted the major points and the best points in the noble Viscount's White Paper and has rationalized the rest where he felt it to be in need of rationalization. Had I been Lord Swinton, by and large I should have felt pleased and more or less satisfied. Lord Knollys expressed himself to be quite happy about the noble Viscount's White Paper when it was issued. Perhaps he saw more clearly than some of us how the trinitarian arrangement was to work. I do hope we shall hear from him to-day, and that he will feel able to say exactly what he does feel. If he speaks he can confirm or contradict my own feeling which would be this: that he is satisfied, and relieved more than anything else, as to the changes which the Minister has made, and that he now knows more clearly than he did before what is expected of him.
On this question of public corporations, I must make a comment or two about Lord Rennell's speech. He spoke with an obvious sincerity but he is under, or appears to be under, some misapprehensions which are still common in the field of public corporations. He said that Lord Winster's corporations would be in difficulty in negotiating with foreign concerns; the participants would be of different and unequal standing. I cannot understand it. If so, it would apply also to Lord Swinton's corporations. In fact public corporations are at no disadvantage in dealing with operating concerns, whatever they may be, in the same field in other countries. I speak, my Lords, from what I know. I just do not understand the point. Then he asked about priority of traffic, sea or air, if there is not enough for both. Who would decide the means of travel? He seemed to think it might be the Minister. Surely the passengers would decide this and be under no

665
pressure whatever except their own inclination. Finally, he said that being servants of the State, pilots aid other employees would be awkwardly placed compared with the Royal Air Force. May I make this clear, that in the public corporation field employees are no more employees of the State than if they were employees of a private company. Is it suggested that a variety producer in the B.B.C. is a servant of the State? I do not blame him if, in fact, he lilies to feel he is working for the State. Go id luck to him. He is in fact as much the servant of the corporation as if he were in the employ of a private company.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye did not, like Lord Sherwood, feel "slightly quaint"; he felt slightly pleased. He said:
"I feel some slight pleasure to-day because … I, for some years, have been the stalking horse or whipping boy warding off attacks made on the late Government in another place, having to defend the fact that civil aviation had to go to the wall in the greater interests of the war."
If the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, will not be offended, I should just like to say what I feel. I do not feel that he was either stalked or whipped sufficiently frequently or sufficiently energetically. Why go to the wall? "Civil aviation had to go to the wall." Go to the wall, my Lords! Second place, yes, a distant second, if you like; and that it was permitted to go to the wall by the noble Lord, or the noble Lord's chief, the then. Secretary of State for Air, is the explanation of the unfortunate position in which this country finds itself to-day.
Did the Americans permit their civil aviation to go to the wall during the war? Far from it. Who, if not the noble Lord or the Secretary of State, was responsible? Pre-war conversations and agreements, in my view, if followed up, would have secured one single corporation for the Empire to-day instead of a multiplicity of joint and parallel workings, and the effects of that would have gone tar beyond the field of its immediate application. It was to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that the corporation looked for defence and support; there were plenty of others looking after the war. Your Lordships have heard many times the sorry tale of the starved instruments, the resignations of all but one of the board—a subject of much comment here. Perhaps the noble Lord fought
666
harder than we knew, but no fight was obvious at all, and so civil aviation went "to the wall."
I will not take up your Lordships' time today by dealing with the points he made, except in respect of the one about Parliamentary procedure in connexion with these public corporations. The Clerk at the Table in another place will not permit questions to be asked about a public corporation unless they be on policy. Quite a number of questions, to my knowledge, are rejected by the Clerk at the Table because they are not on policy; and of those which are answered, a considerable number, possibly the majority, possibly all, are replied to by the responsible Minister to the effect that these are matters for the corporation, whatever they may be. You cannot, I admit, stop a member raising a point on the adjournment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, in regard to some observations made the other clay in another place. That cannot be stopped, but the Minister can, surely, deal with them as they are required to be dealt with.
I have now a few points to put to you about these public corporations, because if we are to give dispassionate consideration to this matter of civil aviation, and other things that come before us, we must be clear what they mean—what the corporations are, and what they are not. May I tell your Lordships that with me there is nothing of Party politics in this whatever? May I make that clear by saying that, on the whole, I believe I would prefer private enterprise in any form to nationalization, if by nationalization is meant what used to be meant, conduct of public services by a Government Department, politicians and civil servants? With me, the simple issue is that of securing the most efficient form of management. There was a tribute to railroads. There is a high ideal of public service in many private enterprises, particularly, I feel, in railways. But we cannot get away from the fact that their first and inescapable obligation is to shareholders. There is the crux of the problem—obligations to shareholders on the one hand and to the public on the other, which are increasingly difficult of reconciliation. That is what I mean by hard economic facts. There are some who feel that the first obligation of public service

667
to shareholders is morally indefensible or anyhow undesirable. I am less concerned with this than the economic side. The position of directors and managers is becoming increasingly invidious to-day with, on the one hand, their own ideals of public service and their knowledge of public requirements, and, on the other, the natural, but hungry, expectations of shareholders.
We hear too much about capital and labour and not enough about the third essential element in industry—management. Can you visualize the position of a manager when the distribution of a sum of money at the end of the year is under discussion? He says, rightly, he would like that money put back into the business, but the directors say, also rightly, that it should go to give the shareholders who have had a lean time an extra half per cent. Who is to reconcile them? They are both right. I do not underestimate the power of the profit motive, nor suggest that capital risk should not have a fair chance of reward. I say that profit motive and competition are not the only motives which inspire to efficient management, and that competition is not always beneficial. There are occasions when it is the competitive system itself that plays for safety, and, if no longer answerable to the shareholders, these public corporations are answerable to the public; and public opinion can be voiced in Parliament and elsewhere.
This system is misunderstood, and often deliberately misinterpreted, both from the Left and from the Right: from the Right, in that people will contend that ownership means management, which it does not and must not; from the Left, in periodic attempts to treat the public corporation as if, in fact, it were a Government Department. The chief characteristics of the public corporation system is that it is established and owned by the State, but not—repeat not—managed by the State. State control is over major policy, defined once and for all and clearly in the instrument of establishment, charter or Statute, subject, possibly, to periodic, clearly defined and necessary directives. Parliament approves the instrument which tells the corporation what it has to do and defines safeguards, if necessary. Parliament and the responsible Minister can watch what is happening and
668
if they feel the corporation is not doing what it ought to do, and is established to do, can take the, necessary steps. Otherwise, my Lords, there is freedom of management.
There are three reasons for the establishment of public corporations, and for transferring some industries which were or are to-day under private enterprise to this public ownership. One is where there has- been or is likely soon to be this irreconcilable conflict between the public service motive and the dividend motive. It has nothing whatever to do with politics; it is the simple issue of economic fact. Another is where the members of that industry cannot live and work amicably together. The fault may be on one side, or both, or neither, but there are suspicion and friction which nothing appears able to eliminate, as, for instance, in the mining industry. Thirdly, there is the fear lest worse should happen. Three and a half years ago I said that if I were a railway director, faced with the avowed intention on the part of the Labour Party when it came into power to nationalize—perhaps governmental or departmental management—I should do my best to have steps taken in the railways so that the industry was reorganized by those who understood it, and not by politicians and civil servants.
I have questions to put to the Minister, but let us be clear that ownership is not management, and must not be management; that the employees are not civil servants, and that there is no public interference in management. "And if to starboard red appear," as the Minister will remember, "tis his duty to keep clear." Here are my questions. Having told these corporations, in charter or Statute, what to do, will the same freedom in management be given to them, subject only to the essential periodic direction and reference to which no one could take exception? Will he ensure that in securing, largely by the efforts of the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, at long last the release of this vital service from the trammels of the Air Ministry, we have not merely effected the exchange of one hierarchy of civil servants for another? Will he tell them to "stand from under"? Will he allow the corporations to communicate direct with their colleagues all over the world, and with the Royal Air Force? Will he

669
be personally available to the Chairmen of the corporations and not permit them to be "boomed off"? And will lie consider—I only ask, will he consider—establishing at some time some central, co-ordinating, advisory body, representing not only the three corporations bit also those other forms of transportation whose co-operation he is so determined to secure, if in fact they be willing o give it?
I have had no conversation with the noble Lord since he last spoke. I put my points straightly to him, and if Le answers those questions in the affirmative, as I hope and believe he will, I, for one, acquit him of ulterior, invidious, shocking Party motives with which he has been charged. I would credit him with honesty and determination of purpose. I would feel him to be entitled to the commendation, encouragement and support of the House—and, my Lords, such support the Minister and our civil aviation general will surely require.
3.34 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken will pardon me if I do not follow him in his eloquent speech. I am glad he has put several very important questions to the Minister and I hope the Minister will be able to reply to them fully and adequately. I am sure that, like myself, other noble Lords listened to the statement of the Minister of Civil Aviation with great disappointment and also with great anxiety. There is no need for me to go into the history of the last three years, in which some of my friends here and I waged a battle in which we eventually succeeded. At the outset we were unable to persuade the War Cabinet -that transport aircraft was a vital, war issue. Your Lordships will remember that we had innumerable debates in which members of the Government—Lord Sherwood for one and Lord Cherwell for another—were put up on different occasions to try and beat down the irksome opposition which was rising, perhaps on my initiation but warmly supported by a, treat many of your Lordships in this House.
First of all we were given Lord Beaver brook. Lord Beaver-brook was Chairman of a Committee. I have never been able, exactly to fathom what the Committee was. Anyway it was delaying tactics,
670
and we made no progress whatever. After that, by repeated attacks on the War Cabinet and telling them that they knew nothing about the air and cared less, we were fortunate in having a Minister of Civil Aviation appointed in the person of my noble friend Viscount Swinton, and I feel that we achieved a great object when he was appointed. There had been a very long delay. We then came down to this House and watched his efforts with the greatest satisfaction and enthusiasm. As you know quite well, the noble Viscount turned to his task with his accustomed energy. He travelled to America. He was at Chicago and at Montreal, and he also went to South Africa. In an incredibly short space of time the noble Viscount produced a White Paper. He covered the ground very adequately when he made his speech last Thursday.
When the noble Lord's White Paper appeared, I was naturally most anxious to congratulate him on having been so prompt in what I might call "delivering the goods." I am not going to say that I fully agreed with every provision in that White Paper, because I thought it erred on the side of giving too much control to the Government; but it certainly would have been churlish on my part if I had placed any obstacle in the way of his going forward on the road on which he had set out. I was under the impression that the White Paper was a compromise between the different elements in the Coalition Government, but I know that was not the case. The White Paper was agreed by the Cabinet of the day and was considered, in the phraseology of Sir Stafford Cripps, to be the best plan that could possibly be put into operation at that time. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, quoted Sir Stafford Cripps in his speech last Thursday. But to my mind, the great virtue of the plans which were forecast in the noble Lord's White Paper was that he brought in the great organizations of transport in this country: he brought in the railways and he brought in the shipping interests. Those, as we know, have been for years past the experts in transport and it was highly important that those two organizations should have a full interest in the development of this tender plant of civil aviation.
The noble Lord who has just sat down spoke of the profit motive. Of course we know perfectly well that in all industries

671
throughout the centuries the profit motive has had to come in; otherwise it would have been impossible to carry on. In these days there is a tendency to think that all those people who embarked on and made such a success of free enterprise throughout this country, and indeed throughout the world, were solely actuated by the profit motive. I have had enough experience of aviation and of other business to know that whereas the profit motive has got to come into the picture, nevertheless the enthusiasm and the whole-hearted co-operation and support which we have always received from everybody in the industry (with a very few exceptions) has been the mainspring of the success on which this country has depended. I ask people to realize that it is only by giving those interests an opportunity of participating that you will get that full service which, I am quite certain, you will never get with the strangle-hold of Government organization and Government control.
My noble friend made a beginning, and a very good beginning. We came down to your Lordships' House last Thursday and found that the whole of the noble Lord's White Paper had been thrown overboard. I think it could not have had a better or stronger commendation than that which was given by Sir Stafford Cripps in the speech from which my noble friend quoted. We understood that we were to have three organizations and that the noble Lord would tell us how far they were to be controlled, what their responsibilities were t6 be and how far the whole of their activities would be directed by the Minister of Civil Aviation. In his statement the noble Lord said one or two things on those matters and I was not able fully to understand exactly what he meant.
I venture to suggest that the noble Lord should set up, as soon as possible, a Civil Air Council so as to be able to get the best advice from those people who are fully trained in these matters, from those people who are not in business for the profit motive alone but because of their love of aviation and because they believe that the future of this country is dependent upon the successful development of aviation here. I hope that later on, after he has set up the Civil Air Council, we shall find a Civil Aeronautics Authority (comparable with the Civil
672
Aeronautics Authority in America) which will have jurisdiction over all these matters instead of their being handled and administered by a Government Department. I can assure your Lordships that I have no criticism to make of civil servants; we all owe a great debt of gratitude to the civil servants of this country; but I say at once that they are not the people to handle business in this country or in this Empire. I was glad to see that of those who have shown a deep interest in these matters, the noble Lord is retaining the services of Lord Brabazon of Tara. I am glad to think that the noble Lord will have somebody associated with the Committee over which he presides who is able to explain exactly what he means (sometimes in forcible language) and who will be able, we hope, to guide the noble Lord along the road he has chosen to follow.
There is one particular question which I should like to address to the noble Lord, and that is in relation to the Ministry of Aircraft Production. The Ministry of Aircraft Production has done great work in this war, but latterly, in view of the lack of policy on the part of the Government, those of us who have had to have dealings with, it have found that as no decisions are being taken we can get no answers to our questions. I should like to know from the noble Lord the position of the Ministry of Aircraft Production in the future. Will the Ministry of Aircraft Production give orders on their own behalf or on behalf of the Minister? Are they the agents or the principals? What are their relations to all the manufacturers? The noble Lord is, I think, well aware that the bleak statement to which we listened the other day is a matter of the greatest concern in the minds of all manufacturers and I do not think he thought it would have an exhilarating effect on them. They know quite well that if you have a restriction of authority in relation to the handling of all these numerous matters by the Government we shall probably come down to one or two types of machine, and there will be very little encouragement for that spirit of enterprise in developing other machines to fly in competition—and I am not speaking of cut-throat competition—with other operators. That is one of the difficulties which I expect the noble Lord will understand. I think he will agree that this hide-bound system of Government control will damp down that spirit of enterprise which has

