Sitting of 8 July 1946

Preamble
The House met at Halt past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
NEW WRIT
For the Borough of Battersea (North Division), in the room of Francis Campbell Ross Douglas, Esquire (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Mr. Whiteley.]

FOOD RATIONING (PETITION)
Vice-Admiral Taylor: I beg to present to the House, Mr. Speaker, a humble Petition of inhabitants of the residential borough of Paddington, as follows:
"That in the present state of food rationing they consider that they and their families are under-nourished. Wherefore, your Petitioners pray that there shall be no further cuts in the rations, but rather that the ations should be increased in amount and variety."
The number of signatures to the Petition, Sir, is 10,000.
Mr. Janner: On a point of Order. As a resident in that borough, Mr. Speaker, am I entitled to raise my protest against this Petition being presented?
Mr. Speaker: It is an old custom of this House that anybody can present a Petition.
To lie upon the Table.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  NORTHMET POWER BILL
  As amended, considered; Standing Order 205 suspended; Bill to be read the Third time forthwith.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  ROYAL LONDON OPHTHALMIC HOSPITAL, ROYAL WESTMINSTER OPHTHALMIC HOSPITAL AND CENTRAL LONDON OPHTHALMIC HOSPITAL (AMALGAMATION ETC.) BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time, and committed.
  WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time, and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ROADS

    Speed Limit, London Parks
    Mr. William Shepherdasked the Minister of Transport if he will arrange for uniformity of speed limits in all London parks, based upon the limits which obtain in the Royal parks.
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): I have no jurisdiction over speed limits in London parks or the Royal parks. These are matters for the London County Council and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works respectively.
    Mr. Shepherd: Can the right hon. Gentleman do something to equalise the speed limit of 12 miles per hour, which is not enforceable at the present time?
    Mr. Barnes: I will certainly draw the hon. Member's observation to the notice of the authorities concerned.

    Trunk Roads (Tree Planting)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Transport if he will have the surplus lands bordering trunk roads that have been acquired or will be acquired for future widenings, planted with trees, shrubs and other suitable plants to make the roads attractive and pleasant places for travel.
    Mr. Barnes: Yes, Sir, the planting of suitable trees and shrubs is one of the methods by which I hope to add to the attractiveness of trunk roads.

    Western Avenue and Kingston By-pass (Improvements)
    Mr. Aylesasked the Minister of Transport if he will give top priority to making the lay-out and lighting of Western Avenue and the Kingston Bypass uniform throughout their lengths to enable these heavily trafficked roads to be used to capacity and to eliminate the prevailing obstructions and dangers to traffic circulation due to the mixtures of dual carriageway with single carriageway, cycle tracks and footpaths with no cycle tracks or footpaths, and good lighting with poor lighting or no lighting; and what action has been taken to date to achieve this.
    Mr. BarnesPlans have been prepared for the construction of a second carriageway on Western Avenue and on the Kingston By-pass where none exists at the moment, and I hope to put the work in hand as soon as labour is available. The problem of lighting these roads is being investigated and I have already before me proposals for the installation of modern lighting up to traffic route standard on an additional length of Western Avenue.

    Toll Roads and Bridges
    Mr. W. Shepherdasked the Minister of Transport the number of toll roads and bridges in the United Kingdom; what plans exist for their elimination; and when the Government expect to complete the project.
    Mr. Barnes: There are 59 toll bridges and 41 toll roads in Great Britain, of which five and one respectively are on trunk roads. Of these, three bridges and the road were transferred to me on 1st April, 1946, by the Trunk Roads Act. These tolls on trunk roads will he eliminated as rapidly as possible. Plans have already been prepared for bypassing two of the bridges, and negotiations are in progress which will, I hope, shortly result in the freeing of the third. As regards other roads, the initiative rests with the responsible highway authorities, but I am prepared to consider for grant any application from a highway authority which has as its object the freeing of a toll road or bridge on a classified road.

    North of Scotland (Regional Commissioner)
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Minister of Transport whether he will now appoint a Regional Commissioner for the North of Scotland.
    Mr. Barnes: No, Sir. Since 1941 the whole of Scotland has been one traffic area with headquarters in Edinburgh and a sub-office in Aberdeen. I propose to maintain an office at Aberdeen to meet the convenience of operators of road transport in the North of Scotland.
    Mr. Boothby:Is it not a fact that there are Io areas in England as against only one in Scotland, and does the right hon. Gentleman think this is justified, and can he say what powers he intends to grant to his representative in Aberdeen?
    Mr. Barnes: I think that the sub-office at Aberdeen meets all the necessary requirements of that district, and until I have evidence to the contrary I propose to continue it. I am, of course, always open to reconsider matters.

    Bus Companies (Season Tickets)
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of Transport how many motor omnibus companies demand a deposit upon the issue of initial season tickets in addition to the cost.
    Mr. Barnes: I am making inquiries and will arrange for a statement to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible.

    Haulage Organisation (Abolition)
    Mr. Peter Thorneycroftasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of his proposal to abolish the Road Haulage Organisation, he intends to retain any powers under Regulation 73 (b); and, if so, for what purpose.
    Mr. Barnes: I propose to revoke the Road Transport of Goods Order, 1944, which is the only Order made under Defence Regulation 73B, as from the date when the Road Haulage Organisation comes to an end, and the arrangements with the Road Haulage Association come into operation. The Regulation itself will remain in force in case of any breakdown in those arrangements.

    Vehicles (Statistics)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Transport whether he will give the numbers of vehicles, other than hackneys, falling into the following categories:heavy oil, light oil and electric, as at February, 1946; and whether he will consider similarly subdividing these figures in future issues of his Department's "Monthly Digest of Statistics."
    Mr. Barnes: The number of electrically propelled goods vehicles for which licences were current at 28th February, 1946, was approximately 6,800. I regret that separate figures are not available of the numbers of vehicles at present using light and heavy oil fuel respectively. This information was obtained before the war by a census of road vehicles which was taken in September of each year. This census was suspended at the outbreak of war, but it is hoped to resume it in the near future, when the information desired will again become available.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will the Minister take steps to find out the number of steam vehicles?
    Mr. Barnes: No doubt the census will disclose information of that sort.

    Road-making Equipment
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Transport if he will give details as to the amount of up-to-date road-making equip-
    6
    ment, bulldozers and other such machinery, which has been made available for improving the highways of this country, after being designated as surplus to military requirements; and to what extent this machinery is being used by his Department and other highway authorities, respectively.
    Mr. Barnes: I have no information as to the road-making equipment designated as surplus to military requirements which has been made available to highway authorities, but in addition to a substantial amount of other equipment, my Department has obtained for use in connection with Trunk Roads the following heavy plant: 23 Crawler Tractors; 14 Excavators; seven Asphalt Spreading Machines.

  SHIPPING

    L.M.S. Vessels (Release)
    Major Haughtonasked the Minister of Transport when the L.M.S. vessels s.s. "Duke of Rothesay" and s.s. "Duke of York" will be released from requisition.
    Mr. Barnes: These vessels are still required for military service, but I hope it may be possible to release them from requisition about October of this year. Reconditioning may take about six months.
    Sir Ronald Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the tonnage available from England to Northern Ireland is only about half what it was before the war? Why should Northern Ireland, particularly, have to suffer, after six years of blockade, by not having enough vessels for the summer trade?
    Mr. Barnes: Northern Ireland is not suffering any more than any other locality.
    Sir R. Ross: It is.

    British Tonnage (United States Chartering)
    Mr. John Morrisonasked the Minister of Transport what is the tonnage of British shipping at present chartered by the United States of America.
    Mr. Barnes: No British ships are at present on charter to the United States Government. From time to time in the last few months a small number of

    7
    British ships have been fixed for single voyages by private United States charterers.

    Old Vessels (Transfer)
    Sir Basil Neven-Spenceasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that Norwegian and other allied ship-owners are permitted to sell their old vessels to other than their own nationals; that they are thus able to finance the purchase of modern vessels, including vessels owned by the Minister himself; and whether British shipowners will be placed is a position not less favourable.
    Mr. Barnes: I am aware that sale of ships to other flags is to some extent permitted by certain Allied maritime countries and that, in normal circumstances, it is generally regarded as desirable to permit such sales in order to assist in maintaining the efficiency of merchant fleets and to encourage new building. For the time being, I regret that our own tonnage resources are not Sufficient to permit of any general freedom of transfer of serviceable ships from the United Kingdom register. I am anxious, nevertheless, not to restrict freedom of transfer beyond the necessities imposed by my responsibility for ensuring adequate tonnage for national requirements, and, subject to this overriding consideration, applications under the Ships and Aircraft (Transfer Restriction) Act for permission to transfer United Kingdom ships abroad are considered on their merits.

    Engineers (First-Class Certificates)
    Mr. Scollanasked the 'Minister of Transport by whose instructions are second-class seagoing engineers prevented from studying for a first-class certificate; when was this instruction given: and why.
    Mr. Barnes: No general instruction has been issued preventing a man with second-,class certificate as engineer from taking the examination for a first-class certificate, but the grant of paid leave for study for the senior certificate is dependant, under the terms of the National Maritime Board Agreement, on there being an adequate supply of officers, and from time to time permission has had to be refused by the Tool Authorities because of a shortage of
    8
    officers. If my hon. Friend would furnish particulars of any special case he has in mind I Should be pleased to make inquiries into it.

    Food from South America
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Minister of Transport how much shipping is on demand to bring food supplies from South American ports to Britain; and if he will expedite the necessary arrangements.
    Mr. Barnes: The amount of shipping required to bring food supplies from South American ports to the United Kingdom fluctuates from month to month according to the availability of foodstuffs. Foodstuffs currently available for shipment are fully covered by shipping allocations.
    Sir W. Smithers: Arising out of that evasive answer, is the Minister aware that there is a serious delay in turn-round and in shipping coming from South American ports, and that I am authoritatively informed that this is due to the deficient arrangements made by the Ministry of Transpot?
    Mr. Barnes: I am quite aware that from time to time there are port difficulties, arising in the vast majority of cases from circumstances in those ports outside our control. I have here all the details which show that my answer was not an evasive one. If the hon. Gentleman desires to have more detailed information, he can always have it.

    Crofter Seamen (Employment)
    Sir B. Neven-Spenceasked the Minister of Transport whether when the Essential Work Order, in so far as it affects merchant seamen, is withdrawn, any provision is being made to provide continuous employment for them thereafter; and whether special provision will be made to safeguard the position of crofter seamen from Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles, who must stay ashore periodically to attend to their crofts.
    Mr. Barnes: This matter is for decision by the shipping industry and is now occupying the attention of the National Maritime Board. I am assured that the position of crofter seamen will be kept in mind.

    Docks and Harbours (Dredging)
    Mr. Awberyasked the Minister of Transport if he is satisfied that the dredging operations carried out in the various ports of the country are sufficient to maintain a clear fairway and to prevent the entrances of our docks and harbours from silting up.
    Mr. Barnes: Although it was not possible at some ports to dredge during the war to prewar standards, I am satisfied that the position in this respect is improving, and that in general our ports are now being dredged adequately.
    Mr. Awbery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of our ports had a continuous service of dredgers some time ago, but that now they pay only occasional visits, with the result that the fairway is silting up?
    Mr. Barnes: In view of my reply, I suggest that if my hon. Friend has any definite information, he should submit it to me. His reference to "some of our ports" in general does not enable me to examine any particular difficulties.
    Mr. Awbery: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend, and I will pass the information to him.

    Unemployed Port Workers (Transfers)
    Mr. Awberyasked the Minister of Transport what steps are being taken to direct ships to the ports where unemployment is acute as an alternative to transferring the men from their home ports to those that are congested and require transferees.
    Mr. Barnes: No conditions of congestion have recently arisen which would justify my ordering diversion of ships from their normal ports of discharge to which they are "billed." To meet an occasional shortage of labour at any particular port it may well be best to transfer temporarily dock labour from another port where there may at the time be a surplus.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of men are now transferred 200 miles from their home port for discharging purposes on ships, and that it should be much easier to transfer them to the men's home port where they could discharge them just as well?
    Mr. Barnes: I would suggest that the hon. Member looks carefully at the answer I have just given him.
    Mr. Hoy: Is it not a fact that these conditions prevail all over the country? Have I not drawn the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the position on the Firth of Forth, and does he propose to take any action with a view to having better distribution of these ships?
    Mr. Barnes: Yes, Sir. I am aware, as my hon. Friend knows, that adjustments, are now taking place in many ports owing to their reversal to peacetime conditions, and these observations will be carefully examined.

  RAILWAYS

    Cheap Day Tickets
    Viscount Hinchingbrookeasked the Minister of Transport whether he will now make a statement on the introduction of cheap day excursion railway fares for organised parties and single persons.
    Mr. A. Edward Daviesasked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement regarding the restoration of cheap railway fare facilities.
    Mr. Barnes: With the permission of the House, I will make a statement at the end of Question time in reply to Questions. No. 3 and No. 31.
    Later—
    Mr. Barnes: In present circumstances, while the railway companies are unable to provide more than 80 per cent. of their prewar services, cheap fare facilities cannot be fully restored but I am glad to say that I am now able, as a start, to authorise the main line railway companies to restore, with effect from 1st August, cheap day tickets at single journey rates in the following cases:
    (1) On the main line companies' trains from stations within the London Passenger Pool area to main line London termini, which covers a radius of about 30 miles from the centre of London. As from 1st August cheap tickets will be available from most stations within the area on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays by trains leaving the issuing stations after 9.30 a.m. and -for return by any trains on the same day, except those leaving

    11
    London during the peak hours, 4.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.
    (2) To provincial towns and cities with populations of about 50,000 or over, from stations within a radius of about 20 miles. As from 1st August, these facilities will be available from a large number of stations throughout the country on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. Local restrictions as to availability may have to be imposed for traffic reasons.
    (3) To the larger provincial market towns and small market towns in rural areas. As from 1st August tickets will be available on one day a week from a large number of stations throughout the country, but where market day falls on Saturday, local restrictions may have to be imposed.
    (4) To seaside resorts and other centres of attraction. During August and subsequently, advertised day excursion facilities will be made available where practicable on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.
    I am also able to give some good news about outings for children's and adult parties.
    (1) Juveniles under the age of 18 in parties of not less than 8. As from 1st August day return tickets at single fare will be available on the main line railways on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays by prior arrangement with the Company concerned. Juveniles under the age of 16 will be charged half fare.
    (2) For organised parties of not less than the equivalent of 300 adults guaranteed day excursion tickets at single fare for the return journey will be available from 7th October on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays by prior arrangement with the Company concerned.
    Viscount Hinchinbrooke: In view of the fact that the railway services appear to continue to be moderately congested, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to put on additional rolling stock to cater for these increased facilities which he has now announced?
    Mr. Barnes: As a matter of fact, facilities of this kind are coming along because the railway companies are steadily ex-
    12
    panding their services, which include rolling stock. Of course, that does impose a limit, and that is why I said that at this stage they cannot be fully restored.
    Mr. A. Edward Davies: Is the Minister aware that the announcement he has just made will be most welcome in the country, that it can be operated to some extent without additions to the present facilities, especially in mid-week when many trains are lightly loaded in the provinces, and that school children in particular will welcome the opportunity or going to the seaside?
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned London, and also provincial cities. Has he no arrangements for Scotland?
    Mr. Barnes: My statement, of course, covers Scotland.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: On a point of Order. May I ask why Edinburgh or other parts of Scotland are described as provinces?
    Mr. Barnes: I must apologise. I stated that without reflection. It is a question of figures. I mentioned cities with 50,000 population or more. Scottish towns of that population, and Scottish market towns, all come within the description.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it will be possible to resume any prewar weekend facilities in the near future?
    Mr. Barnes: Not at the moment, because weekend traffic is so heavy that we cannot possibly add to it at the moment. It will follow on as rapidly as possible
    Mr. George Wallace: Will the Minister also consider Sunday when he is considering these facilities, in order to allow the poor father to be reunited with his children for a family party now and again?
    Mr. Barnes: As I indicated, weekend traffic is too heavy at the moment to consider fathers in that respect.
    Mr. Keeling: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether "centres of attraction" include places where demonstrations are taking place against the Government?
    Mr. Shurmer: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why it was not possible to

    13
    extend these facilities to period excursion tickets for families visiting the seaside, who will find it very hard in view of the increased fare?
    Mr. Barnes: For the reasons I have stated, traffic is too heavy on that type of journey to encourage it still further by concessions.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: The position is not clear. Do these facilities and reductions apply to Scotland in the same way as to the rest of the country?
    Mr. Barnes: Definitely, yes.

    Sleeping Accommodation
    Mr. Douglas Marshallasked the Minister of Transport for what reason Government officials have priority for sleeping berths on trains now that the war is over; and whether he will forthwith issue instructions that such preference is to be terminated.
    Mr. Barnes: In view of the heavy demand for sleeping berths it is still necessary to reserve a small number for persons travelling on urgent business of national importance where the journey must be made at night. Only 25 per cent. of all first-class and eight per cent. of all third-class berths are now so reserved. Of these reserved berths, during a recent period, 68 per cent. were allocated to business men, 14 per cent. to Members of Parliament, 10 per cent. to the Services and eight per cent. to civil servants. Only a limited number of senior civil servants are eligible for these reserved berths.
    Mr. Keeling: Will the Minister say why it is more important for Government officials to have reservations than, for example, business people engaged in the export drive?
    Mr. Barnes: It does not follow that a good percentage of the 68 per cent. which represents allocations to business men were not given to business men engaged in the export trade.
    Mr. Keeling: Will they have priority?
    Mr. Barnes: These percentages are the priority, and 68 per cent. of the 25 per cent. of reserved berths are allocated to the businessmen to whom the hon. Member refers.
    Viscount Hinchingbrookc: Are any persons considered nationally important now
    14
    who were not considered so, during the war, and if so, who are they?

    Central Station, Sunderland
    Mr. Frederick Willeyasked the Minister of Transport what steps are being taken to repair and rebuild the Central Railway Station, Sunderland.
    Mr. Barnes: Proposals for providing a new passenger station at Sunderland or for reconstructing the existing station are being considered by the Company in consultation with the Corporation.
    Sir R. Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the new station is rather more cheerful-looking than the old, which was not cheerful?

    Agricultural Produce (Damage by Fire)
    Mr. Medlicottasked the Minister of Transport the amount paid during each of the last five years in respect of agricultural produce destroyed or damaged by fires caused by railway locomotives
    Mr. Barnes: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) on 4th July, a copy of which I am sending to him.
    Mr. Medlicott: In view of the fact that this loss is very substantial, will the Minister say what further steps he proposes to take to minimise the loss of produce through these fires?

    Sleeping Accommodation
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that during the present holiday season there is a demand for more first and third-class sleeping coaches from London to Aberdeen by both the L.N.E.R. and the L.M.S.R.; and if he will, before it is too late for this holiday season, see that the requisite sleeping accommodation is provided.
    Mr. Barnes: I am glad to say that as from tonight the L.N.E.R. Company are providing an extra first-class sleeping car except on Fridays, in each direction between London and Aberdeen. Further sleeping cars, either first or third-class according to demands, will be provided as soon as circumstances permit.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the new arrangements obviate the change from one train to another at Perth?
    Mr. Barnes: I could not answer that question without notice.
    Mr. Boothby: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that although the war ended a year ago the railway services in this country are just as bad, and is this due to the fact that they are still under Government control?
    Mr. Barnes: I really cannot allow that to pass. The railways carried a heavy load during the war, but they are now back to 80 per cent. of their prewar services.

    Electrification (Scotland)
    Colonel Gomme-Duncanasked the Minister of Transport what steps he has in mind for the electrification of railways in Scotland.
    Mr. Barnes: No schemes for the electrification of railways in Scotland are before me at present.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: While I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I say that this answer will be received in Scotland with the customary cheer which we always give to answers of this type?
    Mr. Barnes: That would suggest that we should have considered nationalisation many years ago.
    Sir William Darling: As the foremost producer of hydro-electricity in these islands is in Scotland, does the right hon. Gentleman not think it extremely unfair not to allow the electrification of any part of our railways in Scotland?

  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

    Surplus Motor Vehicles (Germany)
    Mr. W. Shepherdasked the Minister of Supply how many vehicles and motor cycles, surplus to requirements, are now being held in the British zone in Germany.
    The Minister of Supply (Mr. John Wilmot): Some 10,000 trucks and miscellaneous military vehicles and 2,400 motor cycles now in the British zone in Germany have been declared surplus.
    Mr. Shepherd: Can the Minister say what steps he proposes to take to make these vehicles available for use in this
    16
    country, and how much longer he intends to allow them to rot in Germany?
    Mr. Wilmot: Some have just been declared surplus and those suitable for being brought here will be brought.

    Government-owned Steelworks
    Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Supply (1), what is the total amount of capital moneys invested by His Majesty's Government, including both purchase price and subsequent capital expenditure, in the Government-owned steelworks at Monkbridge, Leeds and Barrow-in-Furness;
    (2) if he will publish the trading results of the Government-owned steelworks at Monkbridge, Leeds and Barrow-in-Fur-ness up to 31st March, 1946.
    Mr. Wilmot: As the answer is rather long, I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The total capital expenditure was £724,000 at the Barrow works and £522,000 at the Monkbridge works. It is contrary to normal practice to publish the trading results of the individual factories operated by my Department. I can, however, state that the operation of the Barrow works resulted in a net loss of £779,000 from 1st November, 1942, to 31st March, 1946, and of the Monkbridge works in a net loss of £180,000 from 10th August, 1942, to 31st March, 1946. Production from these two works was needed for national requirements, but they were uneconomic producers and would not normally have been kept in operation. The Government, therefore, acquired ownership in order to maintain production. The output following acquisition has been satisfactory and the trading losses sustained have been less than would have been the cost of importing an equivalent quantity of steel, even if supplies could have been made available and shipped.

    Motor Cars (Government Departments)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Supply how many motor cars have been supplied to Government Departments, other than the three Fighting Services, since 1st January, 1946; and how many are now on order for these Departments.
    Mr. Wilmot: Up to 22nd June, 1,310 new and 250 reconditioned motor cars were supplied. 2,737 are still on order. This includes requirements, in Germany, of the Control Office for Germany and Austria.
    Sir W. Smithers: How much more public money is to be spent on pampering bureaucrats at the expense of productive industry?

    Penicillin
    Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Supply when sufficient penicillin will be available to meet demand; and whether the Control of Penicillin (No. 1) Order, 1946, will then be revoked.
    Mr. Wilmot: Supplies of penicillin are steadily increasing but it will not be possible for some time yet accurately to estimate the demand. I will certainly give careful consideration to the desirability of discontinuing control measures immediately it becomes apparent that supplies are adequate to meet an uncontrolled demand.
    Sir J. Mellorasked the Minister of Supply why, under the Control of Penicillin (No. 1) Order, 1946, he has made anyone who, without approved prescription or authority, tries to buy penicillin, liable to imprisonment; and whether he will amend the Order so as to confine responsibility for infringement to vendors.
    Mr. Wilmot: No, Sir. Control is more effective against possible black market activities if proceedings can be taken against the person who acquires as well as the supplier.
    Sir J. Mellor: What steps is the Minister taking to inform prospective purchasers of the peril which they run?
    Mr. Wilmot: Penicillin can only be bought against a prescription, and that is the safeguard on which we rely.
    Sir J. Mellor: But what steps is the Minister taking to inform the general public of the contents of this Order under which a perfectly innocent purchaser runs the risk of going to prison?
    Mr. Wilmot: I am indebted to the hon. Member for a further opportunity of making these facts known.

    Magnesium Factories (Use)
    Mr. Awberyasked the Minister of Supply how many factories, erected during the war for the manufacture of magnesium, are now lying idle; what the cost of these has been; and what his policy is regarding them for the future.
    Mr. Wilmot: Three factories, erected at Government expense during the war, have ceased the production of magnesium as, with the end of the war the demand has fallen very steeply. The first, erected at a cost of £990,000, is surplus to requirements and has been transferred to the Ministry of Works for temporary house production, pending a decision as to its final use. The second, erected at a cost of £4,350,000, has been placed on a care and maintenance basis as standby capacity, and is being used for storage. The third was only partly employed on magnesium production, expenditure on magnesium capacity being £760,000. The entire factory has been notified as surplus, to the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Awbery: Are these factories to be turned over to peace purposes? If so, when?
    Mr. Wilmot: If my hon. Friend will look at my answer, I think he will find there the answer to his supplementary question. One of the factories is being used now for peacetime manufactures. Another has been declared to the Board of Trade, for them to find a new use for it, and the third is on a care and maintenance basis, being used for storage and as standby capacity.
    Mr. Awbery: Is it not a fact that the storing is only in the yard, and that the factory is not being used?
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Do I gather from the Minister's answer that £4 million worth of factory space is standing there as standby capacity? One would like to know how long it is to be standing there as standby capacity, and when it will be used for useful productive purposes.
    Mr. Wilmot: These factories were part of our war potential. The demand for magnesium during the war was 100,000 tons per annum, but it is now less than 2,500 tons, and most of that can be got from scrap. It is impossible to destroy the capacity to produce magnesium. The best arrangements are being made.

