Sitting of 21 November 1945

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

OLD AGE PENSIONS (PETITION)
Mr. Thomas Brown: Mr. Speaker, Sir, I submit a petition on behalf of the British Federation of Old Age Pensioners Associations of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Petition is signed by approximately 6,000,000 adults over the age of 21 and calls for the speedy introduction of legislation to ameliorate the suffering and hardships now being experienced by over 4,000,000 old age pensioners.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that legislation should be passed forthwith for the relief of old age pensioners, and of those who may hereafter become entitled to old age pensions, by raising the basic rate of the old age pensions to the extent necessary to meet the essential amenities of life, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition to lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Demobilisation
    Mr. Rankinasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of ex-aircrew personnel who have become redundant in their own trade and have been forced to remuster as equipment assistants; if he is aware of the discontent caused by this in view of the fact that by the latest promulgation the release of equipment assistants will only have reached Group 22 by the middle of January 1946, whereas the majority of other trades will be released up to Group 27 by this date.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Strachey): About 3,075 aircrew have been reallocated to the trade of equipment assistant. They have not been remustered and are therefore released in accordance with their aircrew status—not as equipment assistants. I think that this help to the hard-pressed equipment branch is fully justified.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that there are men who, as the result of war injury, are being remustered from their trades to general clerical duties and so losing their place in the "demob" queue? Will he allow them to retain the "demob" place that they would have had if they had not been remustered as a result of war injury?
    Mr. Strachey: There may have been some remustered earlier on when re-mustering was in force; that, of course, has been stopped.
    Mrs. Castle: I understand that.
    Mr. Strachey: If the hon. Lady will give me instances, I will look into them.
    Mr. Hurdasked the Under secretary of State for Air why, in calculating the period of service in the R.A.F. of those men or women formerly serving as civilians in the meteorological office, a distinction is drawn between those who were given commissions in the R.A.F. and their former assistants who hold non commissioned rank.
    Mr. Strachey: Meteorological assistants once called up did not revert to civilian status. The ordinary rules for reckoning service therefore apply to them. Meteorological officers who held civilian appointments have served as mobilised officers or as civilians during war-time depending on their place of work. At one time a meteorological officer might be in the Air Force, later a civilian again. We therefore think it was fair to count all their war-time service in determining their order of release. There were also a few women who first served as civilians in the meteorological office and who later became officers in the W.A.A.F. They were not liable to revert to civilian status as a result of posting and so there was no need to vary the normal rule for them.
    Mr. Hurdasked the Undersecretary of State for Air when he expects that the reallocation of manpower in

    409
    the R.A.F. will allow complete parity in demobilisation between the different trades.
    Mr. Strachey: I cannot say, Sir. That depends on the speed of general demobilisation in the New Year. The faster we are able to go the more difficult it will be to achieve complete evenness between trades.
    Commander Maitlandasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many men over 40 years of age in groups whose release has been suspended are still overseas serving in the accounts section of the R.A.F.
    Mr. Strachey: I am afraid that we could not get these figures without imposing an extra load on those very statistical sections which are already overburdened with work on the release programme. But in all, 2,864 men in the accounts section of the R.A.F. have had to have their release postponed in a greater or less degree.
    Mr. Watkinsasked the Undersecretary of State for Air why physical training officers are not allowed to take advantage of the Class B release.
    Mr. Strachey: Physical training officers are not barred from Class B releases, and a few have actually been released under Class B. But their rate of release under Class A has had to be somewhat retarded. So we try to find our Class B releases from other trades, in order to help in bringing up the Class A releases of physical instructors to the average.
    Mr. King: Has the hon. Gentleman received any representation through the Ministry of Education on the shortage of physical training instructors?
    Mr. Strachey: Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. T. J. Brooksasked the Undersecretary of State for Air what percentage of teachers as meteorological officers have been released under Class B and, taking release as a whole under Class A and B, what has been the percentage loss to the meteorological service and the percentage released to return to other jobs, respectively.
    Mr. Strachey: Four per cent. of the teachers who during the war entered the Service as meteorological officers have
    410
    been released in Class B. Up to the end of November, releases under Classes A and B are 7 per cent. of the wartime entrants. I am unable to divide this percentage between those returning to the teaching professions and other occupations since I have no information as to the jobs to which men released in Class A have returned.
    Mr. Brooks: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these meteorological officers state that, at both home and abroad, they are more liberally staffed than they need be; and is he aware that a number of these officers are being sent out—who ought to be doing useful work in this country—when they are likely to be demobilised about January, and is not this a waste of time and energy?
    Mr. Strachey: The shortage of meteorological officers means serious difficulties in the air trooping programme, and I do not think that the facts bear out the view that there is any overstaffing.
    Mr. Brooks: That is my information, from men on the spot.
    Flying-Officer Bowdenasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that Transport Command are holding back aircrews from release under Class A after their release groups have been promulgated, and will he make inquiries and take steps to stop this.
    Mr. Strachey: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply on 14th November to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson). These aircrews are, of course, being held under the Military Necessity Clause.
    Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: Was it shortage of aircrews which made it necessary for the Prime Minister to travel in an American plane?
    Mr. Strachey: That is another question.

    Air Trooping Route (Spare Parts)
    Commander Maitlandasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is satisfied that the supply of aircraft spare parts sited along the air routes between Britain and the Far East is sufficient to avoid delay in the operation of the air transport service on that route; and, if not, what action he proposes to take.
    Mr. Strachey: It has been difficult to accumulate adequate supplies of spare parts all along the 5,000-mile air trooping route; but on the whole the services have been maintained.
    Commander Maitland: Can the Minister say whether this reduction in spare parts has reduced the rate of demobilisation? If so, to what extent, and, more important still, has it led to any insecurity in regard to the air transport position on these lines?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. The difficulty has been to get the spare parts properly distributed along the long route at the staging posts, and that is certainly one of the things we have had to face in the trooping programme, but safety has certainly not been sacrificed.
    Mr. Walter Fletcher: Does not the Minister think that any insecurity which arises is much more likely to come from the strain on personnel?
    Mr. Strachey: I think that is a very possible cause of it.

    Turnhouse Aerodrome
    Sir William Darlingasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is able to indicate the future of the aero drome at Turnhouse in relation to the capital of Scotland.
    Mr. Strachey: I expect that No. 603 (City of Edinburgh) Auxiliary Air Force Squadron will retain Turnhouse as its peacetime home. I understand that the Ministry of Civil Aviation is also examining Turnhouse as a possible civil airport for Edinburgh.
    Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: Can the Minister expedite a decision on its possible use as a civil airport, as this matter is one of great importance and interest to the corporation and people of Edinburgh?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. I am afraid that is not within my province.

    Singapore (Conditions)
    Mr. Edelmanasked the Under secretary of State for Air whether mosquito nets and bush hats have now been issued to 5714 M & E Flight, R.A.F., Singapore, S.E.A.A.F.; whether he will inquire into the measures taken on 12th October at Tanga aerodrome to establish
    412
    order in a queue for tea; and whether he will take action in order to improve conditions at this airfield, particulars of which have been sent to him.
    Mr. Strachey: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's Question is, "Yes, Sir." I have already told the House that I am well aware of the very rough conditions which met the R.A.F. Units which on the collapse of Japan were diverted to Singapore, and that active steps have been taken to improve matters.

    Compassionate Applications
    Lieut.-Colonel Sharpasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will ensure that disciplinary action is taken against commanding officers who fail to deal promptly with applications for compassionate release from the R.A.F.; and what is the normal time elapsing between the unit's receipt of the completed C Class release application form and the decision of his department.
    Mr. Strachey: The average time before we reach a decision on an application for complete Class C release is one month, as reference has to be made to the Air Ministry before release is granted. Temporary release up to three months may be granted locally, while waiting for a decision on complete release. The necessity of dealing quickly with these cases is emphasised in the regulations, and failure to comply with the regulations would, of course, entail disciplinary action.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sharp: Is the Under-Secretary aware of the considerable amount of hardship caused by unnecesary delay in handling these matters? Is he also aware of the fact that some of these applications remain at these levels for periods of over two months, and will he ensure that disciplinary action is taken against commanding officers who infringe these regulations?
    Mr. Strachey: I think we can only take this up on individual cases, but if the hon. and gallant Member will submit these, I will certainly deal with them.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sharp: I have done so.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is it often the case that the Air Ministry turn down a recommendation that has been put forward by a commanding officer?
    Mr. Strachey: I really want notice of that question, but I should imagine it is rare.
    Mr. Callaghanasked the Undersecretary for Air if he will give an immediate answer to the relatives of Corporal 1410403, who requested his presence at home on compassionate leave on 22nd October.
    Mr. Strachey: The airman concerned is serving in Air Command, South-East Asia. We have referred his case to the Air Commander-in-Chief and have told the airman's mother that the decision reached will be made known to her as soon as possible.
    Mr. Callaghan: In view of the fact that it is now a month since this request, and that he who gives quickly gives twice, can we have an early decision?
    Mr. Strachey: The decision will have to be made on the spot.
    Major Symondsasked the Undersecretary of State for Air at what level in the Service applications for compassionate leave, posting or release can be finally rejected; what standards have been laid down by his Ministry as a guide to those subordinate commanders who have power to reject applications; and if there is any method of appeal against the rejection by an intermediate commander of a compassionate application.
    Mr. Strachey: Applications for compassionate leave or posting can be rejected by the applicant's commanding officer; applications for compassionate release only by an air officer commanding. Great care has been exercised in framing instructions for the guidance of R.A.F. officers. I will send my hon. and gallant Friend extracts from these instructions. Anyone who regards himself as wronged by the rejection of a compassionate application may seek redress under the procedure laid down in King's Regulations.
    Mr. Nicholson: Can the Under-Secretary say what is the right course for a Member of Parliament who has been approached by a constituent whose application for compassionate release has been rejected? What course should I recommend him to take?
    Mr. Strachey: The course taken by hon. Members is to write to me, which they do at the rate of 200 a day.
    Mr. Nicholson: I was seeking to save the hon. Gentleman some trouble.
    Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Will the Undersecretary consider increasing the period which can be granted by commanding officers for compassionate leave? That would help considerably.
    Mr. Strachey: I will consider that.

    Personal Cases
    Mr. Osborneasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will reconsider forthwith the decision announced in his letter of 7th November, regarding the release to his peacetime occupation of Mr. Henry Wright, who, at 52 years of age, three times wounded in the 1914–18 war, and discharged with the loss of part of his right hand as totally unfit, fears that he may lose his peacetime employment to a younger man unless he is promptly released; and why this man discharged from the Army as totally unfit is indispensable to the maintenance of Kelstern aerodrome.
    Mr. Strachey: As I said in my letter to the hon. Member, we have always intended to release Mr. Wright as soon as we could find or train another man to take charge of the labourers at Kelstern airfield. Another man is now under training and should be able to take over by the end of the month, thus releasing this experienced rabbit catcher. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Osborne: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that because this man is a rabbit catcher, it is no cause of amusement to him that he is being held in the Air Force against his will?
    Mr. Strachey: I quite agree that the function of this man is an important one, and we are releasing him.
    Mr. Osborne: It is not a cause for amusement.
    Mr. Dribergasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that 1178084 A.C. Hawkins, G., made five applications through the usual channels before action was taken to secure his remustering to a trade in which he had civilian experience, such remustering having been authorised on 9th May last and that he has now been unemployed for four weeks in a transit camp in the Middle East awaiting a posting to enable him to proceed to a unit stationed one mile from this camp; and whether he will investigate

    415
    the circumstances of this delay and expedite this airman's remustering.
    Mr. Strachey: In spite of an acute shortage of equipment assistants—his R.A.F. trade—this airman was given special permission to be misemployed as a printer, which was what he wanted. I am inquiring into the alleged delay in his posting.
    Mr. Driberg: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind this evidence that the usual channels do not always work as expeditiously as Ministers hope they will, and will he do all he can really to make them channels and not brick walls?
    Mr. Strachey: Certainly, Sir.
    Mr. Garry Allighanasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how far the undertaking given to Sergeant N. E. Carr, R.A.F., Bombay, dated nth September, 1945, a copy of which has been sent to him, has been implemented; and whether he expects to be able fully to implement this undertaking by the end of the year.
    Mr. Strachey: Sergeant Carr was sent a copy of the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) on 22nd August saying that there was a real prospect that the unevenness in the rate of release as between trades would greatly diminish by the end of the year. As I have since told the House, this hope will not quite be fulfilled, although there has been a real improvement, owing to the speed-up of the general rate of release.
    Mr. Allighan: By how much does the hon. Gentleman think that his expectations will fall short of his previous undertaking?
    Mr. Strachey: It entirely depends upon how much the rate of release can be speeded up.

    Jodhpur Station (Incident)
    Brigadier Fitzroy Macleanasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he has yet received a report on the recent refusal of men of a R.A.F. unit in Central India to obey orders and on the action taken in the matter by the authorities.
    Mr. Strachey: As the answer is rather long, I will, with permission, make a statement at the end of Questions.
    Later—
    Mr. Strachey: A report has now been received on the incident at Jodhpur on 13th October. A commanding officer's inspection parade was ordered for 08.00 hours that morning, but when the time came the airmen of two maintenance units stationed at Jodhpur refused to attend this parade and went direct to the technical site for work. The commanding officer sent for 12 airmen to voice the grievances of the men, which they did in an orderly manner.
    The airmen had three main complaints:

    (i) The apparent wide discrepancy between the rate of release in the R.A.F. as compared with the other services as announced by the Minister of Labour on 2nd October.

    (ii) The quality of the food at the R.A.F. station Jodhpur, where catering difficulties arise owing to the ban on beef in this Hindu State and the fact that frozen mutton and vegetables have to be flown from the nearest ration depot 350 miles away.

    (iii) What the men considered un-necessary drill parades in an extremely hot station.

    The commanding officer called upon a detachment of Jodhpur State forces to stand by. This step proved entirely unnecessary, and I much regret that it was taken. There was no hint of violence during the whole incident. The Air Officer Commanding 226 Group visited Jodhpur on the following morning and addressed the men, pointing out the seriousness of their action, but undertaking to represent their grievances in the proper quarter. He also addressed the officers and called attention to their responsibilities. He issued instructions in respect of improvements in messing and arrangements for parades. The airmen were quiet and orderly, stating that they had no mutinous intent but felt bound to draw urgent attention to their complaints. Normal work was resumed on the Monday morning.
    The Air Marshal Commanding Base Air Forces South East Asia is satisfied that no further action is necessary or desirable. I believe that a major reason for the anxiety of airmen in India about release and repatriation has been a lack of adequate information among the men about the progress of the release scheme.

    417
    As to that I am satisfied that the DEMOBFORM Signals to which I referred in my speech on 22nd October are having a good effect. Another cause of the trouble was undoubtedly the fact that as originally announced the R.A.F.' s rate of release in the New Year did fall several groups behind that of the Army; but that has now been corrected.
    Brigadier Maclean: Is it true that armoured cars were employed by the Jodhpur State Forces?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. My information is that they were brought up in ordinary lorries;
    Mr. Lipson: Can the Minister say whether the officer who ordered the Jodhpur State Forces to stand by is still there, or whether he has been replaced?
    Mr. Strachey: I should require notice of that question.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is it not obvious to the Minister that there must have been great neglect of the ordinary interests of these men to cause them to take such action as this?
    Mr. Strachey: I think that misapprehension about the rate of release was the main cause.
    Mr. Scollan: Would not the Undersecretary agree that intelligent leadership at that station would have prevented any such public incident from taking place?
    Mr. Strachey: I cannot judge that, not having been on the spot, but we very much regret the action that was taken.
    Mr. Scollan: Is the Minister prepared to take every proper action in the event of finding that faults were there? Will he remedy them?
    Mr. Strachey: I think we shall find remedies.
    Lieut.-Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison:Does not this incident emphasise the importance of getting on with demobilisation?

    Dependant's Allowance
    Sir John Mellorasked the Undersecretary of State for Air, when a man joins the R.A.F., how many persons normally prepare or examine some or all of the relevant papers, before his wife
    418
    receives the proper allowances; and how many separate operations are required.
    Mr. Strachey: A total of six persons are involved, three at the local unit and three at the Air Ministry. There are six jobs to be done.

    Azores
    Mr. Dribergasked the Under secretary of State for Air what are the present functions of the R.A.F. station, Azores; how many R.A.F. personnel are stationed there; and how soon this station is to be closed and these airmen repatriated.
    Mr. Strachey: The Royal Air Force in the Azores provides meteorological, reconnaissance and air/sea rescue services, staging post facilities and navigational aids. Our commitment there is declining, but we cannot give a definite date for closing the station, nor would it be in accordance with present policy to give the numbers of our Forces in particular places overseas. I can, however, say that before long we hope to repatriate the majority of the Royal Air Force who are now. serving in the Azores.
    Mr. Driberg: Can my hon. Friend also give an assurance that there are not now more men there than are needed. to do those special jobs he mentioned?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, I think I can give that assurance.
    Wing-Commander Hulbert: What conceivable objection is there to giving the number of men in the Azores today?
    Mr. Strachey: There has been a Government decision that the number of men in particular fields or areas all over the world should not be given.

    Requisitioned Land
    Mr. Osborneasked the Under secretary of State for Air if he will consider derequisitioning land on Poplar Grove Farm, North Somercotes, at present used as a football ground, which the owner desires to plough for the growing of corn.
    Mr. Strachey: The final disposal of the airfield as a whole has not yet been decided, but I will see whether we cannot free this piece of land for agricultural use at once. I will communicate with the hon. Member.
    Lieut.-Colonel Byersasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how and to whom his Department makes available airfields which can be used for farming.
    Mr. Snaddenasked the Undersecretary of State for Air whether he will give an undertaking that, when aerodromes on requisitioned land become available for agricultural use, they will be offered in the first place to the occupier at the time of requisition, and that they will not be put up to public tender until the previous occupier has been given the first refusal.
    Mr. Strachey: When an airfield is derequisitioned the land, of course, reverts to its owners, but at a number of airfields we still hold on requisition temporary arrangements for farming are being made. In these cases we have hitherto put the land up to public tender for letting. We have done this because all the hedges and tenancy boundaries have been obliterated in the making of an airfield, and it would not be practicable to offer the land for temporary farming divided up into its various tenancies. In future such airfields will not as a rule be offered for public tender, but we shall place them at the disposal of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries who will arrange their temporary agricultural use.
    Sir Ronald Ross: Is this the beginning of collective farming, and the liquidation of the Kulaks?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir.
    Mr. Quintin Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake that, wherever practicable, those whose land is derequisitioned will be given the first choice?
    Mr. Strachey: That is a question of permanent derequisitioning. It comes back automatically to that.
    Mr. Hogg: I was not directing attention to permanent derequisitioning, but I was asking that, where there was temporary derequisitioning for farming purposes, those whose land has been derequisitioned ought reasonably to be given the first choice, where practicable.
    Mr. Strachey: In future that will be a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
    Sir Ralph Glyn: In the case of airfields that have not concrete, but only grass
    420
    runways, would the hon. Gentleman consider handing them back first?
    Mr. Strachey: I think that is another question.

    Ex-Warrant Officers (Commissions)
    Squadron Leader Sir Gifford Foxasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will state the approximate number of ex-warrant officers commissioned who have reached the ranks air vice-marshal, air-commodore, group-captain, wing-commander and squadron-leader, respectively.
    Mr. Strachey: To produce this information would mean at least three days' diversion of men and machines in the statistical section, which is at present working all out on the release scheme. Perhaps the hon. Member would put down his Question again when this special pressure of work is over
    Sir G. Fox: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the pensions of these promoted ex-warrant officers is a matter of great concern to them, and will he have an inquiry made into their conditions of pension when they are released?
    Mr. Strachey: I think I know what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has in mind, and I have asked him to communicate with me on the subject.
    Sir G. Foxasked the Undersecretary of State for Air the number of airmen commissioned on or before 3rd September 1939 and of warrant officers commissioned before 3rd September 1939, who are at present in the service, at the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Strachey: One hundred and forty-one ex-airmen and 483 ex-warrant officers who were commissioned on or before 3rd September, 1939, were serving in the Royal Air Force on 1st November, 1945.
    Sir G. Foxasked the Undersecretary of State for Air, if he will state the estimated cost of increasing the retired pay of ex-warrant officers promoted to commissioned rank to that of direct-entry officers.
    Mr. Strachey: We cannot give any useful estimate at present, while decisions have still to be taken on the future conditions of service, including pensions, of the Regular Armed Forces. Comparative figures under the old system are not

    421
    readily available, and in these circumstances I do not think I can add to the information I gave to the hon. and gallant Member in my reply of 7th November.

    Missing Personnel (Far East)
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Undersecretary of State for Air how many of the 38,000 airmen missing, presumed killed, were engaged in operations in the Far East at the time when they were reported missing.
    Mr. Strachey: Approximately 2,500 members of the Air Force are missing as a result of operations in the Far East.
    Mr. Lipson: Can the Under-Secretary say how long machinery for tracing these men has been functioning, and whether any of them have been found alive?
    Mr. Strachey: The machinery for tracing them is only now getting into its stride—the special search party machinery. I should want notice of the second part of the question.

    Retired Pay
    Licutenant William Shepherdasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what is the policy with regard to the settlement and payment of retired pay to Regular officers.
    Mr. Strachey: Our policy is to ensure the minimum interval between the end of full pay and the start of retired pay.

    Aerodromes (Erection of Buildings)
    Mr. Stokesasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether instructions have now been given to stop the erection of hangars on the cliff at St. Mawgen aerodrome; and whether he will assure the House that, in future, both the local authority and local planning committee will be consulted before any such work is put in hand at St. Mawgen or elsewhere.
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. Moreover, now that the war has ended we shall consult local authorities and local planning committees through the Minister of Town and Country Planning whenever the development of new building sites affects natural amenities.
    Mr. Boothby: Will the hon. Gentleman also consult the appropriate authority in
    422
    Scotland, because the Ministry of Town and Country Planning does not cover Scotland?
    Mr. Strachey: Certainly, Sir.

    Siam (Conditions)
    Major Guy Lloydasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware of the complaints being received by their relatives from airmen in Siam woth regard to lack of food, soap and boots; that many had not been paid any money for at least five weeks; and what steps are being taken to remove the legitimate grievances of these airmen.
    Mr. Strachey: I am making inquiries, and will communicate with the hon. and gallant Member as soon as we hear from the command.
    Major Lloyd: In the meanwhile, while these inquiries are being made, does the Minister realise that these complaints are widespread in Siam, and that these airmen, when I got the letter, had not had pay for five weeks, and that they were short of much of the most essential things?
    Mr. Strachey: I would like to say, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, that 22 Questions on yesterday's Order Paper were addressed to us, a great many of them involving inquiries in Siam and distant fields overseas. Almost inevitably I have to give Members the rather unsatisfactory answer that inquiries are being made. If they could give us even 48 hours' notice of putting questions down, we should be able to give them a more satisfactory answer.
    Mr. Hogg: When the Minister finds himself in this position, has he not an excellent Parliamentary Private Secretary who could ask for the Questions to be postponed?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. We should be very happy if Members would postpone their Questions when there is a chance of giving them better information if they do so.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Are we to understand from what my hon. Friend has just said that he only had notice for the first time yesterday of the particular Question which he is now answering?
    Mr. Strachey: I think that is so.
    Wing-Commander Hulbert: Are inquiries of overseas commands made by signal or by overseas mail?
    Mr. Strachey: By signal.
    Wing-Commander Hulbert: In that case why should it take a month to get an answer?
    Mr. Strachey: It does not, but it takes more than 24 hours.
    Major Lloyd: This Question was put in last Thursday to the Clerk at the Table, and the Minister must have received it last Friday morning.

    Air Defence (Balloons)
    Wing-Commander Hulbertasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether it is proposed to maintain balloon squadrons of the A.A.F. in the future, and if as a separate command or not.
    Mr. Strachey: We have not decided yet.
    Air Commodore Harvey: When will the Minister do so?
    Mr. Strachey: This is a question which involves the whole future disposition of the Air Defence of Great Britain. It is a most important question, and I cannot give the hon. and gallant Member a definite date.
    Earl Winterton: Can the Undersecretary say whether it is proposed to make any statement on this matter in advance of the general statement on Defence policy by the Government, or whether it will be made as part of the general statement?
    Mr. Strachey: The question is whether balloons are to play a part in the Air Defence of Great Britain. I cannot give any notice that an advance statement will be made on that subject.
    Earl Winterton: The hon. Gentleman does not know?
    Mr. Strachey: Of course I do not know. The right hon. Gentleman does not know either.

    Auxiliary Air Force
    Wing-Commander Hulbertasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is now able to make a statement about the future status of the A.A.F.
    Mr. Strachey: The squadrons of the Auxiliary Air Force are in process of reverting to their auxiliary status and plans are being considered under which they would form a substantial part of our first-line air defence within an operational command. As and when squadron commanders have been appointed and headquarters opened, announcements will appear in the Press.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the Minister aware that a statement appeared in the Press six months ago on this subject, and that the Government are losing many volunteers who want to give their services to the country? Will an early decision be made?
    Mr. Strachey: We are well aware of the importance of an early decision on this matter. It is, of course, involved in the whole shape and disposition of the postwar Air Force. We hope to be able to make a decision at a very early date.
    Wing-Commander Hulbert: Can the Under-Secretary interpret what an early date means?
    Mr. Strachey: I cannot give the hon. Member the exact day of the month.

    Students (Exchanges with United States)
    Wing-Commander Roland Robinsonasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in the interests of Anglo-American co-operation in the air, it is proposed to continue the exchange of students between R.A.F. and American staff colleges.
    Mr. Strachey: As the hon. and gallant Member is aware, there are a number of American officers at the Royal Air Force Staff College and several Royal Air Force officers are attending the Staff College course in the United States. The future of these arrangements is under the consideration of my Noble Friend.

    Staff College Course
    Wing-Commander Robinsonasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what plans have been made for the future development of the R.A.F. staff colleges.
    Mr. Strachey: The wartime Staff College course has recently been extended from three months to six months. We intend to return to the full normal course as soon as possible, and plans to this end

    425
    are being developed. We are in touch with the War Office and Admiralty with the aim of ensuring the maximum coordination in training of staff officers for all three Services.
    Mr. Hogg: Can the Under-Secretary tell us what the present position is with regard to finding a permanent home for this Staff College?
    Mr. Strachey: We regard that as a matter of great importance, and we are certainly pursuing it.

    Iceland
    Mr. Dribergasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that 250 airmen in an airfield construction squadron, consisting of skilled and semiskilled building-trade workers, are engaged in maintaining an airfield in Iceland which is now used by few aircraft; and how soon these men, or most of them, are to be repatriated.
    Mr. Strachey: We are bringing nearly all these men back in the next few months.

    Accounts Clerks (Training)
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many accounts clerks have finished their training in the past three months to replace men whose release has been postponed in spite of their age and length of service; and how many more, is it anticipated, will have completed their training in the next three months.
    Mr. Strachey: The figures are 1,413 for the last three months. They will be 1,760 over the next three months.
    Mr. Lipson: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is still great feeling amongst accounts clerks, and is it possible to speed up training above the figures he has announced for the next three months?
    Mr. Strachey: I am well aware of the feeling among accounts clerks; the hon. Member keeps me informed and is quite right to do so, and we are doing all we can. It is the most hardpressed section of the Royal Air Force.

    Instructors (Training)
    Mr. Sunderlandasked the Under-secretary of State for Air what is the percentage of trainees who pass the courses on organisation and method at the R.A.F. school of training at Cosford; how many
    426
    men are now under instruction whose demobilisation group is 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30, respectively; and what are the reasons for sending men in these low demobilisation groups for training as instructors when they expect to be demobilised within the next few months.
    Mr. Strachey: An average of 85 per cent. of the trainees pass the Instructors Technique Course at Cosford. None of the men now under instruction is in Group 26, 28 are in groups 27–30. We urgently need instructors and so we must train all suitable men even though their period of service may be limited.

    Tropical Kit
    Flying-Officer Bowdenasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether it is still the policy of the R.A.F. to issue Wellesly helmets to airmen as part of tropical kit when embarking for India and collect them again on disembarkation.
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir.

    AIR TRAVEL PERMITS
    Mr. Jenningsasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what system is in operation to decide who is entitled to priority permits to travel by air where services now exist.
    Mr. Strachey: The allocation of space in British air transport services is the responsibility of the Air Priorities Board which is under the joint chairmanship of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation and myself. Its members include representatives of the Board of Trade, the Foreign Office and the other interested Departments.
    Mr. Jennings: Will the Under-Secretary agree to look into the position to see that this air space is allocated in proper priority?
    Mr. Strachey: I assure the hon. Member that we do look into that at every meeting of the Board, and spend many hours allocating it. There is very heavy pressure on it, and it is extremely difficult to allocate priority to the best advantage.
    Earl Winterton: Would the hon. Gentleman make clear, what is not clear in his answer, to which Member of the Government Questions on this matter should be addressed, and whether they should be

    427
    addressed to him or the Parliamentary Secretary for Civil Aviation?
    Mr. Strachey: I should think to either.
    Earl Winterton: Could the hon. Gentleman be more definite?
    Mr. Strachey: Certainly then: to either.
    Earl Winterton: Surely that cannot be the position. Are we not entitled to know what Minister to address on matters of official policy?
    Mr. Strachey: To me.
    Mr. Stokes: Would the hon. Gentleman make it clear that the Board of Trade covers the Department of Overseas Trade as well?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, certainly.

  BILLS (EXPLANATORY MEMORANDA)
  Mr. Bossomasked the Prime Minister if he will give instructions that all Bills of a technical character shall have a clear statement in layman's language stating the purpose the Bill is intended to accomplish; and to have it printed with the Bill in every case.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have been asked to reply. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware the practice of the House imposes certain restrictions on the character of the explanatory memoranda which may be printed and circulated with Bills, and such memoranda are subject to revision in the Public Bill Office. It is already customary to circulate memoranda of the kind referred to with Government Bills whenever it is thought that an explanation within the permissible limits will be of assistance to Members. It seems, therefore, unnecessary for me to give instructions on this subject.
  Mr. Bossom: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only last week a Member of the Government who was responsible for a certain Bill in this House, gave an. explanation, and then, when the Bill got upstairs, he had to apologise because he had not given the right interpretation of it? If the Government do not know their own Bills how are other people expected to know?
  Mr. Speaker: That does not seem to me to be an appropriate supplementary question.

  DEMOBILISATION SYSTEM
  Mr. Garry Allighanasked the Prime Minister whether in view of the dissatisfaction in the Forces, industry and the general public, he will move for the appointment of a Select Committee to review the existing demobilisation system, to report on the causes of delay and to make recommendations to expedite the release to industry and civilian life of a larger number of Service men and women than are at present scheduled.
  Mr. H. Morrison: No, Sir. Decisions on these matters should be taken by Ministers responsible to Parliament.
  Mr. Allighan: Can we be assured that the Prime Minister is quite satisfied with the method of working of the demobilisation scheme, or has he some other method of reviewing it?
  Mr. Morrison: There are plenty of methods of reviewing it. The only question raised in this Question was whether it should be dealt with by a Select Committee of Parliament. The view of my right hon. Friend is that that would be unwise.
  Mr. Hogg: Surely because a Select Committee of Parliament is only appropriate when the House of Commons is gravely displeased with His Majesty's Government?
  Mr. Morrison: We have no reason to believe that the House of Commons is gravely displeased with His Majesty's Government. What we do know is that the hon. Gentleman is displeased with his own Front Bench.
  Mr. Morrison: We have no reason to believe that the House of Commons is gravely displeased with His Majesty's Government. What we do know is that the hon. Gentleman is displeased with his own Front Bench.

  WAR LEADERS (THANKS)
  Mr. Anthony Nuttingasked the Prime Minister in what way His Majesty's Government have conveyed their gratitude to the British Service chiefs for their leadership of the Armed Forces during the world war of 1939–45.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd)

  429
  on 8th November, in which I said that the gratitude of this House to the principal leaders of our Armed Forces was expressed in the Motion of Gratitude to the Forces which was passed on 30th October.
  Mr. Nutting: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider following the excellent Socialist example in the Soviet Union of not only congratulating its generals for each individual victory in special Orders of the Day, but also giving large money grants to their families?
  The Prime Minister: We have considered this matter, and, with regard to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, we considered that this was inappropriate. It has been done in times past, but we considered that it was inappropriate at the present time. I also consider that in a war which involved almost the whole of the population, general thanks are better than making particular distinctions in which there is always a danger of leaving out some individuals.
  Earl Winterton: When the right hon. Gentleman uses the term "at the present time" does he mean that the situation is not finalised and that His Majesty's Government are still open to consider suggestions on this matter?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. With regard to money grants, I was taking it as referring to the present epoch in which we are today, rather than any future time.
  Mr. Speaker: I would point out that the matter raised in this Question was the subject of Debate about a fortnight ago.

  HIGH SHERIFFS (NOMINATIONS)
  Mr. Goochasked the Lord President of the Council from whom nominations are received for the office of high sheriff of a county; and if he will consider the desirability of making it possible for future nominations for this and other high and honourable offices to include those from all sections of the people.
  Mr. H. Morrison: The names of persons submitted for nomination as high sheriff under the Sheriffs Act, 1887, are proposed in the first instance by the serving high sheriff. While I sympathise with my hon.
  430
  Friend's wish that in the case of appointments of this nature, persons from all sections of the community should be available for nomination, I must point out that legislation would be required, at any rate in the case of high sheriffs, and I can hold out no prospect of such legislation being introduced for the time being.

  EASTERN EUROPE (EVACUATION)
  .50. Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what reports he has received from the Allied Commission as to the rate of expulsion from Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary; and whether he is now satisfied that these expulsions have stopped, in conformity to the terms of the Potsdam Conference.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. H. Hynd): About four-filths of the emigrants crossing into the British zone of Germany from the East are people who were evacuated during the war and are now returning to their homes in the West. The remaining fifth consists of people who, though formerly domiciled in the East now want to go to western parts of Germany. Of these, again a small fraction comes from the countries named in the Question, and, so far as the British element of the Control Commission are aware, none of those now crossing into the British zone have been expelled from their countries of origin.
  Mr. Stokes: Really, that is not an answer to my Question. Has the attention of my hon. Friend been drawn to the statements this morning from the Allied Control, and is he satisfied that the Allied Control themselves are satisfied that, having regard to the circumstances of the winter and the number of people milling about with houses to go to, the proposed evacuation expulsions now announced will be carried out humanely?
  Mr. Hynd: The Question asked what reports have been received from the Allied Commission. I have given the reports received up to the last minute today. I have also indicated that, while there are people moving into our zone, four-fifths of these are returning evacuees.
  Mr. Stokes: Are we to understand that information has apparently been given out to the Press by the Allied Commission, but not to His Majesty's Government?
  Mr. Hynd: I have not seen the information in the Press. I have given the information received from our authorities this morning.
  Mr. Gallacher: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) is not concerned so much about displaced persons as about displaced landowners?
  Major Lloyd: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the Potsdam Agreement in regard to this issue has been broken or not?
  Mr. Hynd: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will read the answer, he will find that point was answered. If I may give the answer again in clearer terms, so far as our information goes the terms of the Potsdam decision are being followed.
  Mr. S. Silverman: Can my hon. Friend give us any help in determining the source of this continual flow of highly mischievous rumours, which on inquiry turn out to be untrue?

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Profit Margins (Wholesalers)
    Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Food if he will reconsider those profit margins allowed to wholesalers which on certain classes do not cover distributive costs.
    The Minister of Food (Sir Benjamin Smith): I have no information to suggest that any group of wholesalers is receiving margins which are not adequate to cover the costs of their businesses necessarily incurred in distributing the commodities for which I am responsible.
    Mr. Osborne: If I produce some specific cases will the right hon. Gentleman look into them?
    Sir B. Smith: I am always willing to look into any case that the hon. Gentleman will send to me. I am perfectly willing to go into it.
    Mr. Cobb: If I give the Minister information to the contrary, will he also look into that?
    Sir B. Smith: Yes, Sir.

    Sardine Tins (Openers)
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Minister of Food whether he will in future arrange for key openers to be provided with the quarter pound tins of sardines imported into this country.
    Sir B. Smith: I am afraid that it is not possible to arrange at present for a key opener to be provided with each tin of sardines. I hope, however, that keys may soon be available.
    Mr. Boothby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of tins of sardines recently imported are still on the shop shelves owing to the natural reluctance of the housewives of this country to attack them with a hatchet?

    Fish Prices
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Minister of Food when he proposes to announce the winter schedule of fish prices.
    Sir B. Smith: I announced the winter fish prices on 13th November.
    Mr. Boothby: As the Minister made this arrangement six weeks later than he did last year, and as the winter prices represent a considerable advantage to the fishermen, will he make the new prices retrospective?
    Sir B. Smith: No, Sir.

    Allocations
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Food (1) whether, in connection with the quantity of food and. equipment which has been placed in the girls' school in St. John's Parish, Worcester, and which was to be used in case the building was required as a rest centre, he will give the necessary authority to the local authorities to utilise these foodstuffs, which are now deteriorating, with special regard to the food shortage both at home and abroad;
    (2) whether, in connection with the quantity of food and equipment which has been placed in the girls' school in St. John's Parish, Worcester, and which was to be used in case the building was required as a rest centre, he will now give the necessary authority to the local authorities to utilise these foodstuffs.
    Sir B. Smith: These foodstuffs were taken into the Ministry's general stocks on 9th November, 1945.
    Mr. De la Bère: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to tell the House that these foodstuffs are no longer deteriorating as indicated in the Question?
    Sir B. Smith: The right hon. Gentleman wishes to convey the correct answer to the hon. Member, and that is that they were returned to my stocks on 9th November.
    Mr. De la Bère: There still seems to be a good deal of it there now. It is very disturbing.
    Wing-Commander Hulbertasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that, consequent upon the removal of large numbers of the population from various towns in England and Wales, the amount of food being allocated to these towns is now excessive; and what action he is taking to reallocate these supplies.
    Sir B. Smith: Rationed food supplies are automatically adjusted to population trends. I have no evidence that manufacturers and other distributors of points rationed and unrationed foodstuffs have not adjusted their distribution in accordance with population movements. If my hon. Friend has in mind any particular commodity, I shall be glad to cause investigations to be made.
    Wing-Commander Hulbert: Is that adjustment made by the manufacturers or by the Ministry?
    Sir B. Smith: By my Ministry.

    Tomato Imports
    Mr. Watkinsasked the Minister of Food (1) why he will not grant trading licences to importers of Canary Island tomatoes, with a view to solving the existing deadlock in the buying and disposal of these tomatoes, which is preventing promised supplies from reaching this country;
    (2) whether he is aware that importers are willing to buy Canary Island tomatoes on the Spanish authorities' terms, but unwilling to agree to the proposals of the wholesale trade obliging importers to sell all tomatoes through a monopoly of wholesalers who will take no risk; and
    434
    what steps he proposes to end this position and fulfil his undertaking to supply tomatoes this winter.
    Sir B. Smith: In deciding whether to grant licences to would-be importers of Canary Island tomatoes, I am advised by a committee of the trade. The great majority of the trade are of opinion that tomatoes should not be purchased on the terms hitherto offered, and I do not share the view of my hon. Friend that the present deadlock could be satisfactorily solved by the grant of trading licences to a small number of importers who are willing to operate on these terms.
    Mr. Collins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that under the present arrangements the importer who is also a wholesaler makes a gross profit of £250 per 1,000 boxes of tomatoes, whereas firms who are only allowed to import can only sell at cost and must also bear any losses due to wastage, and will he reconsider the matter?

    Gift Poultry, Northern Ireland
    Sir R. Rossasked the Minister of Food why there is a prohibition applied to Northern Ireland alone against dispatch of poultry as a gift without licence when above seven-pound weight; and whether, in order to avoid discrimination, he will cither apply it to the United Kingdom as a whole or rescind it.
    Sir B. Smith: I prohibited the despatch from Northern Ireland, except under licence, of gift poultry weighing more than 7 lbs., to ensure that the largest possible number of Northern Irish turkeys become available to consumers in Great Britain through retail shops. It would be impracticable to impose a similar restriction on gifts of poultry produced in Great Britain in the absence of any bottleneck such as is afforded by the Northern Irish ports. The answer to the second part of the Question is "No, Sir."
    Sir R. Ross: Does not the Minister know that the Ministry of War Transport control the railways and that the Post Office control the post, and that it is perfectly practicable, therefore, to put on this control? Is he not aware that otherwise there is an unfair discrimination against Northern Ireland people, where his party will have fewer friends than there are turkeys.

    SOAP RATIONING
    Lieutenant Shepherdasked the Minister of Food if he is now able to dispense with the modification of soap rationing recently announced, as this imposes additional clerical work upon the trade.
    Sir B. Smith: No, Sir. While I appreciate the volume of extra work involved, I am afraid that it will be necessary to maintain the recent changes in soap rationing so long as soap is in short supply.
    Lieutenant Shepherd: Is not the Minister aware that if the industry could get a few more men it could produce enough soap?
    Sir B. Smith: The hon. and gallant Member is no doubt quite aware that oils and fats are among the things which are in the shortest supply in this country at the present moment.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: What steps is the Minister taking to secure that oils and fats which previously went to the armaments industry are made generally available?