673
been the mainspring of everything in this country and from which our successes in flat past have been derived.
The noble Lord in a recent speech, in which he did not even adumbrate the sad tale he was going to narrate to us last Thursday, was kind enough to pay compliments to myself and to my friends who supported me during all those. three, troublesome years through which we have passed. He gave me the title of tin "only begetter" of the Ministry of Civil Aviation. I am very happy to share that title with some of my friends here who gave me every assistance. We worked in co-operation. I did, however, hope for something very different when the noble Lord came to make his statement. He told us, on that occasion, that he had had a second sight—or a foresight—which prevented him from making any contribution to those debates which we had in relation to civil aviation. I am not quite sure whether the noble Lord is correct in saying that because I have a recollection of his taking part in the debates. I venture to say that after all the able and eloquent speeches which the noble Lord has delivered in this House during the last few years I had no idea that he would be standing at that box expressing convictions which, I should have thought, were entirely contrary to everything which had been in his mind when he made them.
In the past the noble Lord was a very excellent critic, and a very fair critic, of the Government of the day who, as w e know, were in a very difficult position. After all, they had on their shoulders de burden of winning the war and we can pay them the tribute of saying that they were successful in their efforts. It was natural that certain matters such as civil aviation should take a secondary place, although not the place of complete obliteration which was imposed upon them. Since then we have had an Election in this country. To all of us considered these matters, it was quire obvious that there was likely to be what is called a swing to the Left. My noble friend Lord Reith, however, speaks of a mandate. I deny that at once. I am quite sure that if you could canvass the voters who voted for the Socialist Party you would not find one or even a half per cent. of them telling you that they expected that when the Government was returned to power civil aviation would be
674
nationalized. That verdict was a remonstrance against Government controls; those votes were given by people standing in queues, by people who were objecting to all the restrictions which were put on them during those war years. That was really what that verdict meant. I deny at once that the Government have any right to say that because they have a majority of 190 or so votes in another place they have, therefore, a direct mandate for the nationalization of this budding industry, this tender plant called civil aviation.
LORD STRABOLGI: If the noble Marquess will forgive me, surely it was his Party which advocated the abolition of controls. My Party advocated their continuance.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I was speaking in rather a discursive manner—which I think is wrong in your Lordships' House. It was a change from one Government to another that was wanted. The majority of voters thought that if another Government was in charge those restrictions and those irksome conditions under which they had lived would be removed by that Government. What I am contending is that the Government have no mandate whatever from the people of this country for the policy which they are putting into practice at the moment.
I hope that the noble Lord will be able to tell us some of his plans. We should like him to tell us what is going on at the present moment. We are well aware that a number of bilateral arrangements are being made between America and countries in Europe other than our own. I think the noble Lord will be able to tell us that some of these agreements have been signed, and others are at present in process of being signed. What is Great Britain doing? I know quite well that if we delay very much longer we may find that many of these airlines will bypass Great Britain altogether. There is a terminal at Rineanna, and, with the arrangements which are in being now and with these bilateral agreements, we may find ourselves in great difficulty unless we move as quickly as we can. We have, I believe, day-to-day agreements under which numbers of aircraft land at Croydon, though that is perhaps not a very suitable airport. I need hardly say that I regard with admiration, and have done so

675
for a great many years, the activities of America in regard to the air. The Americans have understood the air question a great deal better than many people in this country, and they fully agree with what we call free enterprise. I think we can learn a lesson from the manner in which civil aviation is being administered in America, with great advantage to ourselves.
We understand that the Prime Minister is going to America in the near future, and that he is going to discuss the atomic bomb. At the same time, there are conferences taking place on financial matters in America. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Winster, could persuade the Prime Minister to take him to America? He might be accompanied by Sir William Hildred, and also by Mr. Farey Jones, whose name will be familiar to the noble Lord because he has been at all these conferences on- civil aviation in connexion with international air transport should like the noble Lord to go to America at this time and come to some definite agreement with America about all these matters. I think that I should be right in saying that America is most anxious that these matters should be the subject of a definite agreement between our two countries.
I do not feel disposed to go into the question of aircraft at this time. We know quite well that we are dependent on American aircraft for some considerable time, but I do not think that it should delay us in establishing our organizations all over the world, and especially throughout the Dominions and the Colonies. American aircraft can be used so long as it is necessary. I understand that Transport Command are using 98 per cent. of American aircraft at the present time, and B.O.A.C. are dependent very largely on Dakotas. That should not delay us in getting our organizations throughout the world, so that when the time does come for the switch-over to British aircraft, which I hope will not be delayed though somewhat discouraged by this new statement of the Minister, in a shorter time than perhaps we anticipate we shall have these machines flying throughout the world in friendly competition—I am not looking to any cut-throat competition—for the benefit of the human race and the de-
676
velopment of air-mindedness in this country. My noble friend Lord Balfour objects to the use of the term "air-mindedness," and I agree with him, but I do not know a better word. I want the noble Lord, Lord Winster, to spread air-mindedness throughout this country.
There is one matter which, in a discussion of this kind, may not be regarded as of first-class importance but which is, nevertheless, of great importance, that of education. It is not really a minor matter. If the noble Lord goes with Mr. Attlee to America, I should like him to visit some of the schools there. He will find that every American child is being brought up to-clay on a different curriculum from that which used to prevail, and in history and in geography the importance of the air is emphasized. Indeed, children are even being taught aerodynamics. What is being done in this country? I have made various representations on this point. I do not know whether Miss Ellen Wilkinson is going round the schools and saying that we must be air-minded or we shall lose our place as a great nation! I hope that the noble Lord will be able to answer some of these questions. The situation is very serious, and if there is delay it will be more serious still.
3.56 p.m.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: My Lords, I am sure we have all enjoyed the three speeches to which we have just listened, because they have all expressed rather different points of view. I hope that my own will not be an exception. I particularly enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Reith, who, as he told us, has not spoken for a long time—much too long—in this House. I agreed with nearly everything he said except for the phrase "starboard red," which seemed to me a slip.
LORD KEITH: My Lords:
"If to starboard red appear
Tis your duty to keep clear."
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: If the noble Lord had quoted the whole poem, we should have understood him a little better. I want also, like other speakers, to draw attention to the speech of the Minister at the beginning of this debate. We Conservatives are now getting accustomed to two types of attack. One of them is represented by articles such as are written by Mr. Foot, in which everybody

677
who does not agree with him is designated a Nazi, a traitor and a scoundrel. The inspiration of most of them is founded on "envy, hatred, malice and all uncharitableness." If your Lordships read one of them you might be rather surprised, but you get used to them after a time, and if you read others you will probably find them arousing. I am sure that the Daily Herald, which has a great journalistic flair, prints them as rival pieces to those of Mr. Beachcomber. We can put up with hard-hitting political articles, and nobody is going to quarrel with them; the sort of speech to which I object, and to which I am sure that everybody else will come to object, is the sort of speech which the Minister delivered to us, in which he ended up with a sort of Sermon on the Mount. I must say that the pharisaic: priggishness which is put over I find quite intolerable. We listened to the noble Lord's peroration about the service of the pilots. I hope that the service principle will be inculcated into the dockers and the miners by the noble Lord himself before he stretches it to the pilots. It may well be true that that sort of moral uplift is wanted in the Lower House, but I cannot help drawing attention to the fact that there should be two rows of professional Prelates her It is their business to give us that moral uplift, and it shows the topsy-turvy world that we are in when we get moral lessons from the Government and speeches on finance from the Bishops.
Like my noble friend Lord Reith, I refute to make this question of civil aviation a Party affair. I differ from my noble friend Lord Swinton when he says that it has become a Party issue. If we look back into the past, we discover that it was a Conservative Government who set up the State-owned B.O.A.C. It may have been right or it may have been wrong. Then Lord Swinton, with great imagination, and I think probably quite rightly, introduced the other agencies which he thought—and I agree with him—might be useful. Those have been thrown overboard, and of course for him and for many people that is regrettable. But I cannot help drawing attention to the fact that in America, where no ideological considerations come into the question, and where these matters are dealt with on a purely commercial basis, it has been definitely laid down that no
678
form of surface transport is to have anything to do with the air. They may be right, or Lord Swinton may be right; all that I say is that there are those two opinions, and it cannot be said that because the Government take a certain view on this matter they are following a purely Party shibboleth. It is purely a matter of opinion.
Now as to these corporations. It seems to me that the Minister has, so to speak, copied Viscount Swinton's plan in a rather half-baked way. There is no real reason for three corporations. There is some reason for dividing traffic into four separate groups. There is the American situation, the European and internal routes, West Africa and South America and the East and South Africa—these are the natural groups into which the business falls. Why I object to the corporations is that some of them will be financially successful—the one to Europe, for example, carrying, as it will, big load factors, ought to be very successful—whilst others will not do so well. The consequence will be that you will get between the corporations a very unhealthy feeling; one saying, as it were, to the other: "We are a successful line but you cannot pay your way." That will be very tiresome. I should have thought that it would be desirable to have an overriding organization which would have the separate groups subordinate to it, so that there would be only the one organization with which the Minister would have to speak. You must remember that there is going to be a lot of common services. The services for training, welfare, stores, publicity and the accounting side, for example, must be common to the lot.
I would ask my noble friend the Minister if, when he comes to reply, he will tell me a little more about the tribunal—the C.A.A. Is that going to be independent of the Government, to fix fares and to say who is going to run here and who is going to run there? There are going to be great difficulties in the way of fixing fares, especially as against the people who are going to run in competition with us. I do not suppose that anybody in this House would say that I have ever been an enemy of the Air Ministry or the Air Force. I have fought their battles over and over again and have taken on all the Admirals of the Fleet

679
in England in this House on their behalf. No one could accuse me of not being a sincere friend of the Royal Air Force, but I must say that, as you look back over the past, you will see that the Air Ministry has not been helpful to civil aviation. I do not blame them for they have had to build up the R.A.F. and to defend the country; but the fact remains.
The trouble at the present moment is that, the war being over, the Air Force have gone transport mad. They have now one quarter of their whole organization in Transport Command. They did not take any trouble to get transport machines. We are all behind-hand in that, and no great effort has been made in that respect since the war. They have not got the machines, and of course their record from the point of view of safety, compared with that of B.O.A.C. is very poor. But both concerns are run by the taxpayer—both the R.A.F. and B.O.A.C. Is it not high time that Transport Command was reduced in size to, so to speak, an adequate but skeleton peacetime level, and that B.O.A.C. took over from them the work which they were intended to do, and carried the passengers who now go by Transport Command. The R.A.F. was not horn to carry passengers, and it must be remembered that Transport Command have very great advantages of which they can and do make use. They have military priorities and they can get what they like in the way of equipment. They can stick to any aerodrome that they fancy in any part of the country. If we are really thinking of getting on with civil aviation then we should give Government assistance to civil aviation instead of giving it to Transport Command.
My noble friend the Minister in his introductory speech was good enough to say that he meant to continue my Committee. Well, whether my Committee continues or not is a matter for me and for nobody else to decide. But still it is a very kind gesture on Lord Winster's part, and anything that my Committee can do to help him we always will do. But he must remember that the time has come, or it is very imminent, when the operating company, the B.O.A.C. should know what they want. It is not for me to tell them what they want or for the Government to do so. It is for the operators themselves
680
to say, and, if they have not the technical strength available to enable them to determine what they need, then they must be given more technical help. Shipping interests always know exactly what they want in the way of ships and so forth, and airline operators, such as the B.O.A.C. must be able soon to go direct to the manufacturer and say what they want. When that time comes—I hope that it will not be long before it does—the reason for the existence of the Brabazon Committee will soon disappear.
In conclusion I wish to point out that although we may squabble on questions concerning the organization which is going to be set up, the difficulty which the Minister is in to-day is not that he has opposition from us, whatever we talk about, but that he has got opposition from two Government Departments. The Air Ministry is inimical to him; he has rivalry to meet from Transport Command, and as I have said, M.A.P. is simply a delaying Post Office. If he, with the energy which he possesses, will get on and, with the Government behind him, sweep away these two obstacles and get something going, then, never mind how we may disagree about questions of theoretical organization, we will help him all we can.
4.7 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON)My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will agree that the speech to which we have just listened has contributed very greatly to dispelling the atmosphere of gloom and despondency which seemed to overshadow this' debate from the time of the speech made by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. I was greatly cheered by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, and indeed I may say that I knew perfectly well before he got up that he would contribute some helpful suggestions. May I say—though, of course, this is not my particular Departmental business—that I know that my noble friend Lord Winster and those who are taking a close interest in the activities of his Department will certainly display energy in pushing forward several of the things which the noble. Lord, Lord Brabazon, says are so essential and with which I agree entirely?
I was a good deal perplexed by the speech of Lord Swinton because it was such a strange and difficult-to-explain