    Newchurch Hall, Culcheth
    Sir Robert Youngasked the Minister of Supply for what purpose Newchurch Hall, Culcheth, Lancashire, is to be used in the future; how many coalmining trainees anti building trade workers have received notice, or are to receive early notice, to leave or be transferred to another locality; how many of them will be provided with other accommodation; what changes in financial terms of residence and conditions of employment will take place; and whether Newchurch Hall is to be controlled by the Co-operative Holiday Association or the Ministry of Supply or other body of owners or departmental employers.
    Mr. Wilmot: This hostel will continue to be managed by the Co-operative Holidays Association as agents of the Ministry of Supply and will be used primarily for employees of the Ministry of Supply and of the Admiralty. Nine coalminers and 11 other residents have already been given notice to leave, and 19 coalminers and 35 building trade workers will shortly be given notice. The charges for hostel residence are to be increased by 5s. a week with effect from 29th July and certain other minor adjustments are being made. I would also refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour on 30th May.
    Sir R. Young: Is it a fact that the coal mining trainees have been selected to go first because of the grimy nature of their appearance when they return from the mines? Further, is he aware that that is thought to be the reason for these people having been selected in large numbers?
    Mr. Wilmot: No, Sir, I think not. The reason why these people have been asked to leave—and it is regrettable that they have to leave—is that the accommodation in the hostel is wanted in connection with the royal ordnance factory for which it was provided. However, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is making alternative arrangements for them.

    Housing Estates, Yorkshire (Rents)
    Colonel Stoddart-Scottasked the Minister of Supply (1) if he will now state the reassessed rents on his
    20
    Department's housing estate, Victoria Avenue, Ilkley; and, in view of the fact that the reassessed rents have been settled and are to be applied at once to these houses, if he is aware that the tenants are still on rent strike as no reductions in rents have taken place;
    (2) if he has yet decided the revised rents for his Department's estates at Horsforth which on 3rd June were being reviewed in the light of a new formula.
    Mr. Wilmot: A reduction in the rents on these two estates has been approved and I have sent the hon. and gallant Member particulars.

  WAR MEDAL RIBBON (SUPPLIES)
  Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Supply the source of supply of the ribbon for the medals of the three Forces; how much comes from foreign countries; and from which countries.
  Mr. Wilmot: All medal ribbon is normally produced in this country, but a small amount was ordered abroad by local Army commands.
  Sir W. Smithers: Is it not a fact that some of the war medal ribbon was made in Germany?
  Mr. Wilmot: A small amount was ordered abroad, including Germany, by the local Army commander.

  >U.N.R.R.A. (QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS)
  Mr. De la Bèreasked the Prime Minister whether in view of the substantial financial contribution this country makes to U.N.R.R.A., he will now name the Minister to whom questions concerning U.N.R.R.A. should be directed, since affairs affecting the administration of U.N.R.R.A. are not matters for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; and whether a full statement of the work carried out by U.N.R.R.A. from 1st January to 1st June, 1946, can now be given to this House.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The Foreign Office is responsible for supervising, and coordinating generally, relations between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and U.N.R.R.A., and Questions relating to the general policy of

  21
  His Majesty's Government towards U.N.R.R.A. should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Questions relating to the procurement of U.N.R.R.A. supplies from the United Kingdom should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. The Director-General of U.N.R.R.A. will present a report at the Fifth Session of the U.N.R.R.A. Council, which opens at Geneva on 2nd August, covering the work of the Administration during the period mentioned by the hon. Member. A copy of this report will be placed in the Library of the House as soon as it is received. In the meantime, copies of U.N.R.R.A. publications containing information on the work being carried out by the Administration in Europe are available in the Library.
  Mr. De la Bère: Is the Lord President of the Council aware that the people of this country want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and that they are afraid they cannot get it if various Ministers answer in bits and pieces regarding U.N.R.R.A.? Does he realise that an enormous amount of money is being paid by the people of this country towards the administration of U.N.R.R.A.? Surely, we are entitled to have proper information from the Minister who is responsible to the House for these activities.
  Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are a great many rumours in regard to U.N.R.R.A. supplies, and that many of them are mischievous in character? Will he take steps to let the general public know just what does happen to the supplies which are distributed in Europe through U.N.R.R.A.?
  Mr. Morrison: When we know particulars of those misapprehensions we shall certainly be glad to give them attention.
  Mr. De la Bère: Are we not to get further information? It is very unfair.

  WAR CASUALTIES, SCOTLAND
  Mr. Scollanasked the Prime Minister what are the statistics of war casualties for Scotland of Service and civil personnel.
  Mr. H. Morrison: I have been asked to reply. As the reply contains a number of
  22
  figures, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister proposes, with permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the reply:
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Caernarvon Boroughs (Mr. Price-White) on 25th October, 1945, when I stated that the estimated number of men from Scotland in the Services and Merchant Navy killed while on war service was 29,000 and the number of wounded was 32,000. I would remind my hon. Friend that these estimates were based on analyses of samples; and, on the assumption that the proportion of Scottish to total casualties is still the same as the proportion revealed by the sample, it is estimated that the number of men from Scotland in the Services and Merchant Navy killed up to 28th February, 1946, is 31,000, and the number wounded remains unchanged at 32,000. The number of casualties to civilians in Scotland is 2,295 killed and 2,173 injured and detained in hospital.

  PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT (NATIONAL MEMORIAL)
  The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. SCOLLAN:
  47. To ask the Prime Minister if he has considered raising a national memorial to the late President Roosevelt for his friendship towards this country in the late war.
  Mr. Scollan: On a point of Order. I should like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that when I originally handed in this Question what it had in it was not what appears here at all. The Question contained these words: "For his friendship to this country during the dark days when we had no other friend in the world."
  Mr. H. Morrison: The answer is: "Yes, Sir," but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is not yet in a position to make an announcement.
  Captain Bullock: Is it not a fact that the Pilgrim Society have already started a national appeal, with the full approval of Mrs. Roosevelt, with the exact object mentioned in the Question?
  Mr. Morrison: That is one of the ideas which are under consideration.
  Mr. Scollan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I do not think there is a man

  23
  in the whole population of this country who does not realise that President Roosevelt was the one man who, against great opposition in his own country, came to our aid when we had no other friend?
  Mr. Morrison: I am sure we all respond most strongly to the sentiment which is behind the point raised by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Walkden: May I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind, when considering this point, that we wish the recognition to be a nation's thanks on behalf of the whole of the people, and not merely recognition by one or two organisations, however good and kindly they may be?
  Mr. Morrison: That point will be kept in mind.

  AUSTRIA (CONTROL AGREEMENT)
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will take steps to make the full text of the new Control Agreement for Austria available to hon. Members and to the public.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): The Allied Council in Vienna is at present considering the publication of the new Agreement and I hope that the text will be published very shortly.
  Mr. Warbey: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that we have great responsibility in this matter and that we cannot exercise it properly unless we are aware of the precise nature of our functions, responsibilities and obligations?
  Mr. Hynd: That is the reason for our proposal that these matters should be published.

  GERMANY

    Horticultural Glass
    Mr. Collinsasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will consider reducing the allocation of horticultural glass to German farmers and make available the resultant surplus to British growers.
    Mr. J. Hynd: Supplies of glass in the British zone of Germany are insufficient to meet even essential requirements. In
    24
    view of the serious food shortage, it is imperative that as much indigenous pro duce as possible should be grown in the zone. I cannot, therefore, at the moment consider any reduction in the already in adequate allocation of glass to German farmers. I understand, however, that the possibility is being explored of bringing to this country glass-making materials from the American zone of Germany.
    Mr. Collins: Is my hon. Friend aware that the amount of produce from the existing glass houses in Germany is very small compared with the glass coverage? Can he inquire into this matter?

    Official Rations (British and American Zones)
    Mr. Molsonasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the present official rations in the American zone of Germany and the actual estimated consumption of calories per head in that zone; and how each of these compares with the comparable figures in the British zone.
    Mr. J. Hynd: There has been no change in the official ration scales in the British zone of Germany, and I am aware of no effective change in the American zone, since my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Lieut.-Colonel Corbett), on 13th May, which included detailed figures for both zones. In general, the rations issued have been kept up to the official scales. No reliable estimate can be given of the actual consumption per head because, as I pointed out in my reply of 13th- May, the supplementary foodstuffs available vary from place to place.
    Mr. Molson: Is it not a fact that, since 13th May, the Lord President of the Council has been to Washington and has arrived at an agreement with the State Department that the rations in the British zone should be brought up to the level of the rations in the American zone? Will the hon. Gentleman take up with his right hon. Friend the facts, as disclosed in his answer, that the American Government are not carrying out the undertaking that was given?
    Mr. Hynd: The hon. Member is misinterpreting the position. There was no agreement on the part of the Lord President of the Council that the ration scales in the British zone should be brought up

    25
    to the scales applying in the American zone. There was an agreement in regard to the achievement of common ration standards and about assessment of the ration standards.
    Mr. Molson: Is it not the same thing?
    Mr. Hynd: No, Sir. It was not agreed that rations in the British zone should immediately be brought up to those in the American zone.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: Was it not agreed, anyhow, that the ration scale in the American and British zones should become the same? Has that happened?
    Mr. Hynd: The purpose of the agreement that was reached was that common ration standards should be established, and consultations for the achievement of that purpose are going on
    Mr. Nicholson: Did I understand the Minister to say that the differing availability of supplemental foodstuffs vitiated the validity of comparative figures in this respect? If I did, will he call the attention of the Minister of Food to that point, in view of the speech which that Minister made last week?
    Mr. Hynd: All I said was that, as I mentioned in my reply of 13th May, there are certain circumstances such as the availability of supplementary food. That would include sharing out between families on different standards, as between heavy workers or nursing mothers and the normal consumers. That fact makes it impossible for the point in the Question to be answered as to how much any particular individual is consuming or whether the actual ration scales are being received and consumed by the individual.

    German Doctor, Göttingen (Sentence)
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will order a review of the sentence of one year's imprisonment passed by a Military Government court in Göttingen on a German, Dr. Mentzlaff, for failing to stand while the British National Anthem was played.
    Mr. J. Hynd: All sentences passed by Military Government courts are reviewed. In this case, a petition has also been lodged, and this will be considered at the
    26
    same time. Meanwhile, it would not be proper for me to make any comment.

  "GERMANY UNDER CONTROL" EXHIBITION (PROVINCIAL TOUR)
  Mr. Shurmerasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if, in view of the great interest taken by the people visiting the "Germany Under Control" Exhibition now on view in London, he will consider giving the people of the city of Birmingham an opportunity of seeing, this exhibition in the near future.
  Mr. J. Hynd: Yes, Sir. I think it most desirable that the people of the City of Birmingham should have an opportunity of seeing the exhibition. I have the matter under consideration and hope it will be possible for the exhibition, or part of it, to be put on tour and shown at Birmingham and other places, if suitable sites can be made available.
  Mr. Shurmer: Is the Minister aware that the information department of the City of Birmingham are prepared to give every assistance as soon as possible in order that the exhibition may be held at Binning-ham?
  Mr. Hector Hughes: Will the Minister also consider sending the exhibition to Scotland?

  AGRICULTURE

    Poultry Feedingstuffs
    Mr. Hugh Fraserasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will now consider allocating feedingstuffs to keepers of poultry not on the basis of a 1939 registration but on that of the number of eggs delivered to egg-packing stations, where such stations exist.
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): No, Sir. As I intimated in my reply to the hon. Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Hare) on 1st April, the allocation of feedingstuffs to poultry keepers on the basis of the numbers of eggs delivered to packing stations has been considered and found to be impracticable.
    Mr. Fraser: Is the Minister aware that some of the people who were registered in 1939 must now be dead? Is he further aware that if he were to adopt such a

    27
    procedure as is suggested, it would prove a serious deterrent to the black market in eggs now prevalent throughout the country?
    Mr. Williams: I fully appreciate the point that the hon. and gallant Member has in mind, but I would remind him that the number of eggs produced does not depend wholly on rationed foodstuffs issued to poultry keepers but on the total quantity of foodstuffs, including unrationed food, that can be grown or procured by the poultry farmers. Further, it would be necessary to segregate the rations for birds kept for egg production from those for birds kept for breeding or destined for slaughter. It is a wholly impracticable proposition.
    Mr. W. J. Brown: Is not the Minister aware that many poultry keepers have diminished the number of poultry they keep, and they are now receiving rations altogether out of proportion to the number of fowls actually on the premises, and that, conversely, people in the same way of business in 1939 who have expanded their poultry receive a ration utterly inadequate for their needs? If the present suggestion is not the right one, can the Minister think up something a little less out of date than 1939?
    Mr. Williams: I am satisfied that the present system is the most equitable one that can be found.
    Wing-Commander Roland Robinsonasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has yet considered the resolutions passed by the Lancashire Federation of Poultry Societies requesting that adequate compensation should be paid to egg producers for the losses caused to them by the recent cuts in feedingstuffs; and what action he proposes to take in this matter.
    Mr. T. Williams: Yes, Sir, but I am not in a position to say whether it will be possible to meet the representations of these poultry societies.

    Feedingstuffs
    Mr. Randallasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that, arising from the announced 4o per cent. cut in feedingstuffs, a cross section of farms on second-rate land, where the first half-gallon was waived, has been taken and produced an estimate that whereas last winter a farmer was eligible for 1,570
    28
    units, next winter only 305 will be drawn; and, in view of these figures, if he will consider reviewing the allocation of units as a matter of urgency.
    Mr. T. Williams: I have not seen the estimate referred to. If my hon. Friend will let me have particulars I will write to him.
    Mr. Randallasked the Minister of Agriculture if, in order to build up protein and cereal units for county reserves and for producers on second-rate land, he will give consideration to a scheme for next winter, whereby farmers on first-rate land shall only receive units up to requirements of sufficiency, or, alternatively, to raise the gallonage after maintenance.
    Mr. T. Williams: The ability of a dairy farmer to become more self-sufficient in feedingstuffs depends on a number of factors, of which the quality of the land is only one, and it would be administratively impracticable and probably unfair to operate a rationing scheme which was based only on the quality of land. If, however, my hon. Friend has any concrete proposals in mind and would let me have particulars, I should be happy to consider them.

    Ploughing-up Orders (Smallholders)
    Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will instruct county agricultural committees not to serve ploughing-up orders on smallholders who have no machinery of their own, unless the county committees are able to guarantee that they will provide labour and facilities for ploughing, seeding and harvesting at the appropriate times.
    Mr. T. Williams: County war agricultural executive committees are composed largely of practical agriculturalists with a knowledge of local conditions. They are aware that the directions they issue must be reasonable, and have been told that they must give an occupier on whom they serve a direction an opportunity to make any representations he desires. I am satisfied that a committee would not confirm a ploughing-up order on a smallholder lacking the necessary machinery and other facilities unless they were confident that the assistance required would be available either from a contractor or a neighbouring farmer, or from the committee's own resources.
    Sir W. Smithers: In the event of a farmer being compelled by the W.A.E.C. to plough up his land against the advice of the farmer, and there is a loss, who pays the loss?
    Mr. Speaker: That is another question.

    Temporary Silos
    Mr. John Morrisonasked the Minister of Agriculture if he has considered the use of surplus road side ammunition shelters converted into small temporary silos to augment the silage crop where practicable.
    Mr. T. Williams: Yes, Sir. I am at present considering this suggestion. In adopting it, precautions will be necessary to protect the metal from the action of silage acids, and to secure structural strength. I hope to issue advice on this matter to farmers shortly.

    Seeding Units
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will give the names and prices of seeding units used as an attachment to a tractor, comparable to the unit known as 7135/X, which are being manufactured in this country; what stocks of each are now available to British farmers and horticulturists; and where these units can be obtained.
    Mr. T. Williams: Wessex Industries Ltd., of Poole, are the only manufacturers of these seeding units in this country. I regret I am not in a position to give particulars of this company's business, as the returns made to my Department are supplied on the understanding that figures for individual firms will not be disclosed. I am however assured that this firm has sufficient stocks in hand to meet present demands.
    Mr. Stewart: Was it only that firm which the right hon. Gentleman had in mind in telling me last week that there were lots of alternative machines available, and is there only one type of machine?
    Mr. Williams: I said there were a number of machines available but not a number of different kinds, as this is the only firm making this particular machine.
    Mr. Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the supply of those machines is adequate? My information is that it is not adequate.
    Mr. Williams: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my reply, he would have heard me say "I am, however, assured that this firm has sufficient stocks in hand to meet present demands."

    Motor Mowers
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is now possible to remove the restrictions, imposed on the ground that the two-stroke engine is in short supply, on the purchase of motor mowers for agricultural use, having regard to the fact that water-pump units fitted with such engines can be obtained without restriction.
    Mr. T. Williams: All restrictions on the purchase of motor mowers for agricultural purposes were removed on 27th May, 1946.

    Livestock (U.N.R.R.A. Purchases)
    Mr. Vaneasked the Minister of Agriculture what general arrangements he has made with U.N.R.R.A. for the purchase of livestock in this country; what is the maximum number of the main types of livestock which U.N.R.R.A. may purchase in this country over the next 12 months; and to which country it is intended that the livestock so purchased shall be licensed to be sent.
    Mr. T. Williams: In pursuance of previous arrangements in general terms U.N.R.R.A. was asked early this year for estimates of the numbers and types of livestock which it was desired to purchase in this country during the present year. These estimates were examined by my Department in the light of the general livestock position and U.N.R.R.A. was informed in detail how far we could meet the requests. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the agreed maxima for various classes of stock. As indicated in the answer to the hon. Member's Question to the President of the Board of Trade on 3rd July, the allocation of livestock to the receiving countries rests with U.N.R.R.A. in consultation with the countries concerned.
    Mr. Vane: In thanking the Minister for his reply, I should like to say that he is the third Minister who has been asked that question and the first who has been able to answer it.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Would the Minister say how this reply fits in with the recent restriction on any export of livestock from this country?
    Mr. Williams: I do not remember the restriction referred to.
    Following are the particulars:

    50

    mares and geldings of the vanner type.

    500

    heavy working horses.

    12

    Welsh cob stallions

    all pedigree

    30

    Suffolk Punch stallions (50 if 2 year olds)

    25

    Suffolk Punch mares

    30

    Percheron stallions (50 if 2 year olds)

    12

    Percheron mares

    50

    Pedigree British Friesian bulls (100 if non-pedigree, subject to tests for tuberculosis, contagious abortion and trichomoniasis).

    25

    Pedigree Dairy Shorthorn bulls (100 if non-pedigree, subject to the same tests).

    20

    South Devon bulls

    all pedigree.

    10

    Lincoln Red bulls

    50

    Kent rams

    50

    Hampshire Down rams

    25

    Dorset Horn rams

    10

    Cheviot rams

    4

    Black-faced rams

    1,000

    Hampshire ewes

    120

    Cheviot ewes

    100

    Large White boars

    100

    Essex boars

    100

    Middle White boars

    100

    goats (does)

    50

    goats (bucks)

    It has also been agreed with U.N.R.R.A. that these numbers will be reviewed later in the year having regard to the livestock available and the general food situation at that time.

    Tractors (Priority Orders)
    Mr. Frank Byersasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will state the number of priority orders for tractors which have been granted by W.A.E.C.s during the last 18 months; and how many of those granted over 12 months ago have not yet resulted in the farmer obtaining a tractor.
    Mr. T. Williams: I regret that this information is not available without special inquiry, but the great majority of tractors produced in this country are delivered to farmers within six months of the committee's approval.
    Mr. Byers: Is it not a grave reflection on the Ministry of Agriculture that there is no system of continuous review to see if the farmers are getting the tractors they require? Will the right hon. Gentleman take some steps to give service to the farmers?
    Mr. Williams: It cannot possibly be a reflection on the Ministry, because these reviews constantly take place.
    Mr. Byers: But does the Minister review them?
    Sir Ralph Glyn: Will the Minister make a survey of the number of tractors laid up for lack of spare parts?
    Mr. Williams: I do not see the point of making a survey. We know that for want of spare parts there are, unfortunately, far too many American machines laid up which were imported during the course of the war, but as the hon. Member will be aware, we have done our level best to try to provide the spare parts, for all those tractors.
    Sir R. Glyn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hon. Members will support him in representations to the Ministry of Supply and the Treasury in order to obtain these spare parts before the harvest?
    Mr. Williams: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no shortage of dollars for this purpose. It is a question of American manufacture, plus trade disputes, and the dislocation which has occurred has prevented us from meeting our needs.

    Growing Corn (Opencast Coal Workings)
    Colonel Gomme-Duncanasked the Minister of Agriculture how many acres of growing corn of this season's crop have been sacrificed for the purpose of opencast coal mining; and what were the equivalent figures for 1945.
    Mr. T. Williams: I regret that I am not in possession of this information, the collection of which would involve the expenditure of a disproportionate amount of time and labour. Except where it is unavoidable, no land carrying growing corn or other arable crops is entered upon for opencast coal mining until after the crops have been harvested.
    Colonel Gomme-Dunean: But in view of the food situation today, and the very low grade of coal that can be obtained by opencast coal mining, is the food situation not more important than opencast coal?
    Mr. Williams: I have already told the hon. and gallant Gentleman that, except where it is unavoidable, no land carrying growing corn or other arable crops is entered upon for opencast coal mining until the crops have been harvested.

    Acquired Land, Atcham (Housing)
    Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Agriculture whether it was with the approval of his Department that land belonging to Mr. T. Williams, Chapel House Farm, Minsterly, Salop, has been acquired by Atcham Rural District Council for housing purposes
    Mr. T. Williams: The proposal of the Atcham Rural District to purchase land belonging to Mr. T. Williams, of Chapel House Farm, Minsterly, Salop, for housing purposes was submitted to my Department in accordance with the usual procedure. It was not considered that objection to the proposal could justifiably be raised on agricultural grounds.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind two things: firstly, that the six acres in question are producing animal foodstuffs and corn, and secondly, that they form a part of a twenty-four acres farm which will probably necessitate that farmer going out of business? Will he use his influence to get his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health to reconsider the matter?
    Mr. Williams: I understand that the report of the inquiry by my war agricultural executive committee was to the effect that the acquisition of the land would tend to spoil the smallholdings but that the consequent loss to agriculture would not be serious.

  BECHUANALAND (FUTURE STATUS)
  Mr. Skinnardasked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether in view of the importance to Bechuanaland of the Union of South Africa's demand for the incorporation of South-West Africa, permission will be given for Chief Tshekedi to visit Great Britain and express his views.
  Youngerasked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs upon what grounds permission was refused to Chief Tshekedi, of Bechuanaland, to come to Britain to put forward his views on the future of South-West Africa.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Bottomley): A memorandum has been received from the
  34
  chiefs of the Bechuanaland Protectorate, including Chief Tshekedi, expressing their views on this subject, and the High Commissioner has also had a personal discussion with Tshekedi. A reply to this memorandum is being prepared in consultation with the High Commissioner. My right hon. Friend does not consider that the interests of the Bechuanaland Protectorate are in fact involved in the question of the future status of South-West Africa, and he has, therefore, felt unable to authorise the grant of special facilities to Tshekedi to visit this country for a discussion with him of this issue.
  Mr. Skinnard: Since Britain is the recognised protector of the High Commission territories in South Africa, should not the principal spokesmen of the Bechuana people be afforded every facility to consult the Secretary of State for the Dominions at the highest level here in England, first hand, when they feel that their future is menaced by possible developments?
  Mr. Bottomley: I think it would be unwise to assume that their future is threatened. It is much better that we should allow the High Commissioner, with the Secretary of State, to consider the memorandum and in due course provide a reply.
  Mr. Younger: Does not my hon. Friend think it obvious that the population of any territory adjacent to a country which may be put under trusteeship must be directly concerned? As the Charter allows consultation with States directly concerned, does not he think it reasonable that the protecting Power should allow the people to express their views to the United Nations through the protecting Power?
  Mr. Byers: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that the Secretary of State for the Dominions stated that this passage is to be refused because of the unfortunate repercussions which would arise if a Bechuana chief were to undertake a campaign of opposition to the proposals being made by the Government of the Union of South Africa through U.N.O., and is this really the way to protect the rights of a minority?
  Mr. Bottomley: I would say this, that this proposal is the very way in which the interests of the natives might be damaged.

  35
  I believe that my right hon. Friend is as much concerned with looking after the interests of the natives as any hon. Member present in the House.
  Mr. Skinnard: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will endeavour to raise the matter at the earliest opportunity on the Adjournment.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Gas Mantles, Herefordshire
    Mr. Baldwinasked the Minister of Supply what steps he proposes to take to increase the supply of gas mantles in the Colwall district of Herefordshire.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps): I have been asked to reply. I am not aware that the Colwall district of Herefordshire is receiving less than its fair share of the available supplies, but if the hon. Member will send me full particulars of his complaint I will have it looked into.

    Newsprint
    Brigadier Mackesonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will, give an estimate of the weight of paper used by the national and local Press during, respectively, the first quarters of 1936 and 1946.
    Sir S. Cripps: No figure of consumption of newsprint for newspapers in the first quarter of 1936 is available but the amount used in the first quarter of 1946 was 73, 500 tons which is approximately 26 per cent. of the pre-war consumption.
    Brigadier Mackeson: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Government are now using four times more paper than 10 years ago, and will he reduce the consumption of paper by the Government, which is quite unnecessary, and increase it to the Press?
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir.
    Brigadier Mackeson: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Hides, Skins and Leather
    Mr. Attewellasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what
    36
    steps he is taking to maintain and increase supplies of upper and lining leather;
    (2) if he will explain the method by which hides, skins and leather are received by this country by international allocation.
    Sir S. Cripps: The International Committee on Hides, Skins and Leather was wound up with the unanimous agreement of all the members on 26th June and international allocations of these materials have now ceased. We are, therefore, now free to obtain material without restrictions as to quantity and my hon. Friend can be assured that subject to due regard being given to market conditions, all possible steps will be taken to maintain, and if possible, increase supplies of upper and lining leather. I must again emphasise that while the world shortage continues it will be necessary to augment the leather available by the use of substitutes wherever possible.
    Mr. Attewell: Is the Minister aware that many boot and shoe operatives, clickers, are now working short time in the main centres?
    Sir S. Cripps: I am aware that there is still great difficulty about leather supplies, which we are trying to remedy.