    Fish Frying Fats
    Mr. Wilkinsasked the Minister of Food whether supplies of frying oils and fats have improved sufficiently to enable him to increase the present ration to fish caterers in the near future and particularly to ex-Servicemen who have been granted licences to commence this type of business but who are finding it difficult to make a living on the present allocation for such new licences.
    Sir B. Smith: There is no prospect of an early increase in the quantities of oils and fats allocated to fish friers. Any ex-Serviceman who has been granted a licence to open a new business receives an allocation of fat which, I am advised, is sufficient to ensure a reasonable living.
    Mr. Wilkins: Is the Minister aware that the allocation permitted to ex-Servicemen having a licence justifies them in opening only on two nights per week, when they may be surrounded with fish caterers who are open for four or five days a week?
    Sir B. Smith: An ex-Serviceman, being granted a licence to open a new business, gets 56 lbs. of fat per week. I am assured that that is sufficient for an annual turnover of £1,000.
    Mr. Jennings: An annual turnover of £1,000? How on earth can a man make a living on a gross turnover of £1,000 a year?
    Mr. De la Bère: Why not give him a square" deal?

    Brewers (Cereals)
    Mr. George Thomasasked the Minister of Food what quantity of malted barley, unmalted corn and other grains or food materials were used for the distillation of potable spirits in each of the war years.
    Mr. James Hudsonasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the latest statistics available to the House for the amount of foodstuffs diverted to the use of the brewers are those for the year ended 30th September, 1939; and will he now give statistics or estimates for any more recent period which have assisted him in allocating to the brewers their share of barley and other cereals, and of sugar, molasses or other equivalents.
    Sir B. Smith: I understand that the Annual Report of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, to be published shortly, will give the statistics to which the hon. Member refers for each of the six years to 30th September, 1944. Final figures for the year ended 30th September, 1945, are not yet available, but it is estimated that the brewing industry is at present using cereals at the rate of about 760,000 tons per annum, and sugar at the rate of 96,000 tons.

    Meat Parcels, Eire (Import)
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. SKEFFINGTON:
    35. To ask the Minister of Food, whether he is aware that individuals in the Irish Free State are canvassing in England by letter for orders for meat, which can apparently be imported up to a maximum of four pounds; and what steps he is taking to stop this practice.
    Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. Is it in Order to address Questions to Ministers referring to the non-existent Irish Free State when the country is known as "Eire" and is recognised in a Bill passed through this House? I do not see why Members should use such a name as "Irish Free State" in a Question, when the name does not exist any longer.
    Mr. Speaker: It is not for the Table to inquire into the accuracy of hon. Members' Questions. This is the Question as it was passed by the Table. I have no doubt that it is in Order.
    Sir B. Smith: I am not aware of this practice, but if my hon. Friend would supply me with particulars, I should be glad to look into the matter.
    Mr. Skeffington: Is it not a fact that bacon is being sent here?
    Sir B. Smith: I have no knowledge of it. If the hon. Member will give me the particulars I shall be very happy to look into them.
    Mr. Skeffington: Are such importations allowed?
    Mr. Keeling: Does the Minister object to meat being sent to this country?
    Sir B. Smith: Offhand, I should say "Yes, unless I control it."
    An Hon. Member: Why should there be no rationing of meat in Eire?

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Telecommunications (Servicing)
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the desirability of taking over the R.O.F. in Newport and the Standard Telephone and Cable Company, Limited, for the purpose of servicing the work required as a result of the decision of the Government to bring under public ownership the telecommunication services now operated by Cable and Wireless, Limited.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Ellis Smith): No, Sir.
    Mr. Freeman: Has the Minister considered introducing such a provision in the Bill for taking over the organisation?
    Mr. Smith: That is another question.

    Film Studios
    Major Lloydasked the President of the Board of Trade how many film studios are available to the film industry and how many still remain requisitioned.
    Mr. Marquand (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Ten film studios are available to the film industry and two further studios have been derequisitioned but are not yet ready for film production.
    438
    Sound stages remain under requisition at six film studios, of which four are actively in process of clearance. The remaining two are small studios, one of which should be cleared between March and May next year, and the other is the subject of negotiations still proceeding.
    Major Lloyd: Will the Minister take immediate steps to expedite the derequisitioning of the remaining film studios, as requisitioning has been a very serious handicap to the industry in this country?
    Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir. I was able to assure the House in the Debate on Friday that this matter was proceeding with the maximum speed.
    Mr. De la Bère: We want deeds, not words.

    Motor Vehicles
    Lieut.-Colonel Dowerasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any statement to make regarding his discussions with the motor-car manufacturers and motor trades last week.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: No, Sir.
    Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. and learned Friend whether increase in the export trade is not better achieved by co-operation than by waving the big stick?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member is not asking a question but is asking for the Minister's opinion.

    Industrial Working Parties
    Mr. Sidney Shephardasked the President of the Board of Trade what further working parties he proposes to set up.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: My right hon. and learned Friend is holding preliminary discussions with representatives of the wool and cutlery industries before the end of the year and hopes later to have similar discussions with representatives of other industries.
    Mr. Shephard: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give a categorical assurance that it is not the intention to nationalise any of the industries covered by the working-parties, either in this Parliament or in any other Parliament?
    Mr. Smith: Had the hon. Gentleman been following the discussions which took

    439
    place prior to the working parties being set up, he would be satisfied with the manner in which my right hon. and learned Friend has dealt with the matter.
    Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Is it not better to try to get increased production by cooperation than by waving the big stick?
    Mr. Smith: The policy that has been adopted by this Government has secured the maximum co-operation— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] —of all people who have the national interest at heart.

    Pianos
    Mr. Norman Bowerasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that British piano manufacturers are being handicapped in their efforts to export by 'reason of the fact that they are not allowed to manufacture for the home market, as a result of which their costs of production are kept unduly high; and how soon it will be possible to relieve them of this disability.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: My information does not bear out the hon. Member's suggestion. I understand that the export orders received by the piano manufacturers require more labour and materials than are at present available. My right hon. and learned Friend is doing his best to assist the industry in these and other matters. As soon as the manufacturers are able to cope with the export orders which they are getting, the question of production for the home market will be reconsidered.
    Mr. Bowerasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that British piano manufacturers are un able to export to Australia because, owing to the sales tax, duty surcharge, etc., levied by the Australian Government, a British piano cannot be landed for less than £146, as against £93 which an Australian piano costs to produce; and if any representations have been, or are being, made to the Australian Government with a view to securing a reduction in these imposts and a better chance for British pianos in the Australian market.
    Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir. I am aware of the points mentioned and of the need for removing as far as possible the difficulties which British manufacturers are experiencing in the export of pianos to Australia. I had already asked His Majesty's Senior Trade Commissioner in
    440
    Australia to inquire into the question of prices at present being fixed for imported goods and have now arranged for a special report about the import of pianos.

    Retail Licence Application
    Mr. Houseasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will re consider his decision to refuse a retail licence for a secondhand clothing stores to Mr. W. Causton, 1, Torriano Cottages, London, N.W.5, seeing that Mr. Causton was disabled as a soldier in the Boer War, the 1914–18 war and from the CD. service in the last war, and that he was also compelled to terminate his secondhand clothing stores when the Government closed down the Caledonian market.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: I have again looked at Mr. Causton's application and, in view of the very special circumstances, I have decided to grant him the licence he needs to open his shop.

    Tobacco Pipes
    Mr. Wilkinsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is yet permitting the importation of French briar pipes in quantity; and if he will give the figures of these imports for three months to the last convenient date.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Yes, Sir. The number of pipes of briar and other woods for which licences have been granted during the months of September, October and November up to date for importation from France is 6,743 gross, valued at £111,338. Of these, only 150 gross were of briar. It has not been possible in the time available to obtain figures of actual arrivals.
    Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is the Minister taking steps to control the prices of briar pipes, which seem to have reached astronomical figures in recent months? The old 6d. Woolworth's is now 10s. 6d.
    Mr. Smith: That is quite true, and attention is being paid to the matter.
    Mr. Wilkinsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether supplies of briar and vulcanite can now be released in sufficient quantities to permit of a substantial number of pipes being available for the Christmas market or early in the new year.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: It is still difficult to get sufficient quantities of briarwood, which has to be imported. There is no special

    441
    difficulty with regard to vulcanite pipe stems. A considerable number of pipes will shortly be available, but not necessarily by Christmas.

    Cotton Mill Sales
    Mr. Sunderlandasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he will make a statement upon the acquisition of a Lancashire cotton mill by a London financial company at a price equivalent to nearly £4 per spindle; and whether he is aware of any other offers being made by London financiers for Lancashire cotton mills;
    (2) whether he is prepared to take steps to prevent a recurrence of the experiences during the years following the 1914 to 1918 war, when London financiers started a recapitalisation ramp in the Lancashire cotton industry with disastrous results to the industry and the country.
    Mr. Ellis Smith; -I am aware of the transaction to which my hon. Friend refers, but not of any others. The situation in Lancashire, and in regard to the measure of control which the Government can exercise, is very different from that existing after the 1914–1918 war, and I will watch that the abuses of that period are not repeated.

    PERSIA (BRITISH INTERESTS)
    Brigadier Maclean(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of latest developments, he will reaffirm the assurance given by his predecessor on 6th June last that it is the intention of His Majesty's Gov-
    ernment in all circumstances to safeguard our imperial interests in South Persia and the Persian Gulf.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): It is the intention of His Majesty's Government to safeguard British interests in whatever part of the world they may be found.
    Brigadier Maclean: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how he proposes to carry out this assurance in this particular case?
    Mr. Bevin: I cannot divulge to the hon. and gallant Member, in answer to a Question, all the strategy of the Chiefs of Staffs and everybody else concerned

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
    That they have agreed to—
    Amendments to—
    War Damage (Valuation Appeals) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House). [Mr. II. Morrison.]
Mr. Eden: Will the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House tell us why the Government wish to suspend the Rule tonight?
Mr. Speaker: This Question must be put without question or Debate.
The House divided: Ayes, 279; Noes, 120.

Division No. 26.]

AYES.

[3.25 p.m.

Adams, Capt. H. R. (Balham)

Binns, J.

Champion, A. J.

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

Blackburn, A. R.

Clitherow, R.

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Blyton, W. R.

Cluse, W. S

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Boardman, H.

Cobb, F. A.

Allighan, Garry

Bottomley, A. G.

Cocks, F S.

Alpass, J. H.

Bowden, Fig.-Offr. H. W.

Coldrick, W.

Anderson, A.(Motherwell)

Bowen, R.

Collindridge, F.

Anderson, F.(Whitehaven)

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Collins, V. J.

Atllee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

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

Colman, Miss G. M

Austin, H. L.

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Cook,T. F.

Awbery, S. S.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Corlett, Dr. J.

Ayles, W. H.

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Cove, W. G.

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

Brown, George (Belper)

Grossman, R. H. S.

Bacon, Miss A.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Daggar, G.

Baird, Capt. J.

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Daines, P.

Bartlett, V.

Buchanan, G.

Davies, A.E.(Burslem)

Barton, C.

Burden, T. W.

Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

Battley, J. R.

Burke, W. A.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Belcher, J. W.

Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Benson, G.

Byers, Lt.-Col. F.

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

Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F.

Callaghan, James.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

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

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Deer, G.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Levy, B. W.

Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

Diamond, J.

Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

Shurmer, P.

Dobbie, W.

Lipson, D. L.

Silverman, J. (Erdington).

Douglas, F. C. R.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Driberg, T. E. N.

Logan, D. G.

Simmons, C. J.

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Longden, F.

Skeffington, A. M.

Dye, S.

McAdam, W.

Skeffington Lodge, Lt. T. C.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

McEntee, V. La T.

Skinnard, F. W.

Edelman, M.

McGovern, J.

Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Rotherhithe)

Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Mack, J. D.

Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)

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

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

Edwards, John (Blackburn)

McKinlay, A. S.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Snow, Capt. J. W.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

McLeavy, F.

Sorensen, R. W.

Ewart, R.

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

Fairhurst, F.

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Sparks, J. A.

Farthing, W. J.

Mann, Mrs. J.

Stamford, W.

Follick, M.

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Steele, T.

Foot, M. M.

Marquand, H. A.

Stephen, C.

Forman, J. C.

Marshall, F. (Brightside)

Stewart, Capt. M. (Fulham, E.)

Foster, W. (Wigan)

Mathers, G.

Stokes, R. R.

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Maxton, J.

Strachey, J.

Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

Mayhew, Maj. C. P.

Stubbs, A. E.

Freeman, P. (Newport)

Messer, F.

Summerskill, Dr. Edith

Gallacher, W.

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Sunderland, J. W.

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Monslow, W.

Swingler, Capt. S.

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Montague, F.

Symonds, Maj. A. L.

Gibbins, J.

Moody, A. S.

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Gooch, E. G.

Morley, R.

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Goodrich, H. E.

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

Gordon-Walker, P. C.

Morris, R. H. (Carmarthen)

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Grenfell, D. R.

Moyle, A.

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

Grey, C. F.

Murray, J. D.

Thorneycroft, H.

Grierson, E.

Nally, W.

Thurtle, E.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Timmons, J.

Gunter, Capt. R. J.

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

Tolley, L.

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

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Usborne, H. C.

Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby).

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Noel-Buxton, Lady

Viant, S. P.

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Oliver, G. H.

Walkden, E.

Hardy, E. A.

Paget, R. T.

Walker, G. H.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Haworth, J.

Palmer, A. M. F.

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

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Parker, J.

Warbey, W. N.

Herbison, Miss M.

Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.

Watkins, T. E.

Hewitson, Captain M.

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Watson, W. M.

Hobson, C. R.

Pearson, A.

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

Holman, P.

Peart, Capt. T. F.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

House, G.

Perrins, W.

Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.

Hoy, J.

Popplewell, E.

Wilkes, Maj. L.

Hubbard, T.

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Wilkins, W. A.

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

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Proctor, W. T.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Pryde, D. J.

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Randall, H. E.

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

Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester)

Rankin, J.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

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

Rathbone, Miss Eleanor

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Reeves, J.

Williamson, T.

Keenan, W.

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Willis, E.

Kenyon, C.

Rhodes, H.

Wilson, J. H.

King, E. M.

Richards, R.

Wise, Major F. J.

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Woodburn, A.

Kinley, J.

Robens, A.

Woods, G. S.

Kirby, B. V.

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

Wyatt, Maj. W.

Kirkwood, D.

Roberts, G. O. (Caernarvonshire)

Yates, V. F.

Lang, G.

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Lavers, S.

Rogers, G. H. R

Younger, Maj. Hon. K. G.

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Royle, C.

Zilliacus, K.

Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

Sargood, R.

Leonard, W.

Scollan, T.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Leslie, J. R.

Scott-Elliot, W.

Mr. R. J. Taylor and

Captain Blenkinsop

NOES.

Amory, Lt.-Col. D. H.

Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A.

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

Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.

Assheton, Rt. Hon. P.

Bullock, Capt. M.

Cuthbert, W. N.

Astor, Hon. M.

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

Darling, Sir W. Y.

Baldwin, A. E.

Challen, Flt.-Lieut. C.

Davidson, Viscountess

Baxter, A. B.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

De la Bère, R.

Boothby, R.

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Digby, Maj. S. Wingfield

Bossom, A. C.

Cooper-Key, Maj. E. M.

Dodds-Parker, Col. A. D.

Bower, N.

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

Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.

444

445

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

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

Robinson, Wing-Comdr Roland

Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

McCallum, Maj. D.

Ropner, Col. L.

Drayson, Capt. G. B.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Ross, Sir R.

Drewe, C.

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

Sanderson, Sir F.

Eccles, D. M.

MacLeod. Capt. J.

Savory, Prof. D. L.

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold

Scott, Lord W.

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Shephard, S. (Newark)

Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Gates, Maj. E. E.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Snadden, W. M.

Glyn, Sir R.

Marples, Capt. A. E.

Spearman, A. C. M.

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin)

Spence, Maj. H. R.

Gridley, Sir A.

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. O.

Grimston, R. V.

Maude, J. C.

Stoddart-Scott, Lt.-Col. M.

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

Mellor, Sir J.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J.

Harvey, Air-Cmdre. A. V.

Molson, A. H. E.

Sutcliffe, H.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)

Holmes, Sir J. Stanley

Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.

Teeling, Fit.-Lieut. W.

Howard, Hon. A

Nicholson, G.

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Hulbert, Wing.Comdr. N. J.

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

Hurd, A.

Nutting, Anthony

Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

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

Osborne, C.

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

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

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

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

Jarvis, Sir J.

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

Walker-Smith, Lt.-Col. D.

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.

Ward, Hon. G. R.

Jennings, R.

Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.

Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

Keeling, E. H.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

Wheatley, Lt.-Col. M. J.

Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Raikes, H. V.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

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

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

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

Renton, D.

York, C.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E).

Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

Low, Brig. A. R. W.

Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Lucas, Major Sir J.

Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

Major Sir A. S. L. Young and Commander Agnew.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  ELECTIONS AND JURORS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.35 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I beg to move, "That this Bill be now read a Second time."
  "Man is born to trouble as the sparks fly upwards." Yesterday I was subjected to severe but unmerited criticism by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite for introducing a Bill that was they said, too large, and that was inspired so they believed, solely by the Lord President of the Council. I would have been well advised, they suggested, to have considered it a great deal longer before introducing it. Today I am told that this Bill is too small, and that while I have escaped from the domination of the Lord President of the Council, I ought to legislate ahead of a Committee which was promised by the Coalition Government. Well, I realise that in the difficult position in which hon. Gentlemen opposite are placed with their Press, they have to make as much small capital as they can out of these matters, and I shall not, therefore, be unduly distressed by the weight of the metal which is to be brought to bear on me when the Amendment on the Paper is moved.
  The problem of elections, or rather of the preparation for elections during the past three to four years, has been a very difficult one for succeeding Governments, and Bills have been passed in 1943, 1944 and 1945, varying the enactment that was passed in 1918. I have to ask the House today to pass another Measure that will make temporary provision for elections that will be held during the coming year 1946. In 1943, an effort was made to link up the national registration records with the electoral register, and to produce a register that would have some relation ship to a residence qualification over a period of time, two months. It became very complicated. The operations between the national registration officer and the electoral registrations officer were so detailed that, with the shortage of staff, it became clear that the Act could not be operated under the conditions that then prevailed. The Act also contained a pro vision that once a person was qualified for
  448
  a constituency, he was not removed from the register for that constituency until he had acquired a new qualification. In 1944, in order to remove some of the complications that arose under the 1943 Act, and which had made it quite unworkable, a new Act was passed. That Act got back to the principle of the fixed date, and a register had to be compiled which could be brought into operation on the initiation of an election.
  The 1944 Act really enacted this, that when an election took place—that is, when the writ was received in the constituency—the register should be that which was in the electoral registration officer's possession on the last day of the last month but one before the election was initiated. That is to say, if the writ was received in the constituency on, let us say; 3rd April, the register was that which was in the possession of the electoral registration officer on 28th February. The register did not move a month forward until the month of May was reached. An election initiated on 1st May would have been fought on the register that represented the compilation in the possession of the electoral registration officer on 31st March. That Measure was, again, found to be too complicated to work and the 1945 Act was passed, which had a qualifying date, 31st January, and the register was due to be published on 7th May. That was the register on which the General Election of 1945 was fought, and I have no doubt that hon. Gentlemen in various parts of the House found that, although the enactment was that the register was to be published on 7th May, it was not in fact until some weeks after that date in certain cases that the register was actually available.
  The view of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House always was that having regard to the circumstances in which that register was compiled, it would be an unsatisfactory register, and what occurred in the General Election has not altered our view, for it is obvious that the present register is considerably more satisfactory. Otherwise how could one account for the Labour Party polling 3,000 more votes at Bournemouth in November than they did in July. There is a new register now in operation which came into force on 15th October and relates to the national registration address on 30th June. That register will remain in force under the

  449
  1945 Act for all local government elections during 1946, and for all Parliamentary elections initiated before 1st January, 1946. That is to say, that any writ that is received in a Parliamentary constituency between now and 31st December, will cause the election to be fought on the register that was compiled on the national registration address on 30th June. The present law would enact that, for Parliamentary elections after 31st January, 1946, there would have to be an ad hoc register compiled very much on the basis of the register that I have described in connection with the Acts previous to the 1945 Act.
  We were warned by the registration officers throughout the country that it would be quite impossible to compile this ad hoc register with the staffs at present at their disposal, and that the printers would be unable certainly to deal with a General Election that had to be fought on an ad hoc register of that description. Therefore, we ask the House to pass this amending Bill, so that we may be able if necessary to have a General Election during 1946 because, quite clearly, it would be wrong to place either the Government or the Opposition in a position where the mere machinery of electoral registration would prevent a General Election. I do not want anyone on either side of the House to think that we contemplate that a General Election would be necessary, although on recent figures we should not shrink from it, but I think it would be constitutionally wrong to put the Government, or anyone else responsible for having a General Election, in a position in which the mere machinery of electoral registration made an Election impossible. Therefore, we have brought in this short Bill, which deals with two or three matters, and which will, I hope, enable us to have by-elections fought on registers which will be reasonably up to date, and, if it should be necessary, to have a General Election.
  There are three principal matters dealt with in this Bill. Clauses 1 to 5 deal with alterations to the existing registration arrangements. Clauses 6 to 8 deal with the extension of postal voting facilities, and Clauses 9 to 12 deal with the compilation of fresh jurors books for England and Wales. In Clause 1, we propose that the register now in force shall remain in force until 14th October next and that
  450
  all Parliamentary elections during the intervening period shall be fought on that register. 1 have given the reasons why we do not think it is possible to carry out the more elaborate machinery provided for in the existing law, which will come into force on 1st January next if this Bill does not become law before.
  Mr. Osbert Peake: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House in any way, but as 1 read the Bill, and the Explanatory Memorandum which prefaces it, Clause I appears to be without any duration in point of time whatever. It provides that the register of electors to be in force for a Parliamentary election shall be the register, which is the annual register, last published in accordance with the Act of 1945
  Mr. Ede: I was coming to the question of the duration of the Measure later on. It is true that, on the face of Clause 1, this is an arrangement which, if not altered, would get back to continuing the annual register published on 15th October of this year.
  We propose by Clauses 3, 4 and 5 to arrange for a supplementary register to be published on 28th February, 1946, and on that supplementary register, it will be possible for members of the Forces, seamen, and war workers, as defined in the previous Acts and in this Bill, whose declarations for registration have been received since 30th June and up till 31st December this year to be entered, and these persons will possess the existing rights of Service voters as regards both postal and proxy voting. That means, that where a man sent in an application to be registered as a Service voter and it had arrived two or three days too late to be included in the existing register, that application will now hold good to enable him to be on the supplementary register, which will come into force and which will be published on 28th February. Members of the Forces and seamen who are discharged between 30th June this year, and 1st January, 1946, will also be entitled to be registered in respect of the address for which they are registered in the national register on discharge. This may very well lead to a number of duplicate entries on the register. A man may make application as a serving man to be entered on the register of a particular con-

  451
  stituency. On discharge, he may, in fact, go to some address and be registered there, outside the constituency in which he asked to be registered as a Service voter, and we are, therefore, asking registration officers, as far as possible, to avoid duplication of entry. But where it does occur, the man, of course, can only vote once in respect of these two qualifications and he must choose which of the two he proposes to use.
  We propose also to extend postal voting facilities, and in Clause 6 we provide that a person who has removed from his registered address may apply to be entered on the absent voters list and, therefore, be entitled to vote by post, if the address to which he has removed is not situated in the same area as his registered address. I regret that it has been necessary, in this connection to arrive at a somewhat arbitrary decision of what is "the same area." The Government would have liked a reasonable discretion in this matter left to registration officers, because it is clear that mere removal from one side of a street to another, while it might take a person out of one area into another, may not be as serious as a removal from one side of a county borough to another— from the extreme North to the extreme South and so on. But the registration officers of the country represented to us that leaving them with a discretion in this matter might involve them in controversies from which they would wish to be spared, and in a closely contested election, when the majority either way was perhaps ten or a dozen, there might be accusations that the result had been achieved because the registration officer had, or had not, exercised his discretion in this way. I am sure that we would all desire that public servants who endeavour to discharge their duties in these matters with complete impartiality, should 'be spared being involved in controversies of that kind.
  Therefore, we have regretfully, but I think, rightly, included in the Measure a quite arbitrary definition of what the same area is. In London this will be the combined area of two contiguous Metropolitan boroughs; elsewhere in England and Wales, the area of the same county borough, non-county borough, urban district or rural parish; in Scotland, the area of the same electoral division of a county
  452
  or of the same burgh; and in Northern Ireland, the area of the same county borough, borough, urban district or rural district. We have applied this same regulation to people who are appointed as proxies for Service voters; that is to say, if a proxy appointed by a Service voter is not within the same area as the registered address of the Service voter concerned, the proxy voter can claim to vote by post.
  We also have taken the opportunity of accepting the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference that persons physically incapacitated should be able to vote by post. This is a matter which has been urged, I think, by all parties for some years. It is a recognition of the citizen's right to exercise his franchise, and I hope that the measures we propose in the Bill will be satisfactory to the House. The detailed provisions for making these postal voting applications will be prescribed by Regulations, which in accordance with Clause 18 (1) will require an affirmative Resolution of the House; that is to say, they will have to be placed upon the Table and then the Secretary of State for the time being will have to move that the House accepts them, and a similar Resolution will have to be passed in another place. Thus there will be every opportunity for Members becoming acquainted with them, and of knowing that they are being brought before Parliament.
  Section 32 (1) of the 1945 Act applied the postal arrangements that were in operation during the recent General Election to a General Election initiated before 1st January, 1946. In this Bill a later date is prescribed, and by Clause. 8 we extend the date to 1st January, 1947, and that means that, if those arrangements are to be continued beyond that date, and no action has been taken in the meantime to pass permanent legislation, we shall have to ask the House for authority to extend them.
  The Amendment that has been placed on the Paper alludes to the question of the Speaker's Conference. We have not implemented all the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference, and for this reason, that I announced in the House, on nth October, that I proposed to appoint a Committee, which would consist of Members of the House, the chief agents

  453
  of the political parties and certain Departmental representatives, to examine the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference and make a report, on which the appropriate legislation could be passed. I think that we shall be well advised to await the result of that Committee's work before we proceed with any further legislation on these matters. It is the intention of His Majesty's Government, when we get the report of the Committee, to base legislation thereon, and to submit it to the House as soon as Parliamentary time can be found thereafter; and we regard ourselves as bound during the lifetime of the present Parliament to submit to the House the necessary legislation to give effect to these recommendations. I do not think that it would have been at all polite to the hon. Members of the House who have been asked to serve on the Committee and the other people, if, having announced the appointment of the Committee, we had then proceeded to put the legislation we asked them to consider into this Bill.
  Clause 13 deals with an entirely Scottish point, of which I hope the House will not expect me to give any elaborate explanation. My hon. Friend the Joint Undersecretary of State for Scotland will be speaking in the course of the Debate, and, if there should be any difficulties with regard to Clause 13, he will deal with the matter.
  I come to the third of the principal things that we do in this Measure. We compile fresh jurors' books for England and Wales. The jurors' books now in existence are those that came into force at the beginning of 1940. They are very much out of date. It is, in consequence, necessary for the officers who summon jurors, in order to be certain that they will have enough jurors, to call upon a very much larger number of people, at any rate by name, than they would in ordinary circumstances. The consequence is that some people are now called up who are well entitled to exemption on one of the numerous grounds for exemption, and that when the officer happens to have made a particularly fruitful selection of names from the jurors' rolls people are called up and kept hanging about the courts, sometimes without being called upon to discharge any of the duties of a juror.
  454
  We feel, therefore, that it is desirable that the jurors' books should be brought up to date, but it is not possible merely to revert to the method in operation under the Juries Act, 1922, for the compilation of jurors' books, because that method was based on information obtained in the course of the canvass which preceded the compilation of the electoral register, nor would the timetable in operation under that Act be generally applicable to existing registration arrangements. Therefore we propose in Clauses 9 to 12 that jurors' books shall be compiled, effective for 1947 and subsequent years, and based on the electoral register published in the previous October. This procedure will not operate for the compilation of a jurors' book for any year if in the previous year the register has been compiled by a canvass. The procedure we now propose entails the sending of the relevant civilian residence electors' list to the appropriate rating authority, who will mark thereon the persons who, by reason of the necessary rating qualification, appear to be liable for jury service. An electoral registration officer will be required to inform everybody who comes on to the Jurors' List for the first time that it is proposed to mark him as a juror so that he can if he thinks he is entitled to benefit by any of the exemptions from jury service, make the necessary appeal, and the existing right of appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction is retained in this Measure.
  That is a brief account of the proposals in this Bill. We would very much like to get back, as we hope we shall at a fairly early date, to the compilation of a register by canvas, but the electoral registration officers throughout the country say that in the case of the register to be compiled during next year it is improbable that they will be in a position either as respects canvassers or printers to comply with the law that would exist unless this Bill were passed. We hope that it will be possible, as far as the years after that are concerned, to ensure that we may get back to the normal practice. After the experiences of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council in the statement, which I thought was quite reasonably guarded, to which attention is drawn in the Amendment, I do not intend to make any precise prophecy. All I can say is that the Government are

  455
  working in the hope that, certainly in the case of the register that will be compiled to come into force on 15th October, 1947, they will be able to rely upon the canvass, publication, claim and objection method, which was the practice prior to the difficulties into which the war brought us.
  I hope the House will recognise that this is an effort to deal with a situation that arises out of the conditions of the times, that we are taking steps to introduce those improvements in the law which it is possible to make at this time, and that as soon as we get the report of the Committee, whose names I hope to be able to announce in the course of the next three or four days, we shall be able to proceed with a permanent Measure of legislation which will bring us back, I hope, to the compilation of the register by canvass, publication, claim and objection, and will enable us also to implement the remaining recommendations of the Speaker's Conference. I hope the House will feel that in these circumstances it can give a Second Reading to this Measure.
  4.6 p.m.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House, whilst welcoming the proposal to extend facilities for absent voting to persons who have changed their residence, and to blind persons and persons physically incapable of voting, declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which ignores many of the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference and, notwithstanding the assurances given by the Lord President of the Council on 27th June, 1944, continues the suspension of any qualifying period, and perpetuates a system of registration which has resulted in many persons being deprived of the franchise."
  The right hon. Gentleman, in opening his speech, suggested that he had been subject to severe but unmerited criticism yesterday because he had introduced a Bill inspired by the Lord President of the Council. Today, if the criticism is again severe, no doubt it will bring certain comfort to the heart of the Lord President of the Council, who invited severe criticism, if it brings no comfort to the right hon. Gentleman. I may tell him in regard to the hope he expressed that he would not be distressed by the weight of the metal brought against him that the bulk of the metal I propose to use today is provided by the Lord President of the
  456
  Council. I am not sure from what the right hon. Gentleman has said whether it is intended that this Bill should only be for the purpose of elections in 1946, because the actual terms of the Bill are far more extensive than that, and, indeed, on that point it seems to me that he has not dispelled much of the fog that now exists in this Chamber. I appreciate, as I am sure all on this side of the House will appreciate, from all that he has said that there are some good points in this Bill, but it is our regret that the good is so overladen with bad that we have no alternative but to move its rejection for the reasons stated on the Order Paper.
  Many hard things were said about the register on which the last election was fought. Every one of us on all sides of the House, I think, had brought to his notice cases of persons long resident in a constituency, persons who had been resident there throughout the war, whose names were for some unaccountable reason omitted from the register. In my division I had some cases of duplication brought to my notice, the names of persons having been entered twice on the register. What the right hon. Gentleman omitted to draw attention to was that the October register, which he has praised so highly, is a register which was compiled in precisely the same fashion as the register on which the General Election was fought, and whether the October register contains fewer or more extensive defects than the register on which the election was fought has not yet been tested in the country. Hon Members opposite were not slow to take advantage of those defects by representing that we on this side of the House were responsible for them. The Minister of Fuel and Power said at Leith on 8th July:
  "Our experiences of the past two weeks show that the register is an insult to the British electorate."
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning said in his election address:
  "With our incomplete register of voters many thousands of electors, including numerous Servicemen, will be denied the right of voting."
  Therefore, it is with astonishment and some amazement that I see the right hon. Gentleman introducing a Bill providing for the registers to be made in exactly the same way as the register on which the General Election was fought. It is aston-

  457
  ishing now that they have secured their return to power—and if controls are necessary I would suggest that control over the exercise of that power might be justified— that they should introduce a Bill which perpetuates for an indefinite period, because there is no limitation in the Bill, the precise system of registration which they themselves so loudly condemned and attacked this Summer. This register is still to be based on where a person happens to be drawing his food ration on a particular date. If he should be registered in that division on that date he will remain on that register till the October of the ensuing year. There is no qualifying period of residence at all, and in my view that is a grave and serious defect.
  May I remind the right hon. Gentleman when he refers to setting up a Departmental Committee that a Departmental Committee was set up before the 1943 Bill was introduced? It was a Committee on which each of the parties was represented, and it was set up by the Lord President of the Council. That Committee recommended a two months' qualification period and there was no dissentient. It was only after they reported that a Bill was introduced providing not only for the two months' period of qualification but also for the continuous registration to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in his speech. All that has been thrown overboard. That system of continuous registration has never been tried. Under this Hill, as I see it, if you move immediately after 30th July to another constituency— it may be miles away, may even be in Scotland—you will be on the register of the division from which you moved but where you were not living on 15th October of that year, and you will remain on that register without a chance of getting on to the register in Scotland until 15th October of the ensuing year. Your only consolation will be the extension of postal voting which will enable you, if you apply in time, to get on to the absent voters' list and to record a vote for a candidate whom you have probably neither seen nor heard. I do not regard that as very satisfactory. When the Lord President of the Council introduced the Act of 1943 he said its purpose was
  "to provide an efficient and effective system of registration despite the difficulties which had been brought about by wartime conditions."
  458
  and he went on:
  "I think that proposals made in this Measure will solve those difficulties and give us perhaps a more up-to-date register than we had in the period before the war."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th October. 1943; Vol. 393. c. 58.]
  I am sorry that we are not apparently to try that continuous system of registration. What happened after that? In 1944 the same right hon. Gentleman had to come back to this House and introduce another Measure. He had to confess then that owing to staffing difficulties during war it was impossible to operate the two months' qualifying period contemplated by the Act of 1943. The Act of 1944 provided for one qualifying day, and that is carried on by this Bill. In introducing that Measure in 1944, the Lord President said:
  "I know that Members in certain parts of the House are rather averse from abolishing for the time being this qualifying period. I sympathise with them. I like some attachment to the soil on the part of the electors in a constituency, and I do not in any way dispute the sentiments of those who feel rather unhappy on this point.'
  This is the particular passage which I commend to the right hon. Gentleman:
  "I have taken the greatest pains to see that this Bill is temporary and that it will be brought to an end as soon as possible."
  Again, he said:
  "Because the Government and I recognise that the' Bill is not ideal, and, because we ourselves would have preferred to preserve the modest residential period of two months if we could have done so, I have taken the greatest care to see that the Bill is temporary. There are a number of points designed to meet that end. In the first place, the word 'temporary' appears in the Bill; in the second place, there is a mandatory direction to the Secretary of State that, as soon as he is satisfied that" sufficient staff and facilities are available for the operation of the 1943 Act, he will make an Order bringing the Bill to an end."
  This is what I would like the right hon. Gentleman to note:
  "I can assure the House, not only will there be no wish on my part to avoid that obligation, but the conscientious officers of the Home Office will see to it that I do not avoid the issue, even if I wanted to." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, I944; Vol. 40I, c. 3.]
  Here, in this Bill we find that the temporary provision of that one—

  459
  clearly his undertaking or pledge to regard this provision of one qualifying day as a very temporary one, which is to be brought to an end at the earliest possible moment. That view, I have no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman sincerely holds, and, in view of the strength of his conscientious objections, I hope that this afternoon or evening we shall find him accompanying us into the Lobby.
  I would remind the right hon. Gentleman, when he talks about the difficulty put forward by registration officers, and says that they cannot, in peacetime, operate the 1943 Act, that we were told in 1944 that the objection then was the impossibility of operation due to lack of staff—an objection in the country, but not in the boroughs. We were told then that it would only require 1,200 clerical assistants and 400 persons competent to instruct and supervise to enable that Act to be implemented. Does the right hon. Gentleman now tell us that demobilisation will be so tardy, and so tied up in red tape that 1,600 people will not be available next Autumn, for making a register with a two months' qualifying period, as contemplated in the 1943 Act? Because, as I see it, that is really what the right hon. Gentleman is asking us to accept. I find it difficult to believe that it is really impossible to carry out the provisions of that Act, when we were told in 1943 that the system which the 1943 Act envisaged, could be carried out in wartime.
  This Bill is not only bad because it perpetuates the absence of any residential qualification at all. It is also bad, in my view, because it prolongs the unsatisfactory system of the Service voter having to contract in. Hon. Members opposite have frequently indicated how much they dislike the principle of having to contract in, in the case of a political levy, but, apparently, they are quite content to record their votes to make it compulsory for the Service voter to contract in, if he wants to exercise his right of voting. I take the view that the registration of his vote should be automatic, and that was one of the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference, which I should not have thought required consideration by another Departmental Committee. The Service authorities surely know the name of each man and woman in each Service. Why should they not
  460
  be charged with the duty of seeing that every man and woman in the Services is registered? That might not have been possible in war, but, surely, it can be done now. Surely, the difficulties about securing compulsory returns from each branch of each Service are not insuperable. When we look at the supplementary register, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, one can see the principle that the Service man and woman have to contract in, to vote being carried into practice.
  Incidentally, the expression "war workers" is not defined in that Clause, or elsewhere in the Bill, and I think the right hon. Gentleman made a slip when he said that it was. I am sure that the intention of the Bill is that it should be limited, as it was in the earlier Acts, to war workers abroad, but there is no word here to say that it should be war workers abroad. Under that Clause, Servicemen, war workers and those demobilised before the end of the year will all have to contract in, if they are to get on the register before 15th October of next year. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, if this system is going to work at all, what steps are to be taken to bring the existence of these rights conferred by this Clause to the notice of those who may exercise them. The time within which applications have to be made under Clause 3 is very short indeed, and it is no use our making provision in a Bill for machinery to get Service voters, war workers and people who are demobilised, on to the register when they apply, if no proper steps are taken to inform them of their rights.
  This Clause, I think, will require most careful consideration in Committee. It contains the obnoxious phrase "as soon as may be," and it seems to me to make no clear provision for those released from the Forces under Class B or under compassionate release. They are still technically members of the Forces. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, for the purpose of this Clause, they are to be regarded as civilians—soldiers who have been demobilised—or as Service voters? If they come in either category, it is quite true that if they make the necessary application, they can get on the register, but that point ought to be put beyond doubt, and again I ask the right hon. Gentleman what steps are to be taken to bring to the notice of those concerned their rights under this Clause.