681
mixture, as I will show in a minute or two. I could riot understand why, at the beginning of his observations, he introduced me. I was charged—I think this expression is right—with "characteristic levity". I am not quite clear what I did do, but, however, if the noble Lord obtains some inward satisfaction from dragging me into it I am very glad.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I thought the noble Viscount was showing amusement at some observations of mine, but if it was a joke of his own then I am sorry for what said about it.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Very well, we will wipe it out. But on this question of the gloominess of the noble Viscount's forecast, in which he was vigorously sup-ported to-day by Lord Balfour of Inchrye, may I say that what puzzles me rather is the way the world outside receives these Socialistic suggestions as compared with, say, a speech like that delivered by the noble Viscount. On the same day that the noble Lord, Lord Winster, introduced this discussion and announced the Government's decision, another Government decision was announced. It is true that it was rather obscured in this House by the interest which was aroused by this debate but nevertheless it was a very, very important decision. I refer to the decision as to the Commonwealth system of telecommunications, as a result, partly, of a recommendation of the Committee over which my noble friend Lord Reith presided with such distinction, and I would state in passing, that the Commonwealth Governments without exception have established Governmental organizations. I was interested in a little piece which I abstracted from a tape machine and I should like to read it. This the sequel to this dreadful announcement of another piece of Socialism. It is headed "The Stock Exchange, 10.37 a.m." and says:
"An outstanding feature of the House h the advance of about ten points in Cable and Wireless Preferential Stock following the news concerning State control."
I may be a mere child in these matters bus I am somewhat perplexed to know why, if it is so dreadful, the Stock Exchange should be so buoyant and should welcome it by jumping up Cable and Wireless.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: It has gone down since.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I should not think it has gone down far, but the point I am making is the psychological effect of this news. It did not have anything like the same effect on the Stock Exchange as it did on the noble Lord. I should like to join with those who paid tribute to the activity the noble Lord displayed and the services he has certainly rendered to civil aviation under exceedingly difficult conditions. I should like to say that without qualification. But the noble Lord went on, in expressing rather pained surprise, to say that the circumstances to-day are no different from the circumstances of a few months ago. With the greatest possible respect I cannot agree with that observation. I feel that the circumstances are very different. There has been a General Election. It is a fact, and the country has returned a Government which does not take the same view as to how these things should be done. This is not a new thing on our part. This kind of thing has been advocated for years and years and years. Even this particular proposal was approved at a conference some considerable time ago. The fact is, strange as it may appear, saddening as it is, that we really do believe that this is the best way of doing this kind of thing. That is the difference. I know it is very painful, but there it is. That is true. We certainly have got to face up to it and we have certainly never hidden it from the country. I think that the decision of the country was right, and of course it is a different decision—I am not complaining—from what the noble Lord would have had. I have spent many years in the political wilderness myself but still we were not depressed. We kept struggling along and now it seems that the country quite emphatically believes that this is the sort of way to deal with these problems.
Let me give one or two reasons which occur to me. Take, first of all, the overwhelming necessity for safety on a service of this kind. To have the confidence of the public the service must, above all, be a safe service. I think that is much more important than a few minutes here and there as to the time taken. Are you more likely to get the development of a thoroughly reliable and safe service by having the continual oversight of an organization which is subject to Parliamentary control? Or would it be better if you left it to a miscellaneous assortment

683
of private companies who would like to develop the service on their own? To my mind there is no question of what the answer is. I am not saying that you would have petty interference with the direction and management of the business. We have got to develop the kind of method which Lord Reith was talking about. As to safety and confidence, I feel they would be much more likely to be achieved by this method than in any other way.
To take another point, safety depends on the high standard, among many other things, of training of the pilots, the ground crews and all the rest. The Royal Air Force has developed a system of training ground crews and has achieved a standard of accuracy which is second to none in the world. That has been done in the service of the State. I think myself that the way to secure the mobilization of all that is best in education and training is for a powerful organization of this kind, responsible to the State, to have general charge of the direction of the scheme.
Another point was raised by the noble Lord as to the welfare of the pilots. He spoke in one place of a suggestion that the pilots could be looked after if they become servants of the State. He knows quite well that an essential and integral part of the Services is that everyone should maintain the highest conditions for the pilots. The noble Lord himself—I do not think he was Minister—and those with whom he was associated were responsible for doing away with the two private companies. There were two great private corporations. It was true that they were receiving State subsidies but they were amalgamated. I see that one of them in the House of Commons, on November 17, 1937, was sadly criticized because it cut the salaries of its pilots, but it was a fact that this same company, the same year, increased its dividend from 8 to 9 per cent. That does not satisfy us; we happen really to be Socialists. We do not think that that is the right way of doing things. The well-being of the pilots is much more important than 1 per cent. in the dividend and I am quite sure that the noble Lord will entirely agree. The point, however, is this: that if you want an increasingly good standard of safety in regard to the welfare of the pilots, I think you will be
684
much more likely to obtain it this way than if you leave it to a number of private corporations.
Then again, I am perplexed at the condemnations of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and to some extent of those of the noble Viscount who first spoke. Anyone might think that this proposal was some strange departure in principle from what has happened before. As a matter of fact, it is not. These two private companies, as we all know, were amalgamated into one public corporation with national money by the political friends of the noble Lord. If that was right then, why is it wrong now? That is the proper question to ask.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: But you are not going to have three corporations.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am coming to that but I understand that the criticism is whether we accept B.O.A.C. We are partly responsible for it—it is a dual responsibility. I understand that the B.O.A.C. will be accepted. Even if there were only two—according to the noble Lord's proposal he is limiting it to two—if the principle for which the noble Lord is contending is right, why not twenty? Why two? The reason for two is that the noble Lord recognizes—and everybody recognizes—that a new, great developing service of this kind must be subject to a great measure of central direction for all kinds of reasons. For those reasons, I think, the noble Lord suggested two separate corporations. Of course, as he says quite truly, his ideas have been debated here, except that they have a different basis. I have a good deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, has said. He did not see why there should not be one corporation. I think there is a good deal to be said for that, and it would not be a rough surmise to imagine that that question was the subject of considerable discussion. Anyhow, there is no reason at all why, as the service develops, there should not be amalgamation in the future if it was thought to be desirable. At any rate, there will be no private interests against it, if it is found to be desirable.
There is this to be said for it, too. This method of approach to this great new service will make it easier to secure the kind of co-operation we want with our Dominions than would otherwise be

685
the case. The Dominions have started their own corporations, as we know, and I believe it will be much easier this way to establish a coherent Empire service than it would have been if there were number of separate and competing private companies. Two noble Lords on the Front Bench, who have spoken, deplored the sacrifice of the travel agencies.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: If die noble Viscount will forgive Inc for interrupting him, is it not a fact that before I went out of office a complete working partner ship had been established with every one of the Dominions, and is that going to be carried on?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Certainly, but, of course, the noble Lord must remember that, at that time, the British and European service had not been established, not had the South American service, which he, himself, suggested. There was excellent co-operation between the Dominions during his time, but there is scope, possibly, for a gradually increasing co-operation, and we think that is more likely to be obtained this way. I think there is no doubt about it. As to the travel agencies, do the noble Lords really seriously contend that it would not he possible for my noble friend, the Minister, to make satisfactory—in fact, excellent—arrangements with all those experienced agencies, to secure their co-operation and good will, by any other means except by their having a few shares in the enterprise? I cannot imagine that anything of that kind is possible. Let me ask the noble Lords this. The conduct of the war has certainly been on a socialistic basis. There is no doubt about that—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I should have said—
NOBLE LORDS: Order, order.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Viscount did ask me—
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Quite right, go on.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: As the noble Viscount has asked me, I should have said the success of the war was due to a partnership which evoked the best out of u s all.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Very good, that suits me admirably, and that, I think,
686
will arise out of this. I do not think you are going to get the best out of us all simply because a selected number of individuals have a few shares in the enter prise. I have not the slightest doubt that we shall get the co-operation of the scientists and the designers in our aircraft industry. The designers of the Spitfire were not actuated by motives of profit; they loved their task; they were full of zeal and enterprise, and full of ideas. I have not the slightest doubt that these corporations, with the Ministry associated with them, will get much better work out of the few scientists we have got—and we have far too few—and a much better co-ordinated effort out of the designers, inventors, and scientists than would happen if there were a number of separate companies, each struggling to get their own share of these scarce men. Surely, that is the best way of making use of our very scanty resources of scientists, chemists, metallurgists, and all the rest.
I would pray your Lordships—and I do not want any better text than the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon—to try and approach this matter, if you can, free from political prejudice. We are accused of introducing political considerations into this. Let me say that, for twenty years, we have advocated this kind of thing on economical grounds, because we say it is the best way of doing it, and that is why we believe in it. So, as I said, I would pray your Lordships, at all events those who entertain these political suspicions, to put them out of your minds, and let us look at this matter on its merits, and see what is the best way, in the interests of the community, of developing this service It is impossible, now, to foresee how great it will become, but I am sure that, by coordinating national inspiration, you are more likely to get development on the right lines than you are by leaving it to a number of scattered agencies, each struggling on its own account. That is our view, and that is the reason for the Government's decision, which, I believe, is the right decision.
4.28 p.m.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, I shall not keep you more than fourteen minutes. Several aspects of civil aviation have been discussed during this debate, but I propose to confine myself

687
to Scottish interests. The electorate have given the Government a mandate for nationalization, and, whatever the cost may be to the country, that mandate will, no doubt, be tried. I wish, however, that it had stopped short of civil aviation because, although the electors south of the Border have given this mandate, the Scottish people have given it with a reservation. They may be ready to have public ownership of mines, but they do not wish to have nationalization of Scottish aviation on the English model and run from Whitehall. Civil aviation is a new thing on which the Scottish people pin their hopes. Air transport, properly run, will give direct employment to thousands of people, and, indirectly, to hundreds of thousands. We have, in Prestwick, an international airport, the operators of which have had six years' experience of running it, and we wish to utilize the experience they have gained for the advancement of the interests of the Scottish people. It is not desirable that our chances of prosperity should be lessened for the sake of exact uniformity with England. Those politicians who believe in nationalization, and those who believe in free enterprise, have left out of account those who are interested only in developing the optimum efficiency of air transport.
Scottish opposition to the policy proposed for air transport is already considerable, and it will grow truly formidable unless assurances can be given on one fundamental point—the measure of control of Scottish interests and Scottish enterprise which are to remain in Scotland. In the case of Prestwick airport, which is the most important single asset of the northern end of the Kingdom, the proposal was made by the founders and owners that ownership should pass to a Scottish public utility corporation. That proposal has received the approval of the Secretary of State and of the local county council and planning agencies, and it has also had a recommendation from the Scottish Council of Industry, but nothing more, so far as I know, has been heard of it. One more word about the Prestwick international airport. There would have been no airport at all if it had been left to the Government. The Government would not have put an airport there at all. They have opposed it from the very beginning and have thrown obstacles
688
in its way over a period of years, and if it had not been for the perseverance and careful planning of the Scottish Aviation Company there would have been no airport there to-day. I would like to inform the noble Lords opposite—there are only three of them, I see—that the Scottish Aviation Company is not primarily out for profits. Their attitude has always been, as everybody in Scotland knows, directed towards the development of employment opportunity in commercial aviation.
In the case of airline operation—and airline operation is obviously the most important of all branches of commercial aviation—there are factors which make it much more difficult to guarantee efficiency under a system of common ownership than under free enterprise which is subject to the pressure of competition. But in both cases the attitude of the people of Scotland may be summed up by saying that ownership, public or private, is a matter of expediency rather than of principle. Noble Lords opposite are probably sceptical about that, but let me remind them that a member of their own Party declared, in another place, that "Scottish members have removed Prestwick airport from the realm of Party politics. We stand united on this question." The one principle from which there is no retreat and it has been enunciated frequently and eloquently in both Houses of Parliament—is that Scotland must have, as a matter of right, reasonable opportunity to work out its destiny in air commerce according to its own peculiar needs and its own capacity. It is precisely for that reason that Scottish opinion has been shocked and bewildered by the nature of the Government's proposal.
It may be that the noble Lord contemplates a wider distribution of power than his statement of policy would suggest. There are two points in particular which require to be clarified. The first concerns the nature of the air services which would be operated via Prestwick; the second is the Minister's assurance that Scotland will be able to play its full part in aviation with regard to both service and airport, by the opportunities provided for internal services between Prestwick and the rest of the United Kingdom, and for direct services between Prestwick and overseas countries. Are we to understand from the latter statement that Scottish operators are to be allowed to operate such services?