    Crêpe Rubber
    Mr. Attewellasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give an estimate of the tonnage of crêpe rubber used by the footwear industry in the second quarter of 1939
    Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir. Between 1,500 and 2,000 tons.

    Flax Factory, Easingwold (Holiday Pay)
    Mr. Turtonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that six employees of his Department at their flax factory at Easingwold, who were on holiday in the period that included V-Day and Whit-Monday, have received no pay in respect of these days, whilst the remainder of the employees have received pay for these days of statutory holiday; and if he will correct this anomaly.
    Sir S. Cripps: The employees referred to were absent without leave during the

    37
    whole of the week ending on Victory Day, and consequently were not paid for that week including Victory Day. They did however return to duty on the Tuesday after Whit-Monday and received pay for the whole of that week.
    Mr. Turton: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make an investigation into this matter to make it quite clear that these employees were not actually given leave for that period?
    Sir S. Cripps: An investigation has been made, and it is quite clear.
    Mr. Turtonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether employees at his Department's flax factory at Easing-wold will receive holidays with pay this year.
    Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir.

    Perambulators
    Mr. Mackasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes taking to make good the shortage of perambulators in the Newcastle-under-Lyme and North Staffordshire areas.
    Mr. Alfred Edwardsasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the position regarding the supply of perambulators; and if he will give figures for the first six months of the present year.
    Mr. James Callaghanasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will withdraw export licences for all perambulators until the home demand is satisfied.
    Mr. Medlicottasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the shortage of perambulators in East Anglia and many other parts of the country; and if he will prohibit or limit the export of perambulators until a sufficient number have become available to meet the requirements of mothers in Great Britain.
    Sir S. Cripps: Whilst the available figures covering the first five months of this year show a steady increase in production (from 35,200 in January to 42,700 in May) the demand for perambulators still exceeds supply. I am much concerned by the hardship that this is
    38
    causing and every effort is being made to overcome manufacturers' production problems, including the supply of components. I am aware that there is a shortage of perambulators in most parts of the country, but I have no evidence that retailers in Newcastle-under-Lyrne, North Staffordshire, and East Anglia are not getting their fair share of available supplies. Of the 209,863 perambulators produced during the first five months of this year, 188,432 were supplied for the home market. A limit of 4,500, representing about 10 per cent. of total production, has been placed upon the number of perambulators which may be manufactured for export. I consider it desirable that this small flow of exports should continue.
    Mr. Mack: Knowing how anxious the President of the Board of Trade is to stimulate the production of babies in this country, which normally follows a natural time-table, will he also stimulate his Department to turn out perambulators to meet this urgent need; and is he not aware that in Newcastle-under-Lyme and district a "fair share" in allocation has turned out to be only a spare share?
    Sir S. Cripps: There are certain problems, especially in regard to components, wheels and so on, which make it very difficult to increase the perambulator production any more rapidly than it is being increased at present.
    Mr. Nicholson: Has the increase gone up over the corresponding period of last year, and, if so, by how much?
    Sir S. Cripps: Very much indeed, but I could not give the figure.
    Mr. Nicholson: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not aware that, while he was away, figures were given showing that the production in the earlier months of this year were lower than was the case last year?
    Mr. Callaghan: Will the Minister reconsider the decision to allocate 4,000 perambulators for export? Prams are something mothers cannot do without.
    Sir S. Cripps: The export market is something the country cannot do without, too.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put,
"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. H. Morrison.]
The House divided: Ayes, 222; Noes, 86.

Division No. 236.]

AYES.

[3.40 p.m.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

Goodrich, H. E.

Randall, H. E.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Gordon-Walker, P. C.

Ranger, J.

Allighan, Garry

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

Rankin, J.

Attewell, H. C.

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Rees-Williams, D. R.

Austin, H. L.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Reeves, J.

Awbery, S. S.

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Ayles, W. H.

Gunter, Capt. R. J.

Robens, A.

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

Guy, W. H.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Bacon, Miss A.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Baird, Capt. J.

Harris, H. Wilson

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Balfour, A.

Harrison, J.

Rogers, G. H. R

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Scollan, T.

Barstow, P. G.

Haworth, J.

Scott-Elliot, W.

Barton, C.

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Segal, Dr. S.

Battley, J. R.

Hobson, C. R.

Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.

Bechervaise, A. E.

Holman, P.

Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

Belcher, J. W.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Benson, G.

Hoy, J.

Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)

Berry, H.

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

Shurmer, P.

Bing, G. H. C

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Binns, J

Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

Skeffington, A. M.

Boardman, H.

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Skeffingtan-Lodge, T. C.

Bottomley, A. G.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Skinnard, F. W.

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

Irving, W. J.

Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Janner, B.

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

Brook, D. (Haifax)

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

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

Brown, George (Belper)

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Snow, Capt. J. W.

Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

Kinley, J.

Sparks, J. A.

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Kirby, B. V.

Stamford, W.

Buchanan, G.

Leslie, J. R.

Stephen, C.

Burke, W. A.

Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

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

Lewis, J. (Bolton)

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

Byers Lt.-Col. F.

Lipson, D. L

Stubbs, A. E.

Callaghan, James

McAdam, W.

Swingler, S.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

McEntee, V. La T

Symonds, Maj. A. L.

Chamberlain, R. A.

McGhee, H. G.

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Champion, A. J.

McGovern, J.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Chater, D.

Mack, J. D.

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

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

Clitherow, Dr. R.

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Therneycroft, H. (Clayton)

Cluse, W. S.

McLeavy, F.

Thurtle, E.

Cocks, F. S.

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Tiffany, S.

Collindridge, F.

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Titterington, M F

Collins, V. J.

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

Tolley, L.

Comyns, Dr. L.

Marquand, H. A.

Usborne, Henry

Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

Mayhew, C. P.

Vernon, Maj. W F

Corlett, Dr. J.

Middleton, Mrs. L

Viant, S. P.

Cove, W. G.

Mikardo, Ian

Walkden, E.

Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A.

Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

Walker, G. H.

Daggar, G.

Monslow, W.

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Daines, P.

Montague, F.

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

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Moody, A. S.

Warbey, W. N.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

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

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Moyle, A.

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

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

Nally, W.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Naylor, T. E.

Wigg, Col. G. E.

Deer, G.

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Wilcock, Group-Capt. C A. B

Diamond, J.

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Wilkes, Maj. L.

Dobbie, W.

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

Wilkins, W. A.

Dodds, N. N.

Noel-Buxton, Lady

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Driberg, T. E. N.

Oldfield, W. H.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Orbach, M.

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Dye, S.

Paget, R. T.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Edelman, M.

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.

Willis, E.

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Woodburn, A.

Evans, J. (Ogmore)

Pearson, A.

Woods, G. S.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Peart, Capt. T. F.

Wyatt, Maj. W.

Ewart, R.

Perrins, W.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

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

Piratin, P.

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Foster, W. (Wigan)

Popplewell, E.

Zilliacus, K.

Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Porter, G. (Leeds)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Proctor, W. T.

Mr. Simmons and Mr. Hannan

NOES

Amory, D. Heathcoat

Hollis, M. C.

Nutting, Anthony

Baldwin, A. E.

Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Beechman, N. A.

Hurd, A.

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Birch, Nigel

Hutchison, M.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

Pickthorn, K.

Boothby, R.

Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C)

Prescott, Stanley

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A'

Jeffreys, General Sir G

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

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

Keeling, E. H.

Robinson, Wing Comdr. Roland

Bochan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Langford-Holt, J.

Ropner, Col. L.

Bullock, Capt. M.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

Ross, Sir R.

Butcher, H. W.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Carson, E.

Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

Smithers, Sir W.

Channon, H.

Linstead, H. N.

Snadden, W. M.

Clarke, Col. R. S.

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

Conant, Maj. R, J. E

Lucas, Major Sir J.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Darling, Sir W. Y.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Strauss, H. G (English Universities)

De la Bère, R.

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

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

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Drayson, Capt. G. B.

Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'ddt'n, S.)

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

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Teeling, William

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Maepherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D

Marsden, Capt. A.

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

Glyn, Sir R.

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Turton, R. H.

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G

Maude, J. C.

Vane, W. M. T.

Grimston, R. V.

Mellor, Sir J.

Wakefield, Sir W. W.

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Molson, A. H. E

Walker-Smith, D.

Hare, Lieut.-Col. Hon. J. H. (Wdb'ge)

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

Ward, Hon. G. R.

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Haughton, S. G.

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

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

Neven-Spence, Sir B.

Commander Agnew and

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Nicholson, G.

Mr. Studholme

Question put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CIVIL AVIATION BILL
  Order for Consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Ivor Thomas): I beg to move,
  "That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of the Amendments in Clauses 28, 32, 35 and 5r, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Ivor Thomas."
  3.48 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Williams: I fully realise that at this stage we cannot enter into a discussion about the arrangement of Business, but I should like to raise my voice in protest against the growing practice of recommitting Bills in respect of considerable numbers of Clauses. Here, we are recommitting a Bill, after it has been in Committee upstairs, where inevitably it has taken a certain amount of time. I cannot, of course, discuss whether that time is deserved or undeserved—we shall deal with that later—but the points on which the Bill is being recommitted should have been thought of and dealt with before. It is not as though we were recommitting the Bill on a few small points. If the recommittal of a Bill is to involve about one-seventh of
  42
  the whole of the Clauses, if we are to follow this habit of having a Bill recommitted in respect of whole blocks of Clauses, we are practically introducing a second Committee stage, which I think is a bad practice.
  I could easily produce a good many more reasons for objecting to this course, but I have no wish to do more than to protest against the obstinacy of those in charge of the Bill because it has to be recommitted, at this stage, in respect of matters which should have been dealt with in the Committee. Of course, I realise why the Attorney-General laughs at that. Naturally, he rejoices in incompetence. We all know that that his strong line. Naturally, this amuses him because, so to speak, he is of it. But I think it is against the best interests of the House that the Government should come, time after time, asking us to recommit Bills for consideration of Amendments to large numbers of Clauses. I would add that we have had no explanation from the Government why the House should be put to all the trouble of going back on the Committee stage of a Bill. Two of the Clauses concerned here are large ones, and a third is fairly large. This is one of those instances in which it is unfortunate that the Government did not do their thinking long before the Bill had reached this stage. It shows that the people who are really holding up the House are the Government,

  43
  with their own grave lack of ability to know precisely what they are doing. That was well explained the other day during a speech by one of their own Cabinet Ministers.
  Mr. Ivor Thomas Mr. Ivor Thomas rose——
  Mr. Williams: No, I am sorry. I wish to make it quite clear that I am not reflecting in any way on the Minister who, I am quite sure, is absolutely harmless, and completely without any ill-intention.
  Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman will realise that I could give him no explanation until the Motion was opposed. Half the proposed Amendments for which recommittal is sought, are designed to meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The others are for purposes which I am sure the House will appreciate.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sure we on this side of the House cannot accept the observation of the Parliamentary Secretary that one-half of these Amendments are designed to meet points raised by us. I hope that when we get a little further he will amplify that statement and the fallacy of it will then be clear to the House. It is quite untrue. It would be ungenerous on our part if, having had some of our points met—as we have—we then objected to this recommittal; but the hon. Gentleman grossly exaggerated the number of Amendments which are, in any sense, a concession to points made by the Opposition. I should like to join with my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) in drawing attention to the fact that this recommittal is largely the result of the overloading of the legislative programme of the Government which prevents them from bringing Bills before the Committees upstairs in a proper form and one which really meet the points which the Government have in mind.
  We had a very important point which we were anxious to raise on the Report stage but we realised that as it would involve a charge upon the Treasury, it would be impossible for us to raise it without the Bill being recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House. We knew, as this point was one we were anxious to make, that the Government would not provide us with the facilities for recommitting the Bill. Therefore, I do not think we can allow the Govern-
  44
  ment's use of this method to pass unchallenged. We have had three months of hard argument about this Bill in Committee upstairs. Many were the journeys that were made by Ministers one to the other and to their advisers.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): Three months?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sorry. We had six to seven weeks' hard discussion on this Bill. Many were the journeys by Ministers to take advice from one another. Many were the opportunities to improve the Bill. We now register our protest that it has been thought necessary to recommit the Bill in respect of these various Amendments.
  Mr. Scollan: This protest is thoroughly unjustified. How many times have we listened to protests from hon. Members opposite about not getting the time necessary to discuss all the points in Bills which, they said, were being rushed through by the Government? The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) has made it quite clear that he objects to the Bill being recommitted, and submitted to the House, with further Amendments as a result of the Committee's work. What is the point of bringing back the Bill, if the Minister cannot propose Amendments as a result of the work done upstairs?
  Mr. C. Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman permit me to say——
  Mr. Scollan: What the hon. Gentleman is doing is making a protest against the very procedure that has been asked for——
  Mr. Williams: No.
  Mr. Scollan: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is protesting against the very procedure which hon. Members opposite have been asking time after time should be put into operation. Repeatedly we have heard right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite complaining about legislation being rushed through, and protesting that the necessary time was not being given to it. Now, when they are getting the time, they are making a further complaint. I ask the House to treat this protest in the fashion in which it ought to be treated. It is simply another method of getting in anti-Government propaganda
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: That is quite wrong. It is not a question of time; it is a question of form. There is plenty of time on the Committee stage for the Minister to put down his Amendments, for my hon. and right hon. Friends to put down theirs, and for those Amendments to be debated at length. What we are objecting to is the invasion of the rights of the House on the Report stage, by a recapitulation of the Committee stage, which ought to have been completed upstairs. I wish the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council were here. It was he who devised the elaborate process of having five Standing Committees upstairs in order to get through the business of the House. That idea of his is now breaking down. This is not the only example. We had the same thing last week in the case of the New Towns Bill. The Government do not carry through the process devised by the Lord President of the Council, in regard to Committee stages upstairs. Instead, they leave points over raggedly, and bring them down to the House on the Report stage forcing the House to go into Committee and making it necessary for you, Mr. Speaker—although you will of course make no complaint about it—to leave the Chair and go to your apartments and return later. Hon. Members attend expecting a Report stage but find instead they have to bother with another Committee stage for perhaps an hour or two. The thing is getting out of hand. I hope the Lord President will be informed of the way in which his own ideas are breaking down.
  Mr. Stephen: When the new procedure was adopted I thought it obvious that as so many more Committees were being set up it might be necessary to modify the former practice in the House. I am surprised that Members of the Opposition have taken up this attitude. The Government are anxious to meet them. After the discussion of these matters in the Committee upstairs, the Government are anxious to come to the House and give hon. Members a bigger opportunity than they had in Committee to deal with these points. For Members of the Opposition to protest against that, shows to me their mental instability and weakness. Surely, the Government are showing a certain generosity. They are not seeking simply to rush things through without giving
  46
  opportunity for recommittal on points which have emerged in the Committee upstairs.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: May I bring the discussion back to the remark of the Parliamentary Secretary to the effect that a number of these Amendments had been put down in order to meet the wishes of the Opposition? [HON. MEMBERS: "Half."] May I draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman to that on Clause 28, page 18, line 7, and the following Amendment, to which the name of the Minister of Supply appears? These have not been put in to help the Opposition on the Committee stage, but merely because the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend had forgotten——
  Mr. Speaker: We cannot discuss the details of Amendments which are to be discussed in Committee.
  Sir T. Moore: I was merely pointing out, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman made a mistake in stating that so many of the Amendments were put down to meet points which had been raised by the Opposition.
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]

CLAUSE 28.—(Power of Minister of Transport to stop up and divert highways, etc., in the interests of Civil Aviation.)
4.0 p.m.
Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, in page 18, line 6, after "purposes," to insert:
"(including the testing of aircraft designed for civil aviation)."
Perhaps it will be convenient if we discuss this Amendment and the next two Amendments—in page 18, line 7, after "Aviation," insert "or the Minister of Supply," and in line 7, at end, insert, "or the Minister of Supply"—together, as they deal with the same subject. The purpose of this Amendment is, largely, to meet circumstances which have arisen in connection with the building of the very large aircraft known as the Brabazon I or the Bristol 167. This is a very large aircraft indeed. It will have an all-up weight of 300,000 lb., or 130 tons, it has a length

47
of 177 feet and a wing span of 230 feet. Hon. Members will therefore see that it needs a very large runway for testing. The machine was designed in 1943 and has been under construction at Bristol. It is hoped that it will make its first test flight in May of next year. I am sure that the Committee will be very anxious that this machine should get into the air as quickly as possible. It is the only British machine under construction which will be able to fly non-stop from London to New York, and, if any complaint can be made against us, it is not that we have such machines under construction, but that it is the only machine of this class that we have under construction.
The existing runway at Bristol is not adequate. It was known, of course, from the outset that it was not adequate and that, at some time, powers would have to be sought to lengthen the runway there. The existing runway is to be extended so as to have a length of 2,750 yards and a width of 100 yards. We have searched through the existing law, and the provisions are not satisfactory for closing and diverting the highways that this extension of the runway will necessitate. Accordingly, we are bound to come to Parliament for that purpose. It would have been possible to come with a separate enactment, but we are very busy in Parliament nowadays, and we hope that, for this great project, which, I am sure, the whole Committee approves, hon. Members will give us the powers we seek in this enactment, which will permit the Minister of Transport, on behalf of the Minister of Supply, to divert highways or close highways, not only for the purposes of civil aviation but for the testing of aircraft designed for civil aviation. The Minister of Civil Aviation is not able to do this, because, under the Ministry of Civil Aviation Act, he is expressly excluded from the production of civil aircraft. I trust that, in order that there may be no delay in this great project, the Committee will readily agree to this Amendment, and the consequential Amendments.
Air-Commodore Harvey: I quite appreciate the details given us by the hon. Gentleman, but it is unfortunate that the aeroplane had to be built at Filton. The points I would like to inquire about are: When will this runway be
48
completed, if the necessary powers are given; how many houses will have to come down, and. have adequate arrangements been made to house the people who are to give up their homes?
Mr. Thomas: It is planned that the runway shall be completed and the aircraft make its first test flight in May, 1947. The number of houses which will have to come down is 36, and houses to take their places have already been built, or, I should say, almost built.
Wing-Commander Roland Robinson: I think it is reasonable that the Minister should have the powers asked for in this Amendment, but I have one point of criticism against the Government and against the present Minister of Civil Aviation. It is that they did not do something about it a long time ago. This is another example of the policy of delay and procrastination which we have had in civil aviation. We started building the Brabazon I a Iong time ago, and, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, the building of that machine has had to proceed in quite inadequate accommodation. We ought to have had an assurance that the runways would be built and the houses demolished. I hope that we shall not have a continuance of this policy, and that, before the Minister proceeds with plans for any new prototypes of aircraft, he will complete full plans, so that the building can proceed with the greatest speed.
Mr. Thomas: I have great sympathy with what the hon. and gallant Gentleman says, but it is in fact an attack on our predecessors in office.
Wing-Commander Robinson: No. The hon. Gentleman has been there himself for a year now.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I was going to rise in an atmosphere of good will to wish prosperity to the Brabazon I, and I shall not allow myself to be diverted from that by the historical inaccuracy of the Parliamentary Secretary. We wish every success to this aeroplane, which, we are confident, will win and retain the blue riband for the United Kingdom. We know much about the difficulties which have been experienced in connection with this task. We know something of the difficulties with which any Government has had to contend in dealing with local vibrations caused by the building of a

49
runway and a factory of this kind. Some of us were closely associated with the runway at Bristol during the last stage of the war and the period of the caretaker Government, and we know that there was agreement in the last Government, as there had been in the Coalition Government, that this project had to go forward. There were fears expressed in consequence, and one or two hopes that in future we should contrive to build the great leviathans of the air where there were adequate aeroplane facilities. There has been complete agreement; this Government have inherited the responsibility of their predecessors, all the facts and information were available to them, and they have agreed on the decision of their predecessors. We are therefore at a loss to understand why so long a time has elapsed before these powers have been sought.
Mr. C. Williams: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) on his remarks. He has given us the first real light we have had in this discussion. The Parliamentary Secretary has asked for power which, quite obviously, ought to have been in the Bill originally, in order to have the larger runways in connection with the new aeroplanes to which every one of us will wish success. The fact remains, however, that the Government have known all these things for a long time.
It should be remembered that the building of this aeroplane was not started after the Standing Committee stage of the Bill; its construction has been going on for a long while. In framing a Bill of this sort, the Government should make provision for larger aerodromes from the start, and not attempt to provide for such things by Amendment at this stage of the Bill. With the greatest possible sincerity, I should like to congratulate the Government on waking up to what is necessary, even at this late hour, and about which they ought to have known many months ago. At any rate, it is good to see at least one Member of the Government occasionally awake these days, and I hope something will be done to wake up their singularly dull speeches as well.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made:
In page 18, line 7, after "Aviation," insert "or the Minister of Supply."
In line 7, at the end, insert "or the Minister of Supply."—[Mr. Ivor Thomas.]
Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, in page 19, line 6, after "provisions," to insert:
"including provisions for authorising the compulsory purchase of land."
It may be convenient to the Committee if this Amendment and the next one, in page 19, line 41, to leave out Subsection (6), were taken together, as they are related. They have been put down to meet the points made in Committee upstairs by hon. Members opposite, especially the hon. Member for Thirsk and Maldon (Mr. Turton), and it would be ungenerous on my part not to pay tribute to the help he has given us in the framing of this part of the Bill.
Mr. Turton: While I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary, I should be much obliged if he would not refer to me as the Member for Thirsk and "Maldon" and thus confuse me with the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) who spoke on Friday.
Mr. Thomas: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon; I meant "Thirsk and Malton." As I said, it would be ungenerous of me not to pay tribute to the help of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton in the drafting of this part of the Bill. Owing to our discussions upstairs, I think that this part of the Bill has been considerably improved. At one point upstairs the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton asked that we should make provision to give substituted rights of access where a highway was closed or diverted, and, in this Amendment, we are seeking to take powers for that purpose. It means that the Minister of Transport, if he finds it necessary or expedient to provide a right of way, whether public or private, to replace one stopped up by his order, will be able to obtain the land compulsorily for that purpose. The hon. Gentleman also asked if we would take powers to provide new culverts where they were stopped. There is no power in this Bill enabling the Minister to stop culverts, but, if a culvert was made unusable by any provision under this Bill, the Minister of Transport would equally, by this Amendment, have the power to purchase the land compulsorily for that purpose. If this Amendment is accepted, it follows that we

51
shall no longer require Subsection (6) and, therefore, we seek to delete it
4.15 P.m.
Mr. Turton: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for putting down this Amendment which carries out most of what I had intended to do in the Standing Committee. I was trying to get the Minister to use the wording which his predecessor used in the Acquisition of Land Act, and I am glad that he has realised that his own words were not so wide as those of his predecessor. There is one small drafting point to which I should like to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention. To my mind, the Amendment should read:
"including provisions authorising the compulsory purchase of land."
That would delete the word "for," which I think is superfluous, and bring the wording into line with that in the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act. It is purely a drafting point, and if the Parliamentary Secretary agrees with what I have said, I hope he will leave out the word "for." It is always awkward for the legal fraternity to find two Clauses in two different Acts drafted almost, although not exactly, alike. I do not want to have to go to the House of Lords on the word "for."
I am not quite satisfied with the Minister's explanation of the proposal to leave out Subsection (6). What will be the procedure adopted by the Minister of Transport when he purchases land under these additional words if Subsection (6) is deleted? Subsection (6) brought this part of the Bill into line with the more comprehensive Acquisition of Land Act, 1946, with the exception of Section 2. I should have thought that, where we had a comprehensive Measure like that, it would have been better to use the procedure under that Measure rather than to use special procedure under this Bill or to have to rely on the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945. Perhaps the Minister would deal with these two small points. Generally speaking, we are grateful to him for the help he has shown, and we believe that the Opposition has carried out a constructive task which has been successful in guiding the Government to wisdom.
Mr. McKie: I wish to join with my hon. Friend the Member for
52
Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) in thanking the Minister for having gone such a long way to meet the fears and apprehensions of those of us who served on the Standing Committee. My hon. Friend pointed out upstairs the great inconvenience, to use a mild term, to which dairy farmers, particularly, would be put if some such wording as the Minister has now seen fit to introduce were not incorporated in this Bill. I represent an area which is very largely given over to dairy farming, and which has had considerable inroads made into its dairy land during the long six years of war, and I naturally share the apprehensions of my hen. Friend on this point. I agree with him that the Minister has gone a long way to satisfy our fears, or rather the fears of our constituents and of all the people living in rural constituencies in this country with regard to what their position might have been if some kind of safeguard similar to that which is shortly to be incorporated in this Bill had not been brought forward by the Parliamentary Secretary. For the efficient carrying on of our agricultural industry, about which this Government are at long last showing some little concern, it is imperative that proper means of access should be provided to the farms in the interest of those whose daily bread it is.
I am a little concerned with the way in which the Parliamentary Secretary rather lightly passed over the apprehensions, which were also expressed by my hon. Friend and myself upstairs, with regard to the question of culverts, and the powers of the Minister of Transport in that connection. I am not quite sure that I understood him correctly, but I understood him to say that there was nothing that he could do.
Mr. Thomas: What I said was that there were no powers in this Bill for the Minister of Civil Aviation or anyone else to close a culvert, but that if one should be made unusable under the provisions of this Bill, the Minister of Transport would be enabled to buy the land and provide another one.
Mr. McKie: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I think that goes a long way towards meeting our fears concerning the question of culverts and of access and roads to farms. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton cited a case in one of the Yorkshire constituencies