  461
  I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to deal with one or two other points on this Clause. As I see it, a man who joined the Army at 18 and was discharged after 30th June, 1945, for medical or other reasons, and who comes of age before December, cannot get on the supplementary register. He will not get a vote until he is nearly 22. The cases may not be numerous, but the responsibility for that will rest upon hon. Gentlemen opposite. Clause 6 also provides a complete loop—hole for the registration officer, for it provides that, "so far as is reasonably practicable," he has to secure that there is no duplication of entry. I take the view that, as far as possible, there should be no double entry, and I think the insertion of those words in an Act of Parliament is really providing adequate cover for a multiplicity of mistakes. I put this further point. Would a man now on the civilian register, who is called up after 30th June, 1945, have to apply to be placed on the absent voters list under Clause 6, in order to record his vote, or will there be some way of transferring him to the Service register? If he is to be treated as a civilian absent voter, although in the Services, what machinery will there be for getting all the election documents to him? I regard that part of this Bill as entirely unsatisfactory. I think we should go back to the 1943 Act, which the Lord President commended so highly, with its two months' qualification period and its continuous registration. Alternatively, I think we should go back to the prewar system where the registration officer had to make, in the words of the Statute a
  "house to house or other sufficient inquiry "
  before compiling his list. I hope that we shall soon be able to go back to that system, which did not lead to such criticisms as came from all sides, about the register during the last General Election.
  In addition to that, I ask the right hon. Gentleman, even now, to take some steps to make the Service register a matter of automatic registration. I take the view that this Bill, with its complexities—and it really means that you have to understand the 1943, 1944 and I945 Acts to see where you stand—does nothing to help the Service voter, but puts a series of obstacles in his path. How is he to understand where he applies for
  462
  the supplementary register? How the Minister is going to get the information across to him I do not quite know, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman seriously to consider whether, even now, he could not make it automatic registration, as recommended by the Speaker's Conference.
  I want to say a word or two about the temporary provisions for voting by post and by proxy. There is, apparently, no provision for voting by post when absent on holiday. Are we to have again unduly prolonged elections in different parts of the country because of absence on holiday? Clause 6 has to be read with Clause 20, and, indeed, the right hon. Gentleman confirmed that in introducing the Bill. While I welcome the extension of facilities for postal voting and for voting by proxy, I must confess that I think that Clause 6, coupled with Clause 20, will lead to extraordinary anomalies and difficulties, especially for the registration officer. As I understand these two Clauses, if a person moves from one rural parish to another in the same division, that person will be entitled to record a vote by post/ but if a person moves from one metropolitan borough to another, although his two houses may be miles apart, that person would not be able to vote by post, but would have to travel to vote.
  Mr. Ede: That is not quite accurate. The Bill says that "two contiguous metropolitan boroughs" make an area. If we take Wandsworth and Battersea, they are contiguous, and anyone removing from any part of Wandsworth to Battersea would not have the right to vote by post. But, in the case of a removal from Wandsworth to a borough not contiguous to Wandsworth, although a metropolitan borough, the voter would be able to vote by post.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I had made a slip about that, and I appreciate that they have to be contiguous metropolitan boroughs. I hope that, in the Committee stage, the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us whether the influence of the Thames has any effect on this distinction, and whether, in law, Wandsworth or Battersea could be regarded as contiguous to Westminster or Chelsea, though that, I think can be reserved for another day. With regard to Birmingham, there will be

  463
  no facilities, as I see it, for anyone still residing in the city of Birmingham, to obtain facilities for postal voting, although it is a very large city. But, if you are living on the edge of Birmingham and move 100 yards into another borough beside it, you will be able to vote by post. The right hon. Gentleman has indicated the difficulties, but the fact that these difficulties arise under this Bill do not make one very much in favour of the Bill on that point, I do however welcome any facilities provided for blind and physically incapable people and I am sure that part of the Bill will meet' with support from all sides of the House. At the same time one must ask why are not these facilities extended to local elections? Why are not the blind and physically incapable given the same facilities for voting in local elections? Perhaps we can have an answer on that some time today.
  I appreciate the full force of what the right hon. Gentleman said in regard to jurors' lists. One knows the great difficulties there have been in summoning jurors, but these books will again be based on the register compiled in the way the General Election register was made and I cannot believe that these books will be extremely reliable or very accurate. Bearing in mind that the real content of this Bill is to make provision for the extension of a system of registration, which has met with nothing but criticism since it was introduced, a system of registration not based on residence, but based solely upon where you happen to be registered for buying your food rations; bearing in mind that that is the purpose, and that no provision is made here for the Service man being placed on the register without a lot of trouble to himself; also bearing in mind that although the right hon. Gentleman has selected one of the Speaker's Conference recommendations, he has omitted to implement now any of the others—for all these reasons I desire to move the Amendment on the Paper.
  4.33 p.m.
  Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) has put forward a great deal of constructive criticism of this Bill. The criticism I have to put forward relates entirely to form and is, I must confess, destructive. I have a bad headache, caused entirely by attempting to
  464
  understand this Bill. I suggest that the form of our work in this House should be perfect, and this foggy Bill appears to be very far from perfect. It is especially important, bearing in mind the subject matter with which it purports to deal, that the wording of this Bill should be made as clear as possible. The Bill deals with important democratic rights, including the right to vote, which is the very essence of democracy. To that extent, this Bill, although it may not have occurred to the right hon. Gentleman that it is so, is the lineal descendant of the great Reform Act. It contains a penal Clause, by which people can be punished for failure to obey its provisions and if they do not know exactly what its terms are, attempts by the courts to punish them are likely to be made entirely nugatory. In regard to jurors it is the lineal descendant of Magna Charta—and is in parimateria with it.
  The form of this Bill is bad. I am supposed to be learned in the law and I have made really serious attempts to understand it, but I find that it is unintelligible and muddling. It does not even say what the right hon. Gentleman intends that it should say. Take as an example Clause I. Clause I, according to the right hon. Gentleman, is intended to have the effect that the registers should remain in force until 15th October, 1946. No scanning by the ordinary citizen of the Clause would give him such information, or anything like it. The criticism which these days can be levelled on those lines at this Bill is criticism which can be made of, at any rate, two-thirds of the Bills which come before this House; and I am perfectly conscious of the fact that the speech I am making now is one I might have made on almost any Bill introduced since I had the honour to become a Member of the House. But this particular Bill appears to me to provide an outstanding example of this unfortunate symptom. It is mainly for this Government to decide, aided and criticised by the Opposition, whether they are to go down in history as the Government which restored the health of the body politic or as the Government which gave headaches to the citizens by the inferior quality of its legislation. Almost every jurist and every judge who has sat on the bench, and that eminent student of Parliamentary procedure, Dr. C. K. Allen, have agreed that one of the worst vices of legislation is legisation by reference.

  465
  Of the 24 Clauses of this Bill 19 contain legislation by reference. Having pointed that out to the right hon. Gentleman, I suggest he may care to think once again, before he presses forward with the Bill in its present form. Not only is there legislation by reference, but legislation by reference to no less than eight previous Acts of Parliament; and anyone who solved the jig-saw puzzle which the right hon. Gentleman has created and correlated this Bill with all the previous legislation indicated, would be a genius. Indeed I admire the mental agility of those who drew up this Bill, and had to think out its details.
  The question we have to consider is whether the rights and obligations the Bill creates are likely to be understood by the people who will have to obey them, or will benefit by them; and in particular whether these rights will be understood by the seafaring men who are intended to benefit by them. One realises that there must occasionally be legislation of a technical or temporary kind; and when there is such legislation an Explanatory Memorandum might possibly seem to be justified. Surely the subject matter of this Bill is, however, of such fundamental importance that it should not be made the subject of temporary legislation. In speaking of the Explanatory Memorandum, I would remind the right hon. Gentleman, not only for this occasion but for others as well, that these memoranda have no binding effect in law, that judges are not bound by the law of England to take judicial notice of them, and that it is possible they may cause confusion. Surely, it would be far better to ensure that each Statute, as it becomes law, is in itself intelligible.
  I make no apology for criticising only the form and not the substance of this Bill, for the very simple reason that they arc one and the same thing. Unless the form is intelligible the Bill will have no substance, or at any rate no one will be able to tell what the substance is. I hope it is not too late for the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this whole matter. It is a vastly important matter; and if he will in this outstanding case of an unfortunate piece of legislation, so to speak, "come clean" —I am sure that in his present office he will understand the expression—the public will appreciate it and will be reassured that Parliament is not going to inflict this sort of thing upon
  466
  them indefinitely and that we are intent upon ensuring that when we do a job, we do it well.
  4.41 p.m.
  Captain Swingler: I do not propose to detain the House a long time but there are one or two observations which I wish to make on this very important Bill. I support the Government wholeheartedly in the main provisions of this temporary Measure, and I would like to emphasise, in view of remarks of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) that it is in this Bill stated, as he said it was stated in previous Measures, that the provisions are temporary. He will find, in looking at the Bill, that the heading of Clause I of the Bill is:
  "Temporary provisions as to electoral registration."
  As regards the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill, it also states that Clause 2 is to extend Section I of the Parliamentary Electors Act, 1944, until 31st December, 1946. Therefore, I hardly think it can be said that this Bill is brought forward, extending these wartime temporary Measures for an indefinite period, because in its main provisions, it is stated that they are temporary.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: One looks at the content of the Clause. Is there one word in Clause I which puts a time limit on it?
  Captain Swingler: I quite agree with the hon. Member that in Clause I of the Bill no date is stated, but he remarked that in previous Measures dealing with the question of registration it had been stated that they were temporary. I am pointing out that it is stated in this Bill that the provisions as to electoral registration laid down in Clause I are temporary provisions and in Clause 2 that it is to continue up to December, 1946. I, think the Government are right in making these temporary provisions in view of the difficulties which are going to exist, up to the end of 1946. I consider it would have been unwise in that period of resettlement and reconstruction, in the initial period after the war, to reintroduce immediately the residence qualifications. I think it is quite clear that in the period in which we are living, and particularly in the next 12 months during the period of demobilisation from the Armed Forces, there will be considerable movement of population in

  467
  the country. People have not settled down in the places in which they intend to live; there are still large numbers of evacuees who are going back to their home towns; large numbers of men and women are being demobilised from the Forces; people are compelled to live in places in which they do not in the future intend to live because of the difficulties and prospects of accommodation. Therefore, the reintroduction of the residence qualification would have been a bad thing in this immediate period.
  However, I am glad that a time limit has been put on in Clause 2 with regard to the method of making up the electoral register, namely 31st December, 1946. In addition, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary stated, there is the difficulty of clerical staff in regard to the making up of the complete register along the old lines and I think it is questionable, particularly as put forward by some hon. Members, whether we should decide that staff—even though it should be a very small number of clerks involved— should, at this period, be put on to the job of making up the register in a more complicated way, when industry and so on are crying out about the great need for their assistance in reconstruction.
  One point which I would put forward very strongly to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is in regard to the register on which the General Election was fought this year, and the type of register that is now to be made up under this Bill in 1946. There were many problems and grievances arising out of it, not so much because of the provisions or methods by which it is made up, but because of sheer administrative inefficiency, or what I regard as administrative inefficiency, in matters of detail. It was a widespread scandal in regard to the register on which the Election was fought in July that on a host of matters of detail small mistakes had been made by those who made up the register. Children in their teens, well under the age permitted by the law to vote, were included on the register; there were many duplications, misspelling of names, and a host of minor details which showed that the register had been made up in a great hurry without due attention to detail. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will see to it that, when the next register is made on the same lines in 1946, special instruct-
  468
  tions are issued to see that more attention is paid to the detailed matters which were overlooked in very many cases in regard to the last register.
  There is one final point on which I feel very strongly, and on which I agree with some of the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Daventry, namely, on the Clause dealing with the Service voters. I think the greatest scandal of all in regard to the register on which the General Election was fought was the fact that the vast majority of the Servicemen did not get on to the register, that they did not understand how the register had been made up, that large numbers of them were never given the opportunity to get on to that register, that many of them took the opportunity and the correct ways of getting on that register and still never got on to it, and never found out why they did not get on; and there was no means of redress for the Serviceman who, although he had taken all the correct actions in filling up Army Form B.2626 and sending it off to the registration officer, still found that something had gone wrong in the process and his name was left out. In the constituency I represent, much less than 50 per cent. of the Servicemen actually got on to the register. It is proposed in this Bill to continue the same methods in regard to the Service register and the supplementary register under Clause 3 of the Bill as were laid down for Servicemen to get on to the last register. I consider that an unfortunate aspect of this Bill and I agree with the hon. Member for Daventry when he says that it should not be a method of contracting- for the Serviceman, at any rate when there is no longer a wartime situation, to be able to get his vote, but it should be administratively possible for the Serviceman, from all the records which the Services have of him, which every unit has, which the Army records offices have, to get his vote without having to fill in a postcard and send it off.
  What I am particularly concerned about is that for the purposes of the register next year there is now, with the announcement of the Second Reading of this Bill in this House, only the period between now and 31st December of this year for a Serviceman who was not on the register in July, 1944, to get on to the register which will be made up in February, 1946. Otherwise he "will have had it," as they say in the Army, up to the end of Decem-

  469
  ber, 1946, unless he gets a postcard and fills it in. What about the man far away in the overseas Forces, in S.E.A.C., in the C.M.F.? What about units who have not got any Army forms B. 2626 when the man applies? There is a very short period of time allowed, and I feel that some special effort should be made, as this decision has been taken to continue the supplementary register for the Serviceman along these lines, to give publicity immediately to those people. For those Servicemen who did not get on to the register for the General Election, special measures will have to be taken by the Service Departments to see that the necessary forms are available and publicised as being available, so that within the next month we may have some assurance that the Servicemen will get on to the supplementary register to be made up next year. Otherwise, we shall have exactly the same grievances in 1946 in the case of elections affecting Servicemen as we had in the General Election of 1945. As the Government have not found it possible to come to the conclusion that some other administrative method should be devised to put Servicemen on to a Services supplementary register without their having to fill in forms and make application to get on that register, I appeal to the Home Secretary to start immediately a publicity campaign, particularly for the overseas Forces, to see that the forms are made available, and to see that it is made clear to the Servicemen that they have to fill in those forms and get them to their registration officers by 31st December, 1945, if they are not to lose any opportunity to vote which may be their privilege in the year 1946.
  5.55 p.m.
  Major Sir Basil Neven-Spence: Like the hon. and gallant Member for Stafford (Captain Swingler) T and all other hon. Members have had hundreds of complaints from people who thought they ought to be on the register and found at the time of the election that they were not. However, I shall not pursue that point but deal with rather a different question. It is this, that any register set up under this Bill will, like all registers in the past, be, so far as hundreds if not thousands of electors in the North of Scotland and the Highlands and Islands are concerned, a complete and utter farce. The truth is that their names are put on the register but they
  470
  are left in a position in which it "is absolutely impossible for them to exercise their vote.
  I must explain to hon. Members that the machinery in Scotland is slightly different from that in England. Under Section 43 of the Representation of the People Act, 1945, the Returning Officer in Scotland has the duty of dividing the constituency into polling districts so as to give all the electors as reasonable facilities for voting as are practicable. Under Section 31 (2) a local authority in Scotland, or a body of not less than 30 electors, may represent to the Returning Officer that the polling districts do not meet the reasonable needs of the electors in the constituency. Furthermore, if the Returning Officer does not give them satisfaction, the Lord Advocate—I am sorry he is not here for the moment—has the power to direct the Returning Officer to make such alterations as he considers necessary. That does not mean that 30 electors in a community, however isolated it may be, can automatically get into the polling booth by discretion of the Returning Officer, or even by invoking the aid of the Lord Advocate. That is far from being the case because, lurking in the background, is the Treasury, which keeps a very watchful eye on the Consolidated Fund, out of which has to be borne the cost of setting up polling facilities.
  I do not know if it is laid down in any Statute or in any public Regulations what number of electors is held to justify the setting up of a separate polling district. I have been told that the Treasury looks very closely at any proposal to set up a polling district with less than 500 electors in it. I know that exceptions have been made, however, and that there are districts with a smaller number, but, in spite of this, there are many areas in the Highlands and Islands where the electors are, and always have been, virtually disenfranchised. This is particularly the case in certain parts of the Highlands and Islands and in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, the islands of Orkney and Shetland, which consist of some 60 inhabited islands, large and small, spread over a very wide area of the ocean. It happens more particularly where a polling district comprises more than one island, in which case the electors have to cross the sea to record their votes. The Corrupt and Illegal Practises Preven-

  471
  tion Act, 1883, has a great deal to say on the subject of the conveyance of voters to the poll, Section 7 of which says:
  "No payment shall, for the purpose of promoting the election of a candidate. … be made—
  (a) on account of the conveyance of electors to or from the poll; whether for the hiring of horses or carriages, or for railway fares, or otherwise;"
  If a candidate pays any of these expenses, he is guilty of an illegal practice which entails certain consequences. Amongst others, his election becomes void, he is precluded from standing again for an election during the life of that Parliament, his name is struck off the register of electors for five years, and he is liable to a fine of £100. All of which goes to show that Parliament, in passing that Act, took a very serious view of what was or was not an undesirable practice. Having established that very salutary principle, Section 48 of the same Act proceeds to drive a coach and horses through it, by the way it deals with the conveyance of electors who have to cross the sea to record their votes. Section 48 says:
  "Where the nature of a county is such that any electors residing therein are unable at an election for such county to reach their polling place without crossing the sea or a branch or arm of the sea, this Act shall not prevent the provision of means for conveying such electors by sea to their polling place, and the amount of such payment for such means of conveyance may be in addition to the maximum amount of expenses allowed by this Act."
  In other words, candidates are permitted to indulge in a practice which, elsewhere in the Act, is condemned, and rightly condemned, as illegal.
  There are some points which I want to bring to the notice of the Joint Undersecretary of State for Scotland with regard to Section 48. It is one of the most extraordinary provisions that has ever found its way on to the Statute Book. He will note that provision is only made for the conveyance of voters to polling places across the sea. In one case in my constituency it is 25 miles across the sea, and in another case, 16 miles. Having conveyed them across the sea to the polling place, you have done all that the Act permits. You are not permitted to take them home again; so presumably, having commandeered the only steamer available, and having taken voters from Fair Isle to Sumburgh to record their
  472
  vote, you leave them there to find their own way home, which would have to be by swimming, as you have got the only steamer.
  Another point to which I would draw at tention is that under Section 48 there is no limit upon the amount which a candidate may spend in providing transport for the conveyance of voters across the sea. There is no limit except the length of the can didate's purse, because Section 48 says that the amount paid for the provision of such transport may be added to the maximum expenses allowed by the Act. The worst thing of all I think is this: In the Act as it now stands, it is perfectly legal for a wealthy candidate to hire the only available steamer, or other means of transport, and to use it exclusively for the conveyance of his own known supporters. I think that is a shocking thing, and one of the reasons why I am intervening in this Debate is, because I think it ought to be stopped, and that something should be done under this Bill to deal with that matter.
  All sorts of interesting situations have arisen since that Act was passed. What would be the position if I could get hold of a few ducks,'' or amphibious vehicles as a means of conveyance for electors in my constituency? I would be doing something illegal while the vehicle was going over land, but when we got to the sea, everything would be all right. Then again, what is the position in regard to aircraft? Am I allowed to hire an aeroplane to convey voters from one island to another? I think that the law ought to be made absolutely equal for everybody in this respect. In no circumstances, what so-ever, should a candidate be allowed to pay any part of the expenses of conveying voters to the poll either by land, sea or air. Neither should any candidate be expected to bear the cost of conveying voters to the poll across the sea, just because the returning officer, backed up by the Lord Advocate and the Treasury, thinks that it would cost too much, or that it would be too difficult to provide people with facilities which they ought to have for exercising their vote, by setting up separate polling stations on islands containing less than a certain number of electors. Equally we ought not to have any body of electors disfranchised solely because of their geographical situation.

  473
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will want to know whether there is any practical solution to these difficulties. I certainly do not advocate a solution by setting up polling stations on every island. There are certain practical difficulties in connection with that, with which I am very familiar, but it is not necessary to my argument to go into them now. It would not be a practical solution. Nor do I think the difficulty could be got over, in every case, by providing transport. In the last election, had it not been for the good offices of the Admiralty, and the Admiral commanding in the Orkney and Shetland, a great many more of my constituents would not have been able to get to the poll. There happened to be a large number of craft available at the islands, and the Admiral very kindly placed them at our disposal, but in normal times we cannot command enough transport in the islands to see that these people get to their polling places. There is another objection to transport, and that is the distance between some of these islands—in some cases a 25-mile journey each way. A 50-mile journey across the North Sea in something not much bigger than a herring boat in mid-winter is not a pleasing experience, nor is it one to ask women to undertake. In any case, small boats of that kind, even if they work throughout the day, cannot convey all the electors; it is physically impossible to do it. The real solution, I think, is to embody in this Bill a provision that when the nature of a county is such that any electors re-siding therein are unable, at an election for that county, to reach their polling place without crossing the sea, or a branch or arm of the sea, they shall be entitled to vote by proxy or by post.
  That is a simple practical solution and I see nothing in this Bill to prevent that provision being incorporated, and it would be a very good thing. It would relieve candidates of a very heavy expense. It costs a lot to hire a steamer, and it should be no part of a candidate's expense to provide transport for electors. It would prevent the possibility of candidates, under Section 48 of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, from indulging in practices entirely contrary to the real spirit of that Act. Section 48 of that Act puts a doubtful and very dubious legal respectability on the candidate in
  474
  regard to matters which ought to be considered as entirely illegal. Finally, if this could be done, it would redress a very long-standing grievance with which the Scottish Office is perfectly familiar and about which nothing has been done to put it right. It would remove a grievance affecting hundreds or thousands of electors who are permanently disfranchised at the present time.
  5.10 p.m.
  Mr. Hoy: While giving general approval to the Bill, there are two or three points upon which I would like: to have a reply from the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. I must support the plea of the hon. and gallant Member for Stafford (Captain Swingler) for further simplification with regard to the registration of Service voters. I can, as one of His Majesty's "other ranks," speak with some authority on the difficulty of Service voters. It might interest the Joint Under-Secretary to know that for a period on the Continent, I served under the command of the hon. Member for Stafford, and so I can vouch for the statement that was made.
  The Bill makes it appear to be a very simple matter. It would appear from Clause 3 (2) that all a Serviceman had to do was to fill in a card, and that no other duties were necessary. I want to inform the Under-Secretary that that is not the case. Servicemen on many occasions made application for this particular form— B.2626—only to find that it could not be obtained at their company office, and on many occasions when the forms were filled in, and the cards returned, it was found that a Serviceman was not on the electoral register. There was some mix-up, which was reflected in the voters' register on which the last election was fought, and I think that it was a fair plea made by the hon. and gallant Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) when he asked that we might have a simplification so far as the register of. Service voters was concerned.
  It does say, that unless the Serviceman makes his application by December of this year he will not be included in the new roll. I would like some assurance from the Minister that failing that registration, or failing a supply of forms, Servicemen will be placed on the roll subsequent to December of this year. I think that is

  475
  only asking what is fair to the Serviceman, because I can assure the Minister that conditions are not always such, that registration of a vote is the first concern of the ordinary Service man or woman.
  My next point is with regard to hospital patients. I welcome the effort to register people at present incapacitated, but it is not always possible for even the wisest voter to know when he is going to be incapacitated, and that means that thousands of people in this country, in hospital on a given date, are prevented from registering their vote. When one considers how few opportunities there have been in recent years for recording votes, I think it becomes the duty of the Government to introduce legislation which would give an opportunity to people in hospital to vote on the day that polling takes place. I would like a reply from the hon. Gentleman on that point.
  There is one other point which is purely a Scottish matter, to which, I trust, the Lord Advocate will give some attention. It is that part of the Bill dealing with sheriffs and their duties. There is one problem we have in Scotland which is not applicable to England, that is, the rigidity with which we enforce the matter of the cross only being on the exact place on the ballot paper. The Scottish Office has had its attention drawn to the fact that in my constituency of Leith 375 papers were spoiled by the incompetency of a presiding officer, who marked the voters' numbers on the ballot paper, instead of on the counterfoil. We paid that person £3 3s to sit and spoil the votes of every voter who came to his polling station that day.
  Mr. Peake: For whom were the votes cast?
  Mr. Hoy: I can safely assume that 75 per cent. of them were votes for me. Inasmuch as the majority was 9,500 it was not serious at that time, but it might have been serious if Leith had had its old Member back, instead of myself. I suggest that when the Minister replies he should certainly have something to say on this point. I am not complaining about the returning officer of that day, who was very scrupulous and fair in every detail, and who attempted to have his staff as competent as it was possible for any one man to make it. But I suggest that where a voter has made his intention known, it should be left to the discretion
  476
  of the returning officer to see that his vote is not declared invalid.
  5.17 p.m.
  Lieut. -Colonel Byers: There are many provisions of this Bill with which I and my hon. Friends are in general agreement, but it is quite clear, although I dislike saying so, that it is a slipshod Bill and it does not go far enough in many ways. We have been told by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and I welcome the information, that a Departmental Committee is to be set up to deal with other recommendations of the Speaker's Conference. I hope that that committee will not confine itself to all the matters of the Speaker's Conference, but that it will go a little way outside those terms. In particular, I hope that the committee will notice that Proportional Representation seems to have had a great success in Europe during the last few weeks. Even in Norway there was, under that system, a success which hon. Members opposite would appreciate—a clear Labour majority. I would ask the Minister to watch how Proportional Representation is working in other countries of the world, because it is a thing to which we shall have to turn our attention. From my own position as a Liberal, it appears to be unfair that 2,225,000 votes should be cast, to be rewarded by only I0 seats in the representative Assembly of the people. We make no plea as a minority, but it does indicate that the present system is unjust and unfair. We can draw the conclusion that each seat cost the Liberal Party 220,000 votes, as against 30,000 or 40,000 in the case of other parties; but we do not want to draw the conclusion that we are four or five times better than anybody else.
  Turning to the contents of the Bill, it has been stated by the Home Secretary that the present register, under the present arrangements, will be valid only up to 31st December of this year, and that every election after that would, under the old arrangements, have required the provision of an ad hoc register for the purpose of any by-election or General Election which was to take place. I believe I am right in saying that when these ad hoc registers were introduced in 1943 they were generally welcomed as being a method of dealing with the problem of the stale register. The problem of the stale

  477
  register and the disfranchisement of the people of this country is one which I do not feel this Bill tackles adequately. I emphasise the word "adequately." The Bill does attempt to solve the problem, but it does not go far enough. I believe I am also right in saying that under the Representation of the People Act, 1918, provision was made for two registers a year. Under the economy measures of 1926 this was again put back to an annual register system. This Bill, as I understand it, reverts to the 1926 principle, and that means that, normally, we shall have a new register every year, although in the case of the first so-called year the period is approximately I5 months; so that under these arrangements as contemplated by this Bill, we shall have with us the problem of the stale register and the problem of the disfranchisement of the people.
  I would reinforce what has been said from these benches today already, that the vote is a very precious thing, and I believe that all Members will agree that it was a delightful thing to see the value which the electorate of this country placed upon this vote in the General Election. It was something which, coming back after many years overseas, cheered me immensely, and gave new strength to my belief in democracy. We must regard the vote as a precious thing, and accept the responsibility we have, as representatives of the people, to make certain that they obtain their votes with the minimum difficulty in the places in which they reside. This Bill makes provision to assist certain classes of people to obtain their vote. First, there are the persons who have ceased to be members of the Forces or seamen between June and December, 1945. They can be put on a civilian supplementary register in the constituency in which they reside. Secondly, we have been told that members of the Forces, seamen and war workers from abroad can make declarations in the same period, which is getting very short now, and they too can be put upon a supplementary register. Thirdly, persons who are incapacitated or who are blind can be given the privilege of absent voting. On behalf of my hon. Friends and myself I welcome those provisions very much indeed. But we do not feel that the fourth provision, namely, that of allowing people who have moved from one part of the country to another, to be placed upon the absent
  478
  voters list, is any solution to the problem at all. It is not nearly good enough.
  On the last qualifying date for this register, which was 30th June, the war in Europe had scarcely ended, and the Japanese war was not over. Since then, war workers and evacuees have been moving from one part of the country to another. It is fair to say that this movement of population will inevitably increase, or at least it will continue for a considerable time. If this is a temporary Bill that fact is no argument, for over the next year or two, this movement—as the result of the conversion of industry, the switch-over of jobs, the housing problem, men coming back on demobilisation, picking up their wives and families who have been staying with relations, and going to another town—is bound to continue for a considerable time. It is no solution whatever for those civilians who move from one place to another, war-workers in this country, etc., to be told that they can still vote in the place which they have left, the place where they have been living perhaps for part of the war, a place in which they have no longer any interest.
  There is a further anomaly where a demobilised man comes back, and takes his wife from the town in which she has been living to reside elsewhere. As I understand the Bill, he can get on to the supplementary register without difficulty and can vote where he is residing. It is difficult to understand this Bill but I take it that his wife is only entitled to vote by post in the constituency which they have left. That seems to me to be a very wrong situation, which it would not be difficult to put right. This Bill, as it stands, is designed for static conditions, and a Bill which is to deal with the next two years must cater for this great problem of movement from one part of the country to another in order to ensure that the vote, which is a very precious thing, is given to every person entitled to it, with the minimum difficulty. I, therefore, suggest that every citizen who moves from one part of the country to another should be included on the supplementary register in the same way as Service men and women. I cannot see that any great difficulties would be involved in such a system. After all, one still has to make an application if one wants to be put on the absent voters list but that application,

  479
  as I understand the matter, is made at the place which one has left.
  We are asking that one should make a similar application to be put on the supplementary register of the place to which one has gone. I cannot believe it would be difficult to confer such a privilege upon people who are moving round. If necessary, it would be a good idea to confine the qualifying period to two months residence in the new place. It will undoubtedly be advanced as an argument against this proposal that there will be duplication of the registers. I do not feel that that is a problem which cannot be solved. I believe it is an administrative detail, which I believe can be dealt with by a system of cross-checking, such as will be undertaken in the case of the other supplementary registers. The desire to achieve this will depend on the value which the Government set upon the citizens of this country having their vote in the right place, at all costs.
  The ideal solution, if we are to get over this question of stale registers, is to have two registers a year, as we had before the 1926 economy enactment, and that all people who have moved during that period should be entitled to inclusion in a supplementary register compiled more frequently than the present one. I say that is the ideal solution. I put it forward in order to emphasise the importance which we on these benches attribute to the possession of a vote. I believe the minimum we should accept is one register a year, but that all people who move should be entitled, instead of being relegated to the absent voters' list, to be included in a supplementary register that enables them to have a vote in the constituency in which they have resided for a two months qualifying period. That would solve a great many of the problems which will, inevitably, arise.
  May I say, finally, how strongly I reinforce, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, the pressure which is being put upon the Home Secretary to do away with this contracting-in system in the case of the Service votes, and to get down to an automatic system? It ought to be possible to introduce such a system when one considers that it is a matter of administration. I do not believe that this Government need be frightened of administration, but. I hope they will not in any
  480
  way refuse to give the people the very best possible service and every opportunity for using the votes to which they are entitled in places where they reside, and that matters of administrative detail will not prevent any of the people of this country from having the right to vote.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. G. Lang: The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down will, I am sure, forgive me if I do not follow him in all that he has said, although, if I may say so, he has given a very lucid and remarkably well reasoned speech upon this Bill, and has said something which many of us— perhaps most of us—were very glad to hear. I was very glad to hear his plea that the Committee set up by the right hon. Gentleman might go a little beyond what seemed to be its terms of reference, and inquire into the question of voting. After all, this Bill deals with very important matters— the right of every citizen to vote for the Imperial Parliament, and the right of every man to be tried by his peers under the jury system. A more important Bill introduced into this House one could scarcely conceive, and I hope that, in the spirit of the times, the Bill will be interpreted liberally, and that those responsible for it will find themselves able and willing to accept the strong views of the House.
  The last matter to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred, and which was eloquently dealt with earlier by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stafford (Captain Swingler), is that Service men and women should be able to exercise their right to vote. They did not have that privilege during the recent General Election, and it was by no means entirely their fault. There were plenty of cases in which Service people went to the trouble of filling up the prescribed form, and yet were never given the opportunity to vote. It would be a tragedy, if an opportunity were not afforded to every Service man and woman to vote. That is the desire of the country and of the House. There is another thing to be said about it. No matter how far the system of demobilisation is accelerated, if it were much more speedy than it is, and as speedy as I wish it to be, there is bound to be a certain sense of frustration among those who are awaiting their turn, and if, by any chance, in addition to their

  481
  extended service with the Forces, they found themselves deprived of their rights as citizens the position would be a grievous one indeed. Here, then, is an opportunity for reducing that possibility.
  Then I would like to refer to classes of people who have not yet been mentioned in this Debate in connection with the subject of absent voters. Perhaps I may state my own case. I had the privilege of fighting five Parliamentary elections, but I have not had the privilege of voting at one. I was obliged to be away from the constituency in which I live, in order to contest my seat. I do not see why it should not be arranged that Parliamentary candidates who have to be away contesting constituencies, should be able to exercise their votes by post. I think it ought to be permissible, as indeed it ought to be for learned judges and barristers on circuit, and even for people who are engaged in travelling for commerce. They are not the least intelligent section of the community. If the intention is, as it ought to be, that everybody who is entitled to vote should be able to vote, I believe it is the duty of the Government to make it easy for those people to vote, even if there were some errors in the registration list. If within a few days of an election a person can validly prove that he is entitled to vote, I cannot see why it is not possible to enable him to do so. Surely these matters ought to be subject to common sense as well as to all kinds of legal formulae.
  I desire to say one word about the second part of the Bill, and about something which, unfortunately, is not in it. The compilation of the jurors' list is, again, a very important matter, and people are called upon to render great service. We have every reason to be proud in this country of our system of justice, and recent events in other places have, I think, made many of us more thankful than ever for the broad, fair and incorruptible system of justice that is administered for us and to us. Jurors obviously have to play a great part in that, but it is a very difficult part for a large number of people. Take, for instance, the average court of justice. The only persons whose expenses are not paid in that court, apart perhaps from an accused person, are the members of the jury. The judges, the legal people engaged and the reporters receive salaries.
  482
  there are witnesses' expenses, and even the messenger boys are paid, but business men who are often compelled to close down their businesses or engage additional help, have to be in the courts for many days to discharge their duties without any kind of recompense or out-of-pocket expenses. They, and perhaps they only, in the court are the people who might have a rankling sense of injustice. I know it is customary at the end of a long trial for the judge to give exemption to the jury for some years, but I would point out that jurors may actually be in court for much longer periods than that. They may be called at the beginning of an assize; they may have to attend each day and yet not go into the jury box until three or four days have elapsed. If they only sit two days, their period of service and of being away from their business is longer than that of people who may sit at a noted trial.
  I not only want the jury service to be continued as an integral part of the administration of justice, I want it to be cheerfully given. Some of us are aware of the way in which great bodies of trades-people at their conferences have, now and then, pressed for exemption from jury service. I have never thought that to be the way out. I want these people to have the opportunity and the privilege of serving upon juries, but I believe there is a case for paying them reasonable expenses. In these days nearly everybody is paid for everything he does. Why should not these people, who render very important and indispensible service, be recompensed for out of pocket expenses? I hope that at some time that matter can be dealt with.
  That is all I desire to say upon this Bill. I hope some of the points that have been pressed by Members of this House will be conceded. I am quite sure they will be considered, but that is not enough. I want every Service man and woman put on the register. They have more right than anyone. We owe to them a debt which, as long as we live, we shall never be able to pay, and the least we can do is to see that they have their opportunity of deciding who shall represent them and what policies they want to be the policies of the country. I hope something may be done to give to those who, like myself, have to fight elections a good way from home an opportunity to register

  483
  their votes. It will be a great day when I can register my first Parliamentary vote. I hope it will not be suggested that those of us who had the privilege of being voted for by scores of thousands of people are themselves not competent to vote. Why a Parliamentary candidate should not be able to send his vote by proxy or by post I do not know. I hope at some time— not in this Bill, perhaps, but at some time—the service of jurors to the community will be recognised, and a reasonable reinbursement of their expenses granted.
  5.40 p.m.
  Lieut-Colonel Nigel Birch: I will not detain the House long, but I want to put in a plea for a very special class of person. I refer to nuns in enclosed orders —nuns who have taken vows of perpetual seclusion in a convent. I speak entirely without prejudice in this matter because I am a member of the Established Church, and I have not been approached by any Catholic interest. It so happens that there is a nunnery in my constituency, and all the candidates at the Election were approached to see if anything could be done to get proxy votes for the nuns, who are unable to leave the convent. Of course, we were not able to do anything about it. I imagine the number involved is very small. I cannot understand any principle which draws a distinction between those who are trying to cure our bodies, and those who are trying to cure our souls. I would like the hon. Gentleman who replies to give some indication of whether he will put in an Amendment so that this special class of people can be included in Clause 6.
  Lieutenant Skeffington - Lodge: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there are communities of women in the Established Church, and that such communities are not exclusive to the Roman Catholic Church?
  Lieut-Colonel Birch: I am very glad that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has raised that point. I hope these communities will be included in the manner I have indicated.
  5.42 p.m.
  Major Digby: It seems to me there are two things about this Bill which are bad, and one which is good. The two things which I regard
  484
  as bad are that we are continuing with this very unsatisfactory register, and that once again we are continuing without a qualifying period. The point which I regard as satisfactory is the fact that the method of postal voting has at last been extended. I am sure the lack of it inflicted great hardship in the past. With regard to this question of the register, on which we fought the last election, we are today being asked by the Home Secretary to continue that system. I very much doubt whether there is in any part of this House any Member who during the election did not have some complaints about that register and the omissions from it. We all know, from our own knowledge, a number of cases of men and women who have lived in places all their lives and reached advanced years, and yet were left off the register. I myself know one polling district of considerable size in which all the people whose names began with "H" were automatically left off the register. That is not a satisfactory state of affairs, and I suggest that this House should be very slow to perpetuate a system of that sort. It was the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister of Health who said, when the Act of 1944 was being debated in this House:
  "Yes, if a Labour Government cause conditions which make people dissatisfied, that dissatisfaction should find expression in the election. It is essential that we should arrange our system of election so that no considerable body of citizens is prevented from having a vote at an election." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, I944; Vol. 40I, c. 633.]
  That is exactly what we are being asked to do today. We are being asked to continue this system which, we know from the experience of the election, will result in a large number of citizens being disfranchised.
  Although I agree with a great deal that was said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Stafford (Captain Swingler), especially concerning Service voters, I am afraid I was not in agreement with him on one matter. He suggested that at times like these, when we are short of men for many tasks, it would be asking rather a lot to put on the extra men to enable us to go back to the old system which we know was satisfactory. I consider, and other hon. Members feel the same, that the right of the citizen to vote is very important and should not be taken from him lightly. I suggest that this

  485
  House needs extremely good reasons before it decides to go on with a system which we know has deprived a number of citizens of their democratic right to vote.
  Now, let me come to the question of the qualifying period, which does not find a place in the Bill. Once again, the qualification to vote depends upon an appointed day. In this country we have long relied upon a system of territorial representation, the Member of Parliament representing a certain area. Other ways have been tried in other countries. There has been a system of Proportional Representation where there is a pool of Members of Parliament, each of whom is not necessarily identified with any particular geographical area. We have had in certain States in Europe, the very objectionable attempt to establish the corporate State, which is representation according to vocation. I am sure that is objectionable to most hon. Members of this House. I believe that our system, by which one man represents a particular area, very often lives there and is well known to most of the people living in that area, is very good. If we are to go on with the system of having an appointed day, and not a residence qualification, we arc endangering our whole system. I regard it as most important that we should re-establish at the earliest possible moment the residence qualification.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) quoted at some length from what the Leader of the House said during a Debate a year ago. I would like to add one further quotation from what he said on this subject, which was:
  "It is only because of the urgency of putting the new arrangements into effect for by-elections that the Government have been prepared to suspend, even as a temporary measure, the requirement of the two months' continual residence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, I944; Vol. 401, c. 613.]
  Hero again, a General Election has been fought on this register. We are asked again today to continue this system which many of us believe to be very bad.
  I should like to come now to what I consider to be good in the Bill. I am glad that the Government have included in it at least one recommendation of the Speaker's Conference, and that is the extension of the personal and proxy vote. Many invalids in the past have been disfranchised and many have come to me
  486
  or have written to me and asked: "Is there any way in which I can record my vote?" I think it is an excellent thing that this grievance has now been remedied and that those people will now have an opportunity of recording their vote, and of exercising their rights as citizens. There are, however, other recommendations of the Speaker's Conference which it has not been possible, I am very sorry to say, to include in the Bill. We have just heard that a Committee has been set up to consider the matter, and that is very satisfactory, but I do not understand why, if it was possible to include one recommendation it was not possible to include more. After all, the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference are clearly laid down and they were agreed upon at that time. There is not very much controversy about them. I could deal at length with matters which I should like to see included in the Bill. There are, for example, the expenses incurred by outside organisations being included in election expenses. That seems to be to be a very necessary provision. Again, it was suggested by the Speaker's Conference that poll cards should be issued by returning officers. There is also the question of speakers' expenses being allowed.
  One matter which is of the greatest importance, especially in rural areas, is the recommendation about the use of schools and other institutions which are partially or fully maintained. It was recommended that they should on all occasions be made available for political meetings. In the country districts we have considerable difficulty in finding suitable halls or other places in which to hold our meetings. We have felt the difficulty during the war, on account of the large measure of requisitioning, but the difficulty is always there. We cannot tell that the next General Election will be fought in the summer time, as was the last, when we shall be able to make full use of the open air. It is most important that we should have proper places in which to put our views before the electors. Then there is another matter which is equally important for rural areas, the provision of more polling facilities. I believe that those who live in cities and towns do not generally-realise how far some of the unfortunate country voters have to go to record their vote. Often they may have to go a number of miles, and that is a lot to ask