689
I am sorry the noble Lord is not here at the moment, because I particularly want this question answered. Or are we to understand that the critical and highly complex task of creating air commerce for Scotland is to be left to the three monopoly corporations the noble Lord has envisaged, each and all controlled from Whitehall and subject at every turn to the supervision of the Treasury in addition to the Minister of Civil Aviation? These are the two questions which I hope the noble Lord will answer. I gave him notice of them.
The effect of the noble Lord's announcement has been to throw into the melting pot once again the central plan to which all Scotland has been working—a plan based on the possession and development of Prestwick airport by a Scottish authority, but applying to every corner of Scotland and to Scottish trade as wet as Scottish industry. If at this date the essential combination of airlines, international airports and aircraft manufacture are to be taken out of Scottish hands and entrusted to alien boards and departments then the noble Lord should show greater cause for such action. It is true to say that the drafting of a commercial air policy for this country is just about the most difficult of all decisions which this Government can take. One cannot blame Ministers for feeling their way towards a Formula which will reflect enlightened public opinion, for in this country there is little real knowledge of the present scale and future possibilities of air transport
Many of us believed that Viscount Swinton's policy of a few months ago would have eventually resulted in an independent tribunal to license aeroplane operators, which would have permitted orderly development of air interests in every part of the country, and that such a tribunal would be rather on the same lines as the American system of State regulation of airlines. It is rather surprising that a Labour Government, looking for some means of State regulation should not take advantage of the experience of America, which has already produced in a Civil Aeronautics Board an ideal form of State regulation which has proved itself efficient in practice. The American system of State regulation of competition between airline operations and other forms of transport has proved that it bring cheap, efficient air service to the people, can meet every progressive
690
need of an airfaring nation; and, surprisingly enough, it has enabled their airlines to bring revenue into the national Exchequer, thus laying no burden whatever on the American taxpayer. So it is very difficult to know why this example should not be followed here in this country to a certain extent.
Finally, although I have said something about Scottish interests I am not a Scottish nationalist and I do not want the Government policy to have the effect of manufacturing more of those gentlemen. I would remind your Lordships that we are a small country with a small population, but the whole matter of civil aviation is of the deepest interest to Scottish people; and since they feel that their future welfare is bound up with it, they wish to have the right to run it in their own way with their own experienced operators and with the minimum of supervision from London.
4.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT ROTHERMERE: My Lords, I would like to thank Lord Winster for very kindly mentioning me in his speech on October 18 as one of the small band of noble Lords who pressed the Government in the last Parliament to appoint a Minister of Civil Aviation. It is interesting to notice that not one of the names in the list that he gave belonged to a member of his own Party. I think it can be said that had it not been for our activities there would not have been a Minister of Civil Aviation and, in short, Lord Winster would not be sitting upon that Bench to-day. I think we can say also that there would not have been a Brabazon Committee, nor would there have been any civil transport aeroplanes in any form of production to-day.
The noble Lord, Lord Winster, congratulated himself on his foresight or second sight in not taking part in the debates—a tribute paid, I imagine, if not to his knowledge of the subject, certainly to his perspicacity. There was, however, one tiny slip in that straight and narrow path. On May 11, 1944, Lord Winster rose from his seat on the Bench he used at that time and intervened in the debate. He said in the course of his opening remarks that he wished chiefly to reinforce the very remarkable speech made by Lord Essendon in regard to civil aviation and the shipping industry. I would like to say in passing that it is

691
greatly to be regretted that Lord Essendon is no longer with us. He made a very remarkable speech and nobody could talk with greater authority upon the subject of shipping.
I know it is very unfair to quote speeches some time after they have been made, but this was only eighteen months ago. I would, therefore, ask this House to bear with me whilst I quote some of the speech which the noble Lord made on that occasion. He said:
"Coming to the question of air transport in connexion with our shipping industry, I have said that it may be necessary in certain cases to subidize air services in order to get them started; but it seems to me we are on very dangerous ground when that has to be carried to the length of subsidizing one branch of the same industry—namely; transport—against another, and that is going to be the situation if you have to subsidize air services which are running in competition with sea services. It certainly is bad enough to have to rob Peter to pay Paul, but if you are going to kill Peter in order that Paul may live that seems to be going too far altogether. I am sure that shipowners do not want to find themselves working in competition with Government subsidized airlines. As regards the position which the shipping industry is taking up in this matter I see that, speaking in another place, a member gave as his opinion that shipowners were seeking to control post-war aviation in order to make up for possible losses on passenger ships. So far as I am able to judge …that is not at all the attitude which is taken up by the shipowners in regard to post-war civil aviation…It is not merely a matter of the shipowners; it is a matter of the whole shipping industry…"
and so on. He made a very strong plea on behalf of the shipping industry on that occasion and I remember that I whole-heartedly endorsed that plea.
At that time the noble Lord was of the opinion that it would certainly be wrong to run air services operated by the Government in competition with shipping lines operating in that particular area. I think, therefore, that upon this question we should have some explanation of why in the South American Service the noble Lord proposes to take away the interest of the shipping companies. No doubt we shall have his reply on that point. I would like to ask him whether he has changed his opinion or whether, when he made his statement the other night, he was giving voice as a sort of spokesman for his Party. Perhaps he might also tell the House when this great vision
692
struck him and converted him to an entirely different belief. I cannot believe that office is a price high enough to pay for one's own opinion, and I am perfectly certain that the noble Lord would not have sacrificed those opinions which he held then purely for the sake of occupying an important position.
British shipping is going to be thrown on its own resources not only to compete with rival foreign shipping lines but also to compete with the British Government. In his statement the noble Lord made rather a curious remark; he said that shipping would be integrated with the airlines. I did not understand what he meant by that because shortly afterwards he used the word "co-operation." The use of the word "integration" would suggest a kind of blackmailing of shipping companies—if they do not co-operate they will be forcibly integrated. Obviously the co-operation which the shipping companies are expected to give to the new airlines is co-operation which cannot in any circumstances be to their advantage. It cannot in any way help the shipping companies which are operating the lines to give co-operation which, as far as one can see, must be entirely in one direction. If they lose passengers by reason of the Government subsidized services—and they must be subsidized, apparently, if they are Government services, however much the noble Lord may try to hide that fact when he eventually produces his estimates —that must have a bad effect upon them.
If I heard Lord Brabazon aright, he said that some of the remarks of Lord Winster were extremely priggish. In that case some of the remarks of Lord Addison were pure humbug. Lord Addison suggested that everybody here should cooperate (he said that was for the good of the country) towards making a success of a national venture in civil airlines. He said it was for the good of the country and that everybody knew it was for the good of the country. So far as I am concerned, I state quite emphatically that I do not think it is for the good of the country at all. I do not propose to be converted like the noble Lord opposite and to agree that the nationalization of civil aviation is for the good of the country. On the contrary, I take the view that it is extremely bad and that it will not be successful, however much it may be covered up in the financial estimates which will be presented to Par-

693
liament from time to time. I would state, furthermore, that I disagree entirely and absolutely with the view put forward from the Benches opposite, (not to-day but from time to time either here or in another place), that concentration of resources in the hands of a Government such as this will be is a powerful force for peace. That is not borne out by any kind of experience or by history. On the contrary, powerful concentrations in the hands of Governments lead far more towards war.
I would draw the noble Lord's attention to a paragraph, with which I entirely agree, written by Professor Einstein, in which he said:
"As to Socialism, unless it is international to the extent of producing world government which controls all military power, it might mere easily lead to wars than does Capitalism, because it represents a still greater concentration of powers."
It seems to me to be beyond all question that the tremendous concentration which is going on at the present moment of all the resources of power in this country in the hands of the Government will inevitably lead to a highly dangerous state of affairs, especially in view of the fact that sooner or later the noble Lord will have to try and make a success of this experiment.
As showing what is likely to happen in the future, I should like to refer to the debate which took place in another place on October 12. If you read that debate you will find that one after another honourable gentleman rose and said that there should be an international aerodrome in his own constituency. That kind of thing is not possible under the capitalist system. Five members made speeches of that kind. This is the sort of thing which the noble Lord, Lord Winster, will have to face in future if he nationalizes air transport. He has no idea of the political pressure that is going to be put upon him, both in the other House and in this. That is what we are going to get under nationalization, and I think it is very bad.
I should like to congratulate the noble Lord on his speech of October 18, which was very amusing. In the course of that speech, as showing that people are against inventiveness and new things, he quoted an offer in Punch of prizes of £10,000 for flying to Mars, for going to the centre of the earth, and so on. I think that in don g that he might have remembered to what
694
that referred. A week before, the late Lord Northcliffe, in his newspapers, had offered a prize of £10,000 for the first man who flew from London to Manchester. Punch was ridiculing that offer. It was an offer made by private enterprise. If you study the history of civil aviation in this country, you will find that it has never been pushed forward by arty Government in any circumstances, but always by enterprising individuals, both inside and outside the industry. This country owes much to the work of such men in the early days.
One of them was my noble friend Lord Brabazon, who figured as the winner of one of the prizes offered, I think, in 1908. He seems to have fallen since those days. He was full of initiative when he was a young man, but I suppose that age brings the desire to recline and let other people get on with the business. From the speech which he made I did not see any reason why he should not, besides presiding over the excellent Committee of which he is Chairman, move on to the Labour Front Bench; because I think that both he and Lord Reith would make excellent representatives of the Labour Party. No doubt we shall see them there in due course, if the Labour Party are there long enough.
In the course of his speech the noble Lord made what I may describe as an ideological statement. He said: "We do not want competition which indulges in greed at other people's expense." What did he mean by that? Was it an attempt at apology in advance for failure, so that the Government could come to the House on some future occasion and say "It is true that we have not very much business, but we were not very greedy; we let other people have a chance "? Is this a new version of turning the other cheek? That doctrine, wholly admirable in itself, fails to take account of the lamentably slow progress that has been made in human nature. I suggest that even if speculation and greed are not in the plan, there is no incentive of any sort that can be found in it either. It may be that people will be fond of their jobs and will work at them, but I think you will find that there will not he that incentive and that energy which we should have had under free enterprise.
I do not know whether the noble Lord thinks that our share of the shipping in-

695
dustry is too great. I believe that before 1914 we had two-thirds of the world's shipping, and that before the last war we had 40 per cent. Is it to be said that that is terrible, that it is much too great, that it is very greedy, and that we, as a small island, should not do that kind of thing? Is it to be said that about 5 per cent. is what we ought to have, according to our population and the size of our country? Why does not the noble Lord give the 35 per cent, away to some other country? That would only be acting on the kind of sentiment which he expressed in his speech. Is that the idea behind the principles which he is enunciating? If it is, we have a very unpleasant future to which to look forward. When I think of the miseries that we shall all have to share if this Government stay in office indefinitely I am dismayed.
There is not the slightest sign that I can see of any effort to restore our export trade. I dislike going back to the noble Lord's speech, to which I referred earlier, but he was very keen on the export trade in that speech. He said:
"I have said before, and I repeat, that if we are to have regard to the post-war period the most important task with which we shall be confronted will be the building of our export trade. Unless our export trade can be rebuilt, developed and expanded, then a great many of these utopian dreams of which we hear so much in the perorations of members of the Government will fade away and come to naught."
Those are Lord Winster's words, not mine. I thoroughly endorse every single word that he said. After all, the export industry is of immense importance, and we have to face the fact that we cannot expect our exports in any circumstances to equal our imports, unless we reduce the population of these islands. So long as we have a population of over 40,000,000 our imports will exceed our exports, and we shall be able to make up the difference only as we did before the war, by what are called our invisible exports. The noble Lord knows what I mean by that, because he talked about it in his speech. He knows that the principal item in our invisible exports, apart from our foreign investments, of which we cannot hope in the future to have more than a shadow, is our international transportation service, what we are going to get by our services to the world in shipping and in civil aviation. Those are our invisible exports, and
696
on those two things will depend the standard of life of our people in the future.
The noble Lord is taking a tremendous responsibility. He may become the most hated and execrated of men if he does not deliver the goods. I suggest that under his scheme your Lordships are taking a very considerable amount of responsibility, because you are going to be the shareholders' meeting. Lord Reith talked about shareholders' meetings and the desire for dividends which shareholders generally have. Are not your Lordships going to desire any dividends—not individually, of course, but as representing the nation? Are there to be no dividends whatever from civil aviation? Are we to go into a dividendless world in these nationalization projects? If so, I do not know how the noble Lord expects that he is going to balance the Budget.
I say quite frankly that I will have no part and parcel in this plan, and I shall continue to urge, even when it is passed, that it be repealed. I say that it is a purely Party plan and nothing else. I most sincerely hope that I shall hear from the Front Opposition Bench that the Party on this side of the House will not be tied to it at all, but will seek the first possible opportunity of destroying it and presenting a new plan. I believe most earnestly in continuity, but not in continuity purely on the principles of the Socialist Party. That is not a continuity which is going to be obtained from your Lordships' House. You can get a compromise, if you like, but not that sort of compromise. If you are going to produce for civil aviation a purely ideological plan, I say that when the time comes that there is a change of Government the Government that succeeds should not be tied to continuing the policy which has been put forward. I hope that when the Bill has been presented to this House we shall find it is greatly modified. If not, I will have no part in it. I shall protest from now on, and I hope that other noble Lords who feel as I do will seize the first opportunity, when circumstances permit, of taking steps to secure its repeal.
5.3 p.m.
EARL AMHERST: My Lords, I think it is right that I should say at once that in the remarks which I make to the House this afternoon I shall not necessarily be expressing the views of any particular Party or business interest. I