53
where a very large area of good agricultural land had been rendered more or less derelict through lack of proper culverts. We do not want that kind of thing to occur in the future. We have had quite enough cases of good agricultural land taken away as a result of necessary wartime works, without incurring any further unnecessary risks of that kind. I hope that the powers of the Minister of Transport, to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred, are as comprehensive as the hon. Gentleman seems to think they are.
Finally, I would like to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton said about Subsection (6). It seems that what the Minister is giving us in one hand, by his addition to Subsection {3), he is taking away with the other hand by asking the Committee to agree to the deletion of Subsection (6). Our whole object is to strengthen this Clause as much as possible, so as to make sure that full powers are given to the Minister of Transport to safeguard the rights particularly of those people connected with the agricultural industry, which we feared might be interfered with by the passage of this Bill, and particularly this Clause. I join with my hon. Friend in saying that, so far from watering down the existing rights provided in this Clause as it emerged from the Standing Committee, the Minister should retain Subsection (6), unless he or the Attorney-General has some good, cogent and compelling reason which will persuade us to agree that the Bill would be better without that Subsection.
Mr. Thomas: In putting down the words "provisions for authorising" as opposed to "provisions authorising," there was rather a subtle point in our minds. It is that the Order under Clause 28 will authorise the making of another Order authorising the compulsory purchase. However, I am willing to have this point considered again. Grammatically, I think either form of wording would be satisfactory and there may be nothing in it, but we will consider whether it is worth while having an Amendment made in another place. The analogy of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act breaks down, because the procedure for making Orders under that Act is different from making Orders under Clause 28 of this Bill. With regard to the deletion of Subsection (6), which was raised by the hon. Member for Galloway
54
(Mr. McKie), it is contemplated that the Order referred to in Subsection (3) as proposed to be amended would use the procedure of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act. It is not, in fact, necessary to state it, because it is intended that that Act shall be the basis of any acquisitions of public land. However, I will have that paint also considered.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, in page 19, line 41, to leave out Subsection (6).
Mr. McKie: Would the Parliamentary Secretary be good enough to indicate a little more clearly what he proposes to do about this Subsection? He said that he would look into it, and that if it seemed necessary to retain this Subsection he would see what could be done about it later on. I would point out that, so far as this Committee is concerned, it must be now or never; or, perhaps, the Parliamentary Secretary has in view the possibility of asking that an Amendment shall he made in another place if necessary?
The Attorney-General The Attorney-General indicated assent.
Mr. McKie: I see the right hon. and learned Gentleman nods his head.
The Attorney-General: I meant, not that we would ask the other place to do it, but that we would consider the points put forward, and if we thought them well founded, we would then ask the other place to do it.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 32.—(Provisions as to displacements from land.)
Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, in page 22, line 42, after "displacement," to insert:
"being residential accommodation suitable to the reasonable requirements of those persons."
This Amendment is intended to bring this Bill into line with the language of the New Towns Bill in which a similar Amendment was inserted as a result of wishes expressed by hon. Members. It prescribes the kind of alternative accommodation which it will be the duty of the Minister to provide for residents who are displaced by the acquisition of land for civil aviation purposes or, for

55
example, by directions for the demolition of buildings. I think this Amendment will commend itself to the Committee without further argument.
Mr. Turton: These words appear to be reasonable. I would add that I hope the Minister has looked at the New Towns Bill, to see that there will be no difficulty in the working of this provision.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
4.30 p.m.
Mr. McKie: Before we part with this Clause, I would like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on getting the Committee to agree to this Amendment without a Division, and on introducing the Amendment largely in response to fears which were expressed in the Standing Committee by several of my hon. Friends and myself with regard to the lot of displaced persons under Clause 32. It is only fair to say that my hon. Friends and myself showed very much more regard for what would be the possible lot of these unhappy people who are to be displaced as a result of the construction of many large aerodromes all over the country, if their fate had been left entirely in the hands of the Government; by that, I mean if we had not expressed very reasonable fears and apprehensions as to what their position might have been had the Clause gone through as originally drafted.
I can only think that the concern which we expressed impressed itself on the Parliamentary Secretary, and particularly upon the learned Attorney-General. I remember saying myself if they did not show, either in Committee or when the Bill came back to the Floor of the House, that they had the concern of these people more at heart it might go very badly indeed with the chances of right hon. Gentlemen occupying the Treasury Bench, and all those supporters of the Government behind them, when another appeal to the country is made. I am bound to say, that I was a little depressed—perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary or the learned Attorney-General will say something about it this afternoon—when we were informed in Committee that it was not contemplated anything much would be done before the
56
year 1950 with regard to really getting this Bill going.
Mr. Thomas Mr. Thomas indicated dissent.
Mr. McKie: The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head. Perhaps he will tell us a little about it in a minute or two. The view in the Committee was that the people who were likely to be displaced need not really worry, because by the time 1950 came no doubt the Minister of Health would have a few houses built, or in the course of erection, and there would be houses for these people. However, on reflection wiser counsels have prevailed, and this afternoon the Minister, by moving this Amendment, has very readily induced the Committee, especially hon. Members on this side, to do something which would further safeguard the interests of those persons—and there may be very many of them—who will be displaced from their houses as a result of the passage of this Bill and it becoming an Act of Parliament.
Mr. Thomas: The words which the hon. Gentleman has just quoted from me applied only to the London Airport; when I said there would be no substantial demolition of houses until 1950, that applied only to the extension of the London Airport and was not meant to have wider application. Indeed, we have been looking ahead, before this Bill receives the Royal Assent, in order that it may be carried out as swiftly as possible. I take this opportunity of saying that I cannot deny the hon. Gentleman any pleasure he may feel at improvements made in the Bill upstairs. I must also express my gratitude to other hon. Members, especially my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee who sit for constituencies in the neighbourhood of the London Airport, who have made certain representations. Their advice has been very helpful.
Sir William Darling: I wish I could share the comforting conclusions of my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) regarding this Amendment.
Mr. McKie: I did not mean to be comforting at all.
Sir W. Darling: The Amendment says:
"being residential accommodation suitable to the requirements of those persons."
That is a very vague and unsatisfactory arrangement. If I occupied a house

57
which I believed would be taken over by the Ministry it would give me little comfort to know that this was my provision for alternative residence. My reasons are fairly obvious. The building of a new house is a task which is straining to the uttermost the capacity of the Ministry responsible, and the provision of residential accommodation for a person such as myself would seem to be entirely beyond their capacity. Therefore, I find little comfort in the assurance which seemed to please one of the largest landowners in Scotland.
Mr. McKie: I am sure my hon. Friend does not wish to misrepresent me. I am no more satisfied than he is. However, I am a little more satisfied now by the inclusion of this modest Amendment in this Clause. I am very glad my hon. Friend is now expressing what I really do think.
Sir W. Darling: My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway has reached a pretty pass. He has reached the pass when he is thankful for small mercies. There was a time when he would take nothing less than his rights.
The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): This is not the occasion on which to estimate degrees of thankfulness.
Sir W. Darling: I am grateful to you, Mr. Beaumont, for keeping me in Order. Not only do I not regard this as the occasion, but I myself am no good at estimating those degrees. I will proceed to the more relevant matter of Clause 32. This raises the very large question of what land, generally, is to be used for air development in this country. It seems to me the question of priorities has not been fully considered. Though this may not be the most appropriate Clause on which to discuss it, it does seem to be involved here. Houses, whether they be the humble houses of the poor or the large residential houses of the great, are to be swept away in development. In their place we are assured that "the reasonable requirements of those persons" will be met. I direct the attention of the Minister to the vast spaces in this country which are unsuitable for agricultural purposes and unsuitable for residential purposes, but which might be made available for the purpose of civil aviation. Up till now, the idea of those in charge of civil aviation has been to take a populous area,
58
or alternatively valuable agricultural land, and devote it to their purposes. In this crowded little island there are many places which seem to me to be capable of similar adaptation. If those places were surveyed in any critical way it would be seen that places which were suitable for the use of aircraft during the war might be made equally suitable in time of peace. This reckless use of our national resources without regard to their ultimate value seems to be quite characteristic of the Ministry. It 13 a measure to which I, at any rate, cannoa give my approval. Consequently, I am opposed to Clause 32.
Mr. Turton: The Minister, in speaking on this Clause, said that with the exception of Heathrow not many houses would be displaced. I want to press him a little on that statement. He knows that in the Committee I mentioned the fact that in the area of Rawcliffe Aerodrome near York the only four houses built there since the war—all built by private enterprise—have now, we understand, been ordered to be pulled down. When I made that statement upstairs I was glad to see that two days later a representative of the Ministry of Civil Aviation made a statement that the houses were not going to be pulled down. However, my gratitude was very short-lived, for two days later came a counter-order from the Ministry of Civil Aviation saying there was no truth in that assertion. In this matter of people being displaced from their home. by civil aerodromes it is important that, first, the Minister should make up his mind early, and secondly, when he has made up his mind he should let the public know what his decision is. What happens is, a whole host of rumours surround all these proposed sites for airfields, which are alarming to the people trying to make their homes there—and homes are very hard to find at the present time—and it also has the effect of making planning in that area extremely difficult.
In regard to Rawcliffe Aerodrome, at one time we were told that the four houses then in the course of erection were to be pulled down; and we were also warned that 86 other houses, the homes of people in my constituency, were to be pulled down. That has never been contradicted. I have never attached any great significance to that second rumour, because I felt it was so hard on these people that no Minister would want to pull down 86 houses, at a time when so few houses are

59
being built. We now find in regard to the four houses which have just been built, into which the tenants are moving and settling down, the Minister of Civil Aviation tells us they are to be pulled down, and I presume my constituents will be displaced. Where on earth they are to get other homes, I do not know. I think we are entitled to ask the Minister to tell us a little more about what he is doing, and what he is threatening to do, so that these people can continue to live in their homes in peace until more houses can be built.
Mr. Ivor Thomas: I am sorry to learn from the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) that when we acquire land for civil aviation purposes, he does not want us to provide alternative accommodation for persons displaced from that land.
Sir W. Darling: If the Parliamentary Secretary understood me to say that, he misunderstood me. I was concerned that this was a not satisfactory guarantee that I would have alternative accommodation in return for that from which I was being displaced; the reason being that His Majesty's Government have been unable to supply ordinary accommodation for ordinary people wanting ordinary houses, and I was doubting the ability of the Government to supply larger residences.
Mr. Thomas: That is very different from what I understood the hon. Gentleman to say, which was that he was opposed to this Clause, as its object is, where we acquire land for civil aviation purposes, to permit us to provide—indeed, to impose upon us the duty of providing—alternative accommodation of a suitable type. I am glad we have cleared that up. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Mallon (Mr. Turton) has raised again the question of the Rawcliffe Aerodrome near York. I obviously cannot go into that, although the hon. Member has very skilfully brought it in by reference to the pulling down of houses. He knows, because he was present at a conference I held, that I gave an assurance that no more houses would be pulled down, except possibly two which had been built in one of the flight-ways of the aerodrome.
Mr. Turton: I heard there were four.
Mr. Thomas: As I understand it, there were two, but I gave that assurance, and
60
it was published in the Press, so I feel no difficulty in referring to it here. With regard to the general position, there has been no change; what has happened there is typical of what is happening in many parts of the country. We have a strong demand from a powerful section of public opinion, including the City Council of York, that this aerodrome should be taken over as a transport aerodrome. The acquisition is strongly opposed by people in the neighbourhood, quite understandably, and we have a very difficult choice to make between them. It is obviously the case that if the aerodrome is to be taken over for public purposes, we must safeguard the approaches, and for that reason the warning has been given. Until a decision can be reached which will be satisfactory to everybody concerned, or at least to as many people as possible, I trust there will be no further building in the flight ways, which have to be safeguarded. Actually there cannot be any more now because it has been forbidden. That is all there is to that story. Any delay is not due to any inability on the part of my noble Friend to make up his mind, but to the difficulty of reconciling local interests.
Mr. Harold Macmillan: The Parliamentary Secretary used a phrase just now which slightly surprised me. He said that a matter which he was referring to had already been published in the Press, and therefore he found no difficulty in mentioning it to the House of Commons. If I may venture to say so, I should have thought that exactly the opposite was true.
Mr. Thomas: I can explain that. The hon. Gentleman would understand perfectly well; he brought a deputation to see me, and an agreed report was published afterwards. I am referring to that agreed report.
Mr. H. Macmillan: I quite understand, but it seems a strange phrase, to which I venture to call attention now, when the rights of the House of Commons are not so sedulously cared for as they used to be.
Mr. Thomas: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me in defence of the rights of the House of Commons.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 35.—(Expenses of Part II.)
Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, in page 25, line 43, after "shall," to insert:
"to such extent as the Treasury may direct."
The object of this Amendment is to deal with cases where the Minister of Transport, when stopping up or diverting a road under Clause 28, for which he has now been given the powers, takes the opportunity of providing an alternative road which affords better facilities for the road-using public than the original road. Under Clause 28, Subsection (2) (a), the Ministry of Transport may provide or improve any highway in place of any highway which is stopped up or diverted. As the Clause stands, the expenses of that improvement would fall on the Ministry of Civil Aviation. It is obviously fair that the Ministry of Transport should pay for such share as is due to the improvement, and the purpose of this Amendment is to enable the Treasury to make fair allocation between the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the Ministry of Transport in respect of the improved roads.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, in page 25, line 44, at the end, to insert:
"or by the Minister of Supply.
(2) Any expenses incurred by the Minister of Supply by reason of any such direction as aforesaid shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.
(3) Except in so far as any expenses incurred by the Minister of Transport in consequence of the passing of this Part of this Act fall, by virtue of any such direction as aforesaid, to be defrayed by the Minister of Civil Aviation or the Minister of Supply, or fall to be defrayed out of the Road Fund under any other Act, they shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.
(4) There shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament any such increase in the sums payable into the Road Fund out of moneys so provided as is attributable to the passing of this Part of this Act."
This is a similar Amendment. Under Clause 28, as now amended, the Ministry of Transport is to be enabled to provide or divert highways for the benefit of the Ministry of Supply with regard to the testing of aircraft. It is only fair therefore that the cost of such works should be borne not by the Ministry of Civil Aviation but by the Ministry of Supply. That is the first part of this Amendment. Subsection (3) of the Amendment provides that that part of the expenses of the Ministry of Transport which is not
62
passed to the Ministry of Civil Aviation or the Ministry of Supply shall be defrayed out of the Road Fund, so far as it can properly be paid out of that fund. We have however, to make provision that where it cannot be paid out of the Road Fund, it may be paid by the Ministry of Transport out of its own funds; that may arise, for example, under Clause 32 which we have just been discussing. There the Ministry of Transport is required to provide alternative housing accommodation where it takes land for the purpose of alternative highways. It would not be proper for such expenditure to he borne by the Road Fund, and the main object of this Amendment is to secure a proper apportionment of expenses between the Ministry of Civil Aviation, the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Transport. It is also provided that there should be paid into the Road Fund any increased sums due to this Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
4.45 P.m.

CLAUSE 51.—(Expenses of Part III.)
Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, in page 40, line 31, after "in," to insert "Subsection (1) of."
This Amendment is consequential to those which we have just accepted in Clause 35, and relates to Northern Ireland. If this Amendment is carried, it will mean that the Treasury will have power to direct that the expenses of the Ministry of Commerce in Northern Ireland under Clause 28 shall, to such extent as is proper, either be borne by the Ministry of Civil Aviation or by the Ministry of Supply. There is no need for us, in this consequential Amendment, to go into the question of how the Minister of Commerce for Northern Ireland shall apportion his own expenses between himself and the Road Fund of Northern Ireland, because that is a matter for legislation by the Northern Ireland Government.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, in page 40, line 34, to leave out from "Ireland," to the end of the Subsection, and to insert:
"in consequence of the passing of Part II of this Act."

63
This is only a drafting Amendment, relating again to Northern Ireland. It brings the language of Clause 51, Subsection (9) into conformity with Clause 35, Subsection (1). A more important thing is that Clause 51, Subsection (9) is wrong as it stands in speaking -only of the expenses incurred by the Ministry of Commerce under Section 28 of the Bill, because the Ministry of Commerce may incur expenses under Clause 32, which deals with the rehousing of displaced persons.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Before we conclude the business consequent on the recommittal of the Bill, and in the interests of accuracy, I should like to point out, and to remind the Committee, that out of the 10 Amendments it has passed, seven have been introduced to meet the convenience of the Government; and that of the other three, two of them, in our view, could have been brought in as ordinary Amendments on the Report stage. I say this only because it was suggested at the start that there was something ungenerous in the Opposition's opposition to the recommittal of the Bill.
Mr. Thomas: It is a matter of arithmetic. The hon. Gentleman has counted each Amendment separately, and I was lumping together those which were consequential. But I make no complaint.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall not press the point.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. McKie: Before we part with this Clause, I think the Committee would be well advised to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to clear up, at all, events, a few points in this exceedingly long, cumbersome, comprehensive and far reaching Clause. I regret that there is no hon. Member representing Northern Ireland in the Committee at the present moment; but, perhaps, as there is not, and as I am the Member who represents the constituency in Great Britain nearest the province of Ulster, I may be allowed to make a few observations. No doubt, I shall have assistance and support from
64
my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore), who, of course, has the honour and privilege of being an Ulsterman. I am rather appalled by this Clause. It has no fewer than 15 Subsections; and some of them are very long and some of them contain numerous references. It is not my intention to ask the Parliamentary Secretary or the Attorney-General to try to unravel all the referential statements in this Clause. I feel sure that many of my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee will join with me in deploring, once again, that we have such a cumbersome Clause in a Bill of this kind. But I should like to ask questions with regard to three of the Subsections.
Subsection (4) states that:
"Subsection (6) of section twenty-seven of this Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland."?
Clause 27 gives power to the Minister to obtain rights over land, and it is only Subsection (6) of the Clause which it is proposed to ask the Committee to agree to leave out. I will not weary the Committee by reading out this Clause, but I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to give us the reason why he thinks fit to ask the Committee to agree to this deletion now.
Then I should like the Parliamentary Secretary, in connection with Subsection (5) of this Clause, why he is about to ask the Committee to agree that the words in Clause 28
"repairable by the inhabitants at large "
should not remain in the Bill, and why there should be substituted for them, so far as Northern Ireland is concerned, the words:
"maintainable at the cost of a county or county district as the case may be."
I do not know what has moved the Parliamentary Secretary or the Government to propose that there should be this difference between Ulster people and all the other inhabitants of Great Britain who will be interfered with under this Clause 28. Is it that Ulster is obtaining some undue share of benefit? I hope that, in saying that, I shall not be accused of wishing to be unfair to Ulster. I am only anxious that Ulster should have her rights and liberties fully protected. I know she is very well able to stand up for herself. I recall the old words "Ulster will fight, and Ulster will be right." But as there

65
is no hon. Gentleman present who sits for Ulster, I should like to ask why it is proposed that there should be this difference?
There is one further point on which I wish to ask for some more information, anent this exceedingly long and cumbersome Clause. Why is it proposed that Clause 46 shall not extend to Northern Ireland? That is the Clause which deals with the registration of certain areas in the register of local land charges. I do not know why, but I am anxious to know why, the Clause shall not extend to Northern Ireland. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to persuade us that it is a good thing, that there should be any difference with regard to the registration of land in Northern Ireland, and in the rest of the United Kingdom. I confess that I do not understand. I should have thought it was just as important to have a very careful record of changes in the ownership of land in Northern Ireland, as in any other part of the United Kingdom. I await with eagerness the reply of the hon. Gentleman on this point, and also, of course, on other points on which the hon. Gentleman or the Attorney-General may see fit, at this moment, to enlighten the Committee, if, indeed, he has the necessary information at his disposal.
Sir T. Moore: Having been, as it were, goaded to take part in this Debate, I would only ask one question of the Parliamentary Secretary, and that is, Can we assume that the Government of Northern Ireland have been fully consulted about all the arrangements set out in Clause 51, and have they agreed in principle to the insertion of these provisions?
Mr. Ivor Thomas: The Clause is long, admittedly, and complex, but it is not contentious. It is a drafting Clause designed to bring this Bill into conformity with the many enactments which have been made concerning Northern Ireland and, in particular, with the fact that there are a Northern Ireland Government and Legislature which are empowered, within their own sphere, to do certain things. It would be wrong of us to exercise those powers for them. The Government of Northern Ireland, naturally, have been consulted, in the usual way, about this matter. I do not think there is anything in the least degree contentious here. The hon. Gentleman asked me about Subsec-
66
ton (5). It is a very long Subsection. He asked about the words:
"repairable by the inhabitants at large."
They are only to secure——
Mr. McKie: I asked why the hon. Gentleman proposed to leave out "repairable by the inhabitants at large" and to substitute:
"maintainable at the cost of a county or county district as the case may be."
Mr. Thomas: The answer is that the words "repairable by the inhabitants at large" are traditional in England and Wales and Scotland; but in Northern Ireland the words that have been inserted are the appropriate words. I think the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross), who is in the Committee, will agree. So, also, in the case of any other point of detail, it is designed to apply this Bill to the special circumstances of Northern Ireland.
5.0 p.m.
Sir Ronald Ross: It is quite correct, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, that this long and complicated Clause has been agreed with the appropriate authorities in Northern Ireland. I do not think there is any contentious matter in it, and I hope that it will he passed. There is, however, one point which I should like to mention. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me that in this matter the Government of Northern Ireland have cooperated, not only in letter but in the spirit, to try to make British civil aviation a success so far as it lies within their power.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.
5.2 p.m.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): Mr. Speaker has instructed me to report the following to the House: Clause 49, page 35, lines 13 to 15. It has been brought to my notice that the Standing Committee, which considered the Bill, inserted the following words:
" 'local authority' means the council of a county, county borough, metropolitan borough or county district, or the Common Council of the City of London."
Owing to an error, this Amendment has been wrongfully printed in the amended

67
Bill now before the House. It seemed unnecessary to reprint the whole Bill to correct this error and I propose, therefore, to direct that lines 13 to 15, on page 35, be altered so as to conform with the Amendment as inserted by the Standing Committee.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Can I draw attention to one further consequence of the spate of legislation to which we are now being subjected, namely, the strain thrown on His Majesty's Stationery Office?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is not permissible to do so.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Am I not entitled to raise the question of whether the Bill should not be reprinted? Is that in Order?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot give that permission. The hon. Member can raise that with Mr. Speaker. I have been instructed to read Mr. Speaker's decision to the House and it cannot be debated.
Mr. Ivor Thomas: To introduce a lighter note, I would point out that the City Remembrancer drew this to my attention. I am glad he was performing his function of remembering.
Sir T. Moore: Can the Opposition reserve any rights in this matter?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I would point out that there is no Question before the House. I now call on Major Vernon.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Staff appointments.)
(1) All appointments of officials to the Corporation other than those for which the Minister is responsible in accordance with the provisions of Section one of this Act, shall be made only on the recommendations of an independent appointments board formed jointly by the Minister and the Corporation; and after the passing of suitable tests of competence.
(2) In the appointment of officials and the selection of employees for the Corporation and in the promotion of any such employees or officials no political test or qualification shall be permitted or given consideration, but all such appointments and promotions shall be given and made on the basis of merit and efficiency.
(3) Any member of the Corporation or appointments board who is found by the Minister to be guilty of a violation of this provision shall be removed from office by the Minister and any official of the Corporation who is found by the Corporation to be guilty of a violation of this provision shall be removed from office by the Corporation.—[Major Vernon.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Major Vernon.: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is intended to remove what seems to us to be a serious objection to the Bill. It relates to the appointment of staff on the corporations. Everyone will agree that the success of this undertaking, as with almost any other undertaking, depends on the suitability of the staff employed—that is of extreme importance. It is not enough that people should be of excellent character and ability; their characters and abilities have to be adjusted to the functions which they have to perform. Looking to the past for examples, we find two methods in existence for appointing staff. One is the procedure in the Civil Service, and the other is the procedure of the joint stock companies. The Government had to choose either one or the other, or something between the two, which would combine the virtues of both and avoid the vices of either. It is because we feel that the Government have not been successful in doing this that this Clause has been moved.
The procedure in the Civil Service has been to have preliminary examinations set by the Civil Service Commissioners, then to sort people into appropriate Ministries or occupations. Promotion has always been by what were intended to be and what were fairly successful in being, impartial boards. The practice has been to advertise in the Press any openings for non-civil servants, and to circularise likely applicants where appointments were made within the Civil Service. This procedure has been followed through the ages, and defects which have occurred from time to time have been removed. This evolutionary process has come to fit pretty well. There has also been the possibility of Ministers in Parliament being responsible so that defects which occurred from time to time could be corrected. That is one method which has been tried as a going concern.
The other method is the procedure of the joint stock companies. The directors appoint managers, and they can give authority to appoint to lesser authorities who, at their discretion, make selections from their acquaintances or from applicants, and so it goes down to the shop superintendent and shop foreman in the case of factories. That system