  487
  of old people. In fact, it is impossible for some very old people to go to the poll. Once again, a particular class of persons are disfranchised and prevented from exercising their democratic right to vote.
  I consider that we are being asked to continue a system which is unsatisfactory and is unfair to the electors. We heard the complaints at the last General Election about the register, and I do not suppose that any of us said: "I am going up to Westminster to vote for the continuation of this system." Hon. Members in all quarters of the House would be very slow to suggest that. I do not think that we have been given a sufficiently good case this evening for continuing this system. I am very sorry that the Government have not seen fit to include more of the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference. For those reasons I am opposed to the Bill.
  5.54 p.m.
  Major Wells: In the course of the Debate we have heard a number of eloquent appeals. The Government have been urged to consider the position of enclosed nuns, commercial travellers and Parliamentary candidates. The first two of those classes are at all times deserving of the full consideration of this House. We have heard from my hon. Friend— if I may so call him—the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) a devastating attack on the evils of legislation by reference, and we have heard the Government invited to introduce, in what is, and what purports to be, only a temporary Measure, wide and far-reaching reforms both in the electoral system in this country and in the method by which legislation is put before us.
  As one of those unfortunate beings who are asked from time to time to construe the law for the benefit of their clients, I could not agree more than with my hon. Friend's appeal for the abolition of legislation that is in the form of this document here. I am afraid it is rather a stale argument to use perhaps, but at any rate, the present Government are not the first Government to employ this method of legislation. If we look at the terms of the Bill we shall see how extraordinarily difficult it would be to draft anything of moderate length without a great deal of legislation by reference.
  488
  When the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) said in the course of his argument that Service voters would have to read three Acts before they understood what they had to do in order to secure votes under the system which is imposed, I think the provisions of Section I0 of the 1943 Act had escaped his attention. There is there laid upon the Admiralty, the Army Council and the Air Council the statutory duty both of making administrative arrangements to make it possible for the Service voter to vote, and also of drawing the attention of those men and women to what they have to do in order to vote.
  Speaking for myself, at the relevant time I was serving in this country, and the Army Council at any rate performed that second part of their duty, the explanatory part, most admirably before the last Election. Not only were Army Council Instructions issued, but notice board instructions were drafted in very simple language and were generally disseminated, and so it was made possible for very ordinary people to follow exactly what they had to do. The real reason for the undoubted disorganisation that existed at the time of the last Election was not in the necessity of explanation or in the methods that were taken to explain; but, owing to the fact that right hon. Gentlemen opposite decided to have an Election on the date when they did, there was no time to make the administrative arrangements that were necessary in the overseas theatres.
  In fairness, it may be said that whatever day had been fixed, there might have been some mistakes in the immediate operational theatres. There would have been mistakes. People there would have thought there were more important things to do than vote at a General Election. It is a fantastic argument, and one which should not be taken into account, to suggest that it is necessary that anybody in the Services should read three Acts, or anything at all except some very simple explanatory matter, in order to know what they have to do to vote.
  The hon. Member for Daventry used another argument which rather surprised me at the time, and I wanted to verify whether I was right in doubting the accuracy of this argument when he said that, although the sub-title of this Bill states that the provisions as to electoral registration are temporary, there was no

  489
  provision in Clause I for any termination of the operation of this part of the Bill. On looking at the Bill I see:
  "Notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1943 or in the Act of 1945, the register of electors to be in force for a parliamentary election which
  (a) is initiated on or after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-six; and
  (b) is an election at which the time fixed for nomination falls before the coming into force of a new register prepared under section eleven of the Act of 1918;".
  The second paragraph, to my mind, does provide a perfectly definite term to this Bill, which is linked to the duration of the National Registration Act, 1939, which in its turn is limited to the duration of the present emergency. I submit that the temporary arrangements made by this Bill are perfectly satisfactory, and that the criticisms opposite, based on its inadequacies as a long-term Measure, are inept and should not be considered. The interim Report of the Committee on Electoral Reform has been published; its final report has not yet been published and, in due time, I for one would agree that there are a great many alterations which ought to be made in our electoral law. This, however, is not the time or the occasion for making them.
  6.3 p.m.
  Mrs. Braddock: I want to refer to merchant seamen and the method used to get them on to the voters' register. In every division in Liverpool, I think, during the General Election, it was discovered that there was not a merchant seaman at all on the register, and in view of the fact that this Bill contains procedure similar to that which created the register for the General Election, on the next occasion merchant seamen will again be entirely off the register. I think the Home Secretary might consider the special case of merchant seamen, because while the necessity for provision to deal with people in the Forces will gradually disappear, the Merchant Service continues for ever, and unless there is special legislation or some special method is adopted to enable merchant seamen to get on to the register, they will be disfranchised for ever. I hope the Home Secretary will make some attempt to introduce some legislation or method whereby the merchant seamen of this country can be put on to the electoral register.
  6.4 p.m.
  Mr. Osbert Peake: In the present partly fog-bound condition of this noble Chamber, it is perhaps not surprising that hon. Members have shown a desire to enable the many deserving officers and staff of the House who serve our requirements to see their homes at some time this evening. All the same, we have had a number of useful contributions to the Debate. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary himself was unable to inspire any warmth into this rather dry subject, but I think perhaps he has been unfortunate in having been connected with a number of bad Bills during the last three or four weeks. I should like however to congratulate him on the successful manoeuvre of changing his batting order yesterday, and only express the hope that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department is not suffering any reaction as a result of the oratorical fireworks to which he yesterday treated the House.
  Some parts of this Bill will be generally welcomed. The Amendment which was moved from these Benches expresses our satisfaction that there are to be extended provisions for postal voting, by persons who cannot be in the constituency upon the day of the poll, and by sick persons. Those provisions will be generally welcomed, and they might well have formed part of our statute law in days gone by. I also welcome the provision that new jurors' lists are to be compiled. That, at any rate, seems to indicate that the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to abolish trial by jury, and of course jurors will be very much needed in the years that lie ahead. There are bound to be many more offences under a Socialist régime; the more regulations there are, the more penalties there have to be, and it is perfectly clear that it will be very difficult in years to come for citizens to know whether they are within or without the law. In fact, it is not too easy at the present time under the various wartime provisions that have had to be made. One could cite plenty of examples of cases where you are bound to break the law whatever you do. [An HON. MEMBER: "Indictable offences? "] Yes, I am sure they are indictable. A friend of mine who has been engaged on Secret Service work was told that if he gave details of his income to his Inspector of Taxes he

  491
  would be guilty of a breach of the Official Secrets Act, and hon. Gentlemen know perfectly well that not to disclose one's income to the Inspector of Taxes is a very serious offence. It seems to me that in the times that lie ahead there will be many citizens who will not be able to tell when they are breaking the law, and I therefore welcome the establishment of new jurors' lists, because during wartime it has been extremely difficult to secure satisfactory juries. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, when introducing an unpopular Bill such as the one which he brought before the House yesterday—
  Mr. Ede: It was very popular in the Division Lobby.
  Mr. Peake: —blamed his predecessor in office for the difficulty in which he found himself. I have noted that to-day he has not blamed the Lord President of the Council, who was Home Secretary for four and a half years and whose enactments are responsible for the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has to bring in this Bill today. He has not been subjected to any censure by the right hon. Gentleman.
  This matter began in the summer of 1942. The problem at that time was to devise a method of electoral registration which would be satisfactory in the conditions of a very mobile population in the months following the termination of the war. It is a very obvious difficulty, and in 1942 the Lord President of the Council appointed a very strong Committee to try and devise some system of voting which could operate satisfactorily under those conditions. He appointed a very good committee called the Committee on Electoral Machinery, which reported in December, 1942. Amongst its members, who included the three agents of the main political parties, it contained Mr. Garro Jones, who was a Socialist Minister in the last Government but one, and the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury. That Committee reported very fully and elaborately in favour of a system of what they called "continuous registration." I think it was a very excellent plan. The plan was this: by means of the national register, there should be automatic Registration of everybody who resided for a period of two months at any once place,
  492
  and the register should be brought up to date continuously. That is to say, if somebody living in Westminster went to stay for six weeks in Leeds and then moved for nine weeks to Bristol, he would not be transferred from the register in Westminster to the register in Leeds but would be picked up automatically when he stayed the ninth week in Bristol, being put on the register there and taken off the register in Westminster.
  That was the system recommended by this very strong Committee, and it is an ideal system for a time when there is a mobile population. The great advantage of the system was that it preserved the connection between a definite period of residence and being placed upon the register. I think that a period of residence is a very desirable thing, and it would be a very bad thing if casual visitors—people, for instance, who stayed for a few weeks at one of the seaside resorts in the summer were to be placed upon the electoral register there. It would be quite contrary to the spirit of our institutions, which is that there is some connection, some tie, between the Member and his constituency. It would be quite wrong that somebody who casually came into the constituency for a few weeks, knowing nothing of the local conditions, not intending to stay there, and knowing nothing of the rival candidates, should obtain a vote for that constituency. I am very much fortified in my views by those of the Lord President himself which were expressed in the Debate on 27th June, 1944, to which I will shortly refer.
  What happened to that system of continuous registration? It was embodied in the Act of 1943, and some months later the electoral registration officers came along and told the Home Secretary that in the conditions then obtaining they could not operate it. That was close to D-Day, I944, when obviously the pressure upon manpower was at its very greatest. As a result of the situation that arose and the obvious inconvenience caused by not having the possibility at that time of an up-to-date register, the Lord President of the Council brought in the Parliamentary Electors (War-Time Registration) Bill, I944, which was given a Second Reading on 27th June. In the course of his speech the right hon. Gentleman came before the House in a white sheet. I was the right hon. Gentleman's Under-Secretary at that

  493
  time, and I shall quote from my own remarks, but first I would like to quote from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. He apologised for the breakdown in the machinery of the 1943 Act, and explained that the purpose of the Measure before the House, which was a purely temporary one, was to do away with the two months' residential qualification and in its place put residence on a single day. He expressed great regret at having to take that course and promised in unqualified terms that the arrangements would be only temporary. He said:
  "The Bill suspends the requirement of two months' continuous residence and substitutes a provision that a person shall be entitled to be included on the electoral register for civilians if he is registered in the national register, as residing in the constituency on the qualifying date. I know that Members in certain parts of the House are rather averse from abolishing, for the time being, this qualifying period. I sympathise with them. I like some attachment to the soil on the part of the electors in a constituency, and I do not, in any way, dispute the sentiment of those who feel rather unhappy on this point."
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that he had taken all possible precautions to make sure that the Bill was only of a temporary character. He was asked by Sir Percy Harris, who at that time represented South-West Bethnal Green:
  "Will my right hon. Friend give an important guarantee, which will expedite the passage of the Bill, that the Bill will not be used for a General Election? "
  The right hon. Gentleman replied:
  "I want to be absolutely honest with the House. I, personally, do not think it will. I do not think it ought to be, unless circumstances should force us, for example, to have a wartime General Election—which Heaven forbid. My own view is that whether a General Election comes during the European war or thereafter, this Bill ought not to be used if it is possible to avoid it, and every effort will be made to that end."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1944; Vol. 401, c. 611–13.]
  When I replied to the Debate, speaking with the assent and, in fact, on the instructions of the right hon. Gentleman, I was questioned by the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) who asked:
  "Can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance, on behalf of the Minister, that this reduction of the residential qualification is purely a temporary war measure, and that the old-time principle of the residential qualification is not being jeopardized?"
  I replied:
  "I can give that assurance without any qualification whatever. It is not only a wartime measure, but it will expire at the end
  494
  of 1945"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, I944; Vol. 401, c. 647.]
  I hold that I, at any rate, am bound by those undertakings. They seem to me to be quite inescapable. The residential qualification was abolished in 1944, at the height of the war and just after D-Day, on purely manpower grounds. The war has now been over for some months, and I regard it clearly as a breach of pledge to bring before the House a Bill which carries on for an indefinite period the existing system of a single residential day. During the Debate on the I945 Act, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, the Lord President of the Council stated what would be the manpower requirements for operating the continuous registration system which the House adopted in 1943. He said that to work that system would require an additional 1,200 clerks and 400 supervising officers. I think this country deserves the best electoral machinery that can be devised and I do not think that in time of peace we ought to assent to the perpetuation of a one-day residential qualification when, in order to secure what the right hon. Gentleman pledged himself in I944 to secure, all that would be required would be an additional 1,200 clerks and 400 supervising officers.
  The system of continuous registration would have been the best system for dealing with a mobile population, and would have avoided much of the necessity for the extension of postal voting facilities, because under the continuous registration system the register would always have been automatically brought up to date. I say that it would have been the best system, and that it is the system to which the Government ought at this time to revert, in accordance with the pledge that was given in 1944. I do not know why it has been jettisoned. After all, right hon. and hon. Members opposite have said that the register of May, 1945, was a very bad one. They condemned it out of hand. I see that the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. McLean Watson) is in his place; I have here statements from his election address:
  "Mr. Churchill has refused to wait until the more complete register of voters is issued in October, and tens of thousands of the electors who changed their addresses will be deprived of the opportunity of taking part in the election."
  I think we are all agreed that it was not a very good register, but what surprised me was that when a series of by-elections

  495
  had to be held in order to fill vacancies which occured in the Socialist ranks soon after the General Election, they rushed in and held the elections on the May register.
  I want, in conclusion, to make three points. It is to be regretted that the system of continuous registration is not to be given a chance, and that we are to continue for an indefinite period without any residential qualification whatever. It is a pity, also, that the right hon. Gentleman is shelving, by means of establishing another Committee, the main recommendations of the Second Report of the Speaker's Conference. Those very important recommendations were made in July, 1944. Some of them were referred by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, who is now Lord President of the Council, to Sir Cecil Carr, Parliamentary Counsel, for his opinion on them nearly 15 months ago. I think it is rather a pity, when hon. Members in all parts of the House want to see these recommendations carried into effect, and when they have been exhaustively examined by the Speaker's Conference, to establish yet another Committee. At any time during the past four months, the right hon. Gentleman could have got expert advice on the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference from the chief agents of the different political parties. There are many matters contained in the Second Report of the Speaker's Conference on which hon. Members in all parts of the House would have liked to have seen legislation, and this Bill would have been a fine opportunity for incorporating such legislation, without there being any necessity for further inquiry. Hon. Members on this side of the House will be bound to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill and in favour of the Amendment, for the reasons stated therein.
  6.25 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): There has been an interesting discussion on this Bill, and I will try to answer many of the points that have been raised by hon. and right hon. Members. Before doing so, I think I have the responsibility of dealing with the Amendment on the Order Paper, because we have been told quite specifically that hon. Members opposite intend to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill both for the reasons they
  496
  have given and for the reasons stated in the Amendment. The Amendment reads:
  "That this House, whilst welcoming the proposal to extend facilities for absent voting to persons who have changed their residence, and to blind persons and persons physically incapable of voting, declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which ignores many of the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference and, notwithstanding the assurances given by the Lord President of the Council on 27th June, 1944, continues the suspension of any qualifying period, and perpetuates a system of registration which has resulted in many persons being deprived of the franchise."
  We have had two reports from the Speaker's Conference, the first Report on 24th May, 1944, and the second Report on 20th July, 1944. The first Report contained 28 resolutions, and 23 of those resolutions were given effect to in the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1944. The remaining resolutions related to reform of the franchise and methods of election. Two of them dealt with assimilating the Parliamentary and local government franchise and with the abolition of the spouses qualification. Those were given effect to in the 1945 Act. The only recommendations of the first Report not enacted are one relating to the automatic registration of University electors, and the recommendation that persons should not be registered for more than one residence and one business qualification, if administratively possible. Those three words, "if administratively possible," were used by the Committee. I do not think there is any criticism of the Government for failing at this time to enact either of those last two recommendations of the first report. The second report contained 20 resolutions mostly dealing with the conduct and cost of elections, and the expenses falling upon candidates and Members of Parliament. There was one relating to postal voting by Service voters to which effect was given in the Act of this year. That is being continued in the present Bill.
  This Bill also gives effect to the resolution in the second report about absent voting by physically incapacitated persons. The other resolutions relate to somewhat far-reaching matters and would involve amendment of the Ballot Act and the Corrupt and Illegal Practices (Prevention) Act. It may be that it would not have been wrong to amend those Acts

  497
  at this time, but I think that the Opposition, who are pressing us all the time to give adequate consideration to any matters we may decide to bring before the House in the way of legislation, ought to be consistent on this occasion and agree that it would be undesirable in this Bill, which is necessary at this time, to bring in these matters that require very considerable consideration before they are enacted. The legislation implementing such recommendations will, I think it is agreed, be extremely difficult to draft because of the technical nature of the subject matter. In the circumstances we did not think it possible that these matters should be dealt with at this time.
  Great play has been made with the qualifying period of residence and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) rather exaggerated the position when he spoke about casual visitors to the seaside. I think he is quite wrong. Casual visitors to the seaside normally take out emergency cards for one or two weeks and their registration remains in their own locality. Thus if they should be at the seaside at the time of registration, they would still be registered in their own locality and would therefore vote in their own constituency. The difficulties of having this qualifying period of residence and continuous registration were appreciated when the 1944 Bill was introduced. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the Lord President of the Council, when he was Home Secretary, and also quoted himself. I will not quote the Home Secretary because he has already been quoted twice this afternoon but I would quote the right hon. Gentleman himself when he was Under-Secretary when he said that it was a temporary measure which would expire at the end of 1945 and that the Bill was brought in because there was no real or practicable alternative. I would beg to use the right hon. Gentleman's words and to say that this Bill this afternoon is brought in because we see no real or practicable alternative. The difficulty persists. I think I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that there was a war on then, but it is only a short time since peace broke out and we have not yet reached the stage of total peace.
  The reason for the present proposal is not that the Government are opposed to a qualifying period. We are not opposed to it and it is quite wrong to say that it
  498
  has been jettisoned or thrown overboard. We agree with the remarks made by the Lord President of the Council on the Bill in 1944, but it must be appreciated that there are many difficulties. Registration officers have said to us that to have this period and a system of continuous registration is quite impossible of operation at the moment. It seems to me quite easy to say that when a person leaves Westminster and goes to Leeds for seven weeks there should be no transfer, but if he goes from Leeds to Bournemouth or somewhere like that and stays nine weeks there should be a transfer to there. When a person moves from one part of the country to another a careful check would have to be made, if he moved out of the constituency in which he was at the moment residing, to say that he left the one constituency on such a day and that he came to the other constituency on such a day. Under the continuous registration system we would just check him for the moment. We would not transfer him. We would just keep an eye on him and if he was still away eight weeks and one day after he had moved, a transfer would be made out and cancellation of his registration in the first constituency effected.
  In spite of the claims about the small numbers of people that are required to do it—and I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman quoted the Lord President of the Council's figures—in spite of the statement that the number affected is small, and that the difficulties are not insuperable, we have still to consider the people who would be required to administer this system of registration. They inform us— and they are not agents of the Labour Party—that it is quite unworkable and that it cannot be done. I think this time we have the responsibility of listening to them. The right hon. Gentleman knows that if we do not get this Bill, on 1st January next these provisions for working on the register compiled on the basis of national registration at a certain date expire, and we should have to go on to an ad hoc register. We were told by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manning-ham-Buller) that he did not see that there was any real difficulty about this, but I would point out to him that the time when an ad hoc register would be required would not be Autumn next year, for instance, but January of next year which is only six weeks away. Since, according to the best advice at our dis-

  499
  posal, which is inevitably that of the electoral registration officers, it is not possible to do it, it would be quite improper for us to create a situation wherein it would be quite impossible for there to be a General Election in this country. My right hon. Friend in his opening speech said that, although no one anticipated a General Election in 1946, nevertheless it would be most unfortunate if we were to allow a position to be created whereby it would be physically impossible for the people of this country to engage in a General Election.
  It has also been argued that it is very unfortunate that we propose to perpetuate a system of registration which has resulted in so many people being deprived of the franchise. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary indicated earlier, he made a statement on nth October intimating that the Government were inquiring into the question of what should be the permanent basis of registration and that a committee was in process of being appointed. I think it a fair point to say that no one has suggested a workable alternative to our present proposal to continue the existing wartime system of registration. We do not know of one, and we think it would not be a bad thing if hon. Members from all sides of the House and people outside with a knowledge of electoral machinery got together to examine every avenue and to report to us at the end of their deliberations what they consider to be the best means of registering people for the purpose of voting in elections.
  There have been criticisms, and I think probably very legitimate ones, of the inadequacies of the present register. I think however that though these criticisms may be justified in some cases, some people have rather over painted the lily, and the imperfections of the system have been exaggerated. I have tried to get some evidence in Scotland as to the extent of these imperfections. I do appreciate that the imperfections of the Service register were extensive, but I cannot get any very detailed information on the extent of the imperfections of the civilian register. The normal method before the war of course was by means of a canvass and the residence qualification. During the war years the manpower difficulty made a departure from that system very
  500
  necessary. This difficulty persists and although none of us could say what system of registration will be recommended by the Committee appointed by the Home Secretary it seems to me that it is not unreasonable that we should continue with our wartime expedient until a better way is found.
  Mr. Peake: I am very sorry to interrupt but this is a very important matter. I have not got the position quite clear. I understood the Home Secretary to say that he hoped to resume the 1918 system in the year 1947. Do I understand that the Committee is going to inquire into whether that system is good or bad?
  Mr. Fraser: In moving for the Second Reading of the Bill my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said he hoped it would be unnecessary to continue this system indefinitely. I hope that we will not have to go on with it. The Home Secretary did inform the House that he had set up this Committee to inquire into a permanent basis of registration for election purposes, and, of course, that means that they will look into the provisions of the 1918 Act. I hope they will succeed in finding a better way, but I cannot be sure they will do so.
  My right hon. Friend indicated that I would be saying a word about that part of the Bill which deals with purely Scottish matters and, although no one has raised that in discussion, I think I ought to do so. Clause 13 of the Bill proposes a certain change, as under the 1918 Act where a constituency extended into more than one sheriffdom the Schedule to the Act decided who the returning officer should be. I would inform the House that the returning officer in Scotland is the sheriff of the sheriffdom in which the constituency is situated. In adjusting constituencies and sheriffdoms we believe that difficulties may arise in relation to constituencies that are situated in one or more sheriffdoms, and we think it better, in order to avoid any confusion as to who the returning officer should be, that the Secretary of State should take the responsibility of informing any such constituency of the sheriff who is to be the returning officer for that constituency. This is a purely Scottish point dealt with in the new Bill.
  I think I should try to reply to one or two points raised by hon. Members.

  501
  Some of their suggestions are outside the scope of this Bill, and it would have been impossible to include them. The hon. Member for Daventry asked how we were going to warn the Service man when he would be eligible for inclusion in a supplementary register. Immediately after the General Election I believe that the Commands in all the Services were informed that they had better provide that their personnel should make application for registration. Since my right hon. Friend was able to indicate to the House the other week that this Bill would be introduced as soon as printed, we again took steps to ask for the co-operation of the Service Departments in warning the Commands straight away to give to their personnel who were not already on the Service register the opportunity of getting on that register before 31st December next.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Member has said what steps will be taken to warn those still in the Services. Would he go on to say what steps have been, or will be, taken to warn those who have been demobilised since 30th June, and those who are war workers abroad?
  Mr. Fraser: We are publishing our intentions to the best of our ability, and it will be incumbent upon the Commands— I am referring to the Service voters for the time being—to inform those who joined the Services between 30th June and 31st December.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Gentleman has not got my point. I was not talking about Commands informing people who were recently called up, but was asking the hon. Gentleman about people who have been demobilised since 30th June and who no longer have a Command. What steps are to be taken to bring to their notice the fact that they are to make application before the end of this year?
  Mr. Fraser: The people who have been demobilised were on the Service register.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: Not necessarily.
  Mr. Fraser: If they were not on the Service register they will not go on under the provisions of this Bill. That may be unfortunate, but there are many civilians in this country who are not on the register,
  502
  and it is not found possible to have all of them included and given an opportunity of going on to the supplementary list at this time. It is well to remember that in the past we have always had imperfections in the electoral register.
  Mr. Hoy: Many papers are issued to a man when he is demobilised, giving him instructions as to what he should do when he re-enters civilian life. Would it be possible for the Minister to issue a small leaflet along these lines-with a view to making provision for the soldier on being demobilised?
  Mr. Fraser: I would like to meet the wishes of the House and I do not want to be unreasonable. I understand that when the serving man is demobilised he receives an identity card, and he is immediately registered in the same way as any other person and he will then be eligible for inclusion. If the man was not on the Service register and was demobilised between 30th June and 31st December, he would be eligible for inclusion in the Service register, but it would be the next one.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: It is very important that we should get this absolutely clear, not only for the benefit of hon. Members in this House, but for people outside the House. A number of people will have been demobilised between 30th June and the end of December this year. Some of these people may not have been on the Service register or on the October register. What steps are to be taken to enable them to get on to the supplementary register? As far as I can see they can get on the supplementary register even if they were not on the old Service register. If they were on the old Service register, there is no need to apply to get on to the supplementary register. I think that the hon. Gentleman rather slipped up there, and that is why I intervened. The next point I would like to make clear is this. If the demobilised people do not apply before 31st December this year for the supplementary register, they cannot get on any register until the register for October, 1946, comes into force. Is not that the position?
  Mr. Fraser: I understand that when the demobilised man comes along to register in the ordinary way he receives an identity card and is immediately Regis-

  503
  tered as a civilian voter, and I understand that he is included in the supplementary register automatically. I think that that is the position. I am being honest and frank with the House, and I say that we will have a look at the matter. This is not the last occasion on which we shall have to discuss the Bill now before us. If I am wrong, we can take whatever steps seem to be most appropriate to meet the wishes of the House. The hon. Member for Daventry also raised the question of the man who is released from the Services and who becomes 21 between 31st June and 31st December? How would he get on? He would be in exactly the same position, I am afraid, as any other person who becomes 21 between 30th June and the 31st December. He would not be eligible for inclusion on the annual register for the ensuing year. I do not think that it is unfair to treat the Serviceman who has been demobilised in the same way as a civilian in that regard.
  There have also been many representations made this afternoon from Members in all parts of the House in favour of automatic registration for Service voters, and again some hon. Members have asked why this recommendation of the Speaker's Conference has been thrown overboard. The answer is that that recommendation has not been thrown overboard. We have not sought to deal fully with the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference and I have the greatest sympathy with the proposal that serving men should be automatically registered and ought not to have to contract in. That is wrong, and I hope a way will be found out of it. But, as has already been stated, this is a temporary Measure, and, as far as I can see, when the present Government introduce legislation implementing all the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference that are found practicable, there is no likelihood of any opposition in the House whatever. Members from all parts of the House have been pleading with the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon to implement the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir B. Neven-Spence) raised with me one or two points about the ballot places in sparsely populated areas and said that better facilities were needed. I entirely agree with him
  504
  that better facilities are needed in many of the sparsely populated areas. He stated correctly the procedure whereby the local authority or 30 electors may represent to the sheriff, who is the returning officer for their constituency, the desirability of putting up a new polling place and, failing satisfaction, there is the right of appeal to the Lord Advocate. It may be that that has not been particularly successful in many cases and that the difficulties persist, but again the answer is that we hope very much that next year, when we get the report of the Committee which is being set up on registration, and when we have fully considered along with it the report of the Committee under Sir Cecil Carr, it will be possible to introduce further legislation and, I hope, not impossible to give further consideration to these points which have been mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member.
  Mr. Scollan: Is it not the case that this machinery has been in operation for a long period and that nothing has been done?
  Mr. Fraser: I do not know whether my hon. Friend was in the House when I started, but I said that, if we did not introduce a Bill at this stage and get it passed through all its stages before the end of the year, it would be physically impossible to have a General Election next year. That is the point I am making.
  Mr. Scollan: The point about which I am asking is this. At the present time, if you want a polling station at a particular place in Scotland, you ask the sheriff. If the sheriff does not think it advisable to give it, then you do not get it. As I understand my hon. Friend, this is to continue and there will be no alteration unless some future legislation brings it about.
  Mr. Fraser: That may be the case. Further legislation may bring about improvements and, as I was saying, I hope that these considerations will be taken into account when framing this legislation. This is purely a stop-gap Bill. We have not dealt with polling places and polling stations at all. I think the House will agree that it is impossible to cover the whole field in a Bill brought forward at such short notice, one which must be passed through all its stages in a very short time. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) raised one or two points to

  505
  which I should seek to reply. He raised a question about the "X" on the ballot paper and about the number being put on the ballot paper direct, and also complained that so many papers were spoiled due solely to the fault of the presiding officer of a particular polling place. I am afraid that one can only regret that the presiding officer made a mistake on the occasions mentioned. On the other point there is a lot to be said for continuing the pre-war provision—we could not deal with it in any case in this Bill—whereby no one can possibly tell how any person casts his vote, since it might well be contended that if you allowed a vote to count on which a number had been put by a presiding officer, there would no longer be a secret ballot.
  The hon. and gallant Member for North Dorset (Lieut-Colonel Byers) raised one or two points. He seemed to be asking for what was quite impossible, continuous and special registers, and asked also for two separate registers in the year, with supplementaries. The answer to him is that it is physically impossible to conduct all the inquiries and to operate all the machinery that would be necessary to keep the continuous register in operation. I was also asked a number of questions by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Lang), and although some of the matters could not possibly have been dealt with in this Bill I feel that I have an obligation to do my best to reply to some of his points. He asked for the addition to the absent voters' list of Parliamentary candidates and a host of other people who should be regarded as being eminently capable of casting their votes in the right direction. I entirely agree with him, but that is a matter which must be dealt with in the permanent legislation. He also asked about the anomalies that obtain in jury service and are continued in this Bill. This Bill seeks only to bring up to date the jury list. I would not presume to speak with authority on the jury service in England—and the jury service dealt with in this Bill refers only to England and Wales—but I am authorised by my right hon. Friend to give an assurance that the matters raised will be considered when revision of the jury laws is contemplated. It was represented to me by the hon. and gallant Member for Flint (Lieut-Colonel Birch) that there are a number of classes of
  506
  people who are disfranchised by the very nature of their calling, and he instanced nuns and so on. We thought we had gone a long way to meet the wishes of this House by making it possible for people who are physically incapacitated to be entered on the absent voters' list, and I do not think there would be any measure of support for a proposal to include anyone on the absent voters' list who decided that he just could not go along to the polling station for some philosophical reason.
  I think these were the main points raised by hon. Members in the Debate. I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat what the Bill actually seeks to do. I think it is a good Bill, and hon. and right hon. Members have said it is a good Bill in so far as it goes. It is agreed, I feel, that we had a responsibility, if it was at all possible to do so, to provide the machinery for the setting up of a supplementary Service register, and are doing that. I think it is also a good thing that we found it possible to provide a means of voting for those who are physically incapacitated and cannot go to the polling stations. In the circumstances I do not think I need say anything further about the Bill, and I hope that the vast majority of hon. Members will see fit to do the exercise of going through the Lobby in support of the Government on this occasion.
  Mrs. Braddock: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down would he make some reference to the question of merchant seamen which I raised?
  Mr. Fraser: I understand that merchant seamen are provided for at the moment, that they may make application and be registered for inclusion in the supplementary register, but I also understand that large numbers of them did not find themselves on the lists in the recent Election. This Bill provides that they will be given an opportunity to get on to a supplementary register if their applications are received between 30th June and 31st December this year.
  Mrs. Braddock: In view of the fact that there were no merchant seamen at all on the last register in the port of Liverpool and there is to be the same machinery now, will something further be done or some further guidance be given as to how they can get on the register?
  Mr. Callaghan: Would it be possible to introduce some arrangement similar to that for the Armed Forces, because these men are in almost precisely the same position?
  Question put, "That the words pro posed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 296; Noes, 149.

  Division No. 27.]

  AYES.

  [7.5 p.m.

  Adams, Capt. H. R. (Balham)

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  Logan, D. G.

  Adamson, Mrs. J. L.

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  Longden, F.

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Dye, S.

  McAdam, W.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  McAllister, G.

  Allighan, Garry

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

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Alpass, J. H.

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  McGovern, J.

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

  Mack, J. D.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Austin, H. L.

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

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

  Awbery, S. S.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  McKinlay, A. S.

  Ayles, W. H.

  Ewart, R.

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

  Fairhurst, F.

  McLeavy, F.

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Farthing, W. J.

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Baird, Capt. J.

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

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Balfour, A.

  Follick, M.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Barstow, P. G.

  Foot, M. M.

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Barton, C.

  Forman, J. C.

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Battley, J. R.

  Foster, W. (Wigan)

  Marshall, F. (Brightside)

  Beshervaise, A. E.

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Mathers, G.

  Belcher, J. W.

  Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

  Mayhew, Maj. C. P.

  Benson, G.

  Freeman, P. (Newport)

  Medland, H. M.

  Berry, H.

  Gaitskell, H. T. N.

  Messer, F.

  Beswick, Flt-Lieut. F.

  Gallacher, W.

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

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

  George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Binns, J.

  Gibbins, J.

  Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

  Blenkinsop, Capt. A.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Monslow, W.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Gooch, E. G.

  Montague, F.

  Boardman, H.

  Gordon-Walker, P. G.

  Moody, A. S.

  Bottomley, A. G.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Morley, R.

  Bowen, R.

  Grey, C. F.

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Grierson, E.

  Morris, R. H. (Carmarthen)

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

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Mort, D. L.

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.

  Moyle, A.

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Gunter, Capt. R. J.

  Murray, J. D.

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

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

  Nally, W.

  Brown, George (Belper)

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

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

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

  Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Burden, T. W.

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Burke, W. A.

  Hardy, E. A.

  O'Brien, T.

  Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

  Haworth, J.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Byers, Lt.-Col. F.

  Harbison, Miss M.

  Orbach, M.

  Callaghan, James

  Hobson, C. R.

  Paget, R. T.

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Holman, P.

  Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

  Chamberlain, R. A.

  House, G.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Champion, A. J.

  Hoy, J.

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Chater, D.

  Hubbard, T.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.

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

  Parkin, Flt-Lieut. B. T.

  Clitherow, R.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Hughes, Lt. H. D. (WThampton, W.)

  Pearson, A.

  Cobb, F. A.

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Peart, Capt. T. F.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Janner, B.

  Perrins, W.

  Coldrick, W.

  Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester)

  Platts Mills, J. F. F.

  Collick, P.

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

  Popplewell, E.

  Collindridge, F.

  Jones, Maj. P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Collins, V. J.

  Keenan, W.

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Kenyon, C.

  Pritt, D. N.

  Cook, T. F.

  Key, C. W.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

  King, E. M.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

  Randall, H. E.

  Corvedale, Viscount

  Kinley, J.

  Ranger, J.

  Daggar, G.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Rankin, J.

  Daines, P.

  Kirkwood, D.

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

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Lang, G.

  Reeves, J.

  Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

  Lavers, S.

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Rhodes, H.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Richards, R.

  Deer, G.

  Leonard, W.

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Leslie, J. R.

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

  Delargy, Captain H. J.

  Levy, B. W.

  Roberts, G. O. (Caernarvonshire)

  Diamond, J.

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Dodds, N. N.

  Lewis, J. (Bolton)

  Royle, C.

  Douglas, F. C. R.

  Lipson, D. L.

  Sargood, R.

  Scollan, T.

  Swingler, Capt. S.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Segal, Sq. Ldr. S.

  Symonds, Maj. A. L.

  Wells, Maj. W. T. (Waisall)

  Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Wigg, G. E. C.

  Shurmer, P.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Wilkes, Maj. L.

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Simmons, C. J.

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

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Thorneycroft, H.

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Skeffington-Lodge, Lt. T. C.

  Thurtle, E.

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

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Timmons, J.

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)

  Tolley, L.

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Williamson, T.

  Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

  Ungoed-Thomas, Maj. L.

  Willis, E.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Usborne, H. C.

  Woodburn, A.

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Woods, G. S.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Viant, S. P.

  Wyatt, Maj. W.

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

  Wadsworth, G.

  Yates, V. F.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Walkden, E.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Stamford, W.

  Walker, G. H.

  Younger, Maj. Hon. K. G.

  Steele, T.

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

  Zilliacus, K.

  Stephen, C.

  Warbey, W. N.

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Watkins, T. E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—

  Summerskill, Dr. Edith

  Watson, W. M.

  Mr. J. Henderson and

  Sunderland, J. W.

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

  Captain Michael Stewart.

  NOES.

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Holmes, Sir J. Stanley

  Pitman, I. J.

  Amory, Lt.-Col. D. H.

  Hope, Lt.-Col. Lord J.

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

  Howard, Hon. A.

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

  Astor, Hon. M.

  Hulbert, Wing-Comdr. N. J.

  Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Hurd, A.

  Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.

  Baxter, A. B.

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

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

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

  Raikes, H. V.

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Jeffreys, General Sir G.

  Ramsay, Maj, S.

  Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel

  Jennings, R.

  Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

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

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

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

  Bossom, A. C.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Renton, D.

  Bower, N.

  Kerr, Sir J. Graham

  Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A.

  Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)

  Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Robinson, Wing-Comdr Roland

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

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

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Carson, E.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Ross, Sir R.

  Challen, Flt.-Lieut. C.

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

  Sanderson, Sir F.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

  Linstead, H. N.

  Scott, Lord W.

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

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

  Shephard, S. (Newark)

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Low, Brig. A. R. W.

  Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

  Cooper-Key, Maj. E. M.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

  Smithers, Sir W.

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

  MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

  Snadden, W. M.

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

  MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.

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

  Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. O.

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.

  Stewart, J. Henderson (File, E.)

  Darling, Sir W. Y.

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col M.

  Digby, Maj. S. Wingfield

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

  Stuart, Rt. Hon

  Dodds-Parker, Col. A. D.

  MacLeod, Capt. J.

  Studholme, H. G

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

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Drayson, Capt. G. B.

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Duthie, W. S.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)

  Eccles, D. M.

  Marples, Capt. A. E.

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Marsden, Comdr. A.

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

  Erroll, Col. F. J.

  Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin)

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

  Fletcher, W. (Bury)

  Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

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

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

  Maude, J. C.

  Turton, R. H.

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

  Medlicott, Brig. F.

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

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Wakefield, Sir W. W.

  Gates, Maj. E. E.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Walker-Smith, Lt.-Col. D.

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

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  Ward, Hon. G. R.

  Glossop, C. W. H.

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

  Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)

  Glyn, Sir R.

  Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.

  Wheatley, Lt.-Col. M. J.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

  Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Gridley, Sir A.

  Nield, B.

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Grimston, R. V.

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

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

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Nutting, Anthony

  York, C.

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

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

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

  Harvey, Air-Cmdre. A. V.

  Osborne, C.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—

  Hogg, Hon. Q.

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Mr. Drewe and

  Hollis, Sqn.-Ldr. M. C.

  Pickthorn, K.

  Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the
  Whole House, for Tomorrow. [Mr. Mathers.]

  ELECTORS AND JURORS [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]
  Resolved:
  "That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to electoral registration and to voting at parliamentary and local government elections, to make provision with respect to jurors books, to amend the law relating to returning officers for Scottish constituencies, and to provide for matters connected with the purposes aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

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

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

  (c)of any expenses properly incurred by registration officers in Northern Ireland in connection with their functions under the said Act, the said expenses to be calculated subject to the provisions of Subsection (2)of Section fifteen of the Representation of the People Act, 1918, as if they were registration expenses as defined for the purposes of that Section, and to include the expense of any printing required in connection with the performance of those functions; and

  (d) of any sums paid by registration officers in Northern Ireland in respect of services performed and expenses incurred by overseers under the said Act." — (King's Recommendation signified.) — [Mr. Ede.]

  Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tomorrow. — [Mr. Mathers.]

  AGRICULTURE (ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION) [MONEY]
  Resolution reported:
  "That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretary of
  512
  state to make contributions and establish centres for the purposes of research as to the practice of artificial insemination of livestock, to provide for the payment of grants out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of initial losses incurred in the operation of certain centres for the artificial insemination of cattle, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

  (1) of any expenses incurred in accordance with the provisions of the said Act by the said Minister and the Secretary of State, espectively—

  (a) in contributing towards approved expenditure incurred in the conduct of research or experiment in matters affecting the practice of artificial insemination of livestock, including poultry and bees;

  (b) in establishing and operating, for the purposes of such research and experiment, centres providing services of artificial insemination for any such live stock to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury

  (2) of any sums required for the payment in accordance with the provisions of the said Act of grants in respect of losses incurred, during a period beginning on or after 1st January, 1945, and ending not later than 31st March, 1951, in the operation of centres providing services of artificial insemination for cattle in Great Britain, being centres owned and controlled by Milk Marketing Boards or other organisations carrying on business for the mutual benefit of breeders or owners of cattle;

  and the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by the said Minister or the Secretary of State which are required by the said Act to be so paid."