697
speak entirely as an individual. While the policy outlined by the Minister may not have received unqualified approval from all sides, at least we now have a policy. But, whatever the policy, then, are certain points to which I should like to draw the attention of the House, and which I submit require immediate action aril brook of no delay. In the debate on the 18th October the Minister stated that he had no intention of deviating from the agreed policy of working for order in tin air. I respectfully submit to him that on of the first steps he should take to achieve this order is the establishment of an overall Civil Air Navigational Control. At the present moment, I believe there are several control systems in use in this and in other European countries, by the R.A.F., to say nothing of that used by Americans. In fact, at the moment, if one has the temerity to fly in a cloud one does so at considerable risk of bumping into someone else who is not flying on the same system as yourself, and has as little knowledge of your whereabouts as you have of his.
I need not elaborate on the ultimate possibilities if such a situation is allowed to continue. As your Lordships know, an adequate and efficient control system necessitates the employment of a very large and highly skilled ground staff. There are many highly skilled technical control officers in the Royal Air Force, and I presume that it will be from the ranks of these that the Minister will first seek to set up our civil control staff. The Minister has said that the members of this stiff will be the employees of his Ministry, and so I would ask him if he is satisfied that the salaries now being offered are sufficient to attract the most highly skilled and desirable of those officers who are now leaving the R.A.F. or who may shortly be leaving it. As your Lordships know, control requires a system. I think it is inarguable that there is a distinct likelihood that the skies over this country and Europe generally will become crowded; and therefore I suggest that it is desirable, if disaster and disorder are to be avoided, that there should be but one single method of control.
The Minister recently told us that a study was now being made of the radar technique of navigation in so far as it night apply to civil aviation, and that especially refers to those areas of high
698
traffic density and to meeting the needs of regularity and of safety. I think it would be of great interest if the Minister could tell us if those studies have now reached a stage when he can say what is the system which has been decided upon, because this has direct reference to the equipment that must be installed in machines now being built as well as to the navigational training of the crews. I think it would be fair to argue that Europe and this country probably constitute one of the areas of high traffic density to which the Minister referred, and, the climate being what it is, I do hope that we shall hear, when the decision is announced, that it is in favour of the radar navigational system known as "GEE", probably used in conjunction with a localizer for approaches and landings in conditions of bad visibility or fog.
My reasons for hoping that "GEE" will be used are that, in so far as my information goes, it is the only system that is immediately available and that embraces all the following advantages and possibilities. In the first place, it provides a nearly indefinite number of beams upon which aircraft can fly. Secondly, it ensures virtually instantaneous and completely accurate self-positioning by the aircraft anywhere within the area covered by the lattice. I think it is right to say that a reasonably skilled operator can comfortably get an accurate position in something like thirty seconds or less. In the third place, an indefinite number of aircraft can use this system simultaneously. It provides a choice of either beam flying or navigation by positioning, or both. It will greatly simplify the job of the ground control officers in congested areas, as it will, or should, obviate the old tiresome business of stacking and orbiting over congested and busy areas in conditions of bad visibility. It can be used by both civil and service flying, thereby affording an economy and at the same time avoiding duplication of systems.
The invention and manufacture is British, therefore there should be no question of difficulties in obtaining foreign exchange. The ground chains set up by the Royal Air Force in the United Kingdom and Europe are still available, and the necessary equipment to be carried in the aircraft is immediately available in this country. Short of complete break-

699
down, the positions obtainable on this system are dead accurate. Lastly, I understand that in European aviation circles—at least so far as the nearer European countries are concerned—it is looked upon with considerable favour and that those countries would like to use it. This should make it easy to negotiate an agreement for one single control and also might have the advantage that, in due course, it would provide us with a useful and valuable item of export.
The Minister recently told us about Heathrow and of the progress that had been made, but he said that in the meantime it was intended to make the fullest possible use of Croydon as a supplementary airport. He qualified this statement by saying that he had come to an agreement with the Secretary of State for Air for part use of Northolt. I most respectfully suggest to him that not only will he require Northolt—all of Northolt and not half of it—and that in the very near future, but he will probably require a third supplementary aerodrome as well.
I think he would be ill-advised if he were to regard Croydon as anything but an emergency port in a storm—a hole in a corner and a very bad one at that. It would be interesting to hear from him if this agreement with the Secretary of State for Air is but on a purely temporary basis and based on the argument that Northolt is necessary to Transport Command's present operations. I think there is validity in that argument, but only for so long as Transport Command continues to act as a locum tenens until the civil corporations get on their feet. After that I think it will be difficult to argue that the operations of Transport Command will necessitate the use of an airport in the immediate vicinity of London, considering that the difficulties of finding a site are so great and at the same time bearing in mind that by its use they are depriving the civil corporations, who will after all be carrying the general public, of the use of a part of Northolt. I submit that there is no alternative to Northolt.
My last point is the question of personnel. The Minister has said that legislation will be required to deal with the Government policy. There will possibly be delay in such legislation. I submit that some machinery should be devised now to enable the civil corporations, or possibly
700
B.O.A.C. acting as a caretaker for them, to engage immediately the large amount of staff which will be necessary. There has been considerable talk to the effect that British civil aviation has been held back for lack of aircraft, but I submit to your Lordships that the provision of aircraft, airports, navigational control and even the negotiation of international agreements, will avail you little unless you have the trained personnel to operate the services. It may be of interest to your Lordships to know that on present assessment it has been estimated that it will take some ninety working days to put each flying crew as it is released from the Royal Air Force or the Fleet Air Arm through the necessary conversion and route training courses and, at the same time, to obtain their licences. That is an interesting figure when it is realized that the present plan for the first batch of services between this country and the nearer European countries call for no less than eighty new flying crews. Probably the first half dozen or so aircraft coming off the production line will have to be relegated to training for some time.
Then there are the engineers. They have to be retrained to civil progress and they also will have to be licensed. I take it that the same orders and regulations as we had before the war or something similar to them will still hold good. Then there are the traffic officers. The majority of these will be new to the ordinary commercial practice. I do not intend to reflect in any way on Transport Command when I say that the traffic officers leaving Transport Command to make civil aviation their business, will require training almost anew not only in documentation but also in psychology. The reason for that is that to date they have been to a large extent concerned in handling either personnel from the Services travelling on military orders, V.I.P's—very important persons—or persons travelling on Government business, few of whom travel on their own recognisance or who have paid for their own tickets. An entirely different approach in technique is required for handling the great general travelling public. Anyone who has had any direct dealing with the travelling public will, I am sure, bear me out when I say that.
All of this will take time, and I submit that we have no time to lose in making a start. There are also some valuable

701
personnel who have already left the Royal Air Force or who are shortly going to leave it, who wish to make civil aviation their profession, and they are qualified and should be able to do so. But their financial sands are running out rather fast. They wish to live by the air but they cannot live on air, and unless something is done to offer them immediate employment, or at least a promise of definite employment, they will, perforce, have to seek their livelihood elsewhere and their skill will be lost to the profession. In drawing your Lordships' attention to these points which require immediate action, I do not do so in a spirit of criticism but I hope that I may have beer of some slight assistance to the Minister who with the tremendous job in front of him should receive all and any help any of as can give to him.
5.18 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, when my noble friend who has just sat down commenced his interesting speech, he remarked that he spoke to your Lordship; as an independent. I repeat that remark from my own point of view and I would add to that, that I strive to approach the problem your Lordships have been debating from the standpoint of ail aeronautical engineer. Personally, I feet that the plan which has been submitted to your Lordships by the Minister of Air Transport is not one which is calculated to advance air transport in the manner in which those of us who have been engaged in it for many years past would feet to be suitable. If we may take a lesson from our friends in the United States of America, is it not useful to consider that from the year 1919 to the year 1931, no progress of any moment was made with air transport in the United States because the development was hampered by officialdom at every turn? Regulations, official instructions, Senatorial investigating committees and whatnot, were in the way. After a period of some ten years in which nothing was done, light came when the Civil Aeronautics Board was set up. The Civil Aeronautics Board had in parallel the Civil Aeronautics Authority, but it was the executive authority which carried out the policy laid down by the board. Maters took a very different turn and air transport in the United States and al over the world by United States operator; developed in a highly successful way, and,
702
as has been said in your Lordships' House to-day, is the example in design and operation which leads the world.
Therefore, I would have hoped that the Minister would have taken some note of the experience in the United States of America and tried to recreate a similar organization over here in parallel to that in the States which has been so successful, instead of repeating at a later date the same style of organization which has been proved in the United States of America over a period of ten to eleven years to be unsuccessful in promoting the vigorous development of air transport. As your Lordships will be aware, the Civil Aeronautics Board exercises the initiative in every possible manner, and sensibly controls enterprise, and we know the successful results of that policy. I would like to suggest that the Minister, in his reply, should let your Lordships know whether he proposes to set up two organizations, similar to those I have referred to, to wit, the policy-forming group, the Civil Aeronautics Board, and the executive authority, the Civil Aeronautics Authority. The latter group carries out the policy of the Board, and has a staff of many thousands scattered over the world. I think, too, that your Lordships would be interested to hear from the Minister when the R.A.F. control of air traffic in these islands and along the Empire routes, which was necessary during the war, is to end, and when such control will be handed over to the Civil Air Transport authorities.
Some reference has been made to transatlantic operations, particularly from the terminal angle over here, and one wonders why it is necessary to subject transatlantic passengers to a slow and tiresome motorbus ride from Hurn, or train journey from some neighbouring station, thus giving a fantastic picture of a traveller from New York to London passing some 25 to 3o per cent. of his elapsed time in a doddering train, or a rickety motor-bus. That seems quite fantastic, and I hope the Minister will be able to indicate that if, for example, Bovington, which is but an hour's motor run from London, cannot be used, Northolt, which is only 30 minutes away, should be used, ac has been suggested by the noble Earl who preceded me in this debate. If that is not possible, perhaps a better plan would be to use the only up-to-date airport that

703
exists in Great Britain, Prestwick, which has a remarkable weather record, and facilities which do not exist anywhere else for the looking after of passengers and the technical servicing of aircraft; and to have from Prestwick to Northolt a shuttle service which would take about two hours to run down here.
Since the noble Lord, Lord Winster, is so keen on State enterprise in air transport, one wonders why he allowed that splendid organization, the Air Transport organization, to be disbanded. There was an organization with a number of pilots, of both sexes, unequalled in their experience of moving aircraft over the islands, with a first-class ground organization, too. That organization has been disbanded, and the people therein scattered to the four winds. In the circumstances, I think it was a great mistake to allow an organization with such a splendid record of achievement at the back of it to be needlessly thrown away in this manner. Might I also ask the noble Lord, Lord Winster, to be a little more explicit in regard to the question of compensation? The noble Lord, in his speech at the commencement of this debate the other day, said that compensation would be arranged, where lines had to be taken over, for the stock in hand, but he was not very specific, although quite sympathetic, in his reference to the question of goodwill and development expenditure. Perhaps he will remember that when, for example, British Airways was taken over by British Overseas Airways, a fair sum was arrived at which covered equipment, expenditure on development, and goodwill.
In March of this year, there was a debate on the White Paper, which was then before your Lordships' House, in which a suggestion was interpreted that Allied Airways, operating in Scotland, which were specifically mentioned, were to be taken over and only compensated for the stock of aircraft in hand. Many remarks were made as to the unsuitability of this proposal, but nothing actually took place, and I hope the noble Lord has no intention of following out the proposal in that document. I would also like to ask the noble Lord, the Minister, whether he would agree that the State corporations should not operate charter services. He has stated that charter services are to be left open, and that is the only avenue left
704
open to private initiative. If, as would be easy, the State corporations are going to indulge in private charter operations, then there would be little, indeed, that the independents could do, and I hope the noble Lord will make that point clear in such a way as to indicate that State corporations will not engage in charter work in any circumstances.
Then, referring to the Committee presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, who spoke a short time ago, might I suggest, in respect to the developments which that Committee has recommended and which, perhaps, the Minister may already have taken action on, and any other development of air craft, that such aircraft, except in the smaller sizes, should be entirely powered with the gas turbine? The gas turbine, as your Lordships know, can be used for driving an aircrew, or for propelling the jet mechanism which is used in the record-breaking machines now waiting at Home Bay for fine weather. We, undoubtedly, lead in the design and development of the gas turbine, and it would be more than appropriate that the Minister should indicate very clearly that the reciprocating engine—it has given excellent service—is a thing of the past, and that the gas turbine is to be the prime mover in all future types of air transport machines.
Those of us interested in what is called, in the United States, "personal flying," or here "the light aircraft movement," were glad to hear that the Minister is to free light aircraft as from 1st January next. At the same time, he must know that there are no aircraft to use, and I wonder whether he has in view the release of a certain number of those small types, like the De Havilland Moth, which the R.A.F. have in large quantities, and which, at certain aerodromes, are rusting and rotting in the wind and rain. Would it not be appropriate that a certain number of those should be made available for the convenience of people who wish to fly about the country? In connexion with the light aeroplane movement, as a whole, perhaps the Minister may have something to say in regard to the continuation and increase of the subsidy which used to be paid, before the war that has just ended, to the light aeroplane clubs. I would ask the Minister to direct his attention to the fact. We in this country undeniably lead in the world of light aircraft. The first