69
was also evolved through the ages, and it has developed characteristic checks. If a foreman selected an inefficient man as a charge hand, there was a possibility of a strike. If selection at the top was unsuitable, the efficiency of the organisation might go down, and questions might be raised at the meeting of shareholders. Competitive firms might be able to please the customers better, and the credit of the firm would decline—bankruptcy was the final sanction. That system has had a complete scheme of checks. In the present instance the Government have gone over to the private enterprise or joint stock company method, departing completely from the Civil Service method. As we see it, the defect is that the old checks do not exist. If things went wrong with a joint stock company it might fail completely, and there was always that test. B.O.A.C. has £10 million behind it, and the whole setup means that competition cannot exist. There is always some other background of finance to prevent this test of efficiency being applied. The Civil Service method does not apply so well, because it does not give sufficient freedom, and it does not allow rapidity of change which is required in a growing and a somewhat adventurous service.
We propose in this Clause that an outside body, appointed jointly by the Minister and the corporation, should do preliminary selection. There should be some impartial outside body to check the appointments. One can arrive at this conclusion from one's past experience. My own experience has been half in Government service and half in private enterprise. I have seen things going right, and sometimes I have seen things go wrong. I have proved this through the years, and it is for that reason that I have confidence in proposing some alteration in the Bill. My experience has been reinforced by experience of others.
Since I have been in the House, I have been shown letters from employees of B.O.A.C. complaining about the work of that organisation. They happen to have been passed to me for examination. I know none of these people myself, nor is this the experience of my friends or acquaintances; this is entirely documentary evidence. My conclusion, after examining these documents, was that there were many defects among pilots, navigators and administrative staff, and
70
these complaints when traced back one by one pointed, in practically every case, to some unsuitable person in administration;: to an examination not properly conducted, or a person of experience being succeeded by an untrained outsider. Always you could trace it back to one of these people, appointed by someone above without any proper outside check. It is to remove that sort of trouble that we propose this new Clause.
Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: I beg to second the Motion.
This new Clause proposes a fundamental principle of organisation which should be incorporated in undertakings of a public nature. It is essential that in an organisation which is run in the public interest, there shall be a sense of public. confidence in the way in which the organisation is carried on. The only way, as I, see it, that we can ensure that and have some confidence in the people who are appointed to these corporations is that they shall be required to pass some qualifying test. They should go through some procedure which could be recognised by the public and that would tend to avoid the suspicions which occur at the present time as to the way in which people are appointed to these public undertakings. It is not only to avoid suspicion, but it is to ensure a right and proper qualification, that this new Clause is proposed. I think that it is in keeping with the experience obtained during the war, when officers were promoted from the ranks in the Services. They went before Selection Boards, which were constituted on a recognised basis, and that gave confidence to the men who were still serving in the ranks, because they could understand the way in which a man was promoted to officer status. I think that is one of the reasons why there was a degree of success in the way in which the various Services were run, because the men who were the leaders had proved themselves competent as leaders by passing the necessary tests before positions of responsibility devolved upon them.
It has become a practice in industry and in the professions that people should pass. a recognised test. One has only to refer to the various professional bodies, who have. constituted their professional examinations, to realise this aim. I refer, for instance, to the Institute of Chartered Accountants. They have recognised tests,

71
which are known throughout the world, and they result in a high degree of professional ability in the people who have the degree of Chartered Accountant after their names. The same applies to the Law Society. People are not entitled to practise law in this country unless they are qualified. This also applies to the architectural profession, in which people who wish to be recognised as authorities in their profession pass the examinations of the Royal Institute of British Architects. The same principle applies in the case of doctors and dentists.
If this new Clause is rejected, it could only be on the grounds that once a man is qualified by having passed the tests of some independent board, it would make dismissal difficult. I do not think that there is any foundation for that argument. In the case of a firm of chartered accountants, for example, who wish to have on their staff persons suitably qualified, the partners of the firm could quite easily dismiss any one of their staff. The fact that they have some specific qualification does not mean that the dismissal procedure is made difficult. It has been said, in the arguments put forward on the Committee stage by the Attorney-General, that this would interfere with the Board's independence, or their authority would be undermined, if it were laid down in the Act that people had to have certain qualifications before they could become members of the staff. I am not able to follow that argument. As I see it, the authority of the Board on the question of dismissal or appointment would only be subject to the right and proper check of an independent body of opinion, which could say whether or not poeple coming into the corporation measured up to a certain recognised standard. If it were found necessary to dismiss any of these people, the Board would have full authority to do so, without any reference to the Board, which, in the first instance, had passed the individuals out as suitably qualified.
5.15 p.m.
I would like to indicate some examples. The authority of the Minister is not in any way undermined by the fact that his civil servants have to pass the examination of the Civil Service Commission. I think that there is also a parallel in this case. In a firm of architects, if the partners are
72
themselves qualified and they engage qualified staff, they can still dismiss any member of that qualified staff without in any way affecting their own authority. I would like to refer to the opinion of organised labour on this matter. People employed under executives are very sensitive to the qualifications and ability of those people who are in executive positions. In the report prepared by the Iron and Steel Confederation they say, in putting forward their proposals with regard to nationalisation, that the members would be appointed on the grounds of their competence to conduct the affairs of the industry. It goes on to say that they should hold office for a specified term of years, and should be eligible for reappointment, and that an age limit should be fixed for membership of the Board.
How are we to ensure that these very admirable ideas are incorporated in our nationalised undertakings? I suggest that we can only ensure that by setting up some independent board, of the type which this new Clause suggests. It may be argued by the Parliamentary Secretary, or the Attorney-General, that this sort of thing is unnecessary to be incorporated in an Act. I would like to refer to a previous experiment in nationalisation. It was not conducted in this country, but I think that it will tend to illustrate the principle incorporated in this new Clause. I refer to the Tennessee Valley Authority in America. Its chairman, Mr. David Lillienthal, made this statement on one occasion:
"In creating the Tennessee Valley Authority, Congress adopted and carefully wrote into law the basic principles and practices of modern management."
I think that it is essential in Bills to set up nationalised undertakings, that we should endeavour to incorporate, wherever necessary, the main principles of sound organisation. This will ensure that these undertakings, which are of great concern to this country, shall be really successful.
Let me refer to other experiences of the past, because I think by learning from experiences of the past we can avoid a lot of mistakes in the future. From examination of the past we are able to avoid that initial period of trial and error which it is sometimes suggested nationalisation has to go through. I do not agree that it has to go through that sort of period which is

73
so often described as a period of such successive errors that it is a continuous trial to everbody. I well remember in 1943 when the incompetence of certain people in senior positions in the Corporation was before the public. It was criticised in this House, and as a result of the criticism, which originated to some extent with the staff who felt that the leadership was not all that it might be, certain people holding senior positions resigned. They included such people as Mr. Walter Runciman and Mr. Clive Pearson, but certain people who were also implicated in the criticism did not resign —people who had they to pass such a test as is suggested in this Clause would perhaps not have ben liable to this criticism. Three of these people had been associated with an organisation which had already failed.
As I have said, that was not a suitable qualification for being associated with this new Corporation. They were connected with British Airways, which was a financial failure. One of them is still in the Corporation as director-general. One would expect that that particular individual would be exemplary in his actions on the questions of appointments and promotions. I should like to refer to "Staff Notes" issued to members of B.O.A.C. on 30th April, 1945, when the setting up of the new corporations was contemplated. I refer to "Staff Notes Nos. 15, 16 and 17" and I quote the following:
"Whenever these other companies, and then any companies in course of formation to run local internal services overseas, are formed, and the partners promoting them (amongst whom is B.O.A.C.) required help in the recruitment of staff, application will be invited by Staff Vacancy Notices and will be considered by the Promotions Board in the same way as if the appointments were vacant within the Corporation."
It is quite clear that if anyone wanted to join one of these corporations like European Airways or South American Airways, the formation of which at that time was contemplated, they would have to pass the test of the Board That is right and proper, but then on 18th January, 1946, in spite of this being a staff notice and not having been cancelled, this particular individual, Major McCrindle, to whom I have already referred, in a letter referred to an individual who was a wing-commander, who was offered employment with B.O.A.C. with
74
a view to giving him definite employment as manager of an associated company when the next vacancy occurred:
"The understanding is that this individual will come to the Corporation for three months to learn as much as possible of various aspects. He was previously Nitta Transport Command, I think Intelligence side, although I believe he has at times been responsible for staging posts such as Malta."
Three months was the only qualification: suggested as necessary for this man to become a senior and responsible official—as a manager. This individual knew nothing about civil aviation and he could have known nothing about the position. to which he was about to be appointed. This letter went on:
"I would be glad if you would suggest a syllabus to enable him gain as wide practical knowledge as possible of the Corporation's affairs, e.g., operations, commercial and accountancy,"
A board was formed within the corporation to avoid people being given appointments in this way, and then immediately afterwards a member of the board of directors himself overrides the provisions of the board's communication to the staff. How could it be expected that the staff would respect the deliberations of these internal bodies, and it is for that reason that we suggest in this Clause that there should be an independent and external board to check the qualifications of members about to be appointed to the corporations.
I referred to three people who proved in the past their incompetence and yet were allowed to continue in senior positions. It is these people who are making selections to the Corporation at the present time. There is Mr. Campbell Orde, whose particular defects were criticised by the British Airline Pilots Association. He was responsible for sending Whitley aircraft on a trip to West Africa for which insufficient petrol was supplied. Only one aircraft completed the trip and the, others returned with the task incomplete. One man did get through by sheer good fortune and he had only half an hour's petrol when he arrived at his destination in Bathurst. The individual responsible for that operation is now advising the Chairman, Lord Knollys, what sort of aircraft the Corporation should buy. This incompetence makes the position quite ludicrous and must not be permitted to continue in the new corporations. Again I suggest that if these people had had to

75
pass a board in regard to their qualifications they would not get appointments in the corporations in this way. The third man, Gerald d'Erlanger, I know carried out duties with A.T.A. I know that is no yardstick by which to measure efficiency or otherwise, but he was on the Board of British Airways which failed. These illustrations I give, I suggest, are sufficient to substantiate the absolute necessity of incorporating in the Bill the new Clause which is on the Order Paper.
I want to refer now quite briefly to the question of promotion, because I have received a number of letters from men whose competence in the past has been proved, and who can make no headway at all in the corporation due to this overweight of incompetence at the top. I want to refer to one man who has years of flying experience and who has probably 'completed more trans-Atlantic flights than any other man in this country. He lost his job. He has no chance of getting into the corporation because the directors choose to select men who have got no qualification in civil aviation. That is to say, the Board appoint others instead of the men who have proved their competence in the way they carried out their job in the past. This particular individual is not only competent as a civil air line pilot, but has studied airline operations technique, which is very rare. I know that this man could, without any trouble, obtain a job in the United States, and he has, indeed, been offered such a job. We should not be letting men like this depart when we need them for civil aviation in this country.
There is another case of a flight-lieu-lieutenant who won the D.S.O. and the D.F.C. during the war and had other experience as well as with the R.A.F., but he was given no chance to make progress in the corporation because other men were promoted over his head. There was another case of a man who at Oxford University got his degree of Bachelor of Arts with a first class in mathematics and a second class in Modern Greats. He has been superseded by men who have no similar qualifications. There is a further case of a man who left the R.A.F. with his assessment as a pilot as "exceptional," also as an R.A.F. test pilot as "exceptional." These qualifications in the R.A.F. are not given lightly. Once
76
again that man cannot obtain employment in the corporation.
Mr. John Lewis: It does not follow that if a pilot excels in operational duty with the R.A.F. he is highly suitable for civil aviation duties.
Mr. Cooper: I am very conscious of that and I am glad my hon. Friend intervened on that point. It is not necessarily an indication that a man who excels with the R.A.F. in operational duties is suitable for civil aviation duties, but in this particular case this individual was a civil air line pilot before he was an R.A.F. pilot, and he also undertook an executive position with creditable results. I think it can be shown to an overwhelming degree that there is need for a board to be set up under the provisions of this Bill similar to that which is suggested on the Order Paper. It cannot be argued that to incorporate this new Clause would be contrary to Government policy, because I can quote the Lord President of the Council in this respect. Speaking in the Debate, on the iron and steel industry as recently as 28th May, he made certain proposals with regard to people who should be appointed to nationalised undertakings. My right hon. Friend agreed with the Opposition and with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir A. Duncan). My right hon. Friend said:
"…the right hon. Gentleman was absolutely right in saying that it is vitally important—in this industry particularly, indeed it is vital to all industries—that there should be, as he said, a responsible, creative flexible management. He said that it was difficult to get that, but that we must get it. I entirely agree with him, and I undertake to the House that the Government will make every endeavour, and strive with great energy, to see that this industry gets just that kind of management."
5.30 p.m.
If the Government are to do that, then one of the simple ways of doing it is to incorporate this new Clause in the Bill. My right hon. Friend then went on:
"It is often assumed that, when an industry becomes publicly owned, somehow or other it cannot be efficiently served. What does a limited liability company do when it wants to get people to run its undertakings? It really must not be assumed that the average director manages the affairs, or indeed the average chairman, though some of them do. What the joint stock company does is to go out into the market and buy brains, skill, technical knowledge, managerial ability and proletarians. The State can do the same;

77
the public corporations can do the same, and these are going to be public corporations, business concerns; they will buy the necessary brains and technical skill and give them their head.''—OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th May, 1946; Vol. 243, c. 1118–1119.]
That is a right and proper statement to make; I do not think anybody would disagree with it. But how is it to be implemented? I suggest by the Government adopting the proposal we have put forward in this Clause. I trust we shall hear from the Parliamentary Secretary that it is the Government's intention to incorporate this Clause in the Bill or, if they do not like the form of words, such words as will do what we require.
Air-Commodore Harvey: I do not go so far as the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper) but, nevertheless, I think this matter requires consideration. I think it is generally agreed on both sides of the House that the existing directors of the corporations know little or nothing about civil aviation, with one or two exceptions. In the corporations there are pilots and men on the technical side of the business who have been flying for 20 or 30 years, men with good administrative knowledge and ability. Instead of being allowed to go on flying until they are 50 years of age, and until they have failed their medical boards, they have been given a small pension and have had to look for jobs outside. That is a great waste of good men. I hope the Minister will see whether he can do something about this matter. I would like to know how the Government propose to select the directors, because it is a rather hit and miss business at the moment. There should be a more clearly defined policy——
Mr. Ivor Thomas: In case the discussion gets on to a false basis, I should like to point out that this Clause has nothing to do with the appointment of directors. They are, in fact, specifically excluded.
Sir Wavell Wakefield: Is not a director of the company an official?
Mr. Thomas: The Clause says:
"All appointments of officials to the Corporation other than those for which the Minister is responsible…
Air-Commodore Harvey: I was following the point made by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough, that the
78
Minister should get young men, not men of 68 years of age.
Group-Captain Wilcock: I am sorry that I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper) in much of what he says about the present administration. He has, in my view, quoted the wrong examples. I do not think it right that he should base his case on Campbell Orde, a distinguished pilot who has had considerable experience as an air line pilot, and d'Erlanger, who has great experience in management of aircraft and personnel. Nevertheless, I agree with my hon Friend that this question of a board is worthy of consideration. I put that view forward because I believe it would hap those whose duty it is to make selections to be able to refer to the board people who apply for positions. In flying, and aviation generally, there is a lot of sentiment—and this must be. It is not at all easy for one in authority who is approached by an ex.R.A.F, pilot, or an ex-R.A.F. wireless operator, with whom one may perhaps have served for many years, including operational service during the war, to turn down a man who claims his help. I believe those whose job it is to make selections for the new corporation would welcome a preliminary board such as is suggested in this new Clause.
I must further criticise my hon. Friend for saying that certain pilots have not been accepted by the corporation although they have distinguished records. There is a period of conversion-flying which must be undertaken by all Service pilots before they can be considered as suitable airline pilots. They must undertake this flying, no matter how distinguished their flying record, and they must possess a "B" licence which very few Service pilots hold. It has been noticed that, in training pilots and air crews for Transport Command work, an operational pilot may not necessarily be the best man for transport work. I think we must allow the corporation to decide who is the right man and who is not. I would not suggest that the board should necessarily be one with the Minister's representatives on it; I think it would be better if the board was not composed of the people who are concerned in the actual employment of the personnel. British European Airways

79
have a board and it "vets" all applicants for employment, and the results are most encouraging. In all corporations, however, there is one weakness which has been mentioned, namely, that the higher executives do not have to go through that process and I believe that except for the highest appointments preliminary selection by a board will help towards the efficiency of the new corporation.
Sir T. Moore: I have read this Clause carefully, and I have listened with dose attention to the speeches which have been made. As a result, I am gravely concerned and disturbed at the somewhat sinister implication behind the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Dulwich (Major Vernon). Does he infer that there must be, inevitably, political log-rolling and graft in our nationalised services? Undoubtedly, that is what his speech led me to understand. I feel that it is casting a very improper reproach on the members of the corporations. So far as I understand it, they are commercial undertakings, and any commercial undertaking can set up their own board to select, if they so choose, their own staff. Such a board will, obviously, select the best men, and make sure they are worth their pay. If they do not select the best men the corporations can be changed by the Minister. But why drag in the Minister at all? He already figures too much in the Bill. We see from the terms of the Clause that the appointments board must be formed jointly by the Minister and the corporation. If we are to try to establish corporations with some individuality and independence of their own, as we on this side of the House would wish, surely there should be no Ministerial interference with them. They should be allowed to form their own boards within their own organisation, if they so desire. I regret the introduction of personalities into this Debate. The names of persons have been given, and those persons cannot defend themselves. The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper) is privileged——
Mr. Cooper: May I point out that on several occasions opportunity has been given for information coming to the Minister to be looked into? Continuously there has come to me undeniable evidence
80
of the inefficiency of these corporations. I, personally, regret having to refer to personalities. Any hon. Member refrains from doing that if it is at all possible, but the overriding loyalty, as I see it, is to the efficiency of our airlines in this country, as distinct from some petty loyalty to some individual who may or may not be efficient in his job.
Sir T. Moore: I cannot accept that; there is a far bigger question involved. The petty side of the matter, as the hon. Member said, could easily be adjusted between him and the Minister. I wish to point out to the hon. Member—and perhaps, after he has been in the House longer, he will understand this—that he speaks in a privileged capacity and in a privileged building, and that nothing can be done by the people concerned to safeguard their reputations against such charges. Inevitably a stigma will be attached to their names. Therefore, with due good will, I hope the hon. Member will avoid in future doing things which might tend to make us feel rather ashamed of this great historical building in which we deliberate.
The main point I wished to raise was the sinister implication that there must inherently and inevitably be graft and corruption attached to nationalised services such as civil aviation. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will say something to reassure us that no such implication is contained in this new Clause, whether we accept it or not.
Mr. Cooper Mr. Cooper rose——
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has no right to speak a second or third time. On the other hand, if he wishes to make a personal statement, I think the House will allow him to do so.
Mr. Cooper: It is for that purpose that I rise, Mr. Speaker. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) has made a rather serious reflection on me. I would point out that it was after going through every other possible channel of approach to get things put right in these corporations that I was driven, eventually, to take this step. I did so with due regard to the privilege of the House; otherwise, I would not have dealt with the matter in this way.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Would the hon. Member repeat outside what he said against Mr. Campbell Orde?
Mr. Cooper: I think there is no need to do that. The information I have is absolutely unimpeachable, and unless it was of that standard I would not have used it in the House.
5.45 p.m.
Mr. Thomas: If the information is absolutely unimpeachable, there should be no objection to repeating it outside the House. This new Clause simply shows how curious and unaccountable is human nature. Time and time again we have been urged to make these corporations commercial undertakings and in way to have civil aviation run by civil servants. What we are being asked to do in this new Clause is to assimilate the corporations to the Civil Service and to set up a kind of Civil Service Commission to make appointments to the staff. The hon. Gentleman the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper) wants us to write a new general confession. He wants the B.O.A.C. to say that they have appointed those whom they ought not have appointed, and failed to appoint those whom they ought to have appointed. A defence has already been been made of several of the gentlemen named, but it might be misunderstood if I did not mention one person whose name was left out, because I happen to be in a special position to refer to him. I speak of Major McCrindle. He has accompanied me on several missions abroad, and I have found his advice of the greatest help in dealing with other countries. With regard to persons who have failed to find appointments on the corporations, all of us have sometimes failed to get appointments which we considered ourselves to be the best persons to fill. When we were young we took umbrage, but as we grew older we knew it was the way of the world and we ceased to take umbrage.
The new Clause asks for two things. The first is that there shall be tests in the appointment of members of the staff of the corporations. That is an idea which makes me shudder, if it is meant that there should be an examination. I am not clear from the new Clause what is meant, because it does not specify details. The idea has been canvassed on different occasions. It has been suggested that we might have examinations for membership of this House, and no doubt there is a case for that, but I dare say that many of us who have secured the votes of a majority
82
of our electors would fail to secure elections in such circumstances. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?What guarantee have we that the appointments board which is to make these infallible appointments would itself be so good, and would set the right tests? That is the first argument, that there should be tests for membership of the staffs of the corporations; but I do not think there is any conceivable test that would be satisfactory as a method of selection. The hon. Gentleman mentioned several examples, but it will have been noted that they were all taken from the professions—they were cases of civil servants, dentists, doctors, barristers, and so on—and they are not really applicable to this great industry, which is more in line with commercial undertakings?
Mr. Cooper: Why?
Mr. Thomas: I wonder what sort of test would be set for the running of an airline corporation. I have had some experience of this business, and I should not like to set the examination paper. I am not competent to do so. The other point in the new Clause is that there should be an appointments board. This is an idea with which I feel a great deal of sympathy. In a large organisation, I think there is a very strong case for having appointments made through a board, if only to avoid overloading any particular official. A recent advertisement which my Ministry put out for airport managers brought in 3,000 replies at once from civilians, without taking account of several thousands brought in through the Services. It is a formidable task to sift these applications, and it is very reasonable that it should be done, in a large organisation, through a board. In fact, it is being so done in B.O.A.C. and in B.E.A. In B.O.A.C., which is, of course, an exceedingly large organisation, with a staff of about 21,000, there is an Appointments and Promotions Board which makes all appointments to salaries between £400 and £1,000 a year. Appointments at salaries over £1,000 a year are made by the board of the corporation. It was suggested in Committee that there was a little subterfuge whereby a person might be appointed at just below £1,000 say, £980—and that a little later, once he was in the corporation, he would be promoted to over £1,000 a year. I have had inquiries made on that matter, and I have not found a single instance.
Mr. Cooper: I can give the Minister examples of that if he needs them.
Mr. Thomas: I made inquiries, but I am willing to have the examples, and to consider any evidence. There is in existence this Appointments and Promotions Board which sees applications for all posts between £400 and £1,000 a year. Above £1,000 a year, the appointments are made by the board of the corporation itself. Below £400 a year they are made by the departmental heads, and a very large number of new entrants come in, but between £400 and £1,000 a year the general rule, which I think a good one, is to promote rather than to bring in new staff, and persons in the corporations get preference if possible. If there is no suitable person available within the corporations the Appointments Board discusses with the departmental head whether the post should be advertised internally and externally; in any case, it is always advertised internally.
Mr. Cooper: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary how he reconciles what he has just said with a quotation I made during the Committee stage from an official report by the Ministry of Labour, which said quite definitely:
"The general complaint is that people with little or no technical, commercial or administrative ability are continually brought in to fill executive posts, over the heads of properly qualified employees with long and able service."
Mr. Thomas: I do not intend to discuss that particular report for reasons which the hon. Gentleman well knows. It would be very undesirable that I should do so, and I am not prepared to be drawn away from my arguments for the purpose. As I have shown, the machinery exists in the British Overseas Airways Corporation. In the case of British European Airways a similar piece of machinery will be set up; indeed, there is already an appointments board. B.E.A., of course, is now being formed within the B.O.A.C.; it has no legal existence yet, and naturally some people have to be taken from outside by direct appointments at the present time, but it is the intention, when B.E.A. becomes an independent legal entity, to have its own appointments board on similar lines. British South American Airways is a smaller organisation; the present method of appointing members of the staff is that
84
there is an initial interview by the personnel department which sorts out the applicants into categories. Applicants are then sent to the head of the Department concerned who either accepts or rejects them, after which they return to the personnel department for appointment or otherwise. If appointed, their appointment is subject to confirmation by the chairman or managing director and a formal letter of appointment follows. I understand that this is working very well and I have not heard a complaint from the hon. Gentleman about that particular corporation.
Those are the existing arrangements, and I think they comply to a large extent with what the hon. Gentleman desires, but with this essential difference. These are internal boards set up by the corporations, whereas the hon. Gentleman wants. a board set up by the Minister and the corporations jointly. We have been repeatedly and, I think, rightly urged to, give these corporations their independence of management. If they are to make a success of their commercial undertakings they must have independence of management, and to impose upon them a board of this character would be the most. serious infringement of independence of management that I can imagine. They must be free to appoint their own staff; if they choose to do so by appointments boards I believe myself that that would be an admirable way, but it is for them to decide.
Finally, would the suggested appointments board get the results that are desired? We all want to see these corporations having the best staff they can obtain, but would appointment by a board of the kind proposed be any more satisfactory? The hon. Gentleman's new Clause looks towards the Civil Service Commission as a model, but in recent years that body has been subjected to a great deal of criticism. I do not intend to say whether I regard this criticism as right or wrong, but it is a fact that certain changes have been made in recruitment to the Civil Service. Within my recollection in the House a Bill was introduced to provide for the foreign service, for example, which made certain changes, and there is a widespread feeling—not to put it more strongly—that it should be possible to bring persons into the Civil Service by different methods in many cases from those now adopted, and that a person who has been in industry, for example,