  EMERGENCY LAWS (TRANSITIONAL POWERS) [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee (Progress, 20th November).
  Question again proposed,
  "That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the continuation, extension, amendment, permanent enactment, or repeal of certain emergency laws, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by any Minister of the Crown in consequence of the passing of the said Act and any increase attributable to the passing of the said Act in any sums authorised or required by any other enactment to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament."
  Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

  NAVAL ORDNANCE INSPECTION DEPARTMENT (CONDITIONS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That this House do now adjourn." —[Mr. Mathers.]
  7.23 p.m.
  Lieut. -Commander Clark Hutchison: The subject I wish to raise tonight is one on which I have been a correspondence with the Admiralty for the past 18 months and which, in tact, I raised in the Debate on the Navy Estimates last March. It concerns the question of the pay and allowances of the permanent officers of the Naval Ordnance Inspection Department, and I want to stress the word "permanent" because the remarks I am making tonight refer only to those officers who underwent a certain course of training and who are permanently attached to that particular Department, and my observations do not apply to the very consider able number of officers who have been attached to it temporarily during the period of the war.
  For the benefit of those Members who were not in the House when I raised the matter on the Debate on the Navy Estimates, I would like to explain very briefly the functions of this Department and the duties of the officers whose case I am putting forward. The Inspection Department has two main functions. First, it has to undertake the inspection of new manufacture of weapons and armament stores produced by the engineering works in this country for service in the Navy, and secondly, the officers and staff of the Department have duties to perform in chocking the alignment of guns and surveying; of ammunition for ships in the Fleet when the ships come in for dock yard refit.
  The need of the Department is, I think, quite obvious, because it is necessary to have an Inspection Service to prevent unstable explosives being sent to sea and stored in ships' magazines, and hon. Members who are interested in naval affairs will recall in the war of 1914–18 a number of disasters such as the blowing up of the "Vanguard" and the "Natal" through, defective ammunition being stored in those ships. The Department has the duty of ensuring that the armament stores produced from factories and munition works are serviceable and effi-
  514
  cient weapons for use in the Fleet. It stands to reason, therefore, that the responsibilities of the officers and staff of this Department are very great indeed and the numbers of people employed in this work during the period of the war is very considerable, running into tens of thousands of civilian inspectors. The inspection work is generally carried out by civilians, both male and female, but the administration and technical supervision lies in the hands of officers of the Navy and of the Royal Marines, and these officers are all experts in torpedo, gunnery, submarine and engineering work. Of the permanent staff there are only 70 to 80 officers, although a considerable number of temporary officers were taken on in addition for the period of the war.
  The charter or conditions of service under which these officers entered this Department is given in Admiralty Fleet Order 2078/31. It is a very lengthy-Order and I will not attempt to quote it to the House, but there is one sentence in it which is really the key to the whole situation, and which I must read, and that is this sentence which refers to the Tables of Pay:
  "The above rates of pay will be comparable to the standard (1919) rates of pay of officers on the active list, and will be subject to similar variations as the latter rates."
  I would ask the House and the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, who is, I understand, to reply, to take particular notice of that one sentence because that is really the key to the whole position— the question of the pay of inspection officers varying according to the pay of the officers on the active list. When I raised this matter on the Navy Estimates last March, I pointed out that today there was in fact really no resemblance at all between the pay of the active list officers and that of the inspection officers and I gave figures which I expect my hon. and gallant Friend will have noted. They appear in c. 2093 of HANSARD of 7th March, 1945.
  I gave figures showing that in the case of captains, to take one example, the active service captains or some retired captains called up for the period of the war were receiving in net income almost twice as much remuneration as was a captain in the Inspection Service who had very great responsibilities, and I under stand these figures are not really challenged by the Admiralty. The reasons for the

  515
  disparity are several. First, the fact that the officers in the Ordnance Inspection Department do not receive the tax-free marriage allowance, nor do they receive the tax-free children's allowance payable to those other officers, the retired officers called up or active list officers. Further more, the naval officers and marine officers in the Inspection Department are not eligible to receive the war service increment laid down in the White Paper Command 6553, yet, again, although the officers in the Inspection Service do get a certain victualling allowance they do not get the current rate of victualling allowance given to the active service officers which is at a higher rate than that of the inspection officers. Finally the officers of the Naval Officers Inspection Department do not get the war gratuity on retirement, which I think is rather hard. At that time Captain Pilkington was the Civil Lord and he replied to the Debate. I call the attention of the Financial Secretary to Captain Pilkington's observations on 7th March, one sentence of which I will quote. Referring to my argument he said:
  "At the same time, my hon. and gallant Friend made a very strong case, and we will look into it and see if anything can be done." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1945; Vol. 408, c. 2178.]
  I talked to the former Civil Lord on several occasions subsequent to the Debate and before the advent of the General Election, inquiring as to what progress was being made in remedying this injustice. I was given to understand in a general way that he was hopeful that some improvements might be made. Then there came the General Election, the dissolution of Parliament and, naturally, a gap when nothing could be done. However, after the new Parliament was elected and the new Government formed, I felt it appropriate to pursue this matter further, so I wrote to the First Lord of the Admiralty about the middle of August and I received from him in reply a letter dated 27th August, which I do not need to quote, but which mentioned that a small number of the senior posts in the Naval Ordnance Inspection Department had been upgraded: that is, the salaries of some of the most senior officers in the Department had been raised. That, of course, was quite satisfactory for the half-dozen or so officers affected, and one does not despise a little progress in that direction, but it left the great mass of the
  516
  officers no better off than they were before and, I regret to say, the First Lord made no attempt in his letter to reply to the very numerous points which I put forward on this whole question during the Debate on the Naval Estimates, and also in correspondence prior to that.
  I feel that action is necessary and, indeed, is imperative in this matter be cause this comparatively small body of officers have a just grievance. I submit that according to the terms of their conditions of service in Admiralty Fleet Order 2073 of 1931, they have a grievance in that the terms of that Fleet Order about their pay varying according to that of active list officers is not being observed. Therefore I put forward the specific request to the Admiralty, through the Financial Secretary, that marriage allowance should be payable to these officers and that children's allowance should be payable to them. Further more, I ask that the victualling allowance paid to them should be on the same scale as that paid to any other naval officer, and not on a lower scale as it is at present. I ask, further, that these officers may receive the war service increment laid down in the White Paper, whose number I quoted earlier. I can see no reason why these officers, who have given long and very arduous service during this war, should not receive the same war increment as do all other naval officers. I would also ask that in cases where they are now reaching the retiring age, they should receive the war service gratuity. One other matter. There are certain Departments where "the Services are intermingled. For example, there is the Design Department, where you find working together officers of the Army and the Navy, and I can give a case where the naval officer who is the head of the Department is receiving less remuneration than the Army officer who is his junior which, I submit, is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. In a Department where the two Services are working together, surely the position ought to be arranged properly?
  It may be that I am anticipating the reply of the Financial Secretary, and that he will make the point that these officers in the Inspection Department are not, in fact, naval officers, but are civil servants. Well then, I put this point to the Financial Secretary: if they are not naval officers, but are civil servants drawing

  517
  civil rates of pay, why are they not eligible for the Civil Service gratuity on retirement? Secondly, and this is important, if these officers are, in effect, civilians, why did they wear uniform during the war, and why were they issued with, and instructed to carry, arms in 1940? Thirdly, I would ask the Financial Secretary to inquire into the orders issued to these officers in the year 1940. I cannot pursue that particular line any further in case I come into collision with the Official Secrets Act, but if the Financial Secretary chooses to call for a copy of these Orders, he will see for himself that these officers might, in certain eventualities, have become combatant officers and certainly could not be classed as civil servants or as civilians.
  Whilst Parliament exists as a place where laws arc initiated and passed for the government of the people of the country, it has ever been a traditional function of Parliament that it shall be the place where the grievances of the ordinary citizens of this country shall be voiced, with a view to trying to get those grievances remedied. I have put forward to night what I believe to be the just com plaints of a small number, a mere handful, of hard working, loyal officers of the Navy, who have given long and by no means undistinguished service to their country. Quite a number of them, I would tell the Financial Secretary, have suffered very greatly in health, and quite a number have died through overwork, including the late head of the Department, Captain Long. These officers have no voting strength, they have no trade union, they have no interest to represent them, but they feel they are being forgotten and deserted by the Admiralty. I am bound to say— although I have always found the Admiralty to be far and away the best of the three Service Departments — that the Admiralty have not shown at all a sympathetic spirit over this matter. They have rather shrugged their shoulders and thought the problem too difficult, and just let it pass by. I do not think that is good enough, and I suggest that the First Lord and the Financial Secretary should absorb a little of the spirit of Nelson and of Howe, whose first concern was always for the welfare of the men who served under them. I ask the Financial Secretary to do his best to remedy the injustices and the grievances of this comparatively small band of officers.
  7.41 p.m.
  Sir Waldron Smithers: I rise to support 'the plea put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) because I have in my division a constituent who is very materially affected by this, and I want to put his point of view. After all, the purpose of the Adjournment is to put forward the grievances of the people we represent. He says:
  "Another aspect of this unsatisfactory-state of affairs"—
  not referred to by the hon. Member who has moved this Adjournment—
  "is the case at present, in certain inter-Service establishments with military and Air Force officers. Although interchangeable with, and carrying out the same duties as these latter officers in the establishments concerned… the military and Air Force officers are very much better off financially, due to the fact that approximately one-third of their total emoluments consists of untaxed allowances. To take a concrete example this is what the hon. Gentleman referred to, a major in the Army with similar domestic responsibilities to my own, who was until recently my immediate subordinate, receives pay at the rate of £678 per annum, subject to Income Tax, and allowances amounting to 370 per annum, untaxed. After deduction of tax his net income is approximately 828 per annum. My pay "—
  that is the pay of the officer concerned,
  "on the consolidated rate is £1,077 gross, including bonus, or approximately £ 757 after deduction of tax. The anomalous position thus exists that I receive £71 less per annum than a military officer for whose work I am responsible. Many similar instances can be quoted, with frequently greater discrepancies, leading not unnaturally to a certain amount of dissatisfaction amongst those affected. It is felt, and I consider with reason, that these officers are being unfairly penalised, apparently for the somewhat inadequate reason that no machinery exists under which the consolidated rates of pay established in 1929 may be reviewed; this despite the fact that the then current rate of Income Tax must clearly have been taken into account at arriving at these rates. It is also relevant here to point out again the small number of officers"—
  it is only a small number that we are appealing for—
  "concerned, and the consequent comparative obscurity of the Department in question; this leads only too readily to the plight of the officers concerned being overlooked or ignored."
  Mr. Austin Mr. Austin (Stretford) rose—
  Sir W. Smithers: I am afraid that I cannot give way. I appeal to the Admiralty to look into the case of this very

  519
  small section of those who served them well, and to treat them fairly.
  Mr. Austin: I was only going to inquire whether the hon. Gentleman would furnish the House with the rank of the officer to whom he referred.
  Sir. W. Smithers: That is the difficulty. If you give away the name and rank of the officer—
  Mr. Austin: I was asking for the rank only.
  Sir. W. Smithers: He is a commander. In these days under a Socialist Government in power there is always the difficult—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. Gentleman cannot make a second speech, save by the leave of the House.
  7.45 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): The hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) has said, as did the hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison), that these are only a small minority. Let me say at the outset that that, far from being a reason why we should not treat them well, is a particular reason why, I hope, I should show that we are treating them well. We attach more importance to this small minority than maybe we would to larger numbers, who have more people who can sup port them in their grievances. While this small number of men may not have any large recognised organisation supporting them, I think they are very fortunate in having the hon. Gentleman, year in and year out, supporting their case. If I may mix my metaphors somewhat, he reminds me of the importunate widow continually returning to the charge. He has returned so often that it may be, I will not anticipate, that he will meet with some success.
  These men are not alone. I know that two blacks do not make a white, but theirs is not a unique case. There are in the Admiralty the hydrographic and compass officers. There are also the experimental staff in H.M.S. "Excellent "; and, outside the Admiralty, there are, in the Army, a number of retired officers who receive their pensions plus a small civil salary and are
  520
  employed in a variety of posts such, for example, as recruiting officers. The Admiralty are, therefore, not the only "sinners" in this respect. I would like to compare the position of these men with the civil servant. They are by no means less well paid than any other civil servant. They get between £100 and £200 more than civilians employed on inspection. The Civil Service war bonus has been given, during the war, in the same way as to the civilian staff. The hon. Gentleman complained that these men were not given war service increments or war gratuities too. They cannot have it both ways. They are given either one or the other.
  I will come to that point in a moment in greater' detail. I am asked about the Civil Service war bonus has been given, during the war, in the same way as to the civilian staff. The hon. Gentleman complained that these men were not given war service increments or war gratuities too. They cannot have it both ways. They are given either one or the other.
  I will come to that point in a moment in greater' detail. I am asked about the Civil Service gratuities—why they are not given the Civil Service gratuities? The answer is that these men get one-sixtieth addition to their Naval retired pay instead of one-eightieth which the civil servant. gets. If the hon. Gentleman cares to make a very difficult calculation—which I must admit I got my Department to make—I find that for a man in Group B this means £65 a year more for 15 years— in other words, £975; so he gets, as by way of gratuity, £975 by this method. He also gets, when comparing him with, the civil servant—I admit that it may seem relatively small and I hope that with the implementation of the Government's social insurance plan it will be smaller still—free dental, medical and hospital treatment, which is not accorded to civil servants.
  The main burden of the hon. Gentleman's argument was that these men should be treated in the same way as other Naval officers rather than as civil servants. Let us compare their job with that of other officers in the Navy. I agree that their job is quite as important as that of other officers in the Navy—I would not minimise it in the least—but I would say that they take on this job voluntarily. They volunteer for this job, and they knew what the terms were when they do so
  Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Under the Admiralty Fleet Order, that was a condition.
  Mr. Dugdale: But they did volunteer and they did in fact know what the conditions were. Secondly, in many ways they have rather better conditions than

  521
  the average naval officer. They are not compulsorily retired at 45, as are lieutenant-commanders, or at 50, as are commanders. They remain on until 50 or 55, and this extra 10 years counts for increased pension. One point, and the most important, is that they are continually on a shore job. The average officer is ashore rather less than half his normal service life. For the rest of the time he is afloat—away from his family, as likely as not—and he never knows when he will get back. He has all the difficulties that a man has who has not a settled place of abode. These men have a definite set place of abode. They are fixed in one place, and remain there for the whole of their lives.
  Lieut.-Commander HutchisonI am afraid that is not quite accurate. They are switched round every two or three years, and in wartime they have been all over the world. One was a prisoner of war at Singapore
  Mr. Dugdale: I think the hon. and gallant Member is referring to regular Service officers whose main work is in peace-lime, because their service in peacetime is fortunately longer than their service in wartime. They are, as a general rule, stationed in this country, and if they move about it is within this country, so that compared with the average naval officer they have a comparatively stationary life
  Are there any other people in the same category as these? Strangely enough, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman may know, this particular rule applies to no less an august body than the Board of Admiralty. When the naval Sea Lords are serving on the Board of Admiralty they are paid a less rate than they are paid when they are serving as ordinary naval officers afloat. But it is particularly hard for them, because they are in fact still liable to go abroad. In fact so much is that the case that the Assistant Chief of Naval Staff, who was at that time a member of the Board, left the Board and went over to France on D-Day, and took part in operations. Yet, when he came back again his rate was at once reduced, because he was in a stationary occupation.
  Perhaps the most important point of all is that these men are not subject to the Naval Discipline Act. This Act
  522
  among other things states—I quote Paragraph 507:
  "If an officer should disobey orders or otherwise misbehave, he may be placed in arrest …"
  Paragraph 541 states:
  "Every person dismissed with disgrace is to be informed of his incapacity to serve His Majesty again in any naval, military, air or civil service …"
  This is a liability which these men have not got. They are not under that Act, and from that point of view are in a more favourable position than the average officer.
  Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Surely the hon. Member would not suggest that these men are going to be criminals? It is an extraordinary argument.
  Mr. Dugdale: No, of course I would not suggest that, but I would say that it is definitely an advantage to know that if one does get into difficulties with one's superior officer one will not have quite the same things happen to one as will happen if one is a member of the Armed Forces.
  Sir W. Smithers: What an argument.
  Mr. Dugdale: If these men want to come on to ordinary naval pay, I hope they will also be willing to come under the Naval Discipline Act.
  Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Certainly, most of them thought that they were.
  Mr. Dugdale: I come to another point. There was no complaint from these men, so far as I know, until a few years before the war, and I would ask why this complaint arose then? I think it is largely because at that time Income Tax began to rise. Before that allowances were not of as great value as they are now. The man who gets allowances today has a definite advantage over the man with an income which is subject to Income Tax. When Income Tax rose 'these men, not unnaturally, began to look round and say, "Here are other people getting allowances and we are not getting them." That is what caused the difficulty originally. When Income Tax was at 4s. they were doing all right. When Income Tax went up to 10s. the situation. was not nearly so good.
  But I will agree with the former Civil Lord who said that the case needed re-examination. I think personally that it

  523
  is a matter for consideration whether these men should not once and for all be put on an ordinary Civil Service basis. The trouble at the moment is that they are neither one thing nor the other, neither on a Civil Service basis nor on a naval basis. I have given certain reasons which would make it difficult for them to be put on a full naval basis, but I can see that there is a strong argument for putting them on a full Civil Service basis. It has been decided that the future structure of this particular branch shall be investigated as part of the postwar reconstruction programme. All the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member will be considered in this investigation. I hope it will be possible to solve this question finally by placing them on a firm Civil Service basis, so that there is no difference between them and any other civil servant serving in the Admiralty.
  Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Surely the Financial Secretary has not appreciated the point that these men have entered the Service under an Admiralty Fleet Order. He can hardly change the existing people over to a Civil Service basis. Surely they must be dealt with differently. I quite agree that new recruits should be treated on a different basis but these men entered under Admiralty Fleet Order 2078/31 and their pay must be related to active service pay
  Mr. Dugdale: I quite agree that people at present serving would have to be given the option of remaining as they are, in what the hon. and gallant Gentleman considers is an unsatisfactory position, or having Civil Service conditions, which I think he would agree are more satisfactory.
  Sir W. Smithers: If a naval officer in this category has to take charge of a service which involves the other Services, how can the hon. Gentleman justify his receiving less remuneration than one of his subordinates, who may be in another Department? That is a very important question.
  Mr. Dugdale: There is a Committee now sitting on the official level discussing the different rates of pay in all the three Services. I am sure that this is not the only case of very different rates operating as between the three Services, but that goes far outside the individual case which we are now discussing.
  Sir W. Smithers: No, it does not. It is very important.
  Mr. Dugdale: It is very important, certainly.
  Adjourned accordingly at Three Minutes to Eight o' Clock

ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Transport Command (Passenger Cost)
  Transport Command (Passenger Cost)
  Demobilisation
  Demobilisation
  West Africa Command
  West Africa Command
  B.O.A.C. Planes (Maintenance)
  B.O.A.C. Planes (Maintenance)
  Radar Personnel
  Radar Personnel
  Educational Service
  Educational Service
  National Pigeon Service
  National Pigeon Service
  Leave
  Leave
  Permanent Commissions
  Permanent Commissions
  Physical Fitness Officers
  Physical Fitness Officers
  Contract, Llandwrog (Payment)
  Contract, Llandwrog (Payment)
  Closed Road, Ruislip
  Closed Road, Ruislip
  R.A.F. Regiment (Strength)
  R.A.F. Regiment (Strength)
  Accidents (Transport Command)
  Accidents (Transport Command)
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  War Decorations and Medals
  War Decorations and Medals
CIVIL AVIATION
  >Flying Schools (Use of Aerodromes)
  >Flying Schools (Use of Aerodromes)
  York Aerodrome
  York Aerodrome
  Radio Aids (International Standardisation)
  Radio Aids (International Standardisation)
ROYAL NAVY
  Regular Officers (Civilian Clothing)
  Regular Officers (Civilian Clothing)
  Postwar Strength and Conditions
  Postwar Strength and Conditions
  Demobilisation
  Demobilisation
  Requisitioned Premises
  Requisitioned Premises
  Torpedo Factory, Greenock
  Torpedo Factory, Greenock
  Operations (Official History)
  Operations (Official History)
  War Gratuities
  War Gratuities
  W.R.N.S. (Greenock)
  W.R.N.S. (Greenock)
  Enemy Submarines (Disposal)
  Enemy Submarines (Disposal)
  Hong Kong (Conditions)
  Hong Kong (Conditions)
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Milk Retailers (Customer's Choice)
  Milk Retailers (Customer's Choice)
  GIN (CHRISTMAS SUPPLIES)
  GIN (CHRISTMAS SUPPLIES)
  FOOTBALLERS (CLOTHING COUPONS)
  FOOTBALLERS (CLOTHING COUPONS)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Women's Clothing (Restrictions)
  Women's Clothing (Restrictions)
  Orders and Regulations
  Orders and Regulations
  Footwear
  Footwear
  Wallpaper
  Wallpaper
  EASTERN EUROPE (EVACUATION)
  EASTERN EUROPE (EVACUATION)
  SPAIN (POLITICAL PRISONERS)
  SPAIN (POLITICAL PRISONERS)
  PERSIA (SITUATION)
  PERSIA (SITUATION)
  U.N.R.R.A. (DISTRIBUTION OF SUPPLIES)
  U.N.R.R.A. (DISTRIBUTION OF SUPPLIES)
  POLAND (RUSSIAN FORCES)
  POLAND (RUSSIAN FORCES)
  UNITED STATES (PARLIAMENTARY MISSION)
  UNITED STATES (PARLIAMENTARY MISSION)
  ANGLO-POLISH TREATY OF MUTUAL ASSISTANCE
  ANGLO-POLISH TREATY OF MUTUAL ASSISTANCE
  SOCIAL SERVICES (COST)
  SOCIAL SERVICES (COST)
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
  Customs and Excise (Statistical Office)
  Customs and Excise (Statistical Office)
  Evacuated Staffs
  Evacuated Staffs
  Prime Minister (Adviser on Public Relations)
  Prime Minister (Adviser on Public Relations)
  Ministry of Food (Cardiff)
  Ministry of Food (Cardiff)
  Ministry of Aircraft Production (Temporary Staff)
  Ministry of Aircraft Production (Temporary Staff)
  SEA STORMS AND EROSION DAMAGE
  SEA STORMS AND EROSION DAMAGE
  PRIME MINISTER'S ADDRESS TO CONGRESS (PUBLICATION)
  PRIME MINISTER'S ADDRESS TO CONGRESS (PUBLICATION)
  SURPLUS GOVERNMENT STORES
  SURPLUS GOVERNMENT STORES
BRITISH ARMY
  War Office Correspondence
  War Office Correspondence
  Mules (Italy)
  Mules (Italy)
  Ordnance Depot, Bicester
  Ordnance Depot, Bicester
  HONG KONG (ECONOMIC SITUATION)
  HONG KONG (ECONOMIC SITUATION)
MALAYA
  Government and Rehabilitation
  Government and Rehabilitation
  Policy
  Policy
  Rubber Estates (Wages)
  Rubber Estates (Wages)
  BELSEN TRIAL
  BELSEN TRIAL
MALTA
  Economic Position
  Economic Position
  War Memorial
  War Memorial
PALESTINE
  Police
  Police
  Executions (Terrorism)
  Executions (Terrorism)
EAST AFRICA
  Ex-Servicemen (Resettlement)
  Ex-Servicemen (Resettlement)
  Uganda (Deportation Ordinance)
  Uganda (Deportation Ordinance)
WEST AFRICA
  Sierra Leone (Landslides)
  Sierra Leone (Landslides)
  Nigeria (Palm Oil)
  Nigeria (Palm Oil)
  AFRICAN TERRITORIES (BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION)
  AFRICAN TERRITORIES (BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION)
  NORTHERN RHODESIA (TRADE UNIONS)
  NORTHERN RHODESIA (TRADE UNIONS)
  LIBERATED TERRITORIES, FAR EAST (GOVERNORS)
  LIBERATED TERRITORIES, FAR EAST (GOVERNORS)
CEYLON
  Mail Censorship
  Mail Censorship
  Planters (Salaries)
  Planters (Salaries)
  TOWER OF LONDON (VISITORS)
  TOWER OF LONDON (VISITORS)
  INDIA (WOMEN,UNDERGROUND WORK)
  INDIA (WOMEN,UNDERGROUND WORK)
  EDUCATION (EMERGENCY TRAINING SCHEME)
  EDUCATION (EMERGENCY TRAINING SCHEME)
  POST OFFICE FACILITIES (RENFREW)
  POST OFFICE FACILITIES (RENFREW)
  B.B.C. BROADCASTS (RECEPTION, N.E. AREA)
  B.B.C. BROADCASTS (RECEPTION, N.E. AREA)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT
  HOUSE OF COMMONS REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT
  NURSING SERVICE
  NURSING SERVICE
  AUXILIARY COASTGUARDS (POSTWAR CREDITS)
  AUXILIARY COASTGUARDS (POSTWAR CREDITS)
Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LORD CUNNINGHAM OF HYNDHOPE.
Admiral of the Fleet Sir Andrew Browne Cunningham, Baronet, K.T. G.C.B., D.S.O., having been created Baron Cunningham of Hyndhope, of Kirkhope in the County of Selkirk—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

LORD PORTAL OF HUNGERFORD.
Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Charles Frederick Algernon Portal, G.C.B.. D.S.O., M.C., having been created Baron Portal of Hungerford, of. Hungerford in the County of Berks.—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS.
2.55 p.m.
LORD METHUEN LORD METHUEN had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government, whether they will take steps to ensure that the Ministry of Works be given increased powers to preserve buildings of historical and artistic interest of any period, whether inhabited or otherwise; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it was, with some hesitation that I entered the Motion which is in my name, for I knew only too well how many noble Lords there were here who were far better qualified to speak on this subject than I could ever hope to be. When I returned home at the end of June, demobilized, after a very interesting spell in France with the British Liberation Army, working with the Beaux Arts architects in connexion with their own damaged historical monuments, and having seen at first hand how their service worked, I
1062
felt the urgency for us to take a more active and sure course than we have in the past to ensure the preservation of those historical monuments which our generation has had the good fortune to inherit. Wherefore the Motion which is before your Lordships: Your Lordships are naturally acquainted with the legislation which has been enacted since 1882, when the first ancient Monuments Protective Act was passed. Since then there have been an Ancient Monuments Act which was passed in 1913 and an Amending Act in 1931, which quoted the 1913 Act as the principal one. The effect of this legislation has been to give the Ministry of Works—on the advice of their Ancient Monuments Board—power to buy or to become guardians of, or to advise on, ancient monuments or to maintain them from money provided by the Treasury. An ancient monument is defined as a building or structure of public interest by reason of its historical, architectural, traditional, artistic or archælogical interest. The Ministry have also restricted powers over the sites and amenities of ancient monuments of which they are guardians.
If the Minister, on the advice of 'the Ancient Monuments Board, wishes to schedule an ancient monument, a scheduling notice is served on the owner, who is then, except in cases of urgent necessity, forbidden to alter or to demolish any part of the monument until the expiration of three months after he has given notice of his intention to do so. On receipt of such notice, the Minister may issue a preservation order forbidding such alteration or demolition. This order is immediately binding, and if no objection is advanced it remains in force indefinitely; but in the event of an objection within three months of the publication of the order it remains effective for twenty-one months and 'may be made permanently binding by Parliament. The Minister may veto by a preservation scheme, which is not the same thing as a preservation order, the impairing of the amenities of a scheduled monument.
In practice, I imagine, the Minister may not always deem it expedient to issue a preservation order in the case of a scheduled building which the owner may wish to put into a state of habitable repair. The case of Leybourne Castle can be quoted as a building formerly

1063
scheduled, which automatically came off the list on its being rebuilt and used for private residence without the Minister making the necessary preservation order. That was in 1930 or 1931. If it is not being too indiscreet, it would be interesting to know how the owner and the architect got away with that and why the Minister did not make a preservation order. The scheduling of historic monuments is in this country, therefore, a compulsory rather than a permissive affair, as it is in France; but the Ministry have not the power, except by compulsory purchase, or unless it is confirmed by Parliament, indefinitely to prevent additions or alteration to a scheduled monument, and once additions or alterations are made which render it inhabited, it ceases to be scheduled. There are provisions as to compensation in cases where the owner is affected, and there is an interesting section in the Ancient Monuments Act of 1931 whereby if a local authority has by its town planning scheme preserved the amenities of an ancient monument, the Ministry may wholly or partly defray the expenses incurred by the local authority. It would be interesting to know in how many cases this has happened. Local authorities are also empowered to become owners or guardians of ancient monuments with the Minister's approval as regards their management and control.
Three things stand out in the legislation dealing with ancient monuments. The first is the omission of Church property. Buildings used for ecclesiastical purposes are protected both as to their present structure, and as to the suitability of any proposed new work, by the diocesan advisory committees which were set up soon after the passing of the 1913 Ancient Monuments Act, and actually appointed under the Faculty Jurisdiction Measure, 1938. Secondly, while there is no statutory limiting factor in the matter of date or age of the monument, in practice monuments dating from prehistoric, earliest historic and medieval times are in the vast majority, with serious omissions in the matter of official protection, mainly because in the third category inhabited houses are off limits.
It is very comforting to know that our Wiltshire barrows and tumuli are in such good hands and have an assured future; and who, speeding on his way to Bath,
1064
does not derive great satisfaction as he passes Silbury Down, that great landmark on the Great West Road. Personally, I derive much greater satisfaction from the knowledge that we have an old-established service, consisting of men of great repute who are in every way qualified to carry on this good work of preservation and to carry it further, step by step, if they are assisted by a normal increase of staff and a little more generous relaxation of the purse-strings of the Treasury, so that eventually this country can feel confident that the maintenance of its heritage of historic monuments, ancient and not so old, inhabited and uninhabited, is assured. And assuredly no country has a greater wealth of these structures than we have.
The maintenance of the fabric of redundant churches of archaeological interest presents, I know, certain difficulties in cases where the diocese cannot or will not maintain them. The Church authorities, somewhat naturally, feel that their first duty is to build churches in places where a new population has come into being, and to maintain those which are fully in use. If this is a real difficulty—and I believe that it is—and cannot be overcome in present circumstances, and it may mean the ultimate demolition of the building or its complete neglect, could not the law be altered to allow the Ministry of Works to take it over? We have a recent precedent, for the State, without actually paying war damage, has made a substantial contribution towards the repair of such war damage in respect of the fabric of certain churches. So much for the Ancient Monuments Acts. It is becoming evident that the Ministry of Works should be given powers to ensure that scheduled buildings themselves are in fact maintained, for cases are not unknown where such buildings have been allowed to deteriorate to such an extent that they no longer come within the schedule.
If I may now turn to another side of the picture—there are three Ministries concerned in this, so if I take up a little time over it I hope that your Lordships will excuse me—fifty years ago the National Trust came into existence, primarily to ensure the preservation of places of historic interest and natural beauty. In recent years—in 1937 and 1939—the National Trust was given Parliamentary powers, initiated in this House,

1065
to acquire by gift or otherwise country houses of national interest, preferably as inhabited and going concerns. Already some of the large as well as some of the more modest country houses and manor houses have come within the Trust's jurisdiction, either in the form of gifts or with restrictive covenants. In the former case, the owner almost always has to endow the house before making it over to the Trust, the endowment taking the form of land or stock producing sufficient revenue for its upkeep. The National Trust is not in a position to accept gifts of large country houses which are not endowed, and there is no alternative body or society or Government Department to which al owner can look for a solution, if he is unable to endow it himself and desires to ensure that the fabric and contents, which are often of outstanding interest, will be safe for the future. There is little doubt that there are a good many houses the contents of which are worth preserving, say as country museums, to which the public has in all likelihood been in the habit of paying visits on show clays, usually once or twice a week, and which the National Trust may never have a chance to acquire.
I am not here primarily concerned with the large country house. Recently legislation has been enacted to allow the National Trust to acquire the best of them and that matter is proceeding slowly but surely. Further, the Trust and other bodies are seeking ways and means of finding a new use for such mansions, for it is pretty clear that though they have served their purpose usefully enough in the past—I think that we should be generous enough to admit that fact—they must for the most part be put to a new use if they are to survive. Taxation today does not, generally speaking, allow of their occupation. Only in to-day of issue of The Times do we learn that Bayfordbury House, dating from 1759, has been acquired for the John Innes Horticultural Institution. That newspaper adds that though the house is to pass, like many others, in these times of social change, out of the hands of the family which has lived in it for so long, it will be in the keeping of an institution which is likely to appreciate it and which will put it to the service of knowledge from which rural England as a whole must benefit.
Some of these mansions may be turned into schools, mental homes and so on. That may be a solution in some cases, particularly where the interiors are no longer interesting, and perhaps never have been; but if we have a fine period house, with its contents intact, with period furnishings and furniture and its objects of art—a. veritable museum, and there are plenty of them still—we should, in my humble opinion, be failing in our duty to the next generation and to those who follow after if we did not do whatever we could to preserve such national assets. I do not look on them purely as private assets at all. They are public assets just as much as they are private property. This, I think, is the attitude of the National Trust and I hope the outlook of every right-minded person.
As I came into the House to-day I was handed a letter from the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, which ends by saying: "If it is of any help, you have my permission to make use of this in any way you think fit" If your Lordship's will allow me to do so, I should like to read the letter to you. Those of you who know Holkham Hall will appreciate what the noble Earl says:
"I understand that you are going to plead for the owners of historic houses in the House of Lords on Wednesday. May I very briefly state my own case? Here is a house containing, I believe, the finest private library in the world with volumes of outstanding and historical national interest. Not only that, but there are pictures, prints, furniture, etc., which ought to be cared for and preserved for the nation. This collection is rapidly deteriorating for want of proper, attention; and such is my anxiety for the contents of this house that I would willingly hand it over to the nation to-morrow, but am prevented from so doing by the law of entail" —
on which in the National Trust we found serious difficulty—
"and am quite powerless. Surely this is a plea and a cry from the wilderness that might be considered. If only one could be given a little help and means whereby we could at least ensure that the elements were kept out and the contents kept free from damp, it would be something. At present I am unable to secure a permit even to repair the roof."
We all know the difficulties of housing owing to the shortage of materials, labour and so on, but nevertheless I thought that that letter was worth reading.
Let us now pass to the most recent legislation of all—namely, the Town and Country Planning Act of last year, which,

1067
as regards building on land acquired by local authorities, amends and amplifies the Act of 1932. By this legislation local authorities have been given power to make an order—subject to the Minister's approval—that any building of any special architectural or historic interest affected under an adopted planning scheme could not be demolished without their consent. This is the well-known Section 17 preservation order of the 1932 Act. But, under Section 18 of this Act the owner may claim compensation; and this has apparently so deterred local authorities that I believe that there have been no more than twenty-four cases of preservation orders being served by them. In the Town and Country Planning Act of 1944 certain valuable sections relating to the retention of houses of period interest were inserted. In fact, here for practically the first time is enunciated the principle that the national heritage of historical buildings should be preserved. Under the terms of this Act a Committee has, as we know, just been set up under the Chairmanship of Sir Eric MacClagan to compile lists of buildings of special architectural or historical interest. Local authorities are given power to make a preservation order in respect of a "listed" building and buy the building outright and the necessary land that goes with it, by agreement or by compulsion if the house is neglected.
It is early days to say what effect the 1944 Act will have, and it will be a little time before the schedules of "listed" buildings are made available. But the principle of protecting period buildings of all kinds is laid down in this Act, and a method of setting about the work is outlined, the burden of doing so being plated on local authorities. Local authorities, however, seem to me to have their hands pretty well full already with the urgent and purely practical issues of housing and planning. I should hardly think that they should be expected to find the money or the expert direction required. The small number of protective orders rather points to this conclusion. While the question of protecting these structures is important, the difficulty of maintaining them cannot be exaggerated, and that is, I believe, the real crux of the matter. It is in this matter of maintenance that I think the Ministry of Works
1068
should be given additional powers and be authorized to consider the lists referred to and schedule all those monuments which come up to a certain standard of excellence or interest, whether those buildings are habited or not, irrespective of their age or period. Parliament might then consider meeting the owners of such buildings half way in the matter of maintenance, provided that the public was given access on certain days of the week, and provided that the owner agreed to do no repairs, additions or alterations except with the sanction of the Minister. That is, quite irrespective of the level of taxation. This 1944 Act is a most valuable step in the right direction, but further legislation seems to me to be indicated in order to implement its intentions. It must be borne in mind that local authorities may themselves propose to demolish listed buildings under an approved planning scheme, or by demolition orders. Does the Minister offer safeguards against this?
This suggested practice follows on the lines of what France does in respect of her scheduled historical monuments, commonly known as "Monuments Classés." Those of us who served in France as Monuments Officers were impressed by the simplicity of the organization and its administration. It was in no small measure thanks to the nature of this service and to the very friendly relations that existed between the French and our. selves that the work was made so pleasant. The work of protection of historical monuments in France dates back to a little over 100 years ago, and came about very largely due to the efforts of such men as Merimée and Viollet-le-Duc, who pointed out to their country the rich heritage of fine buildings, particularly medieval ones, that was being neglected. As a re1sult there came into being diocesan committees and the Historical Monuments Department of the Beaux Arts.
These structures were placed into two categories—namely, the Scheduled Monuments or "Monuments Classés" and the inscribed monument or "Monument inscrit sur l'Inventaire Supplémentaire." The former category includes practically all first-class monuments, the French Government contributing 50 per cent. towards the cost of structural repairs. The owners are subject to certain restrictions; proposed alterations or additions must

1069
have the approval of the Beaux Arts and repair work is either undertaken by the Department or has to be under its supervision. The owner has to give the public reasonable access. In some cases only the facades and roofs of houses may be scheduled as the interiors. may have little of public interest. In the second category of listed and protected monuments—the Monuments inscrits—fall all those buildings, etc., of national interest but usually of secondary value. The exceptions are some chateaux of first importance which the owner for one reason or another has not wished to have scheduled as a "Monument classé" but is content to leave it on the Supplementary List. Balleroy is an example. In this class the owner gets no financial benefit but a certain kudos and he is free to take his building out of the list. The French scheme is a permissive one and must be a considerable charge on the Exchequer. And since 1905, when Church property was confiscated by the State, the Government have had the added cost of maintenance of this property on their hands.
While this State subsidy is of value and ensures a fairly uniform system of upkeep at least in theory—for we all know of the state of neglect of many manor houses, etc., in France that has been going on for many years—there are other maintenance charges in the case of occupied scheduled monuments in which the Department is not concerned. Costs of heating, lighting, cleaning, internal decoration, etc., have to be met, and to assist owners in, this matter a society in France and another in Belgium known as the Demeures Historiques came into being and had already done much good work prior to the outbreak of war in organizing a tourist trade that not only brought a small income to the owner (and a tax to the Government) but also (perhaps more important), by the excellence of the service the Society provided, in the way of arranging bus routes, providing competent guides. and so forth, induced thousands of French men and women annually to visit those magnificent historical monuments for which France is famous, whether it is in the Isle de France, in the Midi or, what is more familiar to the Englishman, in Touraine. It was gratifying to visit many of these places after the liberation and to learn that these societies were going as strong
1070
as ever, and looking forward to functioning normally again. I think your Lordships will agree that the educational good these two societies have done in the past and intend to do in the future cannot be over-emphasized.
Some of your Lordships may well say, "Yes, we agree with much that you have said about the practice in France—presuming your facts are correct—hut should we not also take warning from such restorations as that of Rheims Cathedral, and the work of one of the great Architects you have quoted? For instance you may have seen Carcassone." My answer to that is that as long as the advice of the Society for the Preservation of Ancient Buildings is near at hand we shall never stray in that direction as the French, with all their knowledge and taste and craftsmanship have unfortunately at times done, and thereby lost some of the historical character and the imprint of contemporary craftsmen in some of their restorations.
I wish we could have something simpler and bolder in our methods of preservation in our own country. I have attempted to outline what the National Trust is doing in this matter and where the gaps are. There are also in our towns the preservation of whole streets and squares of "period" houses to consider where multiple ownership increases the difficulties of preservation. In cases where the interiors are not remarkable scheduling the facades and roofs may be the answer. It will probably be found that our new lists will divide themselves into three broad categories and that the desirability if not the urgency of maintaining those coming in the top category, mostly large buildings and costly to maintain, will be more than apparent. And the State will have in some way—not necessarily finaneial—to encourage owners of buildings in the other two categories to maintain them—possibly by free technical advice. Also I feel very strongly that as we spend large sums annually on education, with a view ultimately, I hope, of having universal education on an ever-widening cultural basis, we should not through ignorance or apathy allow those very witnesses of a former culture and of a history that we can be proud of to disappear.
While I have dealt largely with the more important monuments and their