705
types of light aircraft came from this country. They were designed, developed and manufactured here, and they were flown over the North and South Atlantic and over the world, by British and other pilots.
But at the present moment the situation is such that neither of the pioneer organizations, such as the De Haviland Company or the Miles Company, is able or is being encouraged by the Minister of Civil Aviation to do anything whatever in developing this type of machine. It might be that the exports of such aircraft would not be very large; none the less, they could be increased, and nothing, would be better for showing the flag o British enterprise in a technical sense over the world than the development of the light aeroplane of the 1946 model. I hope the Minister will give some attention to that.
When considering the subsidizing of light aeroplane plants, I hope he will con sider, in parallel with it, the subsidizing of the gliding clubs, which also are to be released. It is interesting, in connexion with gliding clubs, to note, as perhaps some of your Lordships may have noted that so great is the enthusiasm of the few who have sail planes in these days that, despite the official ban, they have been flying them over the past few months. Therefore one may, for once, congratulate the bureaucratic machine for adopting the Nelson touch and doing nothing much about it.
In connexion with the many developments that fall to the noble Lord, Lon Winster, to attend to, I think it would be well if he would remember that it the past developments that are now fitted to every type of aircraft which is used—for example, the retractable undercarriage, the variable pitch propeller, wing flap to assist taking off and to slow down landing, and the all-metal machine—were developments coming entirely from these Islands. Very little, however, was done about them from this angle, and they fell to be developed in other quarters. I hope the Minister will see to it that future developments—for example, the gas turbine—are developed in an effective way, and that all air transport now in design or under development are fitted with them.
5.34 p.m.
LORD SHERWOOD: My Lords, this debate started with a Party speech from the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye,
706
who made it clear he was speaking for his Party against nationalization. The debate then continued and you had later on from Lord Rothermere also a Party speech, in which he said that as soon as his Party got back they were going to tear up what has been now put into operation by the present Government.
VISCOUNT ROTHERMERE: I said I hoped so.
LORD SFIERWOOD: The noble Viscount said it was his intention and he hoped he was going to rouse those noble Lords who hold the same views as himself to carry out that idea. Well, I certainly hope he will fail, because I do not think you ought to take this as a purely Party question. We, who have had to deal with them, know the difficulties. The noble Lord, Lord Keith, twitted me for saving that I thought it was slightly quaint to hear criticism of Lord Winster for not having found a solution within three months. Lord Reith had done me the honour to read my speech, but he had not done Lord Balfour of Inchrye the same honour; otherwise he would have seen what it was to which I referred. I do think this is a very big question, and it is not quite fair to expect this Government to find a solution in the short space of three months to what has been a very difficult problem.
We are now faced with the present problem. The noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, to whom aviation owes a great debt, is rather in the position of the man who has rubbed the ring, produced the genii, and is terrified of what he has produced. It is not what he wanted, but now he has got it. You have got a Ministry of Civil Aviation: what is it going to do? You had the Swinton plan. I myself, as a member of that Government, was, of course, a party to that plan, but I have never hidden the fact that I cannot see that because the railways and the shipping companies are not brought into the present Winster plan it is necessarily going to be a failure. What have they done—these railways and shipping companies—during all these discussions? Let us hear what they have done. We know what they are doing and have got to do, both in shipping and in railways. I have been through the list of directors of these railway and shipping companies, and it does not give me any confidence that

707
they are the people who are going to put civil aviation where England expects it to be. Let us get it perfectly clear in our heads that if civil aviation is going to succeed we have to be completely air-minded about it. Without that we will not achieve anything.
There are going to be a great many difficulties. I have read with care the Minister's speech and what he said about the three corporations which he suggests should be set up. There were one or two figures I would like to have. After all, the B.O.A.C., as we know it by name now, has been going for a considerable time, and I should like to know what it is costing this country. We know it has something like 22,000 employees. We are now to have three corporations and there is going to be a great deal of cost in forming those companies, for aerodromes and machines. I think we should know and are entitled to be told what the one company we have now is costing us. Let us know what our position is going to be. I agree with Lord Brabazon that this idea of three corporations is not a sound one. I would prefer to see it under one head, and the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, did admit that there might be a change in that regard. I cannot see that three corporations are going to make for real benefit in working civil aviation. Let it be under one head, and if necessary have separate divisions; but I do not like the idea of three separate corporations.
The noble Lord, Lord Winster, referred to the tribunal to consider facilities, fares and rates of the United Kingdom lines. I would like to know whether this is going to be purely a Departmental or a more independent tribunal, whether it is going to have an independent chairman and what its terms of reference are going to be. I presume, however, that we shall have to wait for the White Paper before that can be explained. Lord Winster said that certain aerodromes would be taken over. With that I entirely agree because if the Government are going to make air a public enterprise they must obviously own the aerodromes, which are very costly. He also said that private charter was to be allowed and that private aerodromes for training would also be allowed. I would like to know what agreement is going to be made to ensure that these aerodromes which are not to be under
708
public control have the same benefits as those which are to be under the Government. In this country you cannot have some flying safe, some fairly safe and some dangerous; the whole of the benefits that science can dispense must be given to all who fly in the air.
As to Prestwick, I am glad the Government have taken the view they have. While it will no doubt bring pleasure to Scotland, the decision must be based purely on the question of whether it is a good aerodrome for transatlantic flights. After all, the customer is always right and it will be of no use for the Minister, or for anyone else, to say where anyone is going to land in this country, because if someone wants to fly to London he will fly to London. It is no good saying that Prestwick is to be the airport if people want to come to London, for they are the people who are going to decide.
I am not one of those people who believe that it is only by private enterprise that public work can he successfully carried on. However, a great deal devolves on the Minister. It is up to him to choose people with real initiative to drive forward these corporations and these plans. If he fails in that, then the whole scheme will fall. I do not believe that private enterprise can really come into civil aviation with benefit to the public. At the present moment I do not think there will be the money there. Anyone who knows anything of this subject knows that a modern aerodrome may cost you up to £5,000,000 if it is going to be properly equipped and used for public air transport such as you are going to get in the future. Then there is the cost of machines, the cost of training, the cost of wages, and the cost of compensation and insurance. I do not see any great profit in this, but I am quite certain that it can be made a success in this country in the hands of public enterprise if there is the right feeling throughout.
The Minister also mentioned one other thing which I should like to deal with in closing. He claimed he had now got in the Ministry of Supply the same equality for civil aviation as for the R.A.F. and the Fleet Air Arm. If it were the Ministry of Aircraft Production I would not mind so much, but I myself am not happy about aviation being handed over to the Ministry of Supply. There is one thing which frightens me and that is that

709
if those three bodies, the Royal Air Force, the Fleet Air Arm and Civil Aviation, are going to be divided in dealing with what their necessities are in the Ministry o Supply, you are not going to get the best service for aviation. I do hope that when he gets, as he claims, that right of a representative there, that representative will know that all three bodies, the Royal Air Force, the Fleet Air Arm and Civil Aviation, have one great thing to push forward in the Ministry of Supply— namely, research. I am not happy on the question of where that research now lies. The Minister has a great opportunity. I am not going to condemn him. I agree with the powerful speech of Lord Reith and I agree with Lord Brabazon. I do not agree with Lord Rothermere. I hope the Minister will succeed.
5.47 p.m.
LORD MORRIS: My Lords, I should like to ally myself with the very statesmanlike speech which we have heard afternoon from Lord Reith with which it very large measure I agree and also with what has fallen from Lord Sherwood It is a little late in the evening for oratory so all I will do, if I may, is to ask one or two questions of the Minister. If he feels that he has been given rather short notice to enable him to deal with them—although they arise out of his own statement when we last met—I shall be quit content to give him all the time he wants to answer them. The first question concerned with air terminals, and the second with the constitution of that hardy annual B.O.A.C., its board and its management.
First of all, with regard to air terminals, let me get this Prestwick question in its proper aspect by saying that I associate myself with what has just fallen from Lord Sherwood. I would put it a shade more strongly than he put it. Let us have no more of Prestwick, if that is possible. We heard this afternoon an appeal from the Earl of Glasgow that this place should be continued. So far as I know, it is an obscure Ayrshire burgh with a four-figure population, situated 400 miles from London, which is about one-fifth of the Atlantic crossing by the short route. As Lord Sherwood just implied, people who go to America will take off from wherever they want to and will come down here wherever they want to. They will make the choice.
710
To suggest that people living in the heart of the Empire are to go up to Prestwick on their way to America or to land there when they come back, is just Alice in Wonderland. It reduces the whole thing to an absurdity. When I want to go to America I propose to go there and not to go to Scotland first. I do not want to go to Ireland either; to Foynes or Rineanna or any of those other outlandish places. I want to go to America and the shortest route to America is, presumably, from some aerodrome situated conveniently near London, preferably non-stop, and not to go to Scotland or to Ireland first. I am a little afraid that some loyal member of the Principality of Wales will shortly be rising to say that if I want to go to Brazil I must first of all go to Cardiff and take off from there. We must be realistic about this. I appeal to the Minister to concentrate on the urgency—and it is a real urgency—of providing an aerodrome near London.
That brings me to Heathrow. Heathrow has rather worried me Last week the Under-Secretary of State for Air in another place was asked about Heathrow and this was his answer:
"The land upon which the present Heathrow aerodrome is constructed is divided between thirty-five ownerships."
That gives your Lordships some idea of the size of the place—
"Negotiations for purchase are in progress"—
they are just beginning to buy the place!
"and have, in a small number of cases, been completed."
I find that quite horrifying. It is no good blaming this Government for that.
"It would not, therefore, be in the public interest"—
that is an old one; we all recognize that—
"pending completion of the negotiations, to state what prices, are being paid for the land."
They are afraid of a public scandal, I suppose.
"I regret also that I cannot yet say when the land previously changed ownership or the prices paid per acre."
It is only fair to the Minister to say that when I raise that matter, as I may well do in the very near future, I am not going to be fobbed off with any of this public interest stuff. I shall expect the most specific and detailed answers, written if he likes, or given in a White Paper. I do not care how it is done. I

711
am deeply interested in Heathrow, a fogbound piece of land near Slough which has cost the taxpayers quite a lot of money. I would like the Minister to let us have all the information he possibly can about it.
We are apparently landed with Heathrow at the moment. It is near London. An immense amount of money has been spent on it. Let us try to make the best of it. I am told on very good authority that it has been laid out as a Royal Air Force aerodrome, and you will know what that means. It is equipped for military use. It has a ten-mile periphery, there is a huge track all round it, and the whole place is designed from a military angle. Its chief intention is dispersal of aircraft. The Minister knows all this much better than I do, but it is essential that the public outside should be made to understand all these things. Aircraft must be dispersed on a military aerodrome, but, after all, this is to be a civil aerodrome. There is a strong rumour that the war is over! The whole object of a civil aerodrome is to get aircraft together. Is this to be a civil aerodrome or a military one? If it is to be a military one, when is the Minister going to give orders for the concrete which is now being put down there, and the tracks which are being built up, to be stopped? If it is to be a civil one, when is he going to have steps taken to have Heathrow made into a proper civil aerodrome?
I am told, for example, that at the moment there are no inter-runway taxi strips there at all, that its use as a civil aerodrome is almost impossible, at any rate for a long time to come, and that no foreign airline in its senses would dream of using it, particularly if there are going to be military restrictions attached to its use. I hope that the Minister will look into that with the utmost speed.
One suggestion which I can offer him is that he should look into the suitability of Langston Harbour, near Portsmouth, where he would have at once at his disposal both a land and a marine airport. He could have flying boats as well as aeroplanes there. It is within a short distance of London and would be a vast improvement, pending the completion of Heathrow at any rate, on Hem, which is three hours from London, and Poole,
712
which is about the same distance away. These matters seem to me to be of great urgency and importance, because it is no use going on with civil aviation unless we can have close to London complete facilities for civil aviation, both land and marine.
I come now—I am afraid rather belatedly—to the second and undoubtedly the more important point about which I want to ask the Minister. It concerns the personnel of British Overseas Airways Corporation. When the Minister spoke last week, he said that he intended to strengthen the board of the B.O.A.C. I should like him to tell the House this afternoon what he means by the term "strengthen." Perhaps he does not attach the same meaning to the word as I do. I am afraid that my own view is that the board of B.O.A.C. is moribund, and that the time for injections has passed. I suggest to him that the proper thing to do is to scrap the board entirely, and allow Mr. Marchbank to return to his trade union, Sir Harold Howitt to his accountancy, Mr. Simon Marks to his department stores, and Miss Pauline Gower to her husband. I think that we want an entirely new set-up. I think we have now reached the stage when B.O.A.C. must be administered by people in the industry, or who have an intimate knowledge of the industry. The Minister, of course, cannot be blamed for the position; he did not appoint these people. They were appointed, I believe, by Sir Archibald Sinclair, for reasons which have been hinted at in another place but which I do not care to pursue tonight—it is too late. What does matter is that these people are manifestly unsuited for their work. It may be that the country owes them a great debt, and perhaps they are unpaid—I do not know. What I do say is that the time has surely passed—never mind arrived—when they ought to be replaced by whole-time workers who realize the magnitude of the task which they are undertaking, and who will be answerable to the Minister and through him to Parliament.
I would ask the Minister, when he replies, to give the House, and therefore the country, some indication of whether the "strengthening" which he proposes to administer to the board of B.O.A.C. will be extended from the board to the management; and there, I think, instead of "strengthening" one might employ