85
should be brought in. I use this only as an illustration and make no endorsement. I am not pursuing the argument but merely saying that this new Clause is modelled on the Civil Service Commission, and in fact——
Mr. Cooper: What about the Army Selection Boards?
Mr. Thomas: The Army Selection Boards are very different, and I see no reason here for an analogy with them. I should have thought that the Clause was modelled more on the Civil Service Commission. In any case we have had a great deal of heart searching on this subject in recent years and I think it is obvious that a large body of public opinion would not agree with the hon. Members who have moved and seconded this Clause.
Major Vernon: I tried to explain that I sought to incorporate the virtees of both systems and the vices of neither, but that I did not want to go into the details of the difficulties of the Civil Service Commission. It would be understood that in recasting the whole thing one should examine both systems and incorporate only that which was suitable and appropriate.
Mr. Thomas: I am inclined to think that what the hon. Gentleman has succeeded in doing is to incorporate the vices of both systems. The hon.. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) has raised the very important question of pilots who have passed the flying age, and I am fully in agreement with him that some better provision should be made for the future of such pilots than is now the case. I would not agree that they are paid off with a small pension; in fact, I regard it as generous. What I should like to see would be some measures by which pilots gained administrative experience in their last years of flying and could then carry on in some ground job for the rest of their lives.
Sir W. Wakefield: The Parliamentary Secretary has given the House a very full explanation of the way in which personnel are selected by the B.O.A.C and the corporations, and he has told us of the great care which is taken and of the ways and means adopted by these corporations to secure the best personnel. I should like to give support to the idea of indepen-
86
dence of management for the corporations. I think it really is quite hopeless to introduce Clauses such as that which has been introduced by the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Major Vernon) which would take away responsibility from the corporations. Again and again the Minister has said quite rightly that these corporations are to be as in dependent as possible of Ministerial interference. In this Bill the Minister repeatedly takes upon himself responsibility and does in fact interfere. In this proposed new Clause the Minister would be brought in once again, and I must say that I very much welcomed the fact that he was not to be brought in in this particular instance, because successful operation by the corporations is to a very great extent dependent upon the proper selection of personnel. If we take away from. those who are directing the work of the corporations their responsibility for selecting personnel, we might just as well do away with the corporations themselves. It is their main function to select personnel, put them into the right posts, see that they are happy, and are doing their job efficiently and generally to be responsible for the supervision of the work which those people are doing.
6.0 p.m.
If we bring within the responsibility of the Minister and of this House the detailed circumstances of appointment of staff, review of its work and so on, we shall get the very kind of thing which hon. Gentlemen opposite raised a little while ago, such as names of people being mentioned across the Floor of the House, and most unfortunate repercussions. That is one of the weaknesses of the whole scheme of nationalisation. We want the Bill to be as good as possible. The more we can remove it from that weakness the better. the Bill will be, as far as I can see. That is one of the reasons why I oppose the proposed new Clause. I feel that if such. a provision existed, much useful time would be improperly taken up in this House with the raising of points of a political nature which ought to be discussed, considered and undertaken by the proper organisations dealing with staff within the corporations. I hope that matters of this kind will be kept outside Parliament, and will be dealt with by the organisation within each corporation which, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, is adequate for the purpose.
Wing-Commander Millington: It seems to me that the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) and the Parliamentary Secretary did not properly read the first Subsection of the proposed new Clause. It does not suggest that appointments of staff should be made by the Appointments Board, but should be made only on the recommendation of the Board and after the passing of suitable tests. If I can read correctly the minds of the mover and seconder, they want to pass into law something which is already happening in the B.O.A.C. in a rather haphazard way, as was described by the Parliamentary Secretary. He rightly said -that the big industrial organisations perforce must have a large appointments board to sift the 3,000 applications that they get for every one job. There are many parallels to that. All we are asking is that there should be a statutory obligation for such boards to be in existence in the corporations in order to see that those who make the final appointments have much of the preliminary sifting work taken out of their hands, and have a clear indication of the kind of people available for the job for which there is a vacancy.
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether it is a fact that one of the difficulties which corporations are meeting today is shortage of applicants for many of the jobs which are on the market. I am referring in particular to flying jobs. Is it not a fact that only one of the corporations is up to its quota of flying personnel, the British South American Airways Corporation, and that in spite of the fact, as the seconder pointed out, that men with very fine R.A.F. qualifications are not getting a hearing? The corporations have, in fact, a serious shortage of applicants, in particular for aircrew duties. The fact has been brought out in the Debate that a chap who was a flight-lieutenant and got the D.S.O. and the D.F.C. for operational flying, finds that in itself that is not a qualification to make him a good transport pilot. Personally, I have flown aircraft in operations throughout the war, but I would be an exceedingly bad pilot for civil aviation because I have certain deficiencies of temperament, which were not deficiencies only a year or so ago.
I am asking that men with good war flying records should be able to go to some independent body which would have laid down tests against which men could
88
be measured and by which they could be told whether or not they had the qualifications for the kind of job for which they were applying. As it is now, tens of thousands of aircrew men are coming out of the Forces feeling that they are not being given an opportunity in civil aviation. Because of that there are rumours, which spread very rapidly in Service circles. There is a rumour that there is a dead hand on the B.O.A.C., stifling promotion and controlling appointments, and that unless you have a cousin or a friend in the right place it is difficult for any man to make his way up, on merit, through the B.O.A.C. to a position of responsibility.
Quite recently, I went by air mail service to Northern Ireland. I was held up by a storm at a place where I talked to a man who said he had more than 20 years' service in civil aviation. I asked him what his future would be. It is rather obvious that a man with more than 20 years' service has not much future. He said, "I am going on pension before I am much older. My eyes are failing, and the corporation will not consider giving me a position in the office." That fact might have been due to the people who make appointments being rather busy, if they are getting 3,000 applications for any one specified job. If the proposed board were created by Statute, every man applying for a job would be certain that a clear standard had been laid down and that he would get a fair hearing from an independent body. I therefore ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give a second thought to this matter. There is agitation in this industry that the industry is being stifled of proper applicants because of the ugly rumours of the way in which applicants are treated.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This is becoming a very interesting Debate. We have had from the Parliamentary Secretary a fascinating account of the revolutionary technique adopted by Government-sponsored corporations. We are told that application would either be answered or not—and any person who has had recent experience of corporations would not have much doubt what the answer would be. Then the applicants are either sent for to be interviewed, or not, and then, after the interview, they are either appointed or they are not. We who support private industry are encouraged by those most valuable tips in efficiency and business technique, which ought to stimulate enor-

89
mously the export drive for which His Majesty's Government are now taking all the credit.
The Parliamentary Secretary also made a series of observations about the Civil Service Commission and the Commissioners. It would be interesting to know whether those observations represent official Government policy. A party which has long held the view that only by closed shops can justice and efficiency be achieved should not want to disturb the practice by which the Civil Service higher posts have always been given to civil servants. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was speaking with the full authority of his party, or whether it was one of those excursions into the stratosphere in which, in the absence of any proper air service, the hon. Gentleman is entitled to indulge from time to time.
We listened with very great interest and sympathy to the speeches made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Dulwich (Major Vernon) and the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper). They are obviously anxious to see that the best men are appointed to the corporations, whether as employees or staff. We join with them in that desire. They are anxious to see, for example, that this does not become a racket in which, to use the modern phrase, "Jobs for the boys" becomes one of the slogans. They are anxious to see also how this will be achieved, and whether adventurous spirits are brought in as employees of these corporations so that they do not suffer from any bureaucratic control, and they are also anxious to see that what they call the period of trial and error, shall not be applied to the new corporations. Many of us, when they tell us there will be no period of trial and error and know that no business enterprise can miss that preliminary stage, are convinced that they will glide miserably and straightaway into the heart of error itself.
Mr. Cobb: If the hon. Gentleman had any experience of industrial administration, he would agree that preliminary planning in many cases decreases the need for a period of trial and error.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Of course that is so. We would be glad to participate in careful preliminary planning, but it is the entire absence of any such planning and the inevitability of never coming to a proper
90
decision which will inaugurate these corporations in a most inauspicious way. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Wing-Commander Millington) has very rapidly left the House. As a recent recruit to the Labour benches, he probably feels that his contribution could have been improved upon, arid he may be thinking of rejoining the remnants he so recently left. He certainly gives us no indication that these corporations are going to start their work in an atmosphere of good will. He said there was a universal feeling among the pilots that some sinister influence from: outside was preventing proper promotion and reward for talent. All the speeches from the other side have illustrated the dilemma which is bound to confront the Socialist Party in the future—as soon as the only real test of whether one has made a good executive appointment or not is removed—the test shown by the profit and loss account. The dilemma is this. Does the House, and do the hon. and gallant Gentlemen, trust these corporations or not? If they trust these corporations, then it is not unreasonable to leave to the corporations the selection of their own staff. They talk as if these corporations were not, as they are, composed from time to time of distinguished members of the Socialist Party. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite not trust Lord Rothschild, who was recently appointed, to come to a wise decision; or a distinguished former Socialist Member, Mr. Garro Jones; or the late Mr. Marchbank, a respected trade union figure? If these people, who were we thought Socialists deserving of a brave new world, can be relied upon to adopt sensible arrangements, they should be relied on. If they cannot be trusted, it is quite right not to leave appointments to them, but to hamper and control the corporations at every turn, leaving the main function of management, the choice of staff, to some outside body. If hon. Members cannot trust the corporations, why set them up?' We are entitled to pose this dilemma. It is a dilemma which will exist and continue to develop for all Socialists—an eternal dilemma for that brief space of eternity for which the Socialist Party will be responsible.
Mr. John Lewis: During the war we trusted our generals, air-marshals and admirals. Were they allowed, in their

91
circumstances, to appoint their own staffs, or were their men commissioned through the ordinary selection boards?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the hon. Gentleman repeated outside to Field-Marshal Montgomery that he came to a Government Department in order to know who should form his "inner circle" of trusted advisers with the Eighth Army, he would get an answer in a well known military phrase.
Mr. Lewis: This covers all appointments, surely?
6.15 p.m.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Equally this Amendment covers all appointments. The most trusted advisers of the corporation would, according to the new Clause, be appointed in that particular way. We are going to introduce——
Mr. Cooper: I think the hon. Gentleman has got his argument quite wrong here. I thought we had made it quite clear that the intention is not to take away from the Board their power of appointment, but only to ensure that the people appointed will be from a class who have passed certain essential tests.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am not opposing that. I am posing the dilemma which is bound to arise. It is an inescapable dilemma. Under the new Clause it might be possible for the corporations to be obliged to pay a certain group of people appointed by the selection process outlined there, but there is no obligation whatsoever to employ those people in any capacity at all. We might find a parallel to the ridiculous situation which has arisen as a result of the reinstatement requirements, in which employers reinstate people but give them no work to do. I am not opposing the new Clause, but only asking the House to pause and consider the implications of this dilemma which runs right through this Bill and will confront every Socialist Government in the future.
There is a further point we are entitled to make. In order to avoid the wrong people being appointed, are hon. Members opposite anxious to take to themselves the right to criticise individual appointments here in the House of Commons? This ought to strike a warning note. I suggest to the hon. Gentle-
92
man, who certainly does not lack courage, that he should repeat outside something he said about Mr. Campbell Orde. What is to happen when all our activities are controlled and directed by a Socialist industry or a State controlled corporation, when every appointment is subject to criticism in the House of Commons by people who are wholly privileged and against people who have no similar right of protection in reply? When this happens, we shall find that more and more good people will refuse to serve with corporations of this kind, if they can be blackguarded in the House of Commons without any proper opportunity to give their own answer in return. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman—it is a perfectly fair suggestion—that he should make that sort of observation outside.
These difficulties never arose in the bad old days which made us the greatest trading nation in the world. They are caused by theorists attempting to take over the control of all our industrial life. These difficulties will occur in growing numbers. There is no common form under which these appointments are being made and no apparent central direction. In the case of the Coal Board, it is impossible to know how members of the staff will be appointed and what their functions will be. Through the Parliamentary Secretary and the Attorney-General, we have got a little more information in this case, but there is no common idea running through all these corporations. We have the feeling that we are living from hand to mouth, and that every day the Government, in response to any particular pressure from one side or the other, change and adjust the machinery they had in mind, not in order to meet the different circumstances in different industries, but in order to placate some particularly noisy opposition of the moment. So much for the general dilemma which will confront hon. Gentlemen opposite so long as they are a Government.
This Clause proposes that there should be no compulsory membership of any political party for any employee of the corporation. If that were accepted, would it also apply that there should be no compulsory membership of any industrial organisation that was affiliated to any political party? Some of us thought that about the most shameful thing that had happened in recent months was the action of the union concerned which deprived two

93
excellent servants of the London Passenger Transport Board of the opportunity of walking in the Victory Procession. They had been chosen by their colleagues and had served in two wars with great heroism, but they did not belong to some union. Arc those to be the rights of the working men in the new Socialist Utopia? Will compulsory membership of any particular organisation be demanded as the price of an appointment to the staffs of the corporations? Would members appointed by the corporations be entitled to stand for the House of Commons? We know that any member of the board who becomes a Member of the lower House of Parliament—it does not apply to peers for there are already two peers on the board—would cease to be a member of the board, and that no Member of the lower House may be appointed to the board. About the staffs, however, we have no information at all. Would it be possible for the employees or the clerical staff to stand for Parliament? Or will the threat of the Minister of Fuel and Power, that it would be impudence for a colliery manager to stand as a Conservative, be applied also to those who work for these State sponsored corporations? Naturally the corporations must be free, when a member of their staff is elected to Parliament, to say whether or not membership of the House of Commons conflicts with his duties to the corporation, and it might well be that it would so conflict. What we are concerned about is the right of any individual to stand for Parliament even though, when elected, he may have to make up his mind between his two obligations. That is only one criticism of a point of detail. On the general issue, we on these Benches have been fascinated to see the working out of this problem which will perplex the Socialist Government for the remainder of its brief life and will undoubtedly bring about its eventual collapse.
Mr. Ivor Thomas: The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) can be trusted to make the utmost political capital, and to get the utmost amusement, out of these occasions, and I would not grudge him that pleasure. The questions he asked are questions which I am not called upon to answer, because I suggest they are hypothetical, as I hope the Clause will either be withdrawn, or, at any rate will not be accepted. I can
94
agree very much with the hon. Gentleman in deprecating attacks on individual members of the corporations by name in this House, or on the staff of the corporations generally. It puts those staffs in an unenviable position when they are the subject of continual sniping to which they cannot reply, and it is really destructive of their morale that they should be subject to such attack. The hon. Gentleman said that the real test in the old days was the profit and loss account. Well, the profit and loss account will still be available in the future. If any Exchequer grants are made to these corporations the exact sum will be known. The test remains. I should not put the argument in such a materialistic form myself, but I do say that the real test will be results. I should not measure them in quite the same way, and my answer to the attacks made on the members of B.O.A.C. and other corporations must be that great results have been obtained. It is remarkable, for example, that throughout the war years not a single day's work was lost in B.O.A.C. through labour troubles. If there had been any serious discontent in the corporation, that could not have been the case.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Wing-Commander Millington) raised one question which I should like to answer. He asked me if it were not the case that there was a shortage of aircrews at present in the corporation. There is a paradox here. It is true that there is a shortage of trained aircrews at the present time, but their recruitment is almost complete. The explanation of the paradox is that it takes quite a long time to train aircrews, but ther is, in fact, no actual shortage of applicants for posts as aircrews with the corporation.
Mr. Cobb: One or two hon. Members have mentioned the corporations' responsibility and have said that if this Clause were passed, the corporations' responsibility would be destroyed. I do not believe that any of the speakers on this side wish to undermine the corporations' responsibility, but would like to see them acting with the greatest responsibility. What I suggest we have in mind is that it is an unfortunate fact that over the last half century nepotism in British industry has increased. What we are getting at is that this influence on British

95
industry, which is very largely responsible for the failing efficiency of British industry, has permeated these corporations. There is no doubt that when this happens the spirit of the staff is affected and they are frustrated when they see people being brought in over their heads, when people at the bottom are not promoted, when selections for the top jobs do not come from inside the corporation. I would like to give the Parliamentary Secretary an example in my own experience, under a public corporation set up and run by the Tory Government of the day, and I would like particularly to address my remarks to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd). It is, in fact, a dilemma which faces any large-scale organisation. This criticism cannot be levelled at the B.B.C. today but it could have been levelled at the B.B.C. some time ago.
I was an engineer in the B.B.C. and there is no doubt that the engineering staff of the B.B.C. of that day, and a number of their other employees, were exceedingly dissatisfied and disgruntled. The reason was that the operation of the B.B.C. in promoting their staff was an example of the kind of thing that my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper) has voiced today. It became so bad that, when I left the Corporation in 1926, I was asked what was wrong with the staff. The management of the B.B.C. of that day did not know and could not find out, and the upshot of it was that when the "talkie" industry started in this country, the B.B.C. very nearly shut down because the engineering staff went out en masse because they were so disgruntled.
I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he ought to give another thought to this matter. It is a real difficulty in running any large-scale organisation, whether it be operated under private industry or under public control, and if he does not see that the staff is satisfied, that the organisation is democratically run, and that the staff have opportunities of promotion from the bottom to the top, then we shall not achieve the efficiency we want in these corporations, and we shall not give the service to the travelling public, which is the real balance sheet test of these organisations, that we, as Socialists, want to see rendered to the public of this country.
Mr. John Lewis: I would like to lend my voice in support of the suggestion that the Parliamentary Secretary should give more consideration to this matter. I agree with the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) that we must maintain independence of management in this matter. It is quite impossible to conceive of any efficient organisation where the management is not in complete control of those people to whom it delegates responsibility. However, in this instance we are only suggesting that in respect of the people who shall ')e appointed to this Board there shall be a means of ascertaining whether or not they are suitable, and that they should not be able to obtain these appointments by what the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir F. Moore) described as the "sinister method of log rolling." He knows quite well that in British industry today, as well as in American industry and indeed throughout the world, people who are wholly unsuited for carrying out the managerial functions which we are discussing, are appointed to high executive positions because they are either the sons or the friends of people who hold positions of responsibility and are wholly unsuited on the test of merit to occupy these posts.
Sir T. Moore: The hon. Member must be exceedingly unfortunate in those he has met; I have not had that experience.
Mr. J. Lewis: Possibly I have had a little more experience of industry than the hon. and gallant Gentleman. There is no reason why it should not be possible to maintain complete independence of the administration and yet not have the power to make appointments. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), who delved into the niceties of academic hypothesis in regard to the Socialist dilemma, did not deal more effectively with the point which I raised with him in my intervention about Service appointments during the war, or at any other time. We know full well that there was an unsatisfactory system existing prior to the appointment of selection boards where people got commissions to which they were not entitled through a system of log rolling such as that to which the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs referred.
6.30 p.m.
Air-Commodore Harvey: In which Service?
Mr. Lewis: In the Army. I know of several cases. But in the Army I dispute the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion that any high Army officer was in a position to state who would serve on his staff, with the exception of those exceptional three or four commanders who in special circumstances were allowed to suggest their own appointments. In point of fact, most people were sent up from the bottom and went through selection boards and so on, and it was merit that enabled them to get to the top, if they did so. As to the question of tests, in point of fact the Minister has a system of tests for pilots. All we are asking is that the Minister shall make it possible for an independent body to see which people they should recommend to the corporation as being suitable persons to be employed, with the necessary qualifications. Then it is up to the corporation to make up their minds whether or not they want these persons. We agree that there should be independence of management, but surely it should be in the same way as in the Civil Service. I deprecate the fact that on every conceivable opportunity fun is poked and derogatory references are made to civil servants themselves and to their methods of appointment. The administration may be bad from time to time but that is the ultimate responsibility of Ministers in this House. The members of the Civil Service are a fine body. They go through examinations, and if they are suitable persons, they are employed in a Service on which fewer aspersions can be cast than on any other similar Service that exists in any part of the world.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We make no criticism of any kind of the Civil Service. Those of us who have served with them cannot but have the highest regard for them. The only criticism came from the Parliamentary Secretary who suggested that their ranks were increased by an infiltration from industry.
Mr. Ivor Thomas: No, I must intervene. What I said was that human nature is very perverse, that we have had tremendous attacks on the Civil Service that certain changes have been made in recent years,
98
and yet now we are being exhorted to follow the model of the Civil Service.
Mr. Lewis: I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will realise that the object of those who have put down and who support the new Clause is to help him to get a really good Bill, and to ensure that we get that degree of efficiency in our civil aviation which we should have, having regard to the wonderful opportunities this Government now have in their policy of putting national service before what previously was nothing more than a system to retain private privilege.
Mr. Mikardo (Reading): I would not have intervened but for the references made to criticisms in this House of officers of public corporations. The observations which have come from the Parliamentary Secretary and from hon. Members opposite on this subject, are based upon a misconception, and a confusion between the position of officers of public corporations and the position of civil servants. As we extend the scope of public corporations we are going to be faced, if we are not careful, with a very real dilemma, a real dilemma—not the sort of fictional dilemma which exists in the witty, but rather phantasmagoric interventions of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), but a very real dilemma. That dilemma is that one may not make criticisms of any public corporation in general terms without being accused in this House of making criticisms without supporting evidence. If, on the other hand, one produces supporting evidence, one is accused, as hon. Members opposite accused the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper), of abusing privilege. One cannot have it both ways. Either hon. Members have a duty to fulfil in drawing attention to what they feel are inadequacies, in which case they must be allowed facilities for so doing, or else public corporations are to be shielded from all criticism, much more shielded than a Government Depaitinent for whom, anyway, there is a Minister to answer.
I point to a personal example. During the Second Reading Debate on the Bill, I was moved to make a very general criticism of the type of persons—the type of persons, not the individuals—who had been appointed to the boards in some cases. I said that some of the members of the

99
boards can be criticised on these grounds, and others can be criticised on other grounds. I mentioned no one by name, and gave no description which could identify any individual. In replying to the Debate, the Parliamentary Secretary said he thought I had made—he said it rather patronisingly and condescendingly —a rather excellent speech, as though he held himself as the last authority on an excellent speech, but that I had spoiled it by general criticisms. If we are not allowed to say, even in general terms, that these people are not of the right type, hon. Members of this House are completely muzzled. I would say to the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) that officials of these corporations have an opportunity to reply. We are always told that we must not criticise public servants because the Minister replies for them and it is a tradition that the Civil Service are represented by the Ministers. But everyone has a right to answer, if the Minister does not answer in detail.
Sir T. Moore: How can they speak for themselves, except in the law courts, and the law courts are not able to deal with a statement made in this House?
Mr. Mikardo: Any time I want to dispute a statement made by a gentleman outside, I do not have to go to law; there are still methods by newspaper publicity——
Sir T. Moore: The Government will not give them any paper.
Mr. Mikardo: —and there are other ways of doing it without going to law, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows. I am sorry, I did not hear his intervention.
We must be careful about this. We are going to have more and more of these public corporations, and if we accept the view that in the matter of criticism by hon. Members the servant of the public corporation is in the semi-privileged position of the civil servant, and that the Minister cannot be questioned in detail about them, then we are completely and effectively muzzled.
Mr. Harold Macmillan: You have allowed considerable latitude in this discussion, Mr. Speaker, and it has been one of very great interest. Speakers from all sides of the House have tried honestly to face—I will not say the dilemma for
100
that will come afterwards when the Division takes place, but the difficulties which are inherent in a rather new situation. As the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) quite rightly pointed out, public corporation servants are not in a similar position to civil servants. The Minister is not responsible for their detailed conduct and, therefore, they cannot claim the same kind of immunity from criticism as civil servants, in whose case we criticise the Ministers on the Front Bench, the civil servants being merely their instruments. Everything in theory, at any rate, is the action of the responsible Minister. These public corporations are not quite like private companies or bodies with all the rights, and at the same time the responsibilities and difficulties, of private institutions. If I may adapt a well known saying, they are neither as drunk as a lord, nor as sober as a judge, but keep that intermediate position suitable to a Lord Justice of Appeal. In the same way, these are neither private corporations nor wholly nationalised bodies in the sense of Civil Service bodies.
We shall probably have to devise some new system in order to deal reasonably with this matter. For my part I am more anxious to preserve, against the growing domination of these corporations in different forms—these various forms of nationalised undertakings—the rights and privileges of Parliament, through whom alone the public will be able to seek protection, rather than have a too meticulous rule of preserving an individual from criticism. Where there is general criticism, such as the hon. Member made as to the type of people, with no question of individual attack, no imputation of wrongdoing, that criticism should certainly be made. But where a man is accused of a particular act of wrongdoing I do not think we should then use the privilege of this House to prevent what would otherwise become liable to action for slander or libel. There is a difference between the kind of criticism which the hon Gentleman made on Second Reading, which would be perfectly in Order, and criticisms alleging specific acts, almost criminal in character, against individuals which we should not make here, unless we are prepared to substantiate them outside.
It will be necessary, as I say, to develop some kind of method to deal with this comparatively new position. Of