1071
maintenance and have hardly touched at all on second-class monuments and on those numerous small period houses that characterize and are the charm of so many 17th and 18th century towns such as Abingdon, Bath, Lewes and many others, I should like to make a suggestion under the Housing Act of 1936, with a view partly of preventing the demolition of period houses of character that will probably in due course appear as "listed" buildings. I would like to propose that the conversion of old houses that have been "listed" under the Town and Country Planning Act of 1944 into working-class dwellings should qualify for the same subsidy as new dwellings. Not only would this be a logical way of helping to preserve what is beautiful; it would be a direct help to the present housing shortage. If such conversion were being held up by a rent restrictive tenant I suggest that legislation might be introduced to provide an expeditious method for transferring such tenant, without the formality of going to the court and on the certificate from the local authority that alternative accommodation is available.
This is a subject of some magnitude and is in some of its aspects closely linked with housing and planning; and I hope that the noble Lord who will reply to this debate will not accuse me of having brought the matter to his notice at an unfavourable moment. We must not allow the general nature of the question as to whether we are to retain as intact as possible our national heritage of historical monuments to be clouded by related issues of great urgency. It is the very urgency of the housing and reconstruction period in which we live that calls for vigilance and endeavour in the matter I have raised for his sympathetic consideration, lest irreparable damage may be the result of our neglect. Many monuments of interest have been of necessity neglected during the war; others have been blasted or damaged in some way or other by enemy action and still remain in their "blitzed" condition.
There seems to be no central authority to inquire into what is being done with such monuments by the responsible owner or guardian. Also in present circumstances I should be surprised to learn that there is not much leeway to make up
1072
in the matter of monuments being scheduled. I have a feeling that the simplification of our preservation methods will bring this question into orderly perspective and help to get rid of a certain amount of uncertainty which exists at present. I would say in conclusion that if this leads to a debate on the subject and those of your Lordships who are admitted experts will express their views freely and without reserve, some advantage may accrue to the common good. I beg to move for Papers.
3.26 p.m.
LORD HOLDEN: My Lords, I would like first, if I may, to thank the noble Lord opposite for the Motion he has put on the Order Paper and for the valuable and learned speech he has made on a subject which we all have very much at heart. Unlike the noble Lord, I have no famous country seat like the one mentioned; in fact I have no country seat at all, but that does not make me less anxious to preserve those country seats which still exist. I would like to divide the remarks I propose to address to your Lordships into two sections. The first concerns the powers which I should like to see taken by the Government, and the second the use of those powers which I should like to sec made. I do not expect my noble friend Lord Henderson to say he is going to do anything about it, because I am well aware that there are more important things to do at the present moment, but the subject is one which should be kept alive in your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Methuen, suggests that the Ministry of Works would be the most suitable authority. With great respect, it has occurred to me—I may be quite wrong—that the Ministry of Town and Country Planning might be the Ministry which would be more useful in that respect, and I should like in the future to see an Amenities Division of that Ministry established which would take over the great responsibility of seeing that houses of architectural and historical importance are not destroyed. It is obvious, I think, that this Division would have to be supported by a Committee of experts. This Committee clearly would have to be made up to a certain extent of architects. I see the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, in his place, therefore I must be careful what I say about architects, but I think the noble Duke

1073
would probably agree with me that on this Committee you would want other men besides architects; you would require men of learning and of wide culture and, if such a man exists, one of unprejudiced views. That is the authority, obviously sketched in very vague terms, which I should like to see established at some future date.
Your Lordships might then well ask what powers one would give to this Amenities Division, as I call it, perhaps rather badly. I will sketch them very slightly. First, the Division's job would clearly be to prevent the destruction of buildings of outstanding importance. In my humble opinion, they should have the power not only of buying the building itself but also of buying the furniture in it. Many of your Lordships will know that an empty house is a skeleton. If you acquire a house and the furniture which often was built with it, or at least built to go with it, you buy a living body, and if the country should at any time acquire a house with the furniture I think the nation will have secured a very great possession. That, however, is often impossible. An empty house of outstanding value may be on the market, and it may be that the Government authority concerned, whether it is the National Trust or not, may decide that it should be bought. What are they, in that case, to do with it? The noble Lord opposite mentioned lunatic asylums. That, I think, is a very sad end to an historic house. They may turn it into a school. Many noble Lords will know Stowe. Perhaps some of you were educated there. I was not educated there but I have been over the school, and although it has not got the furniture which was built for it, I think it is far better that the building should still exist, empty of furniture but full of boys, rather than that it should not be kept at all. For the people who are educated in it, it must be a great background. It gives young people a great background to be educated amongst beautiful things. I am sure your Lordships will agree with that
I would mention another thing. His Majesty's Government are thinking of introducing, I am glad to say, county colleges, at which, I understand, young people of both sexes between the ages of fifteen and eighteen will be educated.
1074
Here, surely, we have an opportunity for using some of our empty country houses which their owners can no longer support. Many of those houses, as you know, are in the centre of the countryside but also near towns. Surely this is an opportunity not to be missed in the future. They should be taken over, either as county colleges or recreational centres, with the object again of providing a beautiful, cultural and educative background for our young people in the future.
In conclusion, I would like to refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, said about historical buildings in France. I perhaps have rather a personal interest in the matter, because I have been able to compare the difference between English country houses open to the public and French country houses open to the public. About ten years ago I decided, with a friend of mine, to visit all the English country houses which were open to the public at fixed times and on fixed days in the year. I wrote to the owners of two or three hundred houses and received varying replies, some of great courtesy and some of less. From those replies I found out when their houses were open to the public, and on that basis I visited them and wrote a book about them. I have to tell your Lordships, however, that before the book was printed it was out of date, because the people had changed their minds, and although their houses had been open during one year on Thursdays, the next year it was on Tuesdays.
Shortly after that I did the same thing in France with very different results. I went to the central organization in Paris, to which the noble Lord referred. I was provided with a list of French chateaux open to the public and was told exactly when they were open. The reason was a commercial one. English people who open their houses to the public can charge what they like provided they can get the public to come, but in France it is different, or it was different. Everybody who had a great house there could open it to the public and charge, I think, between five and ten francs, two-thirds of which went to the owner of the house and one-third to the Demeure Historique. The result was they could visit all the chateaux which were open to the public, knowing that they would be open to the public and knowing also what one had to pay. Therefore the little book I wrote before

1075
the war on that subject was, I think, as up-to-date as it possibly could be. I do suggest, with great respect to those of your Lordships who are the owners of famous houses in this country, that in the future you have a great opportunity of helping your own houses along if a central organization can be found. You would not only be helping yourselves but also the public, who, as the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, said, have a right to see these houses themselves. I beg to support this motion.
3.36 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, in an afternoon which is positively supercharged with business, it may not be one's pleasure but it is certainly one's duty to be as brief as possible. I am able to be all the briefer on this occasion owing to the competent way in which the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, has covered the ground. In supporting this Motion, I will confine myself to a few very short and general observations on the legislation as it exists at present. The Georgian group, of which I have the honour to be Chairman, and which began by being a subsection of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings—and I would say in passing how much I regret that the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, is not able to be here this afternoon—has lately published a pamphlet on the Protection by law of national monuments and national buildings. I should like to say that as far as any distinction between those two is concerned, the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, has already given you a very valid explanation to which I should like to adhere. From this very competent report—of which, I may add, I am not the author—it is possible to glean the essential fact that, although much of the existing legislation is actually and potentially useful, it is not by any means as effective as it could be. What is necessary is that it should be transformed and rounded off into something much more complete than it is at present.
With regard to the public acquisition of national monuments and buildings, the Ancient Monuments Act of 1913, to which the noble Lord has already referred, gave the Ministry of Works or the appropriate local authority certain powers of purchase by agreement or acquisition by deed of gift or devise—that is, I think. the correct
1076
legal term—but the Ministry in question has up to April of this year only made one purchase and has acquired no more than about thirty national monuments or buildings. The number acquired by local authorities is extremely small. The number itself I have not been able accurately to ascertain. On the other hand, the number of buildings acquired by the National Trust is, as many of your Lordships know, considerable. But in cases where owners are not or cannot afford to be public spirited enough to be willing to take measures to secure the preservation of national monuments or buildings if this will result, as in many cases it may, in financial loss to themselves, preservation orders can be issued by the Ministry of Works. We find that up to date only four of those preservation orders are in force. Section 17 orders, under the Town and Country Planning Act of 1932 as amended by Section 43 of the 1944 Act, seem to have their value nullified, so far as I can see, by the fact that local authorities may be asked to pay compensation to owners affected by such orders, and perhaps as a result of this there are only twenty-four orders of that kind.
With regard to the listing of national monuments and buildings by the Ministries of Works and Town and Country Planning which has been made incumbent on them by the Acts of 1913, 1932, and 1944, that, of course, is a measure of obvious value. I note in passing that the new Committee nominated by Mr. Silkin for this purpose shows a very impressive number of well known and authoritative names. But these provisions only call attention to the danger of demolition or alteration; they do not give final protection. With regard to repair, the Ministry of Works appears by now to be responsible for that of about 160 national monuments; but in the case of the repair of national buildings, the law as hitherto is completely silent.
Perhaps I may be allowed to conclude by summing up what is really the gist of what I wish to say this afternoon in the words of this report, and leave your Lordships to draw your own conclusions. The report says:
"Such, then, is the present state of the law in regard to the preservation of national monuments and buildings. In the case of the former, though in need of simplification and consolidation, the law is not inadequate;

1077
and within its limits it has been admirably administered by the Ministry of Works. In the case of national buildings, the position has, till lately, been far from satisfactory; and apart from Section 17 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, (which has be all but inoperative), the law has confined itself to pious exhortation and somewhat permissive powers. In particular, the need for making clue provision to cover the repair of national buildings has been almost entirely overlooked. It is too soon to say what will be the effect of the provisions of the 1944 Act; the listing of national buildings should invest them with a certain prestige, mace owners more concerned to keep them in good order and deter building speculators from acquiring them only to destroy them. The amendments to Section 17 of the Town and Country. Planning Act, 1932, are, too, to be welcomed; but the warmth of the welcome must be tempered by the thought of the little use Which has been made of the section itself. Of more general value is the provision which requires notice to be given before a national building is subjected to demolition or damaging alteration, but it has to be seen whether the notices are going to be followed by carefully considered action or by careless acquiescence. It is best, perhaps, to regard the law relating to the protection of national buildings as still in course of development and due for further additions before it is treated as a completed code. Meantime, the nation is in danger of losing its buildings."
3.42.p.m.
LORD BROCKET: My Lords, I feel we all should be greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, for raising this subject this afternoon. I only hope that the reply which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will give will be a rather better one than that anticipated by Lord Holden, who did not expect very much help from that reply. Perhaps I may follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, who has just spoken, and be brief. I will not. therefore, go into the question of churches or ancient monuments, which are if I may so call them, dead monuments, but I should like to go into the question of country houses, which are still alive.
We have heard Lord Methuen talk about lunatic asylums and school, and other noble Lords talk about country institutes. In my opinion, and in the opinion of many others, the charm of a country house, whether it be a home. I feel that when houses lose their original use and become asylums, schools, institutes, or now, maternity hospitals, they do rather lose their character. My house at Brocket in Hertfordshire
1078
is the only house in England where two Prime Ministers have died, Lord Melbourne and Lord Palmerston. During this war it has been playing a rather reverse role because between 4,000 and 5,000 babies have been born there. On the other hand, I rather feel that the babies, who leave there when they are three weeks old, may not for some years appreciate its architectural interest. Therefore I look forward to the day (which, as far as I can see, may be many years hence, if ever) when it becomes a home again.
Perhaps I may just say a few words about the practical side of owners looking after and living in their country houses, whether they are large or small. Finance is really one of the main considerations. I do not intend in this House, where finance is a subject not allowed to be discussed very much, to raise this question at any length, but there are a few financial interests which I think I should mention. First of all, as regards income, I was very sorry to hear that my noble friend Lord Leicester is having difficulty in getting his roof at Holkham repaired. In a maintenance claim one is allowed to put repairs against the income of the estate, or even against the outside income of the owner, and therefore from the point of view of repairs the chief difficulty is to get the repairs done or to get a licence to do the repairs. Arising out of that, I should like to suggest, from the point of view of getting the repairs done, that the. Ministry of Works might provide advice to owners on what should be done, and secondly that, when the problem of providing smaller houses has been overcome by His Majesty's Government, in as short a time as possible, perhaps, the Ministry of Works could provide a gang of expert repair men to go round and repair living historic monuments as well as the dead historic monuments which are now in their hands.
In the case of my own house in Hampshire, about ten years ago the Office of Works (as it was then) kindly allowed me the advice of one of their best architects. The house was suffering a good deal from the death-watch beetle, and I was advised by an architect from the Office of Works who had had a good deal to do with the death-watch beetle repairs in the roof of Westminster Hall. He did the work 'very well, and I am greatly indebted to the

1079
then First Commissioner of Works for allowing this architect to help me, because I am sure he did so better than anyone whom I could have got hold of would have been able to do. I think that that might be extended.
To come back to finance, repairs and repairs to drives are already provided for in the maintenance claim, but a large house requires a great deal of heating to keep it in order, and that has to come out of one's private pocket, whether one opens the house to the public or not. The upkeep of the garden can be helped by the sale of vegetables, but a garden is an essential part of some of these lovely houses, and if there is an entirely derelict garden it is an appalling sight for people who come to see the house. I think, therefore, that some financial help might be given towards the garden. On the capital side, I do not wish to speak for long on the subject of Death Duties; but I should like to say that the contents of these houses are not subject to Death Duties until they are sold, if it is claimed that they are of historic or scientific interest, and I feel that perhaps the houses themselves might also come under that provision. The loss of revenue would be very small, and it Would be well worth while for that to be done. I feel sure that the owners of beautiful houses, though they may regard them primarily, perhaps, as their own homes, do regard them secondarily as national possessions. I feel sure that they regard themselves as trustees for the future, and I hope that, arising out of this debate, something may be done to preserve these beautiful homes in the condition in which and for the purpose for which they were built.
3.48 p.m.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I ask for your Lordships' indulgence on rising to make my first speech in this House. We have all listened with very great interest to the speeches delivered on the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, and I think that they illustrate once again the high quality of the debates on special subjects which take place from time to time in your Lordships' House. I should like, if I may, to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, as an accomplished artist and an enthusiastic lover of our ancient buildings. We are all grateful to him for raising this subject, which is
1080
not only of great interest to your Lordships but of great interest to all those who wish to conserve our national heritage. It is gratifying, in considering ways and means of protecting historic and beautiful houses, to know that we are at the same time devising ways and means to preserve and protect the work of great craftsmen who, although their names in many cases are unknown, rank, so far as their skill and their influence and their contribution are concerned, with some of the greatest and most accomplished artists of their time.
There were many questions raised in the speeches to which we have listened to which I am sure that I shall not be expected to give an answer this afternoon. I should at this stage, however, like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, that the restoration of Leybourne Castle was carried through by an expert, and I imagine, though I cannot say with certainty, that before proceedings were taken there was a consultation with the Ministry of Works, arid no doubt the Ministry gave their approval. In the event of the Castle 'becoming uninhabited it would, of course, pass back to the list of scheduled buildings.
I think that in view of the Motion which has been submitted, and of the speeches by which it has been supported, it would be only fair to give your Lordships quite briefly some idea of the work which is being done in the direction which is being pressed upon your Lordships' attention. Reference has been made to the powers exercisable by the Ministry of Works. These powers fall under three headings, the first of which is scheduling, to which reference has been made. The scheduling applies to all ancient structures except those that arc inhabited otherwise than by a caretaker, or are buildings still in use for ecclesiastical purposes. The aim of the Ministry is gradually to schedule the whole of the monuments in Great Britain which are worthy of preservation. This work has been held up during the war, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, suggested, there is leeway to make up; but it is hoped that this work will be resumed as speedily as possible and carried through as effectively as possible.
Before the war, over 5,000 monuments of all kinds had been scheduled, including prehistoric camps, stone circles, barrows, the remains of abbeys, castles,

1081
bridges and so on, and even relatively modern buildings such as the iron bridge at Ironbridge in Shropshire. The Ministry do not confine themselves, as so many people seem to imagine, to prehistoric earthworks, though earlier monuments naturally bulk largely in their lists simply because they happen to be more numerous. They include castles (as long as they are not inhabited), bridges of all periods, abbeys and great houses like Kirby Hall (actually in the Minister's guardianship), which dates from the sixteenth and he seventeenth centuries. The effect of scheduling is to make it incumbent upon an owner to give the Ministry notice before he alters or destroys any monument. That is a very effective power in favour of the preservation of ancient monuments. The second point is the preservation as owners or guardians and as contributors to costs. My noble friend Lord Methuen made reference to this in his speech. The effect of guardianship is that the Ministry are responsible for repair, maintenance, custody and general management, including the collection of entrance fees, of any monument (not being a dwelling-house or an ecclesiastical building in use) which the owners may offer and the Ministry may agree to take.
In this way the Ministry have become responsible for a number of the most important monuments in the country, including such famous places as Avebury, Stonehenge, Richborough Roman Fort, Porchester Castle, Pevensey Castle, the Abbeys at Rievaulx, Byland and Tintern, the Bishop's Palace at St. David's, Hemsley Castle, Walkworth Castle, Kirby Muxloe, Kirby Hall and Houghton House. In the treatment of these buildings, which aims at the preservation as distinct from restoration, the Ministry have evolved a technique which is, in the opinion of many experts, superior to that of any other country.
The third heading under the Ministry of Works powers relates to schemes for the preservation of the amenities of monuments. The Ministry have powers to make schemes on the lines of planning schemes for the preservation of ancient monuments, and they are, for example, protecting that part of the Roman Wall in Northumberland which runs along the ridge of Whinstone, where quarries are operating. The destruction of any more of the Roman Wall being prevented,
1082
and the operations of a quarry where the Wall has already been destroyed are being restricted. I cite that again as an example of the activities of the Ministry of Works.
Reference was made both by the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, and by other speakers to the later powers which have been provided in the Town and Country Planning Act of 1944. These powers tie up with the powers provided in the Act of 1932, and the object of these provisions is to afford protection from destruction, decay, alteration, or additions in the cases of buildings of any kind, except churches in use. The charm of our villages and towns consists in no small degree in the surviving buildings of various ages, styles and sizes, whether isolated or in groups or terraces. These are, for the most part, still in use for domestic or commercial purposes, though some of them may have been, and may still be, in danger by reason of street widening proposals, road schemes, the advent of multiple stores and so on. There are also farm-houses, small manor houses and great country houses as well as whole streets of fine architecture in our ancient cities and larger towns.
Under the Town and Country Planning Acts, the Minister of Planning is to cause lists to be compiled of buildings of special architectural or historic interest in every planning area, and I think I might say to the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, that though there are definite distinctions, especially as regards cost of maintenance, as between the French system and what is being done in this country, there is also a good deal that is similar. These lists, as has already been said, will be sent to the local authorities, and the owners and the occupiers are to be informed that the buildings are to be listed. If the owner of a listed building wishes to demolish or so alter or extend the building as to affect seriously its character, he must give the local authority two months' notice, and the local authority must send a copy of the notice to the Minister. If the local authority do not agree with what the owner proposes to do they have the power to stop him by making an order under Section 17 of the Town and Country Planning Act of 1932, as amended by the Act of 1944, to which reference was made by the noble Lord, which practically places the building under the control of the local

1083
authority. The Act provides that the local authority must make compensation if it is proved that they have caused loss to the owner. In addition, where an order is in force and the local authority believe that reasonable steps to maintain the building will not be taken by the owner, they have power under the Act of 1944 to acquire it compulsorily.
Fear has been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, and by the noble Lord behind me, that local authorities may not be likely to issue preservation orders under Section 17 of the Act because these may involve the payment of compensation.
LORD METHUEN: I suggested that they had only issued twenty-four.
LORD HENDERSON: Well, I am coming to that. The noble Lord, Lord Methuen, mentioned that preservation orders had been issued in twenty-four cases only. I think it must be remembered that many schemes were held up because of the advent of the war. There have been six years of war since then. I do not think that that can be regarded as a reliable guidance. Moreover, we must remember that the most recent Act was passed only at the end of 1944, and it is too soon yet to form any judgment, favourable or unfavourable, as to the use local authorities will make of the powers which have been invested in them. The Government prefer to watch the effect of the Town and Country Planning Act of 1944 before considering whether it is necessary to amend existing legislation. The first point, as I say, is the drawing up of the lists, and it is hoped that this procedure itself will arouse public interest and public pride and stimulate local opinion in the direction of using the powers that are placed at the disposal of the local authorities under the Act. In any case, noble Lords will know full well that there is a considerable amount of legislation already foreshadowed, and I think it is extremely unlikely that the Government would be able to find time for any further legislation of this character at this stage.
I should like to pay a tribute to the work of the National Trust, which has been mentioned by previous speakers. The National Trust has concerned itself in recent years with the problems of the
1084
preservation of historic country houses. Even before the war it became clear that the incidence of Income Tax and Super Tax, as well as Death Duties, was likely to make it very difficult, to say the least of it, for many owners of those houses to continue to live in them and to maintain them. It is perhaps not generally realized that there is a wealth of splendid buildings, ranging from the later Middle Ages to the earlier years of the nineteenth century, existing in this country. It is not merely a question of the buildings themselves which illustrate the development of our domestic architecture, but also of their unparalleled setting and the richness of their content. The National Trust, as your Lordships are aware, produced a scheme under which owners could make over ownership of their houses with an endowment, in return for which they could continue to live there, subject to an arrangement for the admission of the public on certain days. This scheme has worked very well, but is obvious that it can only cover a small number of the houses and only those where an endowment is forthcoming.
Reference again, has been made to those large houses which remain in private possession, and which are coming into the market because of the heavy cost of maintenance. It is hoped that suitable use will be found, as has already been suggested, for these country houses. Examples have been given of their use as hotels and sanatoria, as educational establishments, as rest homes and hotels, and reference has been made to the use of Stowe College. There is, I think, a considerable development taking place along these lines, and it is to be hoped that in this way these old country houses under new management, in the hands of new owners or new tenants, will receive that consideration and care which they so justly deserve.
There are two other points that I want to touch upon. The first is ecclesiastical buildings. The noble Lord, Lord Methuen, knows that in France church property is the property of the State, and it is the State which is responsible for the preservation and maintenance of cathedrals, churches, and other ecclesiastical houses or buildings, whether in use or not. In this country, as we all know, ecclesiastical buildings in use are excluded from the Ancient Monuments Acts and from the Town and Country Planning Acts. The

1085
Church of England has always been, and still is, anxious to retain and to discharge its responsibility for the proper care and maintenance of its buildings. Indeed. the Church authorities set up diocesan advisory committees whose duty it was to give advice on ancient churches, and a Central Council for the care of churches, which is a central body for similar purposes. The cathedrals are outside the scope of these bodies. Here the responsibility rests with the Dean and the Chapter to make what arrangements may seem good to them. As regards a church no longer in use, it can be protected under the Ancient Monuments Act and the Ministry of Works would be prepared to consider in suitable cases accepting guardianship. But it is naturally hoped that the church authorities will feel that they have a special interest and a special responsibility for churches which have been in their possession for so long. In the special case of the damaged historic churches in the City of London, a fully representative Commission appointed by the most reverend Primate when he was Bishop of London, is 'preparing a report on the condition and the future of the buildings. I think from what I have said that it is perfectly clear that the church authorities are taking a very close interest in their responsibility for the care and maintenance of their churches.
I come finally to the question of inhabited houses, which were, in fact, the principal point of the noble Lord's appeal. It is true that the Ministry of Works are not able to become guardians of inhabited houses or to contribute directly to the cost of their maintenance. They have no powers to do so, but the Ministry are able to accept inhabited houses as a gift, with or without an endowment, or to buy them, provided that they can come to terms with the owners. This could, of course, only be done in exceptional cases, and clearly it would not be practicable for the State to become the owners of thousands of historic and interesting houses of all sizes with their original owners as tenants.
LORD METHUEN: Will the noble Lord refer me to the section?
LORD HENDERSON: I have not got the actual reference with me, but I can assure the noble Lord that what I have said is correct. I was not quite clear in my mind as to the reference made by the
1086
noble Lord with regard to the contribution from the State by way of income. He made a suggestion of its being made a 50 per cent. contribution, regardless of the level of Income Tax.
LORD METHUEN: Could I explain? It is simply this. An adjustment could be made on the maintenance claim. For instance, with the tax at 10s., you would get a 5o per cent. contribution from the State on your maintenance claim. That is what I meant. Supposing the tax fell to 7s. 6d. or 5s. in the pound, the adjustment would be made as if tax was still at 10s. in the pound on the total estate.
LORD HENDERSON: I follow the point made by the noble Lord but, as it will be realized, I can hardly be expected to give any answer to a suggestion of that sort. It is not a matter with which I can deal; it is really the responsibility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I may not have given, and indeed I am afraid I have not given, complete satisfaction to the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, but I do not believe that any Government would turn a blind eye to the need and importance of preserving historic, architectural and artistic memorials which have been handed down to us from past ages and remain with us to-day as eloquent reminders of the long evolution of our social, spiritual and cultural history. They form a splendid part of our rich national heritage of which we are all proud—indeed, never more proud than to-day, after the ordeals through which we have come. None of us would wish that they should be allowed to decay and vanish through indifference or neglect. I am sure that His Majesty's Government can always be relied upon to view with sympathy, understanding and approval the cause which the noble Lord has so much at heart and for which he has shown himself to-day to be so eloquent, persuasive and public-spirited an advocate.
4.18 p.m.
LORD METHUEN: My Lords, I would like first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, on his maiden speech in this House and to say that I am sure we are all impressed by his attitude, which is certainly not inimical to my remarks, because, if I may say so, he has re-echoed much that I said. I think there is very little between us except, I suppose, that

1087
the question of expediency stands in the way. If I were in his position I might feel also that the moment was not altogether opportune. That is why I stress the fact that we should not allow other things, such as housing—and none know better than we do in this House how urgent that problem is—to blind us to the damage which is being done in the meantime to those things we value.
There are one or two things to which I would like to refer. Lord Brocket was good enough to suggest that I intended most large houses to be occupied by mental defectives. May I make it clear that I only meant those houses whose interiors were suitable for that purpose? Houses with nice interiors I think would be rather wasted if used in this way. I should like the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in due course to refer to that part of the Ancient Monuments Act which has given me such a headache in my efforts to study it. I should like to know what part of it allows the Ministry of Works to take over inhabited buildings, either as gifts or in any other way.
LORD HENDERSON: I am sorry if I said it was in the Act. There is no special section in the Act, but the provision is implicit throughout the Ancient Monuments Act, and presumably, therefore, it can be implemented.
LORD METHUEN: I have not read it in that way, nor have the lawyers who have advised me in this matter. If that is implied in the Act, I think it ought to be made doubly sure by some provision in due course. I did not read it in that way. There are three Departments concerned. I do not advise anybody else who has not the time to spare to take this matter up, because of the amount there is to study. I congratulate the noble Lord on having got busy on the Roman Wall. The last time I was there it was being used as a quarry. He has arrived a little late on the scene. Had it been twenty-five years ago, perhaps more might have been left of the Roman Wall to-day. That points to the fact that we must really get on with the matter.
Excellent as it is to have good intentions, we must have more than that. We must get on with the business first of scheduling and then, I would humbly suggest—and this is a matter which I think
1088
might suit every part of the House—of setting up a Departmental Committee which, with all its delays, is better than nothing at all; which so far is what we have been offered. Therefore I suggest that the noble Lord should consider the appointment of a Departmental Committee to go into the matter, which requires simplifying. In the meantime these lists would have been got out, and we should be in a happier position if we could say that in two or three years' time the Departmental Committee would make a report. I beg to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

ROAD CASUALTIES.
4.24 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK rose to call attention to the heavy casualties on the roads; to ask His Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to make the roads safer; and to move for Papers. The most reverend Primate said: My Lords, the House has listened with very great sympathy to the plea for the preservation, of ancient buildings. I am sure that the House will listen with equal sympathy to a plea for the preservation of the lives of young and old upon our roads. Before the war this question of road traffic was frequently raised in this House, and earlier in the war it was raised, I think, by myself on two occasions. During the crisis of the war, however, with the heavy burden falling upon the various Ministries, it seemed inopportune to raise the question then. But now we are passing rapidly into the days of peace I think it is right that the House and the country generally should realize the extreme gravity of the present position.
During the war, from September, 1939, to August, 1945, 44,307 people were killed on the roads. That is a number as large as the population of a town like Bedford. It is estimated—they are not quite complete figures—that during that time there were 800,000 people who were injured seriously or less seriously on the roads. That is a number as large as the population of the City of Manchester. Among the killed there were 7,000 children. Since that date, since the restoration of basic petrol, the position has become more serious. In May there were 1,000,000 cars licensed, in October 1,500,000. In June there were

1089
3,000 killed or seriously injured on the roads and in October that number had risen to 3,940. Let me put the position to your Lordships in another way. Every day 16 are killed and 100 seriously injured —I am not including those slightly injured. Among the killed every day there are three children. It has been stated officially that one child in every thirty of school age will be killed or injured before his or her schooldays are over.
Those facts are simply appalling and I am amazed that more attention is not drawn to them. If there is a railway accident we have headlines and columns of print if there is an aeroplane crash considerable notice is paid to it; but day by clay these casualties take place on the roads and comparatively small attention is paid to them. We are taking them almost for granted, which is a deplorable attitude of mind. I do not for one moment say that all these accidents are due to the carelessness or the recklessness of motorists. There are careless cyclists who sometimes ride three abreast on the road or straggle here and there over it; and there are pedestrians who ignore the footpaths and walk upon the roads. That is one of the characteristics which I find distinguishes the North of England from the South. In the South of England the cars keep to the roads and the pedestrians keep to the pavements, but in many of our cities in the North the Northerner, showing his sturdy independence, walks in the road and the car frequently has to go on the pavement to avoid him. There are undoubtedly pedestrians and cyclists who are partly responsible for the accidents which take place, but this great difference must be remembered—the penalty is totally different. If a motorist is careless or reckless and is convicted as such, he may have his licence suspended, or he may be fined, or he may even have to go to prison; but a pedestrian or a cyclist pays the penalty of death or mutilation.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the, most reverend Primate, but could he possibly tell us who he describes as a motorist?
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: By a motorist I mean a person who drives a car. I think that is a perfectly. adequate and simple explanation. I can quote another fact to the noble Earl. Seven out of every one hundred casualties are to
1090
motorists; the other casualties are pedestrians and cyclists or, I suppose, in some cases, those who are in other cars. Only 7 per cent. of the total number of casualties are the actual drivers. What is to be done in this most grave position? A very valuable Report came out just before the war, the Report of the Alness Committee. That Report made a very large number of recommendations, I think something like 160. It is a very comprehensive Report. The first recommendation is that the Highway Code should be revised and given the force of law, and the last recommendation is that handlebars should not be too low or saddles too high. I am anxious to know from the Government which of those recommendations they propose to carry out in the near future.
The Government have told us that they are launching a great campaign of propaganda. I hope that will be most successful. I hope they will use the Press (and already valuable work has been done by one of our daily newspapers, the Daily Sketch, for the preservation of the life of children), I hope they will use the cinema, I hope they will use the wireless, I hope they will use every kind of publicity possible, persistently and skilfully, to bring home to people the dangers of the road and the necessity for taking precautions; but not all the propaganda in the world will really succeed in solving the problem. There is rather a touching statement in the Interim Report of the Committee on Road Safety. It is stated:
"If we could eliminate human error, raise the standard of road manners of all users, make the roads really adequate for to-clay and to-morrow and ensure that vehicles are always in a roadworthy condition we should have solved the problem."
"If we could eliminate human error "!That reminds me of the people who often say to me, when I have spoken on some social problem:" If everyone was a. Christian to-day that difficulty would not arise." We have to face the fact that there are a large number of people who are impervious to propaganda, who are blind to the dangers of the road and who are reckless in their selfishness. Although propaganda is quite essential, something a good deal more than propaganda is required, if the roads are to be made safe.
There is a long-term policy, and I shall say a very little about it. The long-term

1091
policy is to improve the roads, to reconstruct them for motor traffic and to segregate the various users of the road. I believe as a long-term policy that is right. The position at the present time on our roads is quite impossible because roads which were made for slow traffic are now used for every kind of traffic. It is almost impossible, even for the most skilful driver, to avoid, ocasionally at any rate, the risk of accident. That is a long-term policy, and it will be a long time before the Government can reconstruct our roads. We want an immediate policy, a policy which will deal with the present appalling position.
There are just three suggestions that I would make. As soon as possible a test should be required of those who apply for licences to drive on the roads. During the war it was, for obvious reasons, impossible to apply that test. I am told there are something like a half million people driving to-day who have only provisional licences. Probably the great majority of those are careful and thoroughly capable drivers, but there are some who may not be. I can quote my own case. During the war I had to learn to drive my car and I drove it very cautiously, haunted by the memory of speeches I had made in this House about the danger of careless driving. I had the uneasy feeling that I should not have passed a test. However, it was comparatively safe then, for the roads—and I chose the right roads—were usually empty; but I know I should be a dangerous driver if I attempted to go on the roads now. I have no intention of driving on the roads now, for I know I should not be able to pass a test and that I should not be a safe driver in an emergency in the midst of heavy traffic. I think it quite possible that amongst those who have provisional licences there is a minority who are in almost the same position as myself. I am not asking that every one who has a provisional licence should at once be tested. That is out of the question. All I ask is that when any one who has a provisional licence has been in a road accident and is found in any way guilty, he should be tested to see whether he is really capable of driving on the roads.
Secondly, I hope that as soon as possible the recommendation of the Alness
1092
Committee will be carried out, to eliminate blind corners. In their Report they state:
"The necessity for the elimination of blind corners on main roads is so obvious that the Committee need not stress it. These corners are gradually being removed, but the Committee urge that the efforts of all authorities concerned with this improvement should be redoubled."
I need not argue the danger that arises from these blind corners. When I was learning to drive, a younger friend of mine said, with perhaps more wisdom than tact, "Never forget that there may be another fool coming round the corner." That is, of course, what one has to bear in mind, though one might phrase it somewhat differently! The sooner these corners are removed, the safer will some of the roads become.
Thirdly, I would urge the enforcement of the speed limit. Here again, I am not asking for a universal speed limit. That would be impossible to enforce, and it is quite unnecessary to ask for it. There are a great many roads upon which speed is quite justified, but there is a very great danger from speed on certain roads where the houses open right on to the road and children can easily rush out on to the road. At the present time these speed limits are ignored. I have watched this again and again. When in my own car I have been going at speed within the law along one of these roads where there is a speed limit, car after car, exultantly hooting, has passed me. Only yesterday, as I watched a certain restricted area, car after car rushed through what is a rather crowded area without any kind of reference to the speed limit. The danger of speed is that it allows no margin for error of judgment. Another danger of speed is that the car is much more likely to be involved in a serious accident if it is going at 40 miles an hour instead of 20, or 60 miles an hour instead of 40. Motorists may say that it is very inconvenient to have to slow down in certain places, but what is inconvenience compared with human life?
Here I come to what seems to me one of the most serious features of the whole position. Of late years we have increasingly disregarded the value of the life of the individual. We think of masses, of groups, of classes, but again and again we forget the value of the individual. I

1093
think it is because we have become apathetic about the value of the individual that we tolerate this terrible death and casualty roll which goes on day by day on our roads. That death and casualty roll is bound to get worse next summer unless something is done. There will be more and more cars on the road, and people have very largely lost their road sense. There is no necessity for these accidents. They are not due to some inexorable law of nature which we canner: alter. If the nation resolves that these accidents shall be reduced in number, and the Government act vigorously, they can be reduced. It is the duty and it is the right of the Government to see that the roads are made safe for their citizens. for we all of us have a common right in these roads. I beg to move for Papers.
4.40 p.m.
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, in view of the fact that a large number of your Lordships wish to speak in this debate. it may be helpful if I make at once a statement on behalf of the Government. The Government welcome this debate. We are most grateful to the most reverend Primate for raising this matter, and certainly we here are grateful to him for his eloquent speech and for the way in which he has presented the facts of the case We also appreciate—certainly I do personally—the interest that this house has taken in this subject for many years, before the war, during the war, and now that the war is over. I think it is rather fine that a body of men who usually ride in their own cars, with a hand-picked chauffeur to take them safely wherever they want to go, should take such an interest in pedestrians and cyclists and other humble citizens who suffer most from the casualties on the road. I feel most grateful for that attitude of mind. I want also to pay a tribute to the work done by the Alness Committee in giving us that wonderful Report which is the foundation of all consideration of this question of road traffic and road safety.
The most reverend Primate has given us some figures which relieve me of the necessity of trying to transmit to the House all the statistics with which I have been supplied, but in the first place I want to underline the point which he has made, that, whatever present-day I past statistics show, we are now coming to a period where there will be greater
1094
danger on the roads than in the past. Present-day difficulties are accentuated by the heavily-reduced personnel of our Police Forces, who did splendid service in trying to maintain safety on the road. The Auxiliary Police, who were there to assist them, are now withdrawing. Overage men who were retained are going into retirement. The police have been loaded with a great deal of war work, some of which is continuing, which has handicapped them a good deal. The most serious fact, however, is that during the past six years there has been no recruitment to the police; all the men have gone into the Fighting Services. That creates a most unfortunate situation so far as this question is concerned. I want to express our appreciation of the great services rendered by the police. Our British policemen are a wonderful body of men, who increase in good manners, in knowledgeableness and in good conduct as time goes on. I think I may say that we have among them some of the finest men in the world, and we feel grateful to them for the great services which they are always giving us.
On the statistical side, while I do not want to weary your Lordships with any figures about the injured—because, after all, an injured person is still alive, and life is so lovely that if we escape with it we are glad—I want to make a comparison of the figures for those killed in the years 1926 and 1934, to help you to appreciate how the position, has fluctuated and how it is developing. In the year 1926, 4,886 persons were killed, an average of thirteen a day. In 1934, the number killed rose to 7,343, an average of twenty a day—a dreadful figure. In 1944, when further consideration had been given to the matter and certain measures taken, including the provision of the only speed limit we have, which only operates during hours of darkness—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no.
LORD WALKDEN: I cannot find that we had any speed limit in the day-time, apart, perhaps, from some local limits.
A NOBLE LORD: There is a speed limit of 30 miles per hour in built-up areas in daylight as well as after dark. And that operates in daylight.
A NOBLE LORD: If there are lamps it operates even if the lamps are not lit.
LORD WALKDEN: The twenty mile an hour limit under the rule brought in for war-time operates during daylight as well as during darkness. To proceed with what I was saying. In 1934 the number of road accidents was very bad, but this amongst other reforms operated to help to reduce the number and in 1935 they fell to 6,502, an average of eighteen a day. That was of course still far too many. There was some deterioration in 1936, but the figures ran very much on the 1935 level for a considerable time. In the early part of the war we had to abandon complete statistics and the totals of fatalities only were taken. In 1941, owing largely to war-time carelessness, the number of fatalities reached 9,169—twenty-five a day. That was really very ghastly indeed. The speed limitation to twenty miles an hour in darkness was imposed and the petrol restrictions, which thinned down the number of cars on the road, also helped in bringing about conditions of safety at night. So, in 1944, the fatalities totalled 6,416—eighteen per day. It will be seen, therefore, that there was a drop of from twenty-five to eighteen a day. In 1945, the current year, they are just about the same as last year, but that is largely due to the continuance of the war-time restrictions during the main part of the year and restrictions on petrol.
The fact that there have been far fewer vehicles on the roads has been a very important factor in keeping down the number of accidents. There have indeed been far fewer vehicles on the roads in recent times, but now greater numbers are coming back again. The licensing of cars is increasing and the figures run roughly like they did in May, 1939, which may be taken as a normal period before the war. In May, 1939, the total number of cars licensed was 1,970,000—or roughly 2,000,000. In May of the present year the number was 1,010,000 which shows a decrease of something over 959,000. At the present moment it is estimated there are 1,570,000 licenced, or only 400,000 less than before the war. So we are steadily getting back to the position which existed before the war. That will be accentuated without doubt.
LORD SANDHURST: May I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? Does his figure include the very large number of vehicles that do not pay a tax and are
1096
employed on Government work, such as Army vehicles, Admiralty vehicles and so on?
LORD WALKDEN: Well, the figures have not been analysed to give us in detail that information. I am afraid, though that it is true, that a large number of casualties have been caused by fast-running Service vehicles.
LORD SANDHURST: Are these included in your figure of 1,570,000? Are they counted as licensed vehicles?
LORD WALKDEN: I am speaking of private cars that are licensed. The other vehicles that are on the road probably make up the difference between the totals of the numbers of vehicles running to-day and those running before the war. Fewer public service vehicles are now on the road than was the case during the war but the number of private cars is increasing.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell us whether the; figures which he has given refer to private motor cars or to all licensed motor vehicles, because one figure has not much relevance whilst the other is extremely important.
LORD WALKDEN: These figures relate to all licensed vehicles. I take it that Service vehicles are not licensed. As I say, the total of licensed vehicles is tending to get back to what it was before the war. What I have just stated largely shows the position as it is at the moment. The most reverend Primate has given terrible figures in respect of the accidents in which children have been involved and those figures coincide with those with which I have been supplied. I desire only to emphasize one point. The deaths of these little children take place, to a very large extent, in our great cities, most of them in London. Shame upon us that thousands upon thousands, even millions, of little children in this country have only the streets to play in. We must provide more playing fields and other open spaces for them. We must make better provision for the children as well as taking steps with regard to vehicles which use our roads. A very large percentage of the fatalities take place in London, and I would like to say a few words about the situation in London itself.
London is so enormous and so important, and so many of those accidents and