713
the word "cleansing." I think it altogether time that that Augean stable was cleansed, and I should like to know what the Minister has in mind with regard to that. What, for example, is he going to do with regard to Brigadier-General Critchley, who bestrides the world of civil aviation like a colossus, and has now done so, in my humble view, for quite long enough? I do not want to hear a eulogy of his powers as a "go-getter" and an organizer, because we have had that before; but how much longer is the British taxpayer to pay the salaries of Brigadier-General Critchley and his associates, and when is some effort going to be made by the present Government— they have not had much time, but they can "get cracking" now—to get hack into the service of this country some of the very able technicians—men, since air always asked to be more specific, like Woods-Humphrey, Burch all, Dismore, Walker, Mayo, Burke, Handover and Waugh—all of whom have left or been discharged from the service of this corporation in recent years and replaced by people who, if my information is correct, are totally unfitted for their posts and unable to carry out the work which they are supposed to do? I admit that I may have sprung all these matters on the Minister at rather short notice, but they do arise out of his own statement, an I they are of the greatest importance. If he cannot, reply in the detail which I should expect to-night, I would ask him to do so at no very distant date.
5.56 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I can address your Lordships again only with the permission of the House, and I am very grateful indeed for that permission. Your Lordships will agree that I have certainly had to listen to a great many speakers in the course of this two days' debate. At one time I felt that there were a great many hens for one rather small Christian, but I certainly have little of which to complain in any of the speeches which have been made. On the whole, it may fairly be said that they have been helpful, that criticism has been constructive, and that points have been brought forward which deserve the fullest consideration. There have been a certain number of wild and whirling words; a tilde thunder has played over my head—but I am not sure that it was not stage thunder—and there was a certain amount
714
of gnashing of teeth, but I got the impression that perhaps they were false teeth.
I shall deal first, if I may, with one or two of the points raised in the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. I would, of course, always pay the greatest attention to anything that he said on this subject of civil aviation, but I felt that his whole speech was based on the assumption that the existing surface interests will not be asked to contribute their help and experience in this matter. That belief, if indeed it exists, ignores my statement that I am initiating conversations with those very interests; and my personal view is that the surface transport interests will take a larger view of their public responsibilities than Lord Swinton appeared ready to credit them with willingness to do. The noble Viscount asked why the railways should be discarded, but again I would refer him to the terms of my statement. I think the confusion in his mind is exemplified by the fact that he said: "All this is to go by the board. The travel agencies are to go by the board." And, having asserted that they were all to go by the board, he proceeded to ask me a question: "Are those agencies to be discarded or are they not?" I think I am entitled to say that there was a certain amount of confusion in his mind at that time as to my intention, and that he had not fully appreciated the passage in my speech which dealt with the point.
Again, he asked whether this was to be a sealed-pattern management, a sealed-pattern scheme. I had most carefully indicated in my speech that I am opposed to the sealed-pattern scheme, to the sealed monopoly, and that I want to have several methods of approach to civil aviation questions. He then asked me who was going to order the aircraft. I know that that is an important point, but I think that there are some considerations which are more important even than the question of who orders the aircraft. The all-important question, to my mind, is whether the aircraft incorporate the features that the operator wants; and, to enable him to find out what he wants, the operator and manufacturer should be in the very closest touch. That again I made clear in my speech on October 18.
The noble Viscount went on to say that airlines from almost every country in the

715
world were beginning to fly in here, and he asked under what agreements they were operating, whether there was reciprocity, and when we were going to start. We shall start when we have the aircraft. At the moment, comparatively few of these countries are flying in. Those which do are operating under agreements which provide for full reciprocity as soon as the aircraft are available. The noble Viscount said: "I should have thought it is about time we tried to make up for lost time." What is there in my proposals which will delay production of aircraft by one single day? Most certainly, it is in the production of aircraft that there is delay at the present time.
The noble Viscount does not like my plan; one ground on which he objects to it being that the surface transport interests are not allowed any financial participation in it. He prophesies woe on that account. May I ask the noble Viscount why it is he thinks that what he agreed would work in the case of the B.O.A.C. will not work in the case of the European and South American corporations which I am proposing to set up?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I can answer that in a sentence. The B.O.A.C. is interested only in the air. The shipping concerns and the railways are interested both in surface transport and in air transport. There is all the difference in the world between inviting those interests to come in as partners, so that they will be equally interested in the success of the airlines, and in making the air organizations their competitors.
LORD WINSTER: The B.O.A.C. is a publicly owned corporation, and the noble Viscount assigned to that corporation the Empire routes, and perhaps the most important route of all, the North Atlantic route, the great prestige route of the future—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: With the shipping interests as partners.
LORD WINSTER: The shipping interests are certainly concerned, but the noble Viscount has not brought in shipping interests as partners on these routes.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am sure we do not wish to have a debate on this point, but perhaps I may be permitted
716
to say, as the noble Lord has appealed to me, that if he will read the White Paper he will realize this, and I am sure that if he asks members of the Departmental staff he will be told the same thing. In every discussion that took place in this House and elsewhere I made it absolutely plain that on the Atlantic route, the route to the Dominions, and the route to West Africa, shipping lines would be brought in as partners, financial partners, of the B.O.A.C.
LORD WINSTER: They would be invited. But the B.O.A.C. has been operating routes without partners, and operating them with complete success. The B.O.A.C. has been operating one of the most difficult air routes in the world. It has done what nobody else has done and has operated a transatlantic service winter and summer, and it is operating the longest and fastest service which is running at the present time to the Far East. If a publicly owned corporation has shown the ability to do that, I cannot understand why other corporations under public ownership should not, similarly, be able to make a complete success of their work.
The noble Lord, Lord Rennell, raised a point of substance with which I would like to deal. I notice that he was aggrieved because the Government did not reveal their plan to him in advance. That, of course, was a very sad omission on the part of the Cabinet. I am sure that the Government feel very sorry about it and will take very great care that such a thing does not happen again. Lord Rennell also raised this point. He said if there is not enough traffic to fill the aircraft on a route and shipping on the same route, who is to decide which of the two is to get what passengers there are or how many of them each shall get? I think that that question displays a considerable amount of simplicity because, of course the passengers, themselves, will decide and the capacities will be adjusted accordingly. We shall find out by means of the traffic statistics how many wish to travel by one method and how many wish to travel by another, and the capacities will be adjusted accordingly. But competition in the air must be met in the air.
Now I come to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. I think that your Lordships have benefited from the fact that he decided not to speak on

717
Thursday but has spoken to-day. He has had the advantage of having the weekend in which to prepare his impromptus and to polish his epigrams, and your Lordships are, of course, the gainers as the result. I need only say that I hope that civil aviation will never suffer by reason of any sins of commission on my part what it suffered through sins of omission on the part of the noble Lord. I think that his speech was rather highly coloured. He said that we have decided that public ownership should be the overruling principle in civil aviation. But he went on to use words which I understood —and I apologize in advance if I misunderstood the noble Lord—to mean that we were making that principle of public ownership an overriding principle and regarding safety as secondary to it.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I quoted the words of the noble Lord, Lord Winster, when I said that the Government have decided that public ownership shall be the overruling principle. I say that it seems to me that, according to the noble Lord's words, the ruling motive is to be the fulfilment of the theory of public ownership, and not safety, or efficiency or anything else.
LORD WINSTER: Then my recollection is right. But does the noble Lord's interpretation really mean that he thinks we are making public ownership an overriding consideration and putting safety in a secondary position? No. I am very glad indeed that the noble Lord signifies that he does not. But why were the words used if it was not in an endeavour to give that impression? Then the noble, Lord referred to the fact of Government nominees being put on the board. He spoke as if they might be put on the board one day and removed on the next in the most capricious fashion possible. He also spoke about "phoney" boards. That was a most unworthy remark. Why is the noble Lord trying in advance to prejudice the composition of these boards by talking about them as "phoney"?
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Because I think your scheme is rotten.
LORD WINSTER: First we are told that the Government are neglecting safety in favour of the principle of public ownership, next that boards are to be "phoney" boards. I think it is a pity
718
that the attempt should be made to excite these prejudices. The noble Lord said that a question has been raised in Parliament about individual cases of complaint. If he will look at the reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary he will see it was to the effect that if specific cases of complaint are brought to his notice the Minister will feel it his duty to refer them to the chairman and to ask him to investigate them fully. The noble Lord also seemed to be concerned about the Minister having to answer in Parliament. He said that if the Minister is to answer in Parliament he must control policy in all matters. He says there must be no dividing line, and that I would not be able to say that I would answer for this or for that. I should be in exactly the same position as the noble Viscount was in with regard to the B.O.A.C. I have made it perfectly clear that I shall regard it as the duty of the Minister to keep the corporations in line with the national policy of the Government, and to keep the corporations also in step with the general policy of the Ministry of Civil Aviation. I further said I should not regard it as part of the Minister's duty to interfere with the day-to-day administration of the corporation. If the noble Lord would like me to substitute the word "management" for "administration," and to say that I would not regard it as my duty to interfere with the day-to-day "management" of the corporations, I am quite willing to do so.
The noble Lord asked me what is the hidden purpose about what I said about charter flying. He seemed to think that I had some sinister purpose in allowing the corporation to run charter flying. I said specifically that I would allow no monopoly to the corporation, which I think would be a very clear indication that I did not wish to knock private flying on the head. Why did the noble Lord draw a picture of the American pilot flying with better equipment? The noble Lord knows perfectly well that no pains will be spared to see that our pilots have the finest equipment in the world, and he must know that every effort is being made to standardize equipment. He knows that there can be no possible question of the American pilot flying with better equipment. The speech was calculated from the beginning to the end; it was designed to

719
arouse prejudice. I have no objection to a speech which takes objection to my policy, but a speech which aims, by the use of every subtle form of phrase, to arouse prejudice of that sort does very little for the cause of civil aviation.
I have had a number of questions addressed to me and I must try to answer as many of them as I can. The noble Lord, Lord Reith, addressed four questions to me. Before answering them, may I thank him for the many kind references he made to myself? Speaking of the corporations, he asked if the same freedom in management, subject only to essential periodic direction and reference, would be followed. I think I really answered that question in what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. He also asked whether the corporation would be allowed to communicate and do business direct with other concerns. I should regard that as coming under the heading of what I would call the day-to-day management of the business. Therefore the answer in that respect is certainly Yes.
He also asked whether the Minister will be personally available to the Chairmen and again my answer is Yes. It would be my intention, as I have made it my practice with the Chairman of B.O.A.C., to be most fully accessible to the Chairmen of the Corporations. It would be my wish that they should come to see me as freely as possible. The noble Lord also asked if I would consider the creation of some body above the corporations, something in the nature of a Civil Aviation Board to be there between myself and the corporations. Certainly I will take that point into consideration. As a matter of fact, I have had something of that sort under consideration at the moment, but it is only under consideration and must make it clear that I have come to no decision on that point whatever. The point put to me by the noble Lord will be most fully borne in mind. The noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: May I ask the noble Lord to elaborate that point? If he sets up that supreme body above these three corporations, would that supreme body be responsible for policy and direction, in which case the three corporations would become merely subsidiary companies of the supreme authority?
LORD WINSTER: The noble Lord is making an assumption and putting an entirely hypothetical question. I said that the question addressed to me by Lord Reith contained a suggestion which has been put to me from other quarters and it is receiving full consideration. May I tender in person to the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, the congratulations which I tendered in his absence on the successful outcome of his struggles to establish a Ministry of Civil Aviation? He asked how we were going on in concluding bilateral agreements. I said last Thursday that many negotiations are going on with regard to the conclusion of bilateral agreements. As regards America there are interim agreements by which we are allowing the American airlines to come in. I think those arrangements are on a most generous scale. We wish in every way to facilitate this and we are endeavouring, to the best of our ability, to secure the most suitable airports for their reception. In what the noble Marquess said about the use of American aircraft, I think it may be just possible that he may have overlooked the withdrawal of Lease-Lend. That does, of course, affect the position.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I was really speaking of future arrangements.
LORD WINSTER: That will depend upon dollars. I noticed with great interest what the noble Marquess said about the spread of air-mindedness and what has been done in the schools in America. I think all those points were of real importance and I will make it my business personally to bring this to the notice of my right honourable friend the Minister of Education. Lord Brabazon of Tara made a very characteristic speech. I was sorry for him that his opening joke fell so terribly flat but I support the noble Lord, Lord Reith, in what he said on that point; his quotation of the couplet was correct. Lord Brabazon quickly recovered his ground and complained bitterly about my peroration which had evidently stunned him very much. I thought it was an excellent peroration and when I listened to it on the wireless at 10.45 the same night, I realized all over again what an excellent peroration it was. Lord Brabazon compared it with the Sermon on the Mount; I thank him. The noble Lord said that uplift may be wanted in the Lower House, hut is not wanted