101
course, there have been public corporations in the past, important ones, set up by Conservative and Liberal Governments, but if the range is to grow, the problem will grow in importance. It is for that reason that I look on this new Clause—I was not on the Standing Committee and the Report stage provides an opportunity for those Members who were not on the Committee—with a great deal of sympathy. I was particularly attracted by Subsection (2) of the Clause. I observe that those hon. Members who put it down see the kind of danger which I also have in mind. It reads:
"In the appointment of officials and the selection of employees for the Corporation and in the promotion of such employees and officials no political test or qualification shall be permitted or given consideration,…"
That certainly attracts me, and if hon. Gentlemen were proposing to Jake their views to the final test I am bound to say I should, on principle, feel very attracted towards asking my hon. Friends to give them their support. As the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Cobb) rightly said, in the case of a large corporation, the management, in the sense of the two or three men right at the top, cannot make all the promotions and appointments right through the organisation. They can only do so within a unit which is capable of individual knowledge and control. What they really do is to make the higher appointments themselves, and to institute, as the Parliamentary Secretary told us, some form of board or committee inside the undertaking, which makes the appointments of a minor grade. That is merely a question of size and convenience.
The real question posed by the new Clause is whether this shall be obligatory on the corporation, whether it shall be forced to do this, and whether the proposed board shall be independent in the sense that it shall not be nominated by the directors, but jointly by the Minister and directors. That is the point at issue—whether the corporation shall do that on its own or be forced to do it. I have not followed with sufficient care the whole similar problem in the Bill to know how, up to now, the Committee have resolved that question. As my hon. Friend said in his very able speech, it is a dilemma, in a sense inherent, in the whole relations of Parliament and Minister to this corporation. Are we to go into detail and say, "Do this, that and the other" or are we
102
to leave these things to the corporation for the corporation, in a reasonable kind of way, to make its own rules and regulations as it goes along?
Mr. J. Lewis: This is a question of administration.
6.45 p.m.
Mr. Macmillan: I would say that the most important duty of administration is the appointing of people. I can see no higher function of directors and management than the appointment of people on whom depends whether an undertaking fails or succeeds.
Major Vernon: What we are trying to do is to provide a number of people from whom the final selection should be made —not the final appointment itself, but the preliminary qualification, so that unsuitable people can be eliminated at the start.
Mr. Macmillan: It would be convenient for the corporation to adopt a system like this. The position is whether Parliament should insist on it in this Bill, but do not let the hon. Members think I am unsympathetic. I am trying to meet their point of view. I like it, but in all similar Bills with which I have been connected, the Minister has said, "You must not do this. Do not tie up the new Board, Do not make it do anything. Do not force anything upon it." The Parliamentary Secretary, in his conduct of the Bill, has been very kind to the Committee, and more helpful than has been the case in regard to some other of these great corporations which are being forced upon us. Therefore, I do not go further than that. I have tried to sum up fairly the pros and cons. I have every sympathy with what lies behind this new Clause, which is to see that these things do not become a "racket"—a political or any other racket. Since the test of profit and loss can be far more carefully concealed by subsidy and every kind of method, than is the case in the competitive field of enterprise, my general feeling is that I hope that hon. Gentlemen will divide on this new Clause, and I hope that they will not feel that they have not had from my right hon. and hon. Friends considerable sympathy for their views. We sympathise with their purpose. It may be wiser, in the long run, to write it into the text of the Bill, or wiser to leave more play to the corporation itself. That question, as

103
my right hon. Friend said, is an inherent problem in the setting up of this kind of organisation at all.
The Attorney-General: The right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), in the course of a not short but exceedingly interesting speech, has, I venture to think, failed to give the House any guidance as to which way he would vote in the event of the Division, which he would so like to secure, taking place. It might have been a little help to hon. Members if the right hon. Gentleman, in inviting those on this side to divide on this question, had given them a little advice as to whether they should vote in favour of this new Clause—whether they should support the proposal that independent boards of the kind contemplated by this new Clause should be set up, or whether they should vote against the proposal.
Mr. H. Macmillan: I do not wish to be drawn unduly, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman well knows that had I disclosed my position so early there would have been no chance of this new Clause being divided upon.
The Attorney-General: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has been frank enough to indicate that. I have no doubt that my hon. Friends on this side of the House will not be led so easily into the trap which the right hon. Gentleman, so pleasantly, so charmingly and so plausibly, is seeking to lay for them. I do not propose to follow the right hon. Gentleman further in the remarks he addressed, not so much to the new Clause before the House, as to his own desire to secure some division in the ranks on this side of the House.
I suggest to my hon. Friends that the dilemma about which the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) spoke is, one of those dilemmas which exist only in that world of dreams and fantasies of his that we had to discuss upstairs on another part of this Bill. So far as hon. Members on this side of the House are concerned, there is no dilemma, no difference of principle, although perhaps there may be some difference as to the method by which the object which we all desire to achieve in this matter is to be attained. We on this side of the House have sufficient experience in the field of private enterprise
104
to know how undesirable it is—yet how common it is—that appointments may be affected by nepotism, by personal influence and by other irrelevant considerations of that kind which ought not to affect appointments in efficient organisations. Consequently, we view with the warmest sympathy any proposal which is intended, as undoubtedly this new Clause is intended, to make sure that in the field of public enterprise the right people are appointed to the right posts. We do not want to see, and we do not intend to see, the less creditable methods of private enterprise translated into the field of public activities.
In general and in principle we on this side of the House find ourselves in agreement with the view that appointments boards are a convenient and appropriate method of making appointments. The method is not infallible; no method can be infallible; but it is a good method. It seems to us that this is essentially a matter of internal management for the corporations—that is not what this proposal does —and that whilst it might be right to create some statutory procedure for the establishment of boards within the corporations themselves, we do not think that it would be right to impose on them from outside a rigid statutory machinery for the selection of their own employees.
Mr. Cooper: The purpose here is clear. For instance, if engineers were required in order to perform certain repair work on aircraft, would it not be right and proper that they should be qualified? In other words, they have to pass tests——
Mr. Speaker: This is the Report stage and these continual interruptions are really out of Order on Report. This is a formal occasion upon which speeches are made. It is not like the Committee stage in which questions are thrown across the Floor of the House.
The Attorney-General: I must not follow up too far the point made by my hon. Friend. Our feeling about the new Clause is that it really falls short of that which its movers seek to achieve, and instead it would impose on the corporations a form of machinery which would be altogether too rigid and which in practice would be quite unworkable. There is no analogy here between the Civil Service Commission procedure and the procedure which is contemplated by this proposed

105
appointments board. The Civil Service Commission is not a completely outside and independent body as the proposed board would be, nor does it deal, as apparently the proposed board would deal, not only with the initial appointments but with every promotion to a new office that took place. I can see that as we come to work out the position of these public corporations, which are becoming an increasing feature of the economic life of this country, it may be desirable to establish certain tests which candidates for appointments in them should satisfy. But we do not think, as at present advised, that it would be possible to say, consistently with the proper and independent management of the corporations that are being set up, that every person, not only when he enters the corporation but when he is promoted from post to post, should have to bear the recommendation of an outside body which apparently would contain no representatives of the corporations. That course would really provide too easy an excuse to the corporations if anything went wrong.
They could turn round and say, "Well, it is perfectly true we have made a mistake here, It is perfectly true something has gone wrong, but how could we do otherwise when we were not allowed a completely unfettered choice in the promotions we made and when we were limited in our promotions to persons who had received the approval and recommendation of an outside board, which could not possibly have the same knowledge of the working of our Corporation, or of the actual work which had been done by those particular candidates for appointment, as we possessed ourselves?" Where the body concerned is a private enterprise, a joint stock company, the result of bad appointments eventually may be failure. One more bankruptcy is added to the long list of failures which have distinguished We "London Gazette" for many years. Perhaps nobody worries very much about it. On the other hand, where die organisation concerned is one of these new public corporations, the position is very different. The board are responsible to the Minister, the Minister is responsible to the House, and one has the ever-vigilant Member of the House available and ready to see that proper appointments are made and, if they are not
106
made, the fact of their impropriety is brought to the notice of the public.
Subject to that, the existing corporations which have already set up internal appointments boards themselves will no doubt have taken careful note of the views that were expressed sincerely and properly from this side of the House in regard to the desirability of the establishment of boards of this kind. We for our part shall give further consideration to the general position of appointments in connection with public corporations not so as to impose upon them an outside body which would be responsible for appointments and promotions within the service, but in order that we may consider whether there is any means at once of assuring and protecting the independence of the corporations and, at the same time, securing that those who were available for appointment within them were persons possessing proper qualifications. We do not think that this Clause would achieve either of those results, and in view of what I have said we hope hon. Members will not press the matter to a Division.
7.0 p.m.
Mr. C. Williams: Those of us who have listened to most of the Debate resent the attack made on the Parliamentary Secretary by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo). He accused the Parliamentary Secretary of being complacent. I could say quite a lot about this Parliamentary Secretary if I wished, but I would never say that. It was an unkind attack on the hon. Gentleman, who, I feel, was doing his best. It may be that the attack was made because the Parliamentary Secretary did not happen to be wearing a red tie today, or something of that sort. The fact remains that it was a very unfair attack, and I wish the Leader of the House had been present to hear what some of us think of these back bench attacks by hon. Gentlemen opposite on their own Front Bench.
We have had a most interesting Debate, which has shown quite clearly that both sides of the House realise that, when we appoint these boards, we must have two things. We must endeavour to keep the independence of the members of the boards, and we must also endeavour to see that we get the best men on the boards. We are all in complete agreement on that matter. There is a further point on which I do not think right hon. Gentle-

107
men on the Front Bench opposite need pat themselves quite so much on the back. That is that both sides of the House—if I wanted to take it further, I could go into it very easily—want to see absolute honesty and probity in public work and in general Government work all round. We are all agreed on that. We have had those points brought out in a Debate which has lasted some time, and in which we have had the views of a considerable number of hon. Members, a variety of views, including some from hon. Members of great experience. Having had all that, we then came to the point at which it was quite obvious from the last speech that the Government, at the minute, have no consistent policy in setting up this kind of board. They do not happen to like this new Clause. It is a pity that some of the speeches could not have been heard by the Leader of the House, because if he had heard them, he could have gone back to the Cabinet and told them that——
Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with the Motion before the House.
Mr. Williams: I absolutely accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and will just say that this is an extremely interesting Clause, which has produced an extremely interesting Debate, and that I very much regret that the great value of this Debate could not be used to some purpose, or that the Government could not, instead of making vague and indecisive speeches, tell us what kind of a board they are going to set up for the future.
Mr. Beverley Baxter (Wood Green): I rise just to say that, when a board of management has been appointed, especially if it has the difficulty of dealing with a Minister, which is an extra disturbance to its wisdom and judgment, it would be too much to impose another independent board on it. For the first time in this Parliament, I agree entirely with the learned Attorney-General. May I, therefore, appeal to those who support this Motion not to force it, and thus save the Government from a crisis?
Major Vernon: Uninfluenced by the remarks of the hon. Gentleman opposite, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Discontinued services.)
Where in consequence of the provision of air transport services or the carrying out of any work by any of the three corporations under the provisions of this Act any undertaking constituted for the purpose of providing air transport services or the carrying out of other forms of aerial work which was in operation on the first day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, is unable to continue to provide such services or to carry out such work, such undertaking may by notice in writing served upon the corporation through whose activities such inability arises require such corporation to acquire the said undertaking and all the assets thereof at a price to be agreed between them and to pay compensation for development costs such price and compensation in default of agreement to be determined by arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Acts, 1889 to 1934.—[Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
We on this side of the House regard this Clause as one of importance, and, indeed, as containing a measure of gravity, from which, if the situation is left as it stands at present, ripples and eddies will radiate outwards into many other spheres and do a great deal of harm. The White Paper spoke of physical assets, which caused some surprise, because, I think, at that time, the Government had proposed that the only people entitled to be compensated were those with physical assets. So we waited for the Committee stage of this Bill with considerable interest, and we waited with a considerable attack. During the intervening time, the Government, we believe, began to see that something more was required. Nevertheless, they introduced nothing into the Bill to provide for compensation at all, and the Bill today is in the curious position of containing no Clause providing for compensation. In Committee, we were informed by the Parliamentary Secretary, lather to our astonishment, that he was already in consultation, with the object of providing compensation on the basis of a going concern as between a willing buyer and a willing seller, for two of the concerns which had laid claim to compensation. We were glad to hear that this small crack had been made in their armour, but we were still surprised to find that, in the event of this willing buyer and willing seller not being able to arrive at a conclusion together, there

109
was no provision for arbitration. However, I want to pass on from that.
We welcome the fact that the Government have now seen something of the red light which is shining if they pursue this system of improper compensation to its conclusion, so I want to examine for a moment the types of concern which, in our view, are entitled to compensation. The concerns which are being dealt with, as between a willing buyer and a willing seller, are limited to those operating in 1945, and so, leaving those aside, let us see what other types of concern may fairly make out a case for compensation. They divide themselves into four classes. There are first, those concerns, or individuals, who, as a direct result of the war, were injured or damaged and have no possibility of restarting. We have heard from the Attorney-General a great deal about the inevitability of sacrifice in wartime, and we realise and accept that, but there are certain concerns which must be distinguishsed and be given discrimination, as compared with others. So we have this first category of concerns which suffered direct war damage, something like a bomb or a shell, and which have no possibility of restarting, or do not intend to restart. Then we have the concerns which suffered direct war damage, but will, nevertheless, be able to restart. Thirdly, we have those which suffered damage as the result of Government action, no doubt as a consequence of war, and which will be allowed to restart; and, in the final category, those which suffered from Government action and which are being prevented by further Government action from restarting.
In the first category of people, I believe there is really no case for compensation, and it is not their case which I am pleading. Nevertheless, this Government, and previous Governments, accepted responsibility by making provision for war damage insurance, and so the property of these people will be compensated. The next category is those who have suffered direct war damage and are restarting. There is no case here, and, again, it is not their case we are pleading. Thirdly, we come to those who, through Government action, suffered war damage and are being allowed to restart, and, again, we are not making out a case for them.
110
We come, finally, to the last category of those who were, by Government option, put out of their business and who are, by Government action, being prevented from restarting. The Air Navigation Restriction Order, 1939, in effect, stopped these concerns from being able to carry on their ordinary avocation. It might well be argued that this restriction was a necessity and flowed normally as a consequence of the war. But it was that Order which put eight or ten concerns out of business. These concerns can, in their turn, be divided into two categories. First, those which were compensated on the basis of a going concern at the time the Air Navigation Restriction Order came into force. I do not know whether any of them were so compensated, but perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us. For my part, I would claim nothing for these companies if at the time that they were put out of action they were given compensation as going concerns, and if due allowance was then made for goodwill. But if, on the other hand, they were requisitioned and only the physical assets were compensated for and nothing was paid for goodwill, then, I think, they have a just and obvious grievance.
A word about development costs and goodwill. It has been fashionable to treat goodwill in rather a derisory way, but it is a very real thing. In every commercial negotiation for purchase or sale between a willing buyer and a willing seller, goodwill always plays its part. It may or may not be there, but it is always taken into account. Indeed, when the railway companies took over the air services round the country, they paid considerable sums of money for goodwill. I agree that there cannot be development costs and goodwill. My interpretation of goodwill is that it is made up of development costs, plus service, plus safety, and, as a result of all that, the goodwill is arrived at which is a priority over somebody else's concern which is not run so seriously. Therefore, goodwill represents profits.
There are rare occasions when goodwill might exist and ought to be paid for even if there are no profits, but I am prepared to concede that that is a rare occasion. Broadly speaking, goodwill follows and flows from profits. Therefore, it really comes to this: Were these eight or ten concerns which were compulsorily put out of action in 1939 and compulsorily kept out

111
of business, requisitioned as going concerns at the time their assets were taken over? If they were not, should they not, now be entitled, having then been making a profit, to a measure of compensation over and above that which they got at the time? If that is not so, it comes precious near to confiscation, and the moment this, or any other Government, allows confiscation to become part of their policy, they strike at one of the pillars of human society. That is something which makes nonsense of any appeal to enterprise, whether from the exalted lips of the Prime Minister or anybody else. Who would build? Who would create? It means a virtual return to jungle life and no one can have any confidence in the future or in his fellow man. Therefore, I would urge the Government to pay a proper compensation under this Clause. At the most, only a small sum would be involved.
There is a tendency to sneer at goodwill, but the Government have accepted it in connection with doctors' practices in the Health Bill. Do the Government solemnly contend that the whole of the doctor's practice consists of his black bag and the instruments in it, or, if the Communist Party were unwise enough to make an offer for the organisation of the Socialist Party, would the Socialist Party be content to accept the price of the pamphlets and the booklets? They would get a very low price indeed, and they would be thoroughly dissatisfied. At the moment, the Government stand accused of injustice. I hope that they will put this injustice right and not let it go out to the world that this, the Mother of Parliaments, is nothing better than a pickpocket.
At the present moment it is fashionable for other countries to kick Britain about, and the Government are following the classic tradition of the bully and are kicking their own people about. But our nationals will not stand for chat indefinitely. The Government must really learn to distinguish between the people of Great Britain and the goats at Bikini. The people of this country will get tired of being tethered by legislation and by licences to the decks of these islands, there to be bombarded by unwise and unfair legislation, and to be expected, at the end of the day, still to be disconsolately munching a disgusting diet of red tape and paper. Some day the Government
112
will find that the goat has realised that it has horns.
Air-Commodore Harvey: I beg to second the Motion.
We had a very good Debate in Standing Committee on a point very similar to this, and I was more than surprised that the Government did not give way, because it strikes one as being a very elementary injustice that, when a business is formed and, through no fault of its own is prevented from commencing operations it should, at the cessation of hostilities, be prevented from commencing operations. The right hon. and learned Attorney-General said in Committee that the position of these prewar charter companies was somewhat similar to that It the shopkeeper who had been prevented from carrying on his business. I submit that this is an entirely different problem. The shopkeeper was either called up or his place was bombed which, naturally, stopped him carrying on his business unless, of course, someone else carried on in his stead. The prewar air operator is in an entirely different category. His activities were stopped either because of air raids or because the air raid warning system might have interfered with his operations. He had every reason to believe that at the end of the war he would be allowed to continue as an air operator. But, a year after the cessation of hostilities, he is told by Parliament that he is not to be allowed to do so. I submit that that, as my hon. and gallant Friend said, is bordering on confiscation. I am delighted to hear that the railways and allied airways are to be paid out if a satisfactory arrangement can De agreed regarding the question of goodwill or development costs, whatever it is called.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Gandar Dower) is not in his place, because I think it would be a good thing if he enlightened the House in connection with his dealings with the Ministry and the Treasury. The amount involved is very small, indeed, and it would probably cost less than £40,000 or £50,000 to settle the claims of these companies. They did yeoman service in the years before the war in commencing airlines, knowing perfectly well that they were going to make a loss. They started from scratch in great difficulty; they had to

113
make aerodromes, train engineers, get out specifications and have their aeroplanes built. They were the pioneers of the civil air routes in this country and did a great service to the country two or three years before the war broke out when we were in desperate need of trained pilots in readiness for when the crisis came. When the crisis did come, the aircraft belonging to these operators were purchased by the Government. They were taken over and used as ferry aircraft, carrying officers and equipment to the various theatres of war. It is generally accepted that the operators were liberally paid for their aircraft, but, since the war, they have not been given the chance to buy similar aeroplanes, even at the price at which their own were taken over. They are not to run scheduled services, but may run charter companies. That is quite a different thing, and it is most unfair: The Minister of Supply has given very unsatisfactory replies to questions when dealing with this point on various occasions.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison) said that 12 companies were involved. I do not know the exact figure, but I think it is probably nearer three. First, there is Western Airways, which was operated by Air-Commodore Whitney Straight with great success before the war, I imagine that he is the biggest claimant. He himself went to the war and had a most distinguished record. He kept a nucleus of his staff, but at this day they are waiting to join up in their prewar occupation if they are allowed to do so. Then, there are Air Dispatch and Wrightways. These companies operated with great success before the war. They had a very small accident rate—a far better record than Imperial Airways or British Airways—and, what is more, Western Airways in South-West England operated at rates cheaper than the railways and they operated services by night. Nevertheless, that company was closed down at the end of March, 1940. It had carried 120,000 passengers. That is a real business; it is not like a small flying club. Over a period of seven or eight years they had built something that was really worth while, and it was a public institution. Their loss was £31,605. The losses each year in the progress of the company became less, and I
114
believe that had there been no war, in two or three years Western Airways would have turned that loss into an eventual profit, and would undoubtedly do so now were they allowed to operate. It is not a question of goodwill. These people went into business, knowing that they would lose money, and they said, "If we run our business economically, if we are free of accidents and we get a good staff together, in five or six years we shall operate at a profit and recoup the losses we shall have made." They knew that they would do that. Therefore, it is not goodwill. It is simply development costs. I ask the Government to view this matter in the sensible way. To date, they have been viewing the matter from the point of view of compensation and, to that extent, I think their reputation has gone down considerably.
The Attorney-General: If the present proposal were to provide compensation for all those who were put out of business by circumstances connected with the war, whether by direct Government order, a Defence Regulation or something of that kind, or by other facts resulting from the outbreak of war, and who, after six or seven years, coming back in conditions which are probably completely changed, find themselves unable to resume their businesses, I personally would have the very greatest sympathy with such a proposal. I suppose every one of us in this House must know a score of cases—and, in all, there must be thousands of them—where professional men and businessmen, compelled to stop their professions and to close down their businesses at the outbreak of war, possibly because they were called up or because Defence Regulations forbade the continuance of businesses of that kind, come back and now find that either because of the lapse of time or because they have got no capital left, or because they are too old and other people have stepped into their shoes, they are quite unable to take up life at the place where they left it off in 1939. Those are all cases for which everybody must feel the greatest sympathy, and if one could provide them with some form of compensation, if it were right so to do, all of us would have the greatest happiness in doing so. But that, of course, is not what this proposed new Clause seeks to do.
It proposes to provide gratuities to those who happened to be concerned in civil

115
aviation before the war, not because the Government are taking over anything from them now, not because the Government are confiscating anything now, but because in 1939 they were prevented by the Orders which had to be made then in the interests of the defence of the country, from continuing their activities, and because now, when they come back and may want, not to carry on a continuing business, but to start afresh and build up a new undertaking, they find that they are seeking to start in a field in which private enterprise is no longer permitted. That is a purely fortuitous circumstance, which in no way distinguishes their position from the position of a man who was, say, a student in 1939, and comes back now and finds that because of the inexorable fact of the passage of time, it is no good starting again, or from the position of the man who no longer has the money with which to set himself up again, or the little shopkeeper who, because of the incidence of Defence Regulations, was forbidden from carrying on a particular business in a particular place, and who comes back now and finds that he has not got the money with which to set himself up in business of that kind again.
What happened here in the case of those who were engaged in civil aviation, as in the case of people who were engaged in the manifold other activities of life, was that, faced as they were with the emergency resulting from the outbreak of war, their businesses and professions—indeed, in the case of very many of them, their very lives—had to be put aside, and there was no question of any compensation being paid to them at that time. No compensation can be paid to such people at this time, if, indeed, they are still alive to receive compensation at all, unless it can be said that at this time the Government are taking over from them and acquiring from them something which is of value to the country. Otherwise, any kind of compensation must be, in effect, a mere gratuity to a particular class of people who come back and find by chance, not that they are prevented from setting up businesses which they are otherwise at present in a position to set up, but that there happens to be a statutory restriction in a particular field of endeavour to private enterprise at a time when, quite apart from such a restriction,
116
they might themselves be wholly unable to resume the business which they had abandoned in 1939.
The hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) referred to confiscation. It sounds very shocking that a Government should be concerned in something which should be described as confiscation. And so, indeed, it would be. I do not know —I have not a dictionary by me—but I would have thought that the ordinary dictionary meaning of "confiscation" was "to take something which was not yours without paying for it." In these cases nothing is being taken which is not being paid for; nothing is being taken, because in these cases there is nothing to take. If there were tangible assets of these businesses in 1939, such as aircraft, as the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) very fairly and frankly said, they were paid for when they were taken in 1939. Nothing of any tangible value now remains, except the possibility that these men might have wished to start afresh in a field which, as it now turns out, is no longer open to private enterprise.
Air-Commodore Harvey: The learned Attorney-General does not seem to realise that some of these companies have kept a nucleus of their staff during the war. They have engineers and pilots available to start work if they could get the aircraft to operate.
The Attorney-General: That may be so, but a nucleus of staff in itself constitutes a liability and not an asset. That is not a thing for which compensation can be paid. Hon. Members must appreciate this, and I am sure they will if they think about it. The Government, in dispensing public funds, can only pay compensation for something which is of tangible value when they acquire it. A staff which is kept on, dealing with matters apparently not concerned with civil aviation, is not a tangible asset which can be acquired for value. Where an existing operator has something tangible to sell, and is prevented from selling it, that might be a proper case for compensation. Where he has got a tangible asset which he is not allowed to sell, or a tangible asset which is taken away from him by the Government, the Government acquiring value in return, that might be a proper case for paying compensation.