1097
fatalities take place in it, that I think we should give it a little special consideration. We should certainly give it more consideration than it appears to have received at other hands. Now every morning thousands of pedestrians come pouting into our cities. They come from every main line terminal station as well as from the smaller stations. They have to go out on to the pavements and to cross streets, and they help to swell the number of people living within the city, who are also using the streets, to such an extent that congestion is caused. More and more cars come into London from outside as the years go on. Then there is the clamour for more and more buses. So we have more people, more cars and more buses —clamoured for anyhow.
I suggest that the position needs looking at seriously and that measures should considered for checking these evils. In my view fewer cars should come right into the town. I would commend to your Lordships' consideration the most excellent provision made by the London Passenger Transport Board at several of their terminal points. At Morden when they began limy made a great car park to which people could come in from Surrey in the mornings, park their cars and alien push on into London by tube so that they did not block the streets. I think that showed a splendid foresight on the part of Lord Ashfield. The Board have followed up this scheme at other places including Osterley, Amos Grove and Enfield West, and I understand that other great parks are being planned by the Board in connexion with the £40,000,000 programme which they are proposing to carry out as soon as the necessary labour and materials are available.
Now as to the suggestion for more and more ' buses. It does not take much imagination to realize what it would mean if we did have more and more buses in London. My own feeling is that we should rather call for more tube railways, that tube railways in the centre of London should be duplicated where necessary. As many of your Lordships know, in Nem York the tube railways run four tracks—two fast lines in the centre and one stopping line on each side. That relieves congestion enormously. We could, I believe, do it in London. Our subsoil is much easier to work than the New York granite. We have a clay that cuts like
1098
cheese. Extension of the tube railways would relieve congestion right in the middle of our city. That, I think, is the most important matter to bear in mind. If this suggestion could be carried into effect—and I think it will be—it would be extraordinarily beneficial.
The most reverend Primate referred to drivers, a large number of whom have not been examined and tested as to whether they were qualified to drive. That is all too true. They are increasing. They are part of the increasing problem which is with us at the moment. It is a fact, according to my observation, that there are many more pedal bicycles in existence as well as amateur drivers. A lot of pedal bicycles have been made during the war and these have increased the serious difficulties on the roads. There will be many more motor cycles and eventually many more cars. More petrol will be supplied and we shall have more congestion still, and there will be more young children always growing up to educate. This problem is going to be acute and it really does need the most earnest attention from everyone concerned.
The Government have not been slow in considering this and in dealing with it. In spite of their many present preoccupations over demobilization, which, as you know is largely a matter of transport, the Minister of War Transport gave early priority to this matter of accidents. The Minister himself deputed his Parliamentary Secretary, a most capable and efficient man who is passionately fond of children, is young, energetic and enthusiastic, to deal with this work, and he will be helping in this question in a very vigorous fashion. The Minister, with the Government's support, have instituted—it is in full spate now—a great education and propaganda campaign. We are perfectly well aware that that will not cure everything, but surely it will be helping to minimize the trouble and make people accident-conscious. The risk of accidents must be brought to everyone's mind now. This campaign is to run intensively for six months, with the highest skilled helpers and with everything to make it effective. After six months, further measures will be taken in hand. The Government have authorized an expenditure of £250,000 for the purpose of making this campaign thoroughly effective. The campaign will be

1099
based on the Highway Code, a booklet with which you are all familiar. It is being revised and reprinted and it is only shortage of paper which has prevented further supplies becoming available. Millions of them will be produced and made available. Step will be taken to place one in every home in England. It will be a brighter edition, better illustrated, more graphic and divided into sections in a more effective way.
All the organizations concerned in this problem have undertaken to help—pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, women's and men's organizations and, not the least, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. All these bodies are helping in bringing these facts and the advice of the Highway Code right into the minds of all concerned. The local councils have been urged to co-operate and they are responding very well indeed. The Government have given them a 50 per cent. grant on any expense they incur and we feel that there they will be helping in a very strenuous and effective way. We are getting assistance from the police and the school teachers, and I am sure we are grateful to the school teachers. Most of the children and the old folks are helping. The Press is helping. It has been able to help more especially in the direction indicated by the most reverend Primate, but they do not publicize road accidents; they give undue space to railway accidents in my view. We are going to have a great deal of help from the pulpit and the pulpit is more effective than some people think. With the co-operation of all the teachers in the country I am sure that our campaign will be strengthened. The cinema is helping and, again not the least, the B.B.C.
All this help is being actively carried out now, but the Ministry is strengthening the work of all these helpers with a new production which contains statistics set out in a very modern way, in the most vivid fashion possible, showing very effectively how the facts can he brought home. For instance, you will see from this example at the bottom of the page a reference to the deaths of children. They are nearly all killed before they are ten years old. That often comes about by playing round cars. The children chase one another around these cars and they even sit down between the front
1100
wheels. The driver comes out, steps in his car and drives off, and before he knows where he is, he has killed a child. Again, they run into the road to prevent being caught and are run over. The attention of school teachers is being drawn to that. We have further plans for early action. As soon as possible, when we can get the Police Force restored, more men will be put on crossing duty. Mobile police patrols will be reinstituted and you will remember that they were extremely helpful. There will be more traffic signals and more signs to protect more of the crossings. There will be more white lines and what the boys call "cats-eyes" down the centre of the roads to guide drivers at night. There will be a resumption of the driving test, and I am sure the most reverend Primate will be glad to know that the Ministry hope—I cannot put it higher than that—that the driving test will be reinstituted in the new year. It is a matter of getting competent people to conduct the tests. It is not everyone who can judge whether or not a motorist is competent.
Advice is being issued for stricter enforcement of the traffic laws. I do not know if those laws have been looked upon so seriously during the war period, but I entirely agree with the most reverend Primate that there should be a closer enforcement of the laws. I hope that magistrates will take that consideration to heart. Then there will be more guard rails by kerbs to stop people being pushed into the road by the crowd at the back. There will also be more one-way streets and roundabouts and the removal of "blind" spots. All these points are recommended in the Alness Report and active steps will be taken to carry out these improvements. If we can get local authorities to cooperate, and when the coal situation is easier, we shall want better lighting of the highway. We want more of our highways well lighted. And finally, and this is a matter of getting suitable clerical staff, we want more and better statistics. Statistics are often rather vague. They are just thrown together and you have to make the best of them. That will involve more research. The problem will be looked at more closely and thoroughly when we have got the staff to enable us to do that. Those are the immediate things which we contemplate doing as soon as material and man-power are available. The whole question is under the

1101
further consideration of the Ministry. The Parliamentary Secretary is making a special effort and I am sure that as progress can be made, so it will be made.
We have further aims. As the most reverend Primate has indicated, there must be a long-distance programme. In the forefront we put more car parks everywhere. Cars left standing about constitute a most serious danger. There must be more car parks and more lay-bys for road lorries on the country roads. Any number of people get knocked down in the country because of lorries standing in the roads instead of going into lay-bys off the road. Then—and this is my own suggestion—I think we shall have to go in for underground parking in London and the great cities. Policemen tell me that they harass a motorist who has a car standing by the kerb, and he says: "Where am I to go? I do not know where to put my car." That is often true in all these great cities where accidents occur. There are some underground parking places in London, and they are wonderful—a sort of Aladdin's cave with any amount of room and full of beautiful cars. We must have more of them, but that is a matter involving time, labour and expense. In so far as public authorities will initiate that kind of thing the Government are prepared to furnish them with loans on very easy terms—a shade over 3 per cent.—to enable them to carry out the work, the feeling being that we must reduce standing vehicles which are a most serious element in the cause of accidents.
Your Lordships will know that we want more national trunk roads to provide for the better segregation of travelling vehicles. In so far as new trunk roads have been made in our country, I think they are as good as anywhere in the world, but we want to keep on improving them, having more fly-over crossings and that kind of thing. One can get that done best if the roadways are under the direct control of the Government. Your Lordships will remember that in 1936 4,500 miles of highway were brought under the Ministry of Transport. I hope that you will be asked to consider a measure in a few days' time by which 3,685 more miles of public highway will be brought directly under the Ministry, making a total of 8,185 miles of highway which could be made into model roads as soon as circumstances enable us to do it,
1102
without bothering the local authorities with the responsibility or the expense. That will be borne by the Treasury, and therefore will be carried out without the difficulty, delay, anxieties and trouble that local authorities are bound to have to face if they try to tackle these great things. We must have more and better roadways; we must have more and better protection for people who want to use those roadways, and we should get our conscience aroused on the matter.
To me it seems that the coming of the internal combustion engine has created a revolution in many directions. It really turned the King's highway into something like an open railway along which people are rushing at 60 miles an hour without provision being made for that kind of speed. In my young days a nag that could do 10 miles an hour was considered a fast stepper. Now people are not satisfied with 30 miles an hour but must have unlimited speed in the open country. That is a terrible thing. Think what would be the effect of taking down all the fences on the railways and at the level crossings and making the track like it is at level crossings, with other vehicles running over it. That is pretty much what our roads are like now. The internal combustion engine has come and speed has come, and we have not provided the roads. It will be a tremendous job to do, but that will be our task in the future.
In conclusion I can assure your Lordships that this subject continues to have most devoted attention always. We have a permanent standing committee—the Committee on Road Safety—which originated, I think, in the Ministry of Road Transport in the time when Lord Llewellin was the Parliamentary Secretary. It has continued, with the Parliamentary Secretary always acting as Chairman of that Committee, which is always working on the problem. Further, Scotland Yard, the headquarters of police, the Home Office, the Ministry of Education and every Ministry that is at all concerned in the matter of road safety, are always thinking what they can do to help in the matter. Moreover, there are, of course, no end of individuals, most worthy public officials, police constables and other men of that kind, who are always worried and anxious at what is taking place. I can assure your Lordships that the Ministry of Transport is vividly conscious of all this, and will continue to

1103
do the utmost it can to reduce the casualties on the roads arid make our country more safe to live in.
5.11 p.m.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, the concluding observations of my noble friend give me some encouragement because they at any rate show that the Government are seriously considering this matter. Otherwise I am sure I shall have the support of a great many of the noble Lords who hear me when I say that this debate is a very melancholy occasion. Here we are again discussing this subject. I remember it being discussed for the first time years ago when the late Lord Buckmaster was the great protagonist of the necessity for doing something. Speeches almost as eloquent as that delivered this afternoon by His Grace the Archbishop of York were made very much on the same lines and were received with the same approval and support of your Lordships as his speech this afternoon was received. But yet the loss goes on, after all these debates, numbers of inquiries by Committees and Commissions and a good deal of legislation, unfortunately quite inadequate and unsuccessful.
I am not going into statistics—they have been stated quite sufficiently. It is not really a question of statistics. Everybody knows the broad facts of the case and they are these: that we have to deplore, year after year, the death of hundreds of our fellow-citizens, many of whom are children, and the maiming and injuring, more or less seriously, of tens of thousands. Those are the broad facts, and no amount of statistics, in my judgment, will either emphasize those very much or undermine them. The question we are now again faced with is, What are we going to do? I quite agree that there is no point in making great personal attacks on motorists or anybody else, and I do not desire to do so; but one broad fact must be borne in mind: it is that these injuries are in their essence preventable injuries. They did not always occur on the roads. There was a time when the roads were reasonably safe. There were accidents occasionally, but they were very small in number, and were not often very serious. The change was made by the advent of the motor car. It is not a question of attacking
1104
anybody; it is merely a fact. That is what happened. Motor cars came and this sprang up into a great, urgent question, and has remained so ever since. That is the broad fact we have to face.
I cannot doubt myself that this thing ought to be preventable, and I cannot see why motors should be, in their essence, mote dangerous than ordinary carriages, except on one point which I will mention. Broadly speaking, the motor is a much more manageable thing than a horse and cart; at any rate it is free from the possible extravagances of the horse. It is a machine entirely under the control of the driver, who has got a means of stopping it with great rapidity compared with what can be done with a horse and cart. In every way, I should have thought, it was essentially and fundamentally a safer kind of vehicle than a horse and cart, except for one thing, and only one thing—namely, the speed at which it goes. There really is nothing else. I know that several of my noble friends dislike that being said, but it is a fact which cannot be avoided. It is not a question of elaborate examination of statistics relating to this condition of affairs and that condition of affairs; the broad fact is that this vehicle is driven at the speed of a railway train with but a very small proportion of the precautions which you apply to a railway train in order to make it safe not only for its passengers but for everybody else.
Therefore, of course, the obvious remedy seems to be diminution of speed —a speed limit. I am bound to say that I see no prospect of a speed limit being adopted, although I think the case for it is overwhelming in principle. However, the motor companies are very powerful and very wealthy and their customers have, unfortunately, a passion for speed. The combination of those two forces has been too great for any Government to face. I do not make a charge against one Government or another, but so far no Government have been prepared to face that combination or, if they have, they have very soon withdrawn. That does not lead me to say there is nothing we can do. The most reverend Primate raised three points. He wanted greater tests for drivers. Of course, that would be all to the good if it were practicable. He wanted the abolition of blind corners. I am not very confident of that

1105
being a very effective improvement, although, of course, it ought to be done. I have in my mind's eye at this moment a corner which is very far from blind but which is yet exceedingly dangerous. It is the corner of a turning into the main road and it comes down a slope. I see car after car coming down that slope at, I am quite confident, a great deal more than thirty or forty miles an hour, and sweeping round the corner. There are children in perambulators and things of that kind constantly about. It appears to me, watching it, to be mere accident that they are not all killed every day of the week. However, I do not want to say that blind corners ought not to be abolished, for I am sure they ought.
I think I am right in saying that my noble in end in his speech adopted the point of view that the main weapon to fight this evil was propaganda. I am quite in favour of that. I think it would be a great thing to get into the minds of the people of this country exactly what the evil was and what the causes of it were. I think it would be a good thing to create what does not seem to me now to exist in all sections of the population —namely, an urgent demand and desire that this thing should be stopped, even if it meant a certain amount of inconvenience for this or that class of traffic. There does not seem to me to be any kind of proportion in the matter. People talk as if the thing that really mattered was the reduction of the speed of motor cars and a possible interference with their export, whilst the killing of a few hundreds or thousands of children did not matter very much. Of course I am exaggerating, but that is the kind of attitude which must be destroyed if we are to deal with this evil.
So far as it goes, propaganda is all right. However, we have had a tremendous lot of propaganda lately on all sorts of subjects, some of which has been useful but a great deal of which has not. I cannot help thinking that it has been a little overdone and that there is growing up in the minds of people a feeling, when they see these very interesting diagrams and all the rest of it, "That is propaganda and we do not pay much attention to it." If it is merely going to be advice and recommendations I doubt very much whether you will find that propaganda will make any very important difference to the conditions which exist at
1106
the moment. I earnestly beg the Government to consider whether they cannot go a little further than that. I understand they propose to issue an amended High-way Code. That is one of the recommendations of the Committee to which my noble friend referred and I am sure it is an excellent thing. Let it be issued as soon as possible, because the first thing you have got to do is to make precise, as far as you can make precise, the obligation that everybody—motorist, pedestrian and horse-drawn vehicle—has in using the highway—namely, to leave it safe for other users. Therefore I am all for a new Highway Code; let it be issued as promptly as possible. That will give. not absolutely but relatively, a precise code of conduct for all users of the highways.
Then I should like to see the Government go further and say that all those provisions are to be part of the law of the land and that anyone who infringes them shall be punished. I should like that to be the law, but it may be thought to be going too far. At any rate, I do think that they might say that in any case where there has been an accident and it is shown that one of the parties to the accident has infringed the Highway Code, that shall be prima facie evidence of negligence—if of a certain character, negligence involving a sharp punishment, but in any case involving some kind of indemnification for the parties injured. I think that that would be a very moderate change. It would have the extra advantage that people using the highway-I purposely avoid using the word "motorist" because this applies to all who use the highway—would be aware that there was a Code and that if they infringed it they would get into trouble. That would make them pay attention and find out what the Code really was. I am very much afraid that what will happen with regard to this Code will be what has happened so often in the past. People who are coming up for drivers' licences will get it up for that occasion, they will be able to answer any question put to them, and they will he able, no doubt, to carry out the official tests, but they will forget all about it in three weeks. That is what happens with most examinations, and I think it will happen to a large extent with this one. I ask, therefore, for some kind of sanction at the back of the Code, or I am afraid it will not be much use.

1107
As I have already said, I quite understand that the difficulties of enforcing an actual speed limit are very great, and I am satisfied that the Government do not intend to try to enforce it. I do not think any preceding Government ever had the least intention of doing so. For the moment, therefore, at any rate, I must leave aside the possibility of a speed limit. But I do hope that in the Highway Code the Government will develop those portions of the Code which point out the duty of regulating speed according to the circumstances on the road. There are some phrases in the existing Highway Code on that subject, but they do not seem to me to go very far. I should like it to be made very precise that where there is a bad road surface, or whatever the difficulty may be, motorists must look very carefully to the speed at which they are allowing their cars to travel, and modify it if necessary. There ought to be some broad test of this kind: you must always ask yourself whether you have your vehicle under such control that if danger appears you will be able to stop before the accident actually happens. That is the kind of test which everybody should have in mind when driving a car, but certainly many drivers do not appear to have it in mind at all.
I observe that in that same Report the suggestion is made that there should be two classes of road—fast roads and slow roads, the fast roads being for through traffic and the slow roads for local traffic. I have always been very strongly in favour of that proposal, and I hope that some day it will be carried out; but it is obvious that if you are going to do that you will have to have some control of speed on the slow roads or you will not do any good at all, and people will go as fast on the slow roads as on the others. There has been a suggestion that that shall be provided for by making the surface of the slow road such that nobody would care to drive very fast upon it. I do not know whether that is the intention of the passages to which I refer, but it looks rather like it. I do not think that that is a very useful suggestion. I do not think that it could be carried out. It reminds me a little of Sam Weller's friend and the crumpets, the man who was told "If you eat these crumpets you will die," and who thereupon ate the crumpets and shot himself to show that the doctor
1108
was wrong. It is no use doing that. I do not believe that you can get round this difficulty by alterations in the surface of the road or that kind of thing.
I do want to press very much, however, for certain changes in the roads. Among other things—I speak now as a country dweller—there ought to be more footpaths. I heard the most reverend Primate say that in the North pedestrians will not walk on the footpaths, and therefore the cars are driven to run on them instead. I hope that that is a little exaggerated. It certainly does not apply to the South of England, where it is quite untrue to say that foot passengers will not use the footpaths. I know that there are some people who do not believe that anything that a pedestrian does can possibly be right. My experience is that pedestrians do use them, but that the footpaths are constantly in such a condition as to be unfit to be used. I can quite understand that a certain type of motorist does not think that anything ought to be done to protect pedestrians, but I do not think that any member of this House belongs to that type of motorist. I am quite sure that there ought to be provision for pedestrians in this way, and I am sure that it would add greatly to the safety of the country roads. There are many other suggestions which could be made, but I shall not trouble your Lordships with them. With regard to London, there is a good deal to be said about crossings and refuges and standing vehicles, but all I venture to ask is that very careful attention should be paid to what is done in some foreign capitals in regard to those questions, which seems to me a great improvement on what we do in this country.
There is one other point that I want to mention. At present, as is well known, a person who is injured has a right of action against the driver, if there is any negligence and other circumstances permit, and the driver has to insure himself against third-party risk so that even if he has himself no money the insurance company will indemnify the person injured. There are several difficulties about that. One of them has been met by the statement of the present Minister of War Transport, that he will arrange for a new kind of corporation, which will deal with cases of cars which are not insured and provide for the payment of the person

1109
injured. That, however, is not the only difficulty which arises. There are several others, but I shall mention only one, and that is the case where the vehicle is publicly owned. In that case no action lies against the Crown, and the result that the injured person has no remedy. The Minister of War Transport says: "Yes, the Crown have undertaken to pay whatever could be recovered from a private owner." That means that they pay anything that their Law Officers advise that they ought to pay. I do not think that that is satisfactory. It is very unfair and very hard on the people who have to submit to what is the purely arbitrary decision of a Government official.
Now that the activities of the State are being considerably enlarged, I think it is time to provide that anyone who is injured by an officer of the State shall be able to bring an action against the State or the Government, or whatever the form may be, just as he would against any individual This doctrine that Government vehicles are not liable for tort is an antiquated doctrine which has nothing in its favour in principle, as far as I can see. It is quite unfair that they should not be liable, and, it seems to me, quite inconsistent—to go back a long way—with the great principles of Magna Charta, which laid it down that everybody should be responsible before the law. In this case, if it is Government-owned vehicle it is said that it is in the service of the Crown, that the Crown are not liable for tort and therefore that their servants are not liable for tort. I suggest that the present Government should sweep away something which has nothing to be said for it except a rather unattractive worship of antiquity.
I am sorry to have detained your Lordships for so long, hut this is a subject of great importance. I hope that the Government will put their backs into dealing with it. It is not something which can be dealt with merely casually; we require a continuous and vigorous effort if anything is to be done. I hope that the Government are fully aware of that, as, indeed, the closing words of my noble friend seem to show that they are.
5.35 p.m.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, I trust that the fog which is now obviously increasingly seeping into your Lordships' House, bears no special symbolic relation to this
1110
debate, for the subject which the Archbishop has raised seems to me much more important than a great many on which your Lordships spend considerably more time. It is only fair, of course, to remember that this Chamber has devoted much more attention to road accidents than has been given in another place where they have been, over the last ten years, very shamefully neglected—partly, perhaps, because they raise no immediate issues of Party controversy. We have been given the figure of 232,000 casualties on the roads before the war, and I was a little bit astonished, if I may so with all respect, to hear the noble Lord, Lord. Walkden, after referring to pre-war casualties, reduce them merely to the figures of those who have lost their lives. I am sure that there are some parents whose children have been blinded or who may have lost a leg on the road, who would like to feel that your Lordships consider that statistics of wounded also are worthy of the attention of legislators. Let us then take the larger figure, because it does mean horrible mutilations and many life-long incapacities—
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment to give an explanation? The Ministry were compelled, in the early stages of the war to abandon the practice of giving any details beyond those relating to deaths. That was due to sheer lack of staff. They are now arranging to list the whole of the casualties, not merely the deaths, so that in the future the House will have put before it full returns relating to all casualties.
LORD ELTON: I am very glad to know that. Of course, I was not intending to make any suggestion that the noble Lord himself had anything but the liveliest interest in every form of the road tragedy. But I am speaking at the moment of the astounding pre-war figure of 232,000 which was given for a time when we did have the figures for both types of casualties. And it is an astonishing figure. It is astonishing that the public conscience should apparently have permitted it to continue for all these years without insisting on some very much more drastic remedy. In fact, it is more than astonishing, it is horrifying, for in this atomic age our chances of survival, I think—and the chances of the survival of the human species one might almost say—depend

1111
very largely on our success in reviving the humaner traditions of the past and that respect for the sanctity of human life which we have shed so far and so fast during the last ten years.
To me at any rate—and I know I am a crank; everybody has some crank subject and this is my subject—it does seem that the root cause of the trouble is obvious and undeniable. Of course, as there must be in so complex a problem, there is a great variety of contributory factors and all manner of degrees of responsibility. I know that when I drive a car I am perpetually marvelling at the anarchic recklessness of cyclists and pedestrians. When I ride a bicycle—which I very rarely do, I am thankful to say—I am continually terrified by what appears to be a constant succession of near misses registered by all the cars that pass, and when I walk, and find myself a pedestrian on the pavement, I cannot help noting what appear to be the bad manners of motorists and cyclists alike. Yet the fact remains—or it appears to me to remain—that there is only one class of road user who has brought a lethal weapon on to the roads, and that the root causes of the trouble, whatever other contributory factors there may be, is speed.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, has just pointed out, it almost stands to reason—if it had not been so frequently denied one would have supposed that it could not be denied—that it is the appearance of speed on His Majesty's highways which has turned them into a shambles. After all, a vehicle travelling at 30 miles an hour, requires, shall we say, x yards in which to come to a standstill. Precisely the same vehicle travelling at 10 miles per hour requires x plus a good many additional yards before it can pull up. Consequently if the unforeseeable incident occurs, if the child hops unpredictably off the pavement, if the bicyclist does skid almost under the driver's front wheels, the driver is, inevitably, very much more likely to be involved in an accident, and the accident is much more likely to be serious.
Of course, the danger of speed was recognized before the war by the imposition by His Majesty's Government of a universal speed limit in built-up areas. I think that the then Minister of Transport
1112
spoke of the "saving mercy of the control of speed." Unfortunately, as the Lord Archbishop has reminded us, and I am sure it will be the experience of most of your Lordships, the speed limit is almost universally ignored today. It is only necessary to drive, as I have to drive almost every day, down a fairly broad stretch of controlled highway, which is usually fairly clear of traffic, to observe, if one glances at one's speedometer, that at least nine out of ten drivers are persistently breaking the law. And why? Because it is almost completely unenforced. A motorist has only to glance in his driving mirror to assure himself that he is not being trailed by any uniformed speed cop, and he knows that he is safe, and then of course temptation begins—temptation to which we all continually yield, I am sure—temptation to save rive minutes and prevent oneself being overtaken by some fellow lawbreaker in pursuit. In probably 99 cases out of 100, and possibly in 999 cases out of a thousand it is all right. But the one-thousandth time one has saved one's five minutes, but at the expense of plunging another family into tragedy and bereavement.
The experiment of using plain clothes traffic police was made before the war in Cardiff and other places. It was very successful; that is to say, it resulted in a considerable number of prosecutions and in a considerable reduction in accidents; but it was never widely copied, largely because it was denounced by a well-known motor manufacturer as un-English to have plain clothes traffic cops. I have, myself, never been able to see why plain clothes traffic police are any more un-English than the plain clothes police who for decades, almost for centuries, have protected us from other forms of crime. But that form of control of speed has certainly never been adopted. It has never looked like being adopted here. No past Minister of Transport, and apparently not the present Minister of Transport either, has yet had the courage to antagonize motorists sufficiently to see that the speed limit really is enforced. And yet nothing would be easier, I contend, than to enforce it if we really wanted it enforced. You cannot enforce it if you just hope it is going to be enforced. If you rely on propaganda you will get another batch of leaflets which no one will read.

1113
There already exists a device—I believe it was exhibited in Parliament shortly before the war—which automatically displays on the outside of the car, by meat s of an indicator, the moment when the speed limit is being exceeded. There is also available another automatic device which could, and I think should, be fitted to vehicles, such as public service vehicles, which are subject to a universal speed limit. This is a device which automatically controls the speed, leaving a reserve of power on which it is possible to draw for an emergency or for the climbing of a hill. I am myself a motorist who has driven cars for well over thirty years and I am ashamed to say that when I am out of doors I am just as often in a car as on my feet. Nevertheless, the statistics of the road massacre and the number of accidents to children are such that I personally feel that until the figures are substantially reduced there ought to be a speed limit not only in urban areas—even although Lord Cecil, that great advocate of safety, was not prepared to recommend it—but outside the urban areas, on every road.
Speed, I am convinced, is the sovereign evil, but I should not like to go on the record as appearing to suggest that it is anything remotely resembling the only evil. Clearly the difference between good and bad driving is of extreme significance. That is not the same as the difference between skilful and unskilful driving. The two most dangerous drivers I ever met were both supremely skilful. I noticed few months ago that a famous motor car manufacturer was widely publicized as having said that a good fast driver was better than a bad slow driver. That is perfectly true, but it is not the fastness of the driver but the goodness of his driving which makes him safe. A slow good driver, if it comes to that, is often better than a bad fast driver. The reliable, considerate driver does not involve himself in accidents. I would hazard a conjecture that none of your Lordships and those associated with you, have ever been involved, through your own fault, in a serious road accident. It is the thoughtless, the selfish, the subnormal, and the inconsiderate who are the reckless drivers, and I am very much afraid that very often those are the young drivers. It would be very interesting to know what was the proportion of serious road accidents among car-owning undergraduates
1114
before the war. I well remember immediately after the last war, the war of 1914–18, the thrill of horror which ran through my own university when it became known that an undergraduate had killed a man through falling asleep at the wheel when driving back at night in his car. Alas, in the last few years that became all too common and I myself knew an undergraduate who killed two people on two separate occasions. He was not actually congratulated by the coroner but he escaped with not so much as a sixpenny fine on each occasion.
That leads me to my last point. If we were ever blessed by having a Minister of Transport determined to deal seriously with this problem, I am sure that at whatever initial cost to his popularity, he would begin by turning his attention to what has already been mentioned by the Lord Archbishop and Lord Cecil—the question of uniformity of penalties. Penalties differ unpredictably and quite inexplicably. It is most necessary that they should be more uniform and that there should be much more suspension of licences for reckless driving and, in particular, for drunken driving. As for habitual offenders on the road, none, of course, ought to exist. As habitual offenders they ought to have lost their licences long before. It was reported in the case of a young man before the war, casually and almost without comment, that he had received more than 100 convictions for motoring offences. The motorist is, of course, not the only offender. I do not think any noble Lord who has taken part in this debate has suggested that he is and I am extremely anxious to see the penalties against the cyclist just as strictly enforced. Cyclists ride not three abreast, as one noble Lord has said just now, but five or six abreast. The law against them, or against the pedestrian who crosses when the lights are against him, should be just as strictly enforced.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that it is the car which turns the road into a shambles. Is there any hope, in spite of what I cannot help thinking was the disappointing statement made by Lord Walk-den, that some Minister in the present Government may yet take this matter seriously in hand? The present administration represents a Party which professes to believe, and I think that it genuinely does believe, that the safety and happiness

1115
of the many is of much more importance than the convenience of the few. If we are blessed by having such a Minister—I hope he may come before the highways are blackened with the tens of thousands of cheap cars capable of very high speeds —I am sure that he will not fumble about with propaganda. Children have been the targets, the victims I would almost say, of an almost endless stream of propaganda for the last twenty years. At this moment they are an increasingly high proportion of the victims on the roads. As Lord Cecil has just said, we are all tired of propaganda. To think that we can hear a Minister say that after twenty years of tragedy all we can do is to issue leaflets is absurd. Put out all the propaganda you like, you will not prevent the child from being careless. You have got to go a great deal further than that if you wish to preserve his life.
If we do wish to reduce these statistics to civilized proportions, in my view the Minister who will one day come and be compelled to take action will, in the first place, impose a speed limit of thirty miles per hour in the built-up areas and of forty-five miles per hour on all highways. He will rigidly enforce both, and will not allow the limits to be ignored as they are now. He will take steps to see that there are uniform penalties and that all classes of road users whose inconsiderate action leads to death or injury on the road are liable to severe penalties, probably including a substantial term of imprisonment. He will not be popular. It will be a formidable task to undertake; but after two years the casualties will be halved, and then they will be halved again. And at the end of three years he can go to the public and ask them if they would like the Code relaxed or whether they would like to return to the former casualty rate.
5.54 P.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I should like to intervene as one of the seven members of your Lordships' House who formed what is now known as the Alness Committee. We do not, on that account, arrogate to ourselves the title of the Seven Pillars of Wisdom, but it is gratifying to feel, after a number of years have elapsed, that what we did was a useful piece of work. The last sentence in that Report, which has now become one of its more notorious phrases, expresses
1116
the hope that it will not find a resting place in the pigeon-holes of Whitehall. Six and a half years have elapsed, and perhaps it is something to be thankful for that it has not found a resting place in the pigeon nests of Trafalgar Square. At the same time, the gratitude of the Committee is due to the various people who, in the interval, have taken the Report out and dusted it and put it back again. I am bound to say that I did this afternoon see some sign of its being kept on the Minister's desk and not being put back in the pigeon-hole. That immediately raised fresh hopes in what was becoming my rather pessimistic breast.
The Alness Report made two main divisions of its recommendations—segregation, which is physical; and education, which is psychological. As regards education, the Government are obviously working on those lines and are prepared in the near future to introduce the kind of campaign that we had in mind. If I may say so, I think it was a pity that on the eve of that campaign the noble Lord who has just spoken and subsequently disappeared, Lord Elton, thought fit to condemn any attempt at propaganda before it had had a chance to prove itself. I am bound to say, so far as the children went, we saw little hope except in an effective and widespread system of propaganda such as we ventured to suggest.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, in connexion with that propaganda, spoke of the Highway Code, and he proceeded to make rather tentatively, suggesting that he was saying something that was rather revolutionary and was not likely to be adopted, the suggestion that the Highway Code should be given the force of law. That is one of the recommendations of the Alness Report and, for my own part, I hope it will he adopted. There was this further recommendation in connexion with the Highway Code which I should like the Government to consider. If my recollection be right, we recommended that it should not be issued as one document for circulation to every household in the country, irrespective of whether the people kept motor cars, rode bicycles, or walked on their feet. Our view was that the Highway Code dealing primarily with motorists, when received in the house of a person who had not got a motor car, was very likely to be thrown aside, the man or woman remarking: "This is nothing

1117
to do with me." What we recommended was that there should be three versions of the Highway Code: the cyclist should have one, the motorist should have one and the pedestrian should have one, and it should be made perfectly plain to him what his particular duties and responsibilities were under that Code. I always had frankly this reservation in mind on that subject: that you do not want to create more offences than you need. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, quoted just now, as evidence of the success of the scheme of having plain clothes policemen, the fact that it had resulted in a large number of additional prosecutions.
LORD ELTON: May I interrupt the noble Marquess? I was careful to add that it had also resulted in a substantial reduction in accidents.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I quite accept the correction. At the same time, so far as my own view goes, I find it very difficult to regard the increase in the number of prosecutions as evidence that useful work is being done. That brings me to a remark I want to make on the main question of roads, which forms the second part of the Alness Report. You have had a period of comparatively little traffic, but accidents have, if anything, gone up. You have got a period now when one day, when Sir Stafford Cripps is in an expansive mood, a number of motor cars may be released in this country, even for the use of citizens of this country. When that time comes the roads will no doubt have a very heavy burden to bear. My recollection is that the Ministry of Transport told us, at the time of the Alness Committee, that1,000 new vehicles were coming on to the roads every month. With the greater skill in mass production acquired during the war, that rate will no doubt have increased, although the cars may not all perform the feat of attaining 100 miles an hour such as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, seems inclined at attribute to them.
But you will get an increased number of vehicles and they will be released on a public whose road sense has diminished in the past six and a half years because of the decrease in the volume of traffic on the roads. We all know, if we have been away on holiday—perhaps I should say that we all may remember that in the days when we used to go away for holidays—to a fairly isolated place or even for
1118
voyages on the sea and came back to London, the volume, the speed and the noise of the traffic were at first overwhelming, and it took one a perceptible period of time before one recovered one's poise and indifference. Now you have a situation in which, after six and a half years of relatively little traffic, you are going to have an increased number of vehicles released on the roads which themselves have had to bear during those six and a half years an immense volume of extremely heavy traffic without the normal amount of repair. The wonder is that they have stood up to the traffic as well as they have. Therefore I hope that the Government have before them a real plan for the development of the roadways of this country.
One or two of the speeches that have been made this afternoon have given the atmosphere and suggestion that motoring was still a great luxury instead of having become a great industry. Really, in these days any Government, whatever its complexion, has a duty to the country at large to provide it with a proper system of roads. Even before the war—and this is in the Alness Report, if I am right in my recollection—the density of traffic on the roads of this country was greater than the density of traffic in any other country in the world. There were some 13 vehicles per mile in this country, 9 in America, and 5½ in France. If we are going to keep up in economic and industrial life, that is a situation with which we shall have to deal in order to give greater opportunity for expansion of industry and commerce.
I personally hope that the Ministry of Transport will assume the widest possible control over the roads of this country in order to bring them into harmonious correlation with each other and with the scheme of roads as a whole, instead of sharing that responsibility too much with the local authority. After all, this is an era of nationalization of almost everything except the Government itself—and even that may come. It is a moment when great things can be done, and great things ought to be done, as far as the roads are concerned. The Alness Committee recommended what was in those days not an easy thing to carry out, and that was that a representative area should be selected in this country for the trial of any possible device that could be produced. Then there were great difficulties; now, unfortunately owing to enemy action, in many

1119
parts of the country those difficulties have disappeared, and in areas concentrating upon places like Southampton, Portsmouth and other big towns which have been heavily bombed, where you have a clear space to start from, it would, and I suggest should, be a very valuable experiment to try out every device that you can for the safety of the public.
One last point. We attached most importance not to the frequency of prosecutions but to adequate warnings. From that point of view the mobile police patrols —they were conveniently called "Courtesy Cops "—had already produced very remarkable results. Given the opportunity and the men—I agree the men have not been available during the war—they would, I am quite sure, produce still further results in the future. Your Lordships may remember that Lancashire was where the main experiment was tried out. I think it is right to say that in the period of the experiment the accident total had been reduced by 46 per cent. in a comparatively short time. Over one area of road upon which attention had been concentrated, comparing the same month in the previous year and the actual year, the fall, owing to the presence and the efforts of the "Courtesy Cops," amounted to as much 73 per cent. As soon as men arc available, and long before new roads can be built, that is a step which should be taken. I hope no Treasury fetters will be allowed to impede the development and elaboration of that scheme. There are numbers of other devices which may well be tried in the course of time, but obviously the main burden of the attempt must be to eliminate accidents at the earliest possible moment.
As to the suggested speed limit, surely the time for that has gone. In the early days of railways people thought that a train was proceeding at a wholly breakneck and intolerable speed if it went at twenty miles an hour. I am old enough to remember the early days of motoring when there was a twenty-miles-an-hour speed limit on motor cars and when policemen popped up from behind hedges in totally unpopulated areas in the heart, of the country and you were fined for going over twenty miles an hour. After a very short space of time a code was evolved between motorists, who gave each other signals that there was a police trap down the road and the policeman in consequence
1120
spent an extremely boring day. That is all going back to a policy of repression and that, I think, is the wrong approach. The right approach is a policy of education, both by propaganda and by the services of the mobile police patrols. If we start to work along those lines in a sustained effort we may, in a little time, have reduced the casualties on our roads from the level of a great military campaign to the level of a minor engagement.
6.9 p.m.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, before I venture to make a very brief contribution to this most interesting debate, I feel that I owe your Lordships an apology for my presumption, after only a few hours' membership of this House, in offering that contribution. The explanation of my haste in this matter is fairly simple, if I may be allowed to give it. It is about twenty-three years since- I entered another place after an exciting General Election. A few days afterwards I was approached, while I was in a very similar position to that in which I have been during the last hour, by a person who belonged to an indefinable organization of which some of your Lordships may have heard—"the usual channels." I was approached by the usual channels and informed that a friendly debate was about to take place on unemployment and that it would be an excellent opportunity for me to make a few harmless and inoffensive remarks by way of my opening speech. As the hours wore on the friendliness of the debate appeared to become less evident and by the evening a political storm of the first magnitude had blown up. A message was sent to me from the aforementioned usual channels that I had better keep my speech in my pocket until the storm died down. So I passed the whole night until six o'clock in the morning, when a minor official of the usual channels—a sort of unpaid lance-corporal—wriggled his way along to me past the dozing bodies of some of my colleagues and whispered to me that Mr. Speaker was going to call me next. That dreadful experience, all those years ago, I have never forgotten. Therefore it is my dread that if I delay too long after my entry into your Lordships' House something similar might again happen to me, that has prompted me to rise only a day after my introduction in order to make my maiden speech.