721
in your Lordships' House, and generally the noble Lord thanked God that he was not as other men. I know that Lora Brabazon has always been a stern enemy of moral uplift and no doubt he has beet a much happier man on that account, if not a better man.
He did not like me stereotyping the three corporations but he overlooked the fact that I had retained discretion to erect more. He said some corporations would pay and others would not, and those which did not would feel discouraged. I do not despair of finding a system of accountancy which will enable me to explain what is involved to Parliament and to the public in a manner which will put that completely right and which will remove any sense of frustration on the part of such a corporation. He administered a very well deserved snub to me for saying that I proposed to continue the Brabazon Committee instead of saying that I proposed to ask Lord Brabazon to continue the Committee. I apologize now and. I will put it in that way. I hope the noble Lord will continue to give the assistance which has been so very valuable to the cause of civil aviation. I think I have already answered his point that operators must say what they want, and I hope what I have said on that subject will satisfy him.
The noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, was kind enough to send two questions to me, which formed the main part of his speech. The first was about the nature of air services to be operated from Prestwick overseas. B.O.A.C. intend to operate a transatlantic air service, via Prestwick, but the number of services operated will depend on the traffic offering. It is not yet possible to forecast what the volume of that traffic will be. Similar remarks apply to other possible British overseas services from Prestwick. As regards foreign operators, the Swedes have asked permission to use Prestwick this winter for a series of experimental flights across the Atlantic, and that permission has been given. The noble Earl's second question was that he would be glad of enlightenment on the statement that Scotland will be able to play its full part in civil aviation, both in regard to services and airports. He asked whether Scottish operators are to be allowed to operate such services, or will they be operated—and here comes in
722
King Charles's Head—by a Whitehall-directed monopoly? The services will, of course, be operated by one of the corporations to be formed, and I can say that full advantage will be taken by that corporation of the experience existing in Scotland. I am sure that Scottish intelligence and labour will be used to the full, but, again, that seems to me to be a matter which would fall within the framework of that day-to-clay management of the corporation, which, as I have said, the Minister should very largely leave alone.
The noble Viscount, Lord Rothermere, fairly took the cane to me, and he came down with a terrific quotation from a speech which I had made in the course of a debate on civil aviation. I listened to it with great pleasure, and I thought it was an admirable speech, or, at any rate, an admirable extract. I hope the rest of the speech was as good. From my recollection of what the noble Viscount was kind enough to read to me, I am not sure that there is anything in it to withdraw, but I will say at once, with native caution, that I must have a look at it in print before I affirm that. He admits that my speech was aimed at eliminating unnecessary competition between two forms of transport. I adhere to that view, and it is for that very reason that I said, last Thursday, that I am initiating conversations with other surface interests in order to see that unnecessary forms of competition may be avoided. But I did not like what the noble Viscount said next. He took the word "integration" out of my speech, and said I was using that as blackmail, as a threat to the shipping companies before I entered on these conversations. The noble Viscount must allow me to say that that was a very unworthy remark, and that it was equally unworthy to try to prejudice these conversations by reading into words used in my speech meanings which do not exist there at all. I strongly resent it being insinuated that I use the word "integration" as blackmail or as a threat to the shipping companies before I enter into conversations with them.
The noble Viscount said he could find no incentive to anybody in this plan. I can agree that there is no incentive of a nature that would appeal to the noble Viscount. I thought his speech was full of similar small debating points, and the noble Viscount has been speaking as the

723
representative of private enterprise, croaking "Woe, woe," in the accents of reaction ever since the Labour Government was returned to power. In reply to his attempt to scare the life out of me by saying that one day I might find myself the most hated and execrated of men because of what I am doing about civil aviation, may I advise the noble Viscount to read the poem about the Jackdaw of Rheims? I, like the jackdaw, do not feel a penny the worse for his terrible curse. I shall await with great interest the appeal of the noble Viscount to his Front Bench to reject this Bill.
The noble Earl, Lord Amherst, made a most valuable and interesting contribution to the debate. I would like to express my regret that he did not send me notice of some of the questions, because I should have liked to have had the opportunity of answering them. I think it would be best if the noble Earl would come to see me at the Ministry about control and the study of radar technique. If he would call, we could have a talk about these things, and he would also have the opportunity of having a word with the technical experts dealing with these things. I think he must know how very actively those matters have been dealt with by the Ministry of Civil Aviation, thanks largely to my predecessor the noble Viscount.
The noble Earl spoke about aerodromes. I am quite conscious that I shall require more than Northolt, and I am out to get more. These matters are being examined at the present moment, but I think it is right for me to say that my noble friend the Secretary of State for Air does recognize my needs in this matter, and is being extremely helpful about them. I would not like the noble Earl to think there is any conflict between my noble friend and myself on this point. He also raised the point about the necessity of taking early steps to get on with the training of crews, and the necessity, for those who have been doing military flying, to do conversion-training courses before taking up civil flying. They are all important points which, I assure him, are not overlooked. If I may say so, I appreciate the spirit in which he spoke and found his speech very interesting.
The noble Lord, Lord Sempill if I got it right—raised the point about the time
724
used in travelling between aerodromes and the destinations to which passengers want to go. That is a very important point. I am happy to tell the noble Lord it has come to the attention of my Ministry, and that they do recognize it is a serious matter. In fact, I think it used to be regarded as a serious matter before the war. I remember flying to Paris twenty or twenty-five years ago, and it was regarded as a serious matter then, but the solution of it is very difficult. The Air Transport organization was disbanded after rendering a splendid service, the war-time ferrying service, and it deserves every testimonial and every praise which could be given to it. It was disbanded because it was felt that the justification for its existence had ceased.
As regards compensation, the statement I have made on that will be elaborated in the White Paper which I shall be issuing, and, after that, the details of it will be embodied in legislation which will be presented, when there will be every possibility of discussing the matter. The noble Lord asked me—in the course of a debate like this it is really a very large order—to give him an assurance that, in future, all the larger Brabazon types of aircraft should be powered by gas turbines, and that I should regard reciprocating engines as things of the past. I cannot imagine that the noble Lord really expects me to give an answer to that in the course of a debate covering such a very wide field, but, as I said in my first statement in this House in October, in reply to the noble Viscount, this question of jet propulsion and of gas turbines is, of course, the subject of daily, hourly, study at the present moment, and the possibilities are being most fully borne in mind. As regards private flying and the release of small types, such as Moths, the answer I have to give is that that forms part of the whole disposal-of-surplus policy which has yet to be decided.
Then the noble Lord, Lord Sherwood, asked me what B.O.A.C. is costing this country. Again I do not think he expected me to give him an answer offhand to-night, but I appreciate the force of what lies behind the question. As I have already said, we must aim in every possible way at efficient and economical operations, and those matters will be kept most strictly under review by myself. He also raised the point whether airfields not

725
in public ownership would have the same safety regulations as aerodromes in pubic ownership. I cannot say that the provisions will be exactly the same—they might naturally vary between a very big aerodrome and a smaller one—but safety provisions will be insisted upon, whether the aerodrome is in public ownerships or private ownership.
With what he said about research again I am most fully in agreement. It is a matter of the utmost importance, and my view is, as I have already said, that I think research should be centralized. I do not see the necessity or advisability of setting up separate research establishments. I believe in a centralized research establishment, but it is essential that civil aviation should get its share of research, that it should be able to ask for research to be carried out upon a particular subject and also he entitled to demand that nobody should be taken off that particular piece of research in order to be put out some other research which another interest wishes to press.
Lord Morris raised two points, the first of all being the question of Heathrow, and I gather that he thinks Heathrow is a bad choice.
LORD MORRIS: No, not necessarily. It depends what you are going to do about it. I would not have chosen it myself, but I made it quite clear that I did not hold you responsible for choosing it.
LORD WINSTER: Thank you. I appreciated that point. Still, I felt you found objections to Heathrow.
LORD MORRIS: So much public money has been sunk in it that I realize we must get on with it. What I asked was, are, you getting on with it?
LORD WINSTER: Yes, we are pushing, ahead with Heathrow, which, as I have said, will be the main London terminal. We are full of confidence that when Heathrow is completed it will be a really fine airport which will be able to compare favourably with any other main terminal airport in the world. Finally, Lord Morris came back to a second point of which he disapproved—namely, the board of tin B.O.A.C., both as a board and individually. I remember a debate on this matter in your Lordships' House. Well, I will not go into this matter to-night, at the end of this debate. But, the noble
726
Lord used a phrase about cleaning up an Augean stable. I say that I am not going to listen to anything in the shape of general assertions in this matter. My own personal opinion is that to make these vague and general assertions which are in completely vague and general terms and therefore most difficult for those attacked to reply to, is not the right manner to go about ventilating any feelings one may have of a public corporation of the nature of B.O.A.C. I will only say that I will listen to no vague assertions on this matter.
My Lords, I apologize for having spoken at such length—
LORD MORRIS: May I interrupt for one moment? I am most reluctant to do it, because I know how maddening it is to have one's trend of thought broken. It is true that the allegations I made have been vague, but to-day I did give at least half a dozen names of people who have been dismissed from the B.O.A.C. since this new command, shall I call it, took over. I am not the only person with a bee in his bonnet on this particular subject. As the noble Lord is aware, the matter was raised twice in another place only last week. It is very easy to dismiss these things in this way. The noble Lord has dismissed the matter of Heathrow and my attack and questions in a sentence. The noble Lord begs your Lordships not to make this a political issue. It is not a political issue. It is not right to try to make out that I am actuated by Party motives. I do not want to go against the Government, but the Minister must not make it impossible for me to do otherwise. To pretend that all is right, when all has not been right with the Corporation for a long time, is only treating us as children, and you cannot do that—not with me at any rate.
LORD WINSTER: I made no statement of interested motives, but I say that when charges are made against the B.O.A.C. board, and individuals on that board, I am not prepared to proceed on the strength of such general assertions.
LORD MORRIS: I made no charge against the board at all.
LORD WINSTER: I apologize for having addressed your Lordships at very great length and, on this occasion, at what I feel we may fairly describe as

727
"this late hour." I am sure my speech must have been dry and tedious to listen to, but that is inevitable when there have been thirteen or fourteen speakers in one debate and one is trying to answer, as fully and freely as possible, their questions. I know the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, has a grievance against me because I have not replied to the questions he put in the debate earlier, but I must correspond with him; I cannot detain your Lordships any longer. I apologize for having addressed your Lordships for a second time, but this has really been a helpful debate which will give the Minister of Civil Aviation much food for thought and will assist him in his future efforts in this matter.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I feel we all agree we have had a very helpful discussion, and we are extremely grateful to the noble Lord. He stated just now that he would be publishing a White Paper shortly. I would like to tell him, here and now, that as soon as it is published we shall be putting down a Motion on the subject. With those few words I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

VETERINARY EDUCATION.
6.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOEhad the following questions on the paper:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the crying need for a substantial improvement in the relatively low quantity and quality of our home milk supply which is admittedly due in no small measure to the prevalence of preventable bovine disease and the paucity of qualified veterinarians in this country, it is proposed, without further delay, to carry into effect the recommendations of the Reports of the Love-day Committee on Veterinary Education in Great Britain, the last of which was published in April, 1944.
To ask His Majesty's Government whether, in implementing the recommendations of the Loveday Committee on Veterinary Education in Great Britain, they will consider favourably, in view of the high number and value of farm livestock in the Principality of Wales and the extreme paucity of its qualified veterinary
728
practitioners, the establishment of a School of Veterinary Science in the University of Wales in addition to those contemplated at Cambridge and Bristol Universities.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to put the two questions standing in my name, and perhaps I might be allowed, in doing so, on behalf of the agricultural Peers in this House, to welcome the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, to the Front Bench and to wish him all success.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON): My Lords, I should like first to convey my thanks to the noble Viscount for his compliments and good wishes and to assure him that I appreciate them very much indeed. I hope that we shall be able to hear and to avail ourselves of the extremely valuable advice and experience of the agricultural Peers in the rather difficult days ahead.
In answer to the noble Viscount's first question, I should like to say that my right honourable friend, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, is aware that diseases of dairy cows are responsible for a heavy loss of milk, much of it avoidable, and he is fully alive to the importance of extending and improving the Veterinary services of the country with a view to reducing this and other losses. The noble Viscount, being familiar with the recommendations of the Loveday Committee, will also be aware that some of them relate to matters on which there are divergent, but firmly held, opinions within the veterinary profession. The Loveday recommendations have been under discussion for some time with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the universities concerned, but so far agreement has not been reached. My right honourable friend still hopes, however, to avoid the unfortunate position that might arise if he found himself compelled to proceed without the support of some of those concerned, and he has, in fact, invited representatives of the Royal College to see him as soon as possible in the hope of arriving at a satisfactory solution.
In answer to the second question I should like to say that the Loveday Committee recommended that, in addition to veterinary schools at the four existing centres in Great Britain, two new schools

729
should be established within the Universities of Cambridge and Bristol, respectively. The Committee considered representations urging the establishment of a veterinary school in Wales, but reached the conclusion that the school at Liverpool University would continue to attract students from North Wales, and that the proposed new school at Bristol, in addition to catering for South-West England, would also meet the needs of South Wales. The Committee added, however, that if further schools were needed!, Wales, among other areas, would have to, be further considered. The provision of the two new centres at Cambridge and Bristol would result in a substantial increase in the output of veterinary graduates and my right honourable friend is of opinion that the establishment of still further centres should not be necessary at present.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords. I have to thank the noble Earl for his reply. I give notice that in the course of the next three months I shall open a debate cm this subject.

  DISPLACED PERSONS IN BRITISH ZONE.
  DISPLACED PERSONS IN BRITISH ZONE.