1121
This has been a most interesting debate. I would like to make one main suggestion which has not yet been mentioned, because I think your Lordships require to have all the information that is possible on this matter. My suggestion is that the three Ministers concerned, the Home Secretary, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Education, should get together as quickly as possible in order to see whether it is not possible to embark on a campaign, not only of putting leaflets into people's houses and not only of publishing a multitude of statistics. I fear we are getting a little tired of statistics in this country and in any case they do not always convey the meaning that those who send them out wish to convey. They remind me sometimes of the old soldier who, after the South African War, used to stand outside Waterloo Station with a placard round his neck which said upon it Kind friends, have pity on me. I am an old soldier. Battles, 6; wounds, 5; children, 4; total, 15." I think the days when we could put up a series of statistics and think they were going to affect anything are gone. My suggestion is. a much more practical one. I want the Ministers concerned to get together to devise a campaign to make the people of this country, and particularly the children, road-minded.
A local authority in North London with which ii am not entirely unconnected took a practical step in that direction. Not long before the beginning of the last war we took 6½ acres in one of our large public parks and we laid it out as a complete traffic area,' with first-class roads, second-class roads, blind turnings, blind corners, telephone boxes, police control boxes, traffic lights and everything necessary to complete the picture. When it was ready the traffic area was opened by the late Mr. Leslie Burgin, who at that time was Minister of Transport. It was an immediate success. Every day many classes of school children with their teachers came down to the traffic area. They were accompanied by policemen. In addition, we had a garage constructed containing a large number of children's motor cars, fairy cycles and even scooters. The children then proceeded to go on this miniature traffic. area and the Highway Code was rigidly enforced. Any chili breaking any of the rules of the Highway Code was immediately turned out of the area altogether and, believe me, that was
1122
a very dreadful punishment. The children were, as we say, "Sent to Coventry" as not fit to take part in the game—for, after all, it was a game. Still further to improve it, we let schoolboys put on a miniature policeman's uniform and stand beside the traffic policeman to direct the traffic.
The success of this venture, and the enthusiasm with which the children entered into it, were remarkable. When it had been going for about a month, the school holidays came along, and we wondered what would happen. We had not long to wait, because the children from all over North London descended on that traffic area in their thousands, arid there were not nearly enough cycles arid small motor cars to be hired out. So they brought their own toy motor cars, their own cycles, and their own roller-skates, perambulators, and even dogs. A rough calculation was that over 70,000 children came to that area during the school holidays; and, what was equally important, many of their parents came with them, and stood outside the traffic area in order to watch the merry game which went on inside. Unfortunately, before we- had time to get this great experiment really going and learn the lessons which I am sure we should have learnt from it, and make the improvements necessary, the war broke out. As your Lordships know, most of our children were evacuated and the whole scheme fell into disuse. Now that the war is over and the children have come home again, the local authority concerned is endeavouring to get back the apparatus and get the game in working order again. My suggestion is that this experiment, which I have attempted, I fear very inadequately, to describe, is well worth the attention of the three Ministers concerned, and I hope that they will give attention to it.
6.27 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My. Lords, I am sure that your Lordships would wish me, on your behalf, to convey our most sincere congratulations to my old friend and political antagonist, whom I knew for so many years in another place, on the delightful speech with which he has just entertained us. I hope from the bottom of my heart that we shall hear many more such speeches from him. This debate has proceeded on all too familiar

1123
lines. I have been present for many years in your Lordships' House, and have listened to debate after debate on this subject, some introduced by the most reverend Primate, some by Lord Buck-master, and others by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood. The trouble is that in every one of those debates the argument put up by noble Lords such as Lord Elton and Lord Cecil of Chelwood, and by the most reverend Primate, has always been the same—that these accidents are entirely a question of speed and nothing else.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: I hope that the noble Earl will forgive me for interrupting him, but I made it quite clear that I did not believe that the accidents were entirely due to speed, and that I did not entirely blame the motorists.
EARL HOWE: I accept the correction, and I ask the most reverend Primate to forgive me for associating his name with what I said. The burden of the argument, however, is nearly always that accidents are a question of speed. We have had the Alness Committee since the other debates to which I referred, and in my humble judgment the Alness Committee was one of the most able Committees which has ever been set up by your Lordships' House. Look at the efforts which they made to get to the root of the problem! They examined seventy-five witnesses, some 8,000 questions were asked, and forty-nine organizations and interests submitted memoranda. The Report of the Alness Committee does not bear out the arguments produced this afternoon to show that accidents are entirely a question of speed. We have been given figures for the total number of people killed on the roads. I hope the most reverend Primate has forgiven me for interrupting him and asking him what probably seemed a very silly question; but in the popular mind it is always a question of motorists. What is a motorist? When you speak of motorists, do you refer to the drivers of public service vehicles, National Fire Service vehicles, goods vehicles, Service vehicles, the drivers of motor cycles and so on? I submit to your Lordships that in the public mind the term "motorist" means the driver of a private car, and when you talk about motorists to the ordinary man in the street he merely thinks of the driver of the private car.
1124
The driver of the private car is only one section of the problem. I believe I am correct in saying—no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Walkden, will correct me if I am wrong—that if you take the number of fatal accidents caused by mechanically-propelled vehicles, you will find that the private car is responsible for only between 12 and 12½ per cent. It all goes to show how difficult figures are. In the latest return of accidents there are included accidents caused by such vehicles as trams, but that is not made clear in any of the figures issued by the Department. I happen to have been during the war stationed at a town in the North of England where in one year 15 people were killed by trams. The road problem is not merely a question of motor cars but of all road users, and I am anxious to see the question stated clearly and accurately.
I am sure that we all want to get to the root of the problem, and any competent lorry driver could tell your Lordships what the problem is. The main section of the problem is, unfortunately, the recklessness and heedlessness of pedestrians. I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, will probably attack me for saying so, but it is none the less true. Any one who drives a motor vehicle on the roads of this country knows that the great body of pedestrians do not observe the Highway Code. I do not know that they have ever heard of it, or at any rate read it. Where there are footpaths they will not use them. Very large numbers of them walk in the road in preference to using the footpaths, as the most reverend Primate has told us this afternoon. The result is danger to everybody and fatal accidents. Yet noble Lords come here and put the blame almost exclusively on the motorist, and particularly on the private driver.
What is the use of setting up a Select Committee, as we have done in this House, if you are not prepared to attach some weight to its recommendations? Since that Select Committee sat, another Committee has been started by the Ministry of War Transport. I cannot understand why it was ever set up. It contains five representatives from the Ministry of War Transport, one from the Home Office, one from the Ministry of Education, one from the Ministry of Information, and one from the Scottish Home Department. It has three representatives

1125
of the Police, and five of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. But it has no representative of any single motoring organization, and yet it is their help which you want when you try to make your campaign for safety on the roads effective. I cannot understand why that Committee, which is called the Committee on Road Safety, was ever set up. I do not know whether it was because the Alness Committee, in thirteen of their recommendations, very severely criticized the Ministry of Transport, as I am sure that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will remember, and in five more of its recommendations criticized the Ministry by implication. Perhaps this new Committee has been set up in order to torpedo the Alness Report; I do not know.
We have been talking about bind corners. This is what this so-called Committee on Road Safety says about blind corners:
"We consider that each case should be considered on its merits, and that accident frequency at a site should be the determining factor, except where the conditions are clearly such as to justify immediate remedial measures."
In other words, you have got to wait and see how many people can be killed at the blind corner before anybody is going to do anything about it. That is not the way to deal with the road problem, either short-term or long-term. If you arc going to have a responsible Committee set up under the Government to deal with things like that, then I have not much faith in a Government Committee. I am not entirely ignorant of what goes on at these public safety committees, for I myself sat on one. It was the one which drafted the Highway Code. The Minister was frightfully interested in us when we started, but as our work went on his interest seemed to evaporate, and finally we were no longer summoned to any meetings. I suppose, therefore, that the Committee was dissolved, but we were never told that that was so.
With regard to safety on the roads, the Highway Code has been mentioned. Here for once am delighted to feel that I can entirely agree with the noble Viscount opposite. He wants to see the Highway Code given the 'force of law. So do I and so did the Alness Committee. But the Committee on Road Safety says no, do not give it the force of law, it would be too
1126
difficult. I hope that the Minister will be ruthless with the so-called Committee on Road Safety, and that he will insist on the Highway Code being redrafted and given the force of law. Another suggestion that I should like to make is that when an accident has occurred the vehicle or vehicles concerned should he tested as to fitness for use on the roads. It would be important, for example, to test the brakes. I think that is a thing that might very well be clone, and if a vehicle were found to have brakes that were inefficient or had tyres some other defect I think that that might be treated as prima facie evidence of negligence. Then I do want, if I may, strongly to support the suggestion made by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, about "Courtesy Cops." I consider that that is an invaluable suggestion. There is no doubt that the success of that experiment in Lancashire was really astounding. If that system could be extended to other areas in the country it also would be of the utmost possible value. Further, I would like to support as strongly as possible the suggestion about an experimental area. Let us have one by all means. Surely we have a better chance to get one now than we have ever had before and have it laid out according to the suggestions of the Memoranda on Road Construction that the Ministry of Transport has produced. Let us show what really can be done by efficient road design and engineering.
There are a lot of other things I wanted to say but I am anxious not to prolong this debate unduly. The points which I have mentioned are the principal ones that I had in mind, and I do beg that when people talk about accidents on the roads they will not try to fasten all the blame on the drivers of the vehicles. With regard to the case of children, I entirely support what the noble Lord opposite has just said. I believe that an experiment of a similar character was carried out in Salford as well as in Tottenham and I think it was attended with equally satisfactory results. I hope that it will be further extended, for undoubtedly it is a good thing. It is a sort of game for the children arid it interests and amuses them. Many of the children so educated could give adults a really good lesson on how to behave. I will not further take up your Lordships' time but will conclude by thanking you for giving me the chance to take part in this debate.
6.30 p.m.
LORD SELSDON: My Lords, I propose to take up very little of your time, but being one of the younger members of your Lordships' House and also a keen motorist I would like to contribute one or two words to this very interesting debate. Surely one of the chief causes of these terrible accidents on the roads is that the pedestrian does not think of the difficulties of the motorist, he does not think of the difficulties of the cyclist, and in certain eases the motorist does not think of the difficulties of either party. His Majesty's Government are about to embark on a large propaganda scheme. I would like to see on the front page of every one of the national daily newspapers every day the figures showing so many killed and so many people injured. That, I am convinced, is the only way to impress people with the seriousness of, say, just walking across the road to look at a shop and not pausing to look either way, and furthermore, not even pausing—and this applies particularly to the big towns—to look at the condition of the road surface, to see if it is wet. A motorist may be coming along at only five miles an hour when somebody steps off the kerb. The road is wet—I have in mind the particular case of Hyde Park Corner. The motorist puts the brakes on. What happens? The car skids and hits the pedestrian, another car, following close behind, hits the first car, and so it goes on. Just a little consideration, just a pause to think "Maybe I cannot get across the road in time," would have saved an accident.
I can remember some years ago—it was about 1934—when I was in Berlin, that I wanted to cross a road. I walked across, for I thought that it was quite clear. A few moments later I was looking in a shop window when a very large and very fierce looking policeman came and tapped me on the shoulder. I was not unnaturally rather alarmed. He explained very politely to me what I had done and how naughty I had been. He suggested that I should contribute ten marks to the German Winter Fund, which I did, but I did not cross the road at Berlin in the wrong place again.
But it does seem to me that the motorist at the moment is the only person who is being blamed. We have had some very interesting statistics about accidents
1128
caused, presumably, by motor vehicles, but we have had no statistics of accidents caused by pedestrians and I do not suppose we shall ever get them. However, the point is that something has got to be done and I understand that His Majesty's Government are embarking on a large scheme of motor roads. I do heartily endorse the idea and I hope that they will have an experimental area where they can try out everything in the way of the latest ideas. It is perfectly possible to get machines in these days which will lay roads in a ridiculously short space of time —at the rate, I believe, of as much as a mile in an hour or something like that. If that could be done, now that the age of the internal combustion engine has really come and we are out of the era of the red flag going ahead of the motor car, could not we have roads on the same lines as railways where it will be impossible for any of these people, of whom we have been speaking, to stray? I do not suggest that that could be done in the towns but that they should run between our big towns. I do not wish to take up any more of your Lordships' time now because there are several other and much better speakers who wish to say something.
6.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, it is my delight to be able to congratulate the noble Lord who has just sat down, on his delightful and sincere speech. It is all the more delightful to me because I had the privilege of serving with his father in another place in years gone by. I do not need to detain your Lordships for any length of time. The debate which has been raised by the most reverend Primate has been very interesting indeed, especially to me when I recall the debates which took place here when I was in another place. I agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, in his reference to these attacks upon motorists, and upon the driver of the lorry, which I understand is included in the term, "the driver of the vehicle." It has been my privilege for fifteen years to be in close contact with these drivers; I have lived their life. I had the honour of taking the late Mr. Leslie Burgin, who was Minister of Transport, as mate to a driver and he looked the part. We took him 75 miles from London to Birmingham. I may say to the most reverend Primate that if he undertook a similar journey he would only

1129
be copying the famous highwayman who rode from London to York! He would have a most interesting experience, which would prove, as it did to the then Minister of Transport, how magnificent is the driving of these lorry drivers at a speed of only 20 miles an hour. I want you to understand that point quite clearly. At the end of the journey the Minister got out and said, "It is quite obvious that not only is the driving of this man magnificent, but that the speed limit of 20 miles should go and that it should be raised to 30 miles per hour." On that long trip he saw only one case of bad driving.
I had the honour to serve in this war. Where should we be in these clays if it had not been for the magnificent driving which was done in the days of the "Blitz"? A link in the chain would never have been forged had it not been for the gallant driving of the drivers at that time, both in private motor cars and in lorries. Why certain of your Lordships should always try to blame the motorist I do not know. Speaking as a magistrate, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, that there should be education. I believe in trying to find things out as the "Courtesy Cops" did in Lancashire. I believe that as a magistrate, but how many other people in the country ire doing it? Eighteen months ago on three occasions I had an average of eighty cases brought before me. What were the cases? They were for having no lamps on cycles. It was not until I discovered that these were Service bicycles and that the Government Department was an accessory to the crime, and was allowing these machines to be turned out without lamps of any description, that I could take steps to have that rectified. Since then we have hardly had a case in six months.
The noble Viscount said that pedestrians walk on the paths. I think he would have a terrible shock if he saw the amount of space which the pedestrians take up on our roads. I want to ask if it would be possible to do something about that. I believe that several thousands of lives were saved during the war through an order issued by the War Office, and I believe by the other two Services, that all Service men were to walk on the right of the road. By walking there they face the traffic coming towards them; and they have not got to turn and look over
1130
their shoulders to see what is coming behind. I do not know whether that point has been included in the suggestions put forward in the new Highway Code. I venture to suggest that that is a way in which pedestrians could walk with far greater ease, and that there would be far fewer accidents if they were told to walk on the right of the road. We do not have any powers for that in my part of the world.
I do not know if any of your Lordships have ever stood at a halt sign. I have made it my business to take a census of pedestrians at a halt sign, and I suggest that you should look and see how many pedestrians stop at one. I guarantee that nine out of ten will not stop. The pedestrian thinks he can go on walking, but there is an order there for him to stop. I venture to think that you will find that that is the case. I should like to agree with what Lord Morrison has said about the children. I should like to see every school teacher given two periods in which to deal with this. I had a letter yesterday about an invitation to a lecturer from London to demonstrate in a school the dangers of accidents. That is something which should be carried out in every school. If every teacher could take the children down to tile halt sign I believe that that is a form of propaganda which would be worth more than anything else because it would be practical experience. I am only making these suggestions—having, I am glad to say, a clean licence for thirty-five years—from my own personal experience.
One other point I want to talk about is the question of trunk roads. A most wonderful trunk road has been made in a southern county towards Horley. It is a marvellous trunk road, a dual road, with roundabouts and everything else. Tonight we are suffering from a thick fog. I suppose that if a man were killed at this particular spot, the accident would be blamed on the motorist, but the fact is that a Government Department has taken this brand new road and parked lorries on it. When you come round the roundabout you are faced head-on with a bunch of lorries, which have been parked there for many weeks. We can act in a case like that. On these dual roads we should not allow these things to take place; we should see that these trunk

1131
roads are kept clear for the purposes for which they are made, for the carriage of heavy traffic.
I should like to say one last word about our export trade. The bridges of this country should be strengthened at once. Already there has been an example in Yorkshire of a bridge subsiding when a lorry went over it. The whole thing fell into the river. There is another example at Hove. There, a big electrical factory nearby which wants to export its goods, cannot do so unless the bridge is strengthened. The bridges have to carry loads of 25 to 250 tons. They should be strengthened so that we can go forward for the purpose which we all have at heart, of making our country one which is fit for heroes to live in and in which there is safety on the roads.
6.44 p.m.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: My Lords, I had intended to touch on details as well as on the general aspect of this road casualty situation, but in view of the very brilliant speeches which many of your Lordships have made, and in view of the fact that the ground is so well covered, I have very little to add. I shall not therefore in any way delay matters. As we come towards the end of this debate, I find myself with a feeling of very great optimism. I could not have said the same thing at a debate in your Lordships' House in which I took part some years before the war, almost immediately prior to the setting up of the Select Committee. On this occasion, however, I do sense the fact that we mean to get something done and we mean to get it done the right way. The fact that all we can do for the moment has been clearly stated to be mainly in the way of propaganda, must be treated by us, I feel, with a little patience. What gives me a feeling of optimism is the knowledge that the road situation—the remaking and the reconstruction of the roads—is going to be handled. That is the fundamental trouble, and there is no necessity for me to stress the point at this moment.
I think your Lordships have been extremely fortunate in having here to-day the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, who was a member of that exceedingly brilliant Select Committee. The Alness Report has been very much referred to, and rightly so, throughout the afternoon, and I think
1132
we can say that there we have the information. We have the prescription for less accidents in that Report, and directly the Government get on with implementing the recommendations made there I think the situation will ease. Indeed, it is rather regrettable that we find ourselves here, in this year of 1945, debating the subject of remaking and reconstructing the roads, since your Lordships will know so well that the roads are in this lamentable state at present entirely because the money which should have been spent on them years ago, which incidentally came from the pockets of the much-blackguarded motorists, was used by successive Chancellors of the Exchequer for practically every other purpose conceivable. I think that day is over. I have this feeling of optimism because I think something is really going to happen; therefore I will not detain your Lordships another moment.
6.48 p.m.
LORD WALERAN: My Lords, I, like my noble friend the Duke of Richmond, am very pleased to find that I, too, have a feeling of optimism. I have been present and have taken part in debates on this subject in your Lordships' House prior to the war, and on those occasions one always felt that a distinction was being made between the rights of various road users—the liberty of the one, the licence of the other. To-day I feel that your Lordships' House all through is seeing that all road users have the same responsibility. The noble Lord who spoke earlier on, talked about the difficulty the police have in trying to find a pedestrian who has caused an accident. It was my privilege at the beginning of this war. while I was waiting to go into the Royal Air Force, to walk on a beat as a Special. Police Constable in G Division. I have seen an accident caused by a pedestrian to two vehicles. The pedestrian darted off the sidewalk and caused the motorist—I would rather use the words "driver of the vehicle"—to swerve and hit the other vehicle, causing damage and injury. Then the pedestrian got back into the crowd and there was nothing one could do to find out who he was. The noble Lord, I gather, does not understand me. The pedestrian left the sidewalk, causing a motor vehicle to swerve and hit another vehicle. There was damage to both vehicles and one of the drivers was injured. The fault was

1133
that of the pedestrian who got back into the crowd, and one could not apprehend him. Yet motorists are blamed for accidents.
We have had some statistics to-day. I would like to ask whether it is not a fact that a very considerable proportion of accidents come within. the thirty-mile-an-hour limit. I believe that to be the case, My noble friend Viscount Cecil talked of the necessity for speed limits. It is not a question of speed limits: it is a question of the right speed for the right condition of traffic. If you fix a speed limit of thirty miles an hour—and I know this he s been said in previous debates—a lot of people think that if they are going et twenty miles an hour they are not to blame for anything that happens. There are many conditions when ten miles an hour is too fast. We had some other statistics given, and my noble friend Lord Sandhurst interrupted on the question of Service vehicles. We were told that accident figures had dropped and there were fewer motors on the road. I question that. I know there may have been fewer cars, but I rather believe that if you took all the Service vehicles at the time, the number was probably as large as before the war. You should take in the American vehicles and our own Army, Navy and Air Force vehicles. I think it is very misleading if statistics are given which do not include the total vehicles on the road at the time. Surely it is a question of total mileage done by all the vehicles in 'the country, not a question of what kind of vehicle is concerned. We want to get down to an accident rate.
Your Lordships may remember that on the 7th June, 1939, a Motion was tabled by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst your Lordships' House, which went to a Division and which was adopted. A number of the members of your Lordships' House, including the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, voted for that Motion and we defeated the Government of the day—not the Coalition Government, but the Conservative Government. It was on the question of motor patrols. The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, I see, has left the House, but I would most heartily endorse what he said with regard to motor patrols in Lancashire, which was the subject of the debate. We asked for a Government grant of an extra 25 per cent. over and above the 50 per cent. for making
1134
more of those patrols. The interesting thing is that not only did those patrols reduce by 46 per cent. the number of accidents in the area, but they reduced the number of prosecutions by something like 35 per cent., if my memory serve me rightly. So I entirely disagree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who says that plain clothes policemen increased the number of prosecutions. The point is that uniformed motor patrols not only reduced accidents but reduced prosecutions also, which is what we want to do.
We have heard of the extravagance of the horse; there is an extravagance of the weather to-night, and it may be difficult for some of us to get home. Therefore I will not take up more of your Lordships' time except to say that we must keep in front of us the idea that we want liberty for all road users and we cannot allow licence for any one section.
6.55 p.m.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I do not propose to take up much of your time, but there are three points I wish to make. The question of education has been very much to the fore to-night. There is one form of education which, to my mind, is most important and which has not been mentioned at all—namely, the education of car and lorry drivers. If you live in Kensington at the present time you will know that the back streets are a menace. Cars with the letter "L" on them chase down Cromwell Road, up Exhibition Road and down Queen's Gate. I counted 13 in Queen's Gate as I went up it the other day. That will give you some idea of the situation. What I want to know is how qualified are the instructors in those cars to teach anybody. I am perfectly certain, from some of the driving I saw, that the instructors have no qualifications at all. They were men I would not have allowed to drive and in some cases I do not believe they could have passed the test themselves. The driving of their pupils was certainly dreadful.
My second point is in relation to the "Courtesy Cops." I have a suggestion to make which may possibly commend itself to your Lordships. We have in this country a body of men which is extraordinarily well suited to help the police with the "Courtesy Cop" problem. I refer to the Special Constabulary. I will

1135
give you one reason why I think these men are extraordinarily well suited for that task. The average "Special" likes to go on the job, to do his job and, when he quits, to know that he has finished and has not got to go to court the next day. He is, therefore, not chasing a conviction and he will consequently be a first-class fellow to stop people and to say: "Look here, do you realize what you did? Do not you realize that that is a most dangerous thing to do?" He has no incentive to produce a conviction and to run a fellow in; he has every incentive to be courteous about it. The suggestion also has the advantage that if the Special Constabulary are doing that, an interesting job is being made for them, they are being kept occupied and they are being given a sense of road responsibility. Therefore they, as well as the public, are being educated.
My third point concerns a question which I was very glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Walkden, mention, a question which the noble Earl behind me has raised and spoken about many times—namely, the question of the underground garage. I do not know how optimistic your Lordships are, but I personally do not feel that we can say war has finished for ever. Underground garages could be, and should be, built as air raid shelters and in that way they would serve two purposes. During times of peace they could be used as shelters for motor cars and as protection for the people who use the road, and if we are unfortunate enough to be in-involved in another war the motor cars could be put out and people put in.
6.59 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD WINSTER): My Lords, we have had a most interesting and valuable debate, and also a long one, in the course of which a great many questions have been addressed to the Government. At this hour I propose, without any preamble whatever, to get straight on with the task of answering those questions. The most reverend Primate put three questions to me. He asked first that the driving test should be reimposed for those applying for licences. The reply is that the driving test will be reinstituted as soon as the necessary driving examiners are available. The Ministry hope that that will be in the early part of the new year. That, I think, in part answers the point just raised by
1136
the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. Then the most reverend Primate referred to the work of the Alness Committee and to the necessity for eliminating blind corners. Bad accident spots will be improved as soon as the necessary labour is available and roads are at the present moment being surveyed for that purpose. The question of labour is the decisive one at the' moment. The third question which the most reverend Primate addressed to me concerned the enforcement of the speed limit. The enforcement of the speed limit depends on the police, and real enforcement cannot be achieved without additions to the police forces. The 30-mile-per-hour speed limit operates in all built-up areas unless the roads are specially exempted by order. The war-time 20-mile-per-hour limit in built-up areas at night was revoked last September. The question of the enforcement of the speed limit does depend in great part upon the availability of sufficient police forces.
I listened with particular interest to the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil. I would beg him not to despise statistics so much. I would agree that their value can be overrated and that they can be made a fetish to the exclusion of the real point at issue; but nevertheless, in determining the causes of accidents, statistics have been found to be of value. The noble Viscount asked if the Government would say that all the provisions in the Highway Code shall be part of the law and carry penalties if infringed. There arc disadvantages about making the Highway Code part of the law. To begin with, it would need to be drafted in a form very different from its present form, and if it were redrafted in that form it would certainly not be suitable for general use. In the courts an infringement of the Code can be referred to as supporting evidence. On the first page of the old version there appears this passage:
"Failure on the part of any person to observe any provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings; but any such failure may, in any proceedings, whether civil or criminal, be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending, to establish or to negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings."
I agree that does not entirely meet the noble Viscount's point.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am very much obliged to my noble friend.

1137
That is just what I was afraid of; that means some courts will regard it and others will not. If you have it laid down as a principle—I am not dealing with the drafting point—that a person who breaks one of the provisions of the Highway Code is prima facie guilty of negligence if he is responsible for an accident it would be a different position.
LORD WINSTER: I appreciate the point but the fact remains that if that were to be done it would have to be drafted in a form which certainly would render it unsuitable for the purpose for which it is at present intended. I agree with the noble Viscount that the speed of vehicles is a very important factor but statistics do show—those horrible statistics—that that fact can easily be exaggerated as a cause of accidents. A universal speed limit would probably not be good because the public would not accept it as reasonable and enforcement of it would be almost impossible. What is wanted is a better standard of behaviour by road users, each being considerate of others. Propaganda in that direction should, I think, help very considerably.
The noble Viscount made a point of the necessity of stressing the importance of regulating speed according to circumstances. That will be referred to in the new Highway Code which is about to be issued. As regards footpaths, these are to be provided on all roads where the circumstances justify their provision. There are adequate powers to-day in the hands of the highway authorities. I endorse the views of those who say that pedestrians are too reluctant to use footpaths. In my native village they will walk anywhere rather than on the footpaths; I always find them in the road.
Then the noble Viscount raised a point which I think that your Lordships fed to be very important, and that is that anybody injured by a State-owned vehicle should be able to recover damages as in an ordinary case. The Minister of Wax Transport, as a matter of fact, is liable in tort by the provisions of the Minister of Transport Act; but the general point of the Crown being responsible raises a very big constitutional issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, has had to leave, but he will be reading the Official Report, and I am bound to say that I rather deplore his speech; I thought
1138
that it was rather wild. He referred to himself as a crank. I would not venture to apply that epithet to him myself. He spoke about the question being solved if we had a Minister of War Transport who would risk his popularity. That is not the way to approach this subject, by suggesting that any question of popularity affects the mind of a Minister who is considering this very grave question. He asked whether there was any hope that any Minister in the present Government would take the matter seriously in hand. As of course we know, the Minister of War Transport has this matter most seriously at heart, as the steps which are being taken, and which have been indicated by my noble friend Lord Walkden, clearly demonstrate.
Lord Elton said that all that the Ministry could do was to issue some more leaflets. It is not right to dismiss what is being done by a phrase of that sort. The speech of my noble friend Lord Walkden showed that a great deal is being done in addition to propaganda; but, as I sense the debate this evening, I feel that your Lordships agree that this great propaganda campaign which is being embarked upon is a good idea, and deserves support and encouragement. There may be drawbacks, and I have noted some of the criticisms made; but in the main I feel that your Lordships agree that this is the right course for the Minister of War Transport to embark upon. Yet all that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, can do is to try to crab that campaign at the very outset. Having blamed the Minister for not doing this and that, when the Minister does something he tries to crab it. I think that that is an unfortunate thing to do in the present circumstances.
To reply to some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, all Police Forces use plain clothes policemen in accident prevention work and the enforcement of speed limits, if that is considered the best way of getting results. 'He spoke of some very interesting devices—speed indicators and speed governors. Those have all been considered by the Road Safety Committee and rejected for technical reasons. This matter is going to be referred to in the final Report of that Committee. As for uniformity of penalty, that, of course, depends for the most part on what the courts of summary jurisdic-

1139
tion decide to do, and even the Home Office can only give guidance in that matter.
The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, told us that he had been a member of the Alness Committee. The Report of that Committee is a most important and admirable document, and everybody in the country is under a great debt of gratitude to the Committee for the work which they did. The noble Marquess hoped that that Report was receiving attention. From what I hear and have been told, I would say that the Report of the Alness Committee is a fixture on the Minister's desk, that the volume is always there and is constantly looked at by the Minister. The noble Marquess made a strong point about the Highway Code being divided into parts applicable to the motorist, the cyclist, and the pedestrian. There may be a man who has not a motor car but who is thinking of getting one. Does he qualify for the motorist's version of the Highway Code? After all, the same person is usually both cyclist and pedestrian, so that the division there would be rather difficult. As a matter of fact, the new Highway Code will be readily divisible into ' sections appropriate to particular classes of road user, and we hope that it will be so used. A plan for the future development of the roads of this country is being prepared, and the Trunk Roads Bill is now before a Standing Committee of the House of Commons. The preliminary planning for new road schemes is well in hand. The work will be carried out when resources permit, and the most modern systems of lay-out are all being considered.
We had a maiden speech from my noble friend Lord Morrison. I hope that he will allow me to congratulate him most warmly on that speech, which was full of common sense. Every word of it showed him to be a man of practical experience. We were all delighted, I am sure, that the horrible experiences which he went through on the occasion of his first maiden speech in the House of Commons have left no permanent scar on his sense of humour. I notice that he has dropped very quickly into your Lordships' habit of referring to six o'clock as "this late hour." I think that what he told us about the lay-out of the traffic area in Tottenham for training school children is most valuable and prac-
1140
tical. It was unfortunate that the war came to interrupt it. I am sure that it did good, and it showed great imagination. I think that many local authorities might well study what was done at Tottenham, and how far they could repeat the experiment in their own area. I can assure the noble Lord that the Ministry of War Transport, the Ministry of Education and the Home Office are all in constant contact on the problems of road accidents, and are represented on the Road Safety Committee.
My noble friend Lord Howe—although he sits oil the opposite side of the House, he must allow me as an old colleague to refer to him in that way—made a very spirited defence of the motorist. The motorists, of course, must have their case made for them. They have a case, and it was vigorously made by the noble Earl. He tended to put the blame rather heavily on the pedestrian, and in that respect he reminded me of the type of fox-hunter who says that fox-hunting would be an excellent sport but for the hounds. The noble Earl would find his motoring very much more enjoyable if it were not for these wretched pedestrians. I should like to make it clear, however, that I am animated by no animus whatever against the motorist. Far from it. It is not part of my view that the state of affairs with which we are dealing is entirely due to reckless driving by motorists, that they are the sole cause of the trouble. I entirely agree that other road users are responsible as well and that they should play their part in reducing the number of accidents.
The noble Lord quoted what was said in the Interim Report of the Committee on Road Safety—of which, I gather, he does not approve very much because there were no representatives of motorists on it. But I imagine that such representatives can be summoned and asked to give their counsel which, no doubt, would be valuable. He read a passage relating to blind corners which I think your Lordships felt was not very useful. The passage was as follows:
"We consider that each case should be considered on its merits and that accident frequency at a site, should be the determining factor except where the conditions are clearly such as to justify immediate remedial measures."
The noble Lord did not go on to read what the paragraph says further on. It goes on to state:

1141
"Moreover, the improvement of the line of vision on a bend may lead to higher speeds on roads not generally suitable for fast traffic, and conditions of even greater danger may result than existed prior to the improvement of the bend. We recommend that consideration should be given to the addition to the 'bend' sign of an indication of the speed at which a bend can safely be traversed."
I am not arguing the question, if the noble Lord will allow me to say so, of whether the Committee are right or wrong on that point. I am just pointing out that they had reasons in their minds when they laid down a condition which I think the noble Lord suggested was in his view rather an indication of weak-mindedness on their part.
EARL HOWE: It seems to depend upon whether you look upon it as a bend or a corner.
LORD WINSTER: I do not think I will enter into a metaphysical discussion at this time of night as to when a bend is a corner and when a corner is a bend. I will ask to be excused, if I may.
May I say now that I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, will allow me to congratulate him on his speech? I am sorry to note that he has gone, but I am sure your Lordships would wish me to congratulate him upon a maiden speech of great sincerity which showed very practical experience on the matters of which he was talking. The noble Lord would like to see the figures for accidents on the roads published in the newspapers. I feel that that is a matter for the newspaper proprietors. I have no doubt that they will notice what the noble Lord has said and pay attention to it. The noble Viscount, Lord Long, paid a very well-deserved tribute to civilian lorry drivers, and I am sure that they will be glad to have, at long last, received this recognition.
Now as to pedestrians—I am dealing with one or two points which the noble Lord raised—pedestrians are told in the existing Highway Code to walk on the right where there are no footpaths.
LORD SANDHURST: Is that in the new edition?
LORD WINSTER: That advice will be repeated in the new document. Most of the State-aided schools are having safety training for children as a regular part of their curricula. We want to get the roads
1142
free from standing vehicles of Government Departments as soon as possible, and the noble Lord may be sure that my right honourable friend is active in that particular matter. As regards bridges—and this is an important point—a programme of strengthening weak bridges is being prepared and will be given high priority in work which is due to take place.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Richmond, referred to the Alness Committee's Report and to other matters relating to the roads. I think he will agree, when he reads the Report of to-day's debate, that I have, in the course of my speech, already answered questions which he put. Lord Waleran also had something to say about the pedestrian and his shortcomings. I thought he said it very fairly and very cogently indeed. As I say, it is no part of my case to say that the motorist is alone to blame. I completely agree with the noble Lord when he says that even ten miles an hour may be too fast in certain circumstances, and therefore I agree also with what the noble Viscount said about the necessity of the Highway Code drawing attention to the question of speed in relation to the circumstances. I have no doubt that my right honourable friend will note what the noble Lord has said as to statistics being misleading if they do not include all vehicles on the road. I am sure that that will be considered. Equally, I say to my noble friend Lord Sandhurst that I feel confident that my right honourable friend will note what he said about what goes on in these "L" cars when people are under instruction, and the possibility of the Special Constabulary being able to help the courtesy police in the execution of their duties.
My Lords, that I think answers the majority of the points which have been raised. I have really endeavoured to answer as fully as I can the questions asked. Perhaps I may be allowed to say one or two general words in conclusion. The Government are grateful to the most reverend Primate for raising the matter and for lending the authority and influence of his high position to this cause at a time when the great propaganda campaign is about to start. The Government regard no matter as more urgent than this of safety on the roads. All of us must be appalled and saddened by the figures given about children in particular. It was saddening also to hear my noble

1143
friend Lord Walkden tell us that the position is less favourable than it was before the war, especially when we reflect that more petrol and more cars are coming. Against this Army and other Government vehicles will be leaving the roads in increasing numbers. I am afraid we cannot deny that they have done great harm in their time, but unfortunately as they leave the roads they will be replaced by an equally lethal weapon; that is the errand boy driving the tradesman's van. But the roads will get better and we shall get more police. Those things in themselves should tend to bring about improvement.
As civilian lorry drivers have been mentioned, and as I have mentioned two other classes of drivers, I think I ought to mention that we all feel great admiration for the bus drivers in London. In all conditions of weather they do get on with their job week after week with amazing efficiency.
LORD SANDHURST: That is the result of education; they go through a very careful schooling.
LORD WINSTER: That is true. Local authorities can be most helpful in this matter of road safety. The experiment at Salford and what the Chief Constable did there has already been mentioned. It was remarkable work. I feel sure that from now on local authorities will regard it as a matter of civic pride to be able to say they have brought the accident rate down in the areas under control. If I may express a personal hope, it is that all headmasters and headmistresses will take the supervision of the safety instruction in their schools into their hands as a matter which they regard as a direct charge upon their responsibility. If they do that excellent results may be looked for. In addition, most valuable work can be done by women's organizations and youth associations. They can give very great help.
But it will be when we can get clown to road work that we can make a real start on one of the true remedial measures in this matter. It has been said that segregation is valuable. I agree, but when you are providing means of segregation can you persuade all those concerned to segregate? The case of the pedestrian who will not use the footpath
1144
has been mentioned more than once. In my own observation cyclists have an absolutely ineradicable objection to using tracks especially set apart for their use. The youthful cyclist likes to display his skill in the fast-moving traffic. He may make our hair stand on end, but to him it is a sport. I was very much struck by what my noble friend Lord Walkden said about the comparison between the railways and the roads. I have often noticed the railways running for miles and miles through deserted country, on tracks fenced off, and then seeing our busy towns with their teeming populations, narrow streets which are still the only playgrounds for so many children, and fast motor traffic hurtling along.
The second thing which always strikes me in this matter, is the number of bad drivers on the roads. I hardly go out without seeing at least one example of thoroughly bad driving and there is no doubt that the good fast driver is not the greatest menace. The slow bad driver can he far more dangerous. In fact, we all know that acceleration and a quick reaction time has over and over again saved an accident. Nevertheless, people do drive too fast and in that connexion I think the mobile police forces did good. Where negligence has contributed to an accident I think the penalties should be severe and that some effort should be made to get them into some sort of standardization. I think the Highway Code is excellent. I wish I could think that every driver really does study it. Every one in charge of a ship has to know his "rule of the road," but I very much doubt if the same can be said of every car driver.
The fact is that it comes down to this: our way of life is dependent on roads and those roads are being increasingly used by a volume of traffic which was never foreseen and for which they were never designed. The trouble is inherent in that fact. We are going through a process of adapting the old roads to the new traffic. That process can, perhaps, be pushed too far. I think that radically new ideas as regards roads are required as well as this process of adapting roads to the traffic. With a falling birth-rate we cannot tolerate the calamitous loss of young lives.
Everything said by Lord Walkden and, I hope, by myself, clearly indicates that

1145
the Government and the Ministry of War Transport, who in this matter are the Government agents, recognize their responsibility in regard to a grave problem and are not only vigilant in investigation of anything likely to mitigate the evil, but have begun, and are taking, positive action. I can assure the most reverend Primate who moved the Motion and others who have spoken in this debate that we do realize the gravity of the matter and, as the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, said, we do intend to put our backs into it. What has been said in this debate will receive scrupulous attention from the Government. I hope it will receive special attention from the Press and B.B.C. I trust, too, that what has been said may arouse all to a sense of responsibility and even prick the conscience of those who through their thoughtlessness or selfishness take chances or do something in such a fashion to run the risk of bringing one of these dreadful tragedies into a home.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, the most reverend Primate who introduced this Motion has asked me to do three things on his behalf. The first was to thank the noble Lord for his answer, the second to apologize for having to leave the House before the debate was over, and the third to ask permission to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

TREATMENT OF TROPICAL DISEASES.
7.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY had given Notice that he would ask. His Majesty's Government what proportion of civilian repatriates who have been prisoners in Japanese hands are suffering, or have suffered, from tropical diseases; whether ample suitable hospital accommodation and expert treatment are available for such cases, and if not, whether everything possible is being done, and all priorities being granted by the Ministries concerned, for the preparation of such accommodation as can readily be made available.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, the majority of the more severely sick have
1146
been detained for treatment before repatriation. What information we have indicates that, although in some camps the great majority of civilian prisoners in Japanese hands had at some time suffered 'from malaria and hookworm, and perhaps 20 per cent. have suffered from amœbic dysentery, in other camps a comparatively small proportion have been infected. Provision has been made by the Emergency Hospital Service for those who require expert treatment after they reach this country. So far the number of civilians needing treatment in these hospitals is only about eighteen. Three hundred and eighty beds are available in Tropical Diseases Units of the Emergency Hospital Service and if necessary the facilities for dealing with tropical diseases can be extended. Treatment for repatriates by the Emergency Hospital Service is provided free of charge.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his answer and I do not propose to make any remarks. I hoped to interest the House in this question and I hope the Government are not too complacent about it. I cannot help thinking that the Government are complacent. An E.M.S. hospital is not a tropical diseases hospital. The danger arises, I am told, not now but when these men return home and have to face an English winter. They have got the disease in them. I do not wish to go on now; there is no one to talk to. I thank the noble Lord for his reply.

ARTIFICIAL LIMBS.
7.33 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in the name of the Earl of Bessborough.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether it is a fact that limbless French officers have been brought to this country to be supplied with artificial limbs and that a number of them are now being returned to France without being supplied; that if this is due to shortage of supply, why this circumstance was not known in advance; and whether further consideration may be given to this matter in the interest of Anglo-French relations.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD NATHAN): My Lords, on September II last, nine French disabled Servicemen, including one officer, arrived at Queen Mary's (Roehampton) Hospital accompanied by a French surgeon who asked that they should be fitted with artificial arms. It appears that without previous consultation with the Ministry of Pensions they were brought to this country under arrangements made by the French authorities, who sent them to Roehampton Hospital without notification to the Ministry of Pensions: accordingly no prior arrangements for their reception and the supply of artificial arms had been made. The men were seen, however, by the Ministry's chief limb surgeon at the hospital and measurements were taken pending further information from France.
During a recent visit to this country of representatives of the French Ministry of Labour and Social Security, demonstrations of British artificial limbs were given and it was learnt subsequent to the men's arrival that the object of sending them to Roehampton was to obtain practical examples
1148
of British limb-fitting. Discussions have also been proceeding with the French regarding the best methods of making available to them arms of the type supplied to British personnel. The Minister of Pensions has expressed every desire to help, but has pointed out that there are considerable supply difficulties at the present time and that he cannot be a party to an arrangement which would delay the delivery of arms to those men for whom he is responsible. The French Military Attaché was informed on October 5 of the supply position and it was suggested to him that as there would be considerable delay in the delivery of the artificial limbs, it might be well if meanwhile these men returned to France. I understand that under arrangements made by the French Military Attaché they are at present staying at a convalescent home near Camberley. As the Ministry of Pensions had never been told that the men were arriving, it had no opportunity of explaining the supply position to the French authorities.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before eight o'clock.