117
Where the Government, by one means or another, are acquiring something of value to the Government, that clearly would be a proper case for compensation. That is not this case. This is a case where the Government are being invited to pay compensation for something which the Government and the country have not received; where the Government are being invited to distinguish between particular sections of the community, all of whom have suffered grievously from the war, and to pay compensation fortuitously to one small section because of the fact that, whether it was able or not to resume business in civil aviation, Parliament has decided that that is a field no longer open to private enterprise. I am bound to ask the House to say that is not a case in which it would be right to pay compensation. While we sympathise with those who might have wished to resume their activities in civil aviation, just as we sympathise with those who would have liked to resume their studies at the hospitals, or their practices at the law, we are not able to provide them with compensation for the fact that, owing to the war, it is now no longer possible' for them to do so.
7.30 p.m.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am glad we have now got an opportunity of again dealing with the extraordinary story—for it is a quite extraordinary story—of the Government approach to problems of compensation for those people who have made this country air-minded. The Government are now "cashing in" on the labours and the sacrifices of some dozen people who made this country air-minded. At a time when it will be, for the first time, a profitable business, a Government who claim to represent the ordinary, hard-working citizens are going to steal the profits the first time the profits come along. I do not think we can find words too strong, in which to express our condemnation of what the Government are doing. I entirely agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) in regard to the incongruity whereby this utter ungenerosity and lack of public spirit is being shown in the case of civil aviation when in so many other directions, as I gladly concede, the Government have behaved fairly and reasonably in the realm of compensation.
118
The learned Attorney-General used a phrase from a dictionary, namely, the definition of "confiscation" being "taking something which is not yours without paying for it." We on these benches accept that definition, and I would like to apply it to the circumstances in hand. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked as if it was open to half a dozen companies, which have been expropriated at any time during the period of the war, to make their claims for compensation. If, for example, on 3rd September, 1939, when every decent citizen was putting everything he had into the common pool, and not asking for anything in return at that stage, ready to give his life and all his accumulated ex- perience, they had then interrupted our concentration on the war by demanding some compensation, there might have been a case. I suppose it is suggested that Air-Commodore Whitney Straight, instead of immediately rejoining the Royal Air Force, should have spent some months in London arguing on behalf of his corporation what compensation they were entitled to have. Instead of that, in distinction from what a good many Members of the present Administration did in 1914, he went straight off to fight in the war; he did not think it was then a proper time to plead the case for compensation. Once the war had started his business—and there are others like him—was gone. Naturally, at no period during the successive years was there a possibility of their making application.
The emergency was a continuing business, and it has only just come to an end. Now, for the first time, we have an opportunity of seeing that justice is done to these people, by whose past labours and sacrifices alone will the Government s schemes in the air succeed, if they are to succeed. The learned Attorney-General used the most extraordinary parallels to justify this act of confiscation and robbery. He talked about the little tradesman who had lost his business. We all have the utmost sympathy for the little tradesman who has lost his business, though a great many of them find, and found, that Hitler's bombs did not damage him very much more than the ruthless advances of the cooperative societies. [Interruption.] I am certainly sticking to that.
Mr. Woods (Mossley): Can the hon. Gentleman state a single case where there

119
has been any confiscation of someone by a cooperative society?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman was not following my argument. I was not at that moment referring to confiscation but to the fact that bomb damage had done an immense amount of harm to small businesses, and in passing I said they had also fallen victim to another form of attack.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I hope the hon. Gentleman will not pursue that line of argument. It is entirely out of Order.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think you will agree, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, there is nothing very improper in my passing reference. I was led by the indignation—and the natural indignation, because it was a good point —into developing it. I will not take it any further, as I am not allowed to. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked as if there was a parallel between the small tradesman who had been bombed out of his business, or lost his business, and the civil aviation services.
The Attorney-General: I did no such thing. I was not referring to cases of bomb damage. Compensation is provided for that. I was referring to cases of people who, by the Defence Regulations, were prevented from carrying on their businesses, or were prevented from carrying on their practices because they were called up to serve in the Forces.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I fully accept that explanation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The same argument applies equally precisely to what he says he said as it does to the impression I formed of what he said. I am glad he has now cleared it up. We can dismiss the case of the small tradesman whose business was bombed. There is the case of the tradesman, or somebody else, who was prevented by the coming of the war from carrying on his business. What is his position now, now that he is out of the Forces, or now that the emergency is over? He is absolutely free to start again. This is the test we apply, and this should be the test of whether or not there should be compensation. When the Swinton proposals were before the House the noble Lord, who was then in charge
120
of the Bill in another place, drew attention to the fact that there was no confiscation and no reason to pay compensation because the small private operators were going to be free to go on with their business in a different way, either as shareholders in the great corporations, which was provided for, or as subsidiaries in the corporations, as Portsmouth Airways had already arranged to do. The noble Lord said then in another place something which I think is strictly right:
"The test that should be applied is this: are you putting a man out of business or are you preventing him starting up in a business again which he had before? "
He then added, in regard to his own Bill.
"You are inviting him to come in; you are inviting him either to go into the main corporation or into a subsidiary company for running the business."
My first answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, when he attempts to draw a parallel with the tradesman or the professional man who could not carry on his business because of the coming of war, is that now there is nothing to stop him starting his shop again; indeed, it is expressly provided that he gets facilities from local authorities for starting his business again, except on account of age, which finds all of us, and which prevents people who, no doubt, built up the Labour movement in the past from sitting on the Front Bench opposite now. That is hardly an argument with which to dismiss the claims of these younger pioneers. Secondly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman drew a parallel with the people who wanted to go to the universities and who through age, lack of money, or something else—very-often, indeed, because of changed ideas—now find themselves unable to go to a university. He said also that there are large numbers of other people who, for one reason or another, cannot carry on their trade, but those people do not see the Government carrying on their trade for them. Very many people cannot start their trade again now because they have not the means, or because they are too old, but they did not see the Government starting their businesses and conducting them, taking the profits to themselves. Really, there is no parallel between the cases advanced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the situation of these pioneers who in the past, with every sort of difficulty, made this an air-minded country.

121
I would now like to remind the House briefly of the background of this business. In the electoral programme of the Socialist Party this phrase appears:
"Costs of compensation to the private interests initially affected."
At that time they were attempting to show the country that compensation would be paid everywhere; the black-coated worker, and, indeed, the capitalist himself, had nothing to fear of the future. As soon as they were elected came the White Paper, in December, 1945, but composed some months before. Here the wording changed; instead of "compensation" we have "payment for physical assets." The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about the operators who have been expropriated having been paid for their physical assets in 1939. There is just cause for going back to 3rd September, 1939. If at that date I had had half a dozen Dragon Rapides bought from De Havil-lands, and I wanted to sell them, to whom else could I sell them but to the Government? What possible value did they command? I was no longer allowed to fly them anywhere, I could not sell them abroad, I had to sell them to the Government. There was no question there of a willing buyer and a willing seller. There was a forced sale to the Government—apart from the fact that then everybody was giving all he had without querying the consequences, or nearly everybody, and most certainly the sort of people about whom we are concerned tonight.
Then came another Act, an Act of the Coalition Government. About 10 companies were operating when the war started. On 3rd September, 1939, as part of the general mass of regulations and orders that were passed by this House, the Air Navigation (Restriction) Order was passed which put eight of those 10 companies immediately out of business. The pilots went off to the Air Force, the planes were sold to the Government, and the businesses were temporarily extinguished. Only two private companies continued.
Air-Commodore Harvey: May I interrupt my hon. Friend? There were three —Western Airways continued to operate until March, 1940.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, in order to save the time of the House, I said eight were
122
extinguished. Actually seven were immediately extinguished and the eighth was extinguished some months afterwards, in March, 1940, as my hon. and gallant Friend is right in saying. Seven or eight were immediately extinguished, and two stayed on in business. Which were the two? They were Allied Airways, whose chairman and managing director is a Member of this House, and Railway Air Services. Why were they allowed to continue to operate? For the purely chance reason that they flew over water, and that has never been disputed. It was thought that their situation was different and that they should be allowed to continue—a fortuitous circumstance which enabled them to survive. The right hon. and learned Attorney-General has said that there is some difference between their situation and that of other people. Of course there is. They have had seven years' experience in the war, at a time when every day in the air was equal to six months before the war. Over all their competitors they have had that protected experience. In addition they had something more. They were guaranteed against loss all through the war, and their profits at 4 per cent. were guaranteed too. Their situation was indeed very different. I have no quarrel with the decision of the Government to do the fair and proper thing by Allied Airways and Railway Air Services, but I do most strongly protest against those two companies being given different treatment for fortuitous reasons, and after they have had seven years' protected flying during the war.
What about the other companies, whose rights should be upheld? Western Airways, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield said, sank a lot of money in making people air-minded. They flew in the West of England. People remember them in Cardiff and Weston-super-Mare, for example, and over a number of years they lost £31,000. They were just beginning to get going and get something back. In 1939 this House set up an Air Transport Licensing Authority. It gave Western Airways a seven-year contract for very lucrative services at home and abroad, and only a few months of that contract had run when the war came. The head of the company went off to win matchless distinction in the war. The company—or its assets—was sold to the Government. They had a seven-year

123
contract of which only a few months had run. Now that the emergency is over, surely that company is entitled either to be allowed to use up the remainder of its contract—six years and more— for those lucrative services, a contract given to it by a British licensing authority in good faith and taken in good faith at the end of 1939, or, if they are not to be allowed to do that, they should be given some compensation for the loss of the contract entered into solemnly and in good faith.
What about Air Dispatch? People remember the services which that little company rendered by flying people from one aerodrome to another, quite apart from their services to France, which were faster and more comfortable, often, than those of the great corporations. They lost some £12,000. I do ask the Government to listen to the voice of common gratitude and decency. I believe we have made out a case which will commend itself to the House as a whole. Very little public money is involved in this, but a great justice can be done, or a grave injustice if a contrary step is taken. Let it not be said that, because there are only a dozen people involved and they have no voting strength, the Government, whom the cynics think live by counting heads, have no regard for justice. Let us see that justice is done in this House, and that the proper treatment which is to be given to Railway Air Services and Allied Airways, against which we have no quarrel, is extended also to that small handful of private operators to whom equally we are indebted and with whose welfare we should be equally concerned.
7.45 p.m.
Sir T. Moore: The right hon. and learned Attorney-General has made his usual cynical defence, and I am glad he heard me say that before leaving. Of course, the House as a whole will probably agree that we are under no legal obligation, but we are under a moral obligation, arid when we left this subject or a kindred subject in Committee a fortnight ago we had a bland and persuasive assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that he would probably have something hopeful and satisfactory to tell us on the Report stage, as he was at that time in negotiation with the operators concerned. I have here got the reports of the Committee to which I refer. For the benefit of those hon.
124
Members of the House who were not Members of the Standing Committee, I should perhaps inform them that this Bill for nationalising civil aviation differs substantially—indeed almost fundamentally—from all the other ill-conceived Measures with which the Government have practically submerged the House. It does not refer, throughout the whole of its wordy and verbose phraseology, to the words, "compensation for the air line operators."
Hon. Members on both sides will remember that the Government were able to be very generous with the Bank of England, they were even able to be lavish with the coal owners, though they accepted it against their will. They are offering fantastic bribes to the doctors, and, of course, they are obviously willing to do the same thing with the aerodrome owners. Why these distinctions? Why this distinction between the owners of aerodromes and the air line operators? The reason is not far to seek. The air line operators are small fry, little organisations with few votes, of no great political influence or value. That, of course, is a sign of the most blatant dishonesty on the part of the Government, which everyone will acknowledge. The aerodrome owners are in a different category altogether because they arc mostly local authorities, and local authorities, no doubt with Socialist affiliations, have Socialist majorities whose votes can be depended upon, So they must be placated, they must be treated tenderly.
That is the attitude of the Government towards one of the most vital and important services that we are about to embark on. That is the cynical attitude of the Government towards these pioneers of the air to whom this country owes so much for what they have done to make our people air-minded, and for other things as well that I could mention. It was under those adventurous spirits that our Battle of Britain pilots were trained before the war. In fact, I do not suppose we should have had this Bill going through Parliament today if it had not been for those young men of 15 or 20 years ago who took enormous risks with great courage, ingenuity, enterprise, guts and determination. And now the one thing the Government can do, the one great gesture of gratitude, is to decline to give them any form of compensation. I gather from the shaking of the head of

125
the hon. Gentleman opposite that the negotiations have not so far resulted in anything very satisfactory, and that therefore the Government are in fact declining to give these young men, now grown older, any compensation for the pluck, the toil and the risk they took so many years ago to put an air-minded Britain on an air-minded map.
I do not know whether it is any use arguing or pleading with this Government. I know that the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary has good intentions. We know the result of good intentions, and where they lead. But I do hope that, fortified by the arguments that have been adduced and by the brilliant contributions that have been made from this side of the House, despite the lamentable silence amongst the Government's own supporters and fortified by the moral justice of the case, the Government will think again, and that the hon. Gentleman will implement the undertaking that he gave us in Committee so that these not now so young men, shall have some reward for the grand enterprise they showed in those far off days.
Sir Patrick Hannon: I do not like to remain silent when an act of great injustice is being perpetrated, especially when it is against ex-Service people. I should like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary what undertaking he gave in Standing Committee upstairs. Did he, in fact, indicate that he was prepared to reconsider the very just claim of these people, when the Bill came to the Report stage) I followed the striking speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), which, was, indeed, one of the finest contributions I have heard in this House in the cause of justice for a long time, and I was astonished that the Attorney-General left the House without making some response, or offering some apology for the attitude he took in his own speech. I hope that in this House, whatever our feelings may be on political questions, in which lines of demarcation divide us from time to time, we shall not allow injustice to be done, particularly to people who cannot help themselves. We have always defended the right. Burke stood up in this House and claimed protection for minorities. It has been a fundamental principle of the processes of Debates in this House of
126
Commons, that minorities shall always be heard and always defended. I look to the Lord Privy Seal. I appeal to him, as an old Parliamentarian who has the highest sense of personal honour. I ask him how he feels about this treatment of those who have been pioneers in the air, and who were really responsible for the training and preparation of the men who manned the planes that flew in the Battle of Britain. I am perfectly——
Mr. Rees-William: May I ask the hon. Gentleman——
Sir P. Hannon: I apologise for not giving way, but I am about to conclude. I am perfectly certain the Lord Privy Seal does not want to see injustice done to those men, and I appeal to him to support the Parliamentary Secretary in implementing whatever promise or undertaking was given in the Standing Committee. We are dealing with very serious questions. The example of this House is copied in all parts of the Commonwealth and in all foreign nations. The conduct of the House of Commons has always had a moral influence in the progress of mankind. Do not let us be associated with any act of injustice.
Mr. Rees-Williams: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, and in the interests of truth and justice, with which we on this side of the House are as much concerned as are hon. Members opposite, may I ask him whether he has entirely ignored the work of the Royal Air Force and of the Auxiliary Air Force before the war, in training the Battle of Britain pilots? I am surprised to hear tonight, for the first time in my life, that that was solely the concern of a few private civil aviation firms.
Sir P. Hannon: I should be the last person to ignore either the Royal Air Force or the Auxiliary Air Force. I am personally associated with the Royal Air Force. But that does not prevent me from making an appeal on behalf of those who are unjustly affected by this Bill.
Group-Captain Wilcock: I should like to support completely the proposal put forward by the Opposition, that compensation should be given; but on quite different grounds. I can see no more justification for giving compensation here than for giving compensation to anyone who, for instance, had a lorry at the beginning of

127
the war and had to sell it, on a falling market; or to a farmer who could not run his farm because he was called up; or to hundreds of other people, who are like examples. Nevertheless, I do support the proposal, because I am quite sure that any compensation given to these pioneers will be "ploughed back" into the aircraft industry in some form or another. Therefore, it might be worthy of the consideration of the Parliamentary Secretary, not to give any monetary payment, but to give some special facilities to these people to get them back into aviation. But compensation should not be given on any other ground, for if it were, we on this side of the House should ask the Government to see that every shopkeeper, and everyone else who suffered similarly because of the war, was also compensated.
Mr. E. L. Gandar Dower: I think it fair to make it dear that I am personally embarrassed at making an oration at my own funeral. It is rather unfortunate that such a new Member in this House should find one of the most important things which comes along touching him personally. It is not acceptable. But I do feel that if I can honestly express my views to this House it may be of some guidance in the matter. Why are these companies asking for these development costs? For one reason only—because they have no chance to resume. You would never have heard, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, of the question of development costs, if the companies had been allowed to pursue the enterprises to which they committed themselves before the war. I, therefore, support this new Clause because, unless it is properly admitted, I fear I must regard the Bill as one of expropriation. If this is to be the last time that the names of these companies are to appear in HANSARD, I should like to name them. They are: Air Dispatch, Atlantic Coasts Air Services, British-American Air Services, Portsmouth and Southsea Aviation, the Straight Corporation, Wrightways, the group of companies controlled by the railways, and, of course, my own company, Allied Airways. All these companies were suppressed in the spring of 1940, except the Railway Air Services and Allied Airways.
Speaking as one of the fortunate ones to come into the arena of negotiation—very doubtful negotiation—as to com-
128
pensation and development, I would say we take no pleasure in our favoured position, because, if we were one of those companies shut down in the spring of 1940, we should feel this injustice deeply. There can be nothing in the Bill which gives any guarantee of compensation. It is suggested that negotiations will be made for purchase, but, in the event of breakdown, what rights have the companies to stand on? The Government can expropriate them completely, and without payment of anything, if the text of the Bill is to be followed. We are informed that negotiations have been proceeding for some time and that, in fact, they are at a fairly advanced stage. I have no wish to bring a cloud of depression over the House, but I regret that, speaking for my own company, we have had one meeting only, and gone away from it bewildered; and we do not feel that the system of negotiation is likely to lead to great success. It is suggested that we should form an estimate of the amount of traffic which might be carried by our present airlines if the company were able to increase the services, and then estimate the profits. At best it is guess work. It might also lead to over-optimism. One feels that it is unwise to proceed on such a basis. It should be a question of actuarial approach to the accounts of the company, and a question of admission of development costs. It is as well to consider what companies have to offer at this juncture when they are to be suppressed. In the case of Allied Airways they offer operations since 1934. During that time heavy initial losses were met; apart from that, the company ran services to districts of meagre population and landing ground had to be developed. Except for nine months, in the whole of the history of these 14 years the company have had no assistance from the Government. We have had some reference today to a 4 per cent. guarantee against loss throughout the war. We have been proud to serve.
8.0 p.m.
Mr. Rees-Williams: On a point of Order. I understand that we are not dealing with the company about which the hon. Member is speaking, which is in a different category.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that the hon. Member has been in Order so far.
Mr. Gandar Dower: We were dealing, I think, with the question of possible arbitration in connection with all companies which may be taken over by the Government. I was stressing the vast difference in the improvement of prospects of an air line company founded in 1934. The number of passengers has risen from 1,300 to 14,000, and receipts from £25 a week to £1,000. I suggest that that is the future which is being stripped from this company, which is not allowed to restart. We have had reference to lack of physical assets and their value. I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary that in 1944 a company which had no physical assets whatever was purchased for a sum approaching £100,000. It was purchased by the railways. I am referring to North Eastern Airways, which had a creditable record for operating air services from London to Leeds, Newcastle, Edinburgh and Aberdeen. It was suppressed in 1940, but the railways were prepared to pay £100,000 for its goodwill and development, and the licences it held from the Air Transport Licensing Authority.
Hon. Members on this side of the House have been kind enough to pay tribute to pioneers. I thank them, but I can assure them that if one loves the job there is no hardship in pursuing it, and that there is far greater hardship in finding you have lost it. I have been "bitten" by aviation since I was 12 years old, when I pursued Graham White in his flight from London to Manchester. I still treasure the stub ends of the cigarettes he threw away. I ran away from a public school to Larkhill to see early flying, and I was soundly thrashed on return. I should be glad if a gesture of the Parliamentary Secretary would allow me to continue in aviation today. These personal admissions can be of no interest to the House, but I would say to him what I said when I first met the Minister of Civil Aviation: "I trust, whatever policy is advanced by the Government, I may be permitted to continue an active and responsible part in it. I cannot conceive living from day to day without having aviation to worry about." I do not think that I could conclude on a better note.
Mr. Ivor Thomas: Eloquent appeals have been made, notably by the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) and the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), on the grounds of justice,
130
that we should pay compensation to those operators who have not been operating since 1940. It is an appeal to which I am bound to be sensitive. Like other hon. Members on this side, I have always taken the view that in any scheme of nationalisation, there must be fair compensation. After full consideration, I can honestly say that in my opinion the Government's decision is right, and that we are behaving very fairly towards those companies which are being taken over. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford said that he could not find words too strong to condemn the Government's action, but these must be his second thoughts. The most effective answer which I can give to him is that the first Amendment, which stood on the Order Paper in his name on this subject, confined compensation to companies operating on 1st November, 1945.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for giving way. As I explained, that was purely a clerical error. When we found that it would limit compensation to the two companies, as the Government apparently intended to limit it, I wrote to the Parliamentary Secretary and took appropriate steps. I am surprised that he should suggest that I have changed my mind.
Mr. Thomas: That explains my point. If it was purely a clerical error, then it shows that it could not have been a very important principle or the hon. Gentleman would surely have been conscious of it beforehand. If it was so obvious, his original Amendment would have been dated 1st September, 1939, instead of 1st November, 1945. I am inclined to think that the hon. Member originally thought that the date of the announcement of the Government's policy was the right date.
Let me divide these companies into their several categories, and then I think the House will be convinced that we have done the right thing. First, there are the companies formed since 1st November, 1945, which was the date when the Government's policy was announced. These companies were given clear warning in the White Paper that no compensation would be paid, and they formed themselves with that knowledge. Then there are the companies operating immediately before the Government's announcement. These are the seven companies which are grouped in the Associated

131
Airways Joint Committee, and Allied Airways (Gandar Dower) Limited. The Swinton plan would have taken over these companies on the basis of compensation for their physical assets only. When we came to approach this question we used very careful language about it. I stated in the House that the Government had not yet been convinced that a case had been made out for payment on any other basis. We studied this question carefully, and we came to the conclusion that we should take over these companies as going concerns, on the basis of a sale between a willing buyer and a willing seller. The way in which that would work out in practice would be similar to that worked out in the case of the acquisition of the coal mines and of coal itself, and many other forms of property. It would be necessary to determine the net maintainable revenue of the undertaking and then multiply it by the appropriate number of years' purchase. These things are well understood by accountants, and I do not think that there will be any difficulty, if there is good will on both sides, in reaching an agreement.
I ought perhaps to add that the Channel Islands Airways will also be taken over in the same way. I have not mentioned it previously because it is outside this country, and the Bill will be applied to the Channel Islands by Order, but it is well to make clear perhaps that what I am saying relates to the Channel Islands Airways as well. Those are the proposals for the companies operating immediately before 1st November, 1945. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) seemed to think that I had given some undertaking in Committee, but I challenge him to find any such undertaking in the official record; I never encouraged the idea that I should have more information to give to the House on the Report stage. Quite obviously, that could not be done in the stage that the negotiations have reached. The Associated Airways Joint Committee have made their estimate of their net maintainable revenue, and, therefore, the negotiations are in an advanced state. Allied Airways (Gandar Dower) Ltd., have not yet given an estimate of their net maintainable revenue.
8.15 p.m.
Having, I hope, convinced the House that we are dealing favourably with the
132
companies operating immediately before 1st November, 1945, I now turn to the companies in operation at the outbreak of war but closed in 1940. As a matter of fact, there was no immediate break in the operation of these internal airlines. They were formed into National Air Communications and went on until June, 1940, and then, with the exception of the five companies which were then grouped in the railway services, and Allied Airway (Gandar Dower) Ltd., they were put out of business, and they have not been able to resume business. I have gone into this question very carefully, and the grounds for not paying compensation in their case seems to me to be very strong. In the first place, these companies, it ought to be remembered, had no definite security of tenure. It has been said in the Debate today that they would have been able to resume operations if a Socialist Government had not been elected, and had not brought in a Bill to nationalise the scheduled services. That is not the case. They operated under licence granted by the licensing authority in 1939 for a period of seven years. There was no guarantee that when those licences expired they would get new ones. I do not want to rest my whole case on that, but it is a fact that they had no security of tenure. It was conditional on their getting licences from the air licensing authority of those days.
Secondly, the companies were generously treated in 1940 in that their aircraft, for which there was then no market, were acquired at very reasonable prices. It has been argued that the companies did not get a good price for their aircraft, because there was no demand, but they were, in fact, paid for at the prices ruling in 1939, immediately before the war, at a time when there was a great demand for civil aircraft which could not be satisfied. The prices were high, and it was on that basis that compensation for their physical assets was paid. I have never heard the companies complain on that score. Thirdly, it must be remembered that most of these companies had remunerative work during the war. They were put on to repairing aircraft and other work for the Government; it was, of course, payment for work done, but it has to be taken into account in the overall picture.
Finally, I come to the main argument on which I must resist compensation and

133
that is the one already detailed by the Attorney-General. It is that any goodwill and any development expenditure which they might have had in 1939 has been destroyed by the intervention of the war, as in the case of many other types or business. The sum involved is, admittedly, not large. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have made that point. It would, in fact, for all the companies involved, and there are more than those that have been instanced tonight, be only £80,000. It is not, therefore, a large sum in itself. That is the payment for goodwill and development expenses, as claimed by themselves in a statement based on the date 1st September, 1939. Although it is not a large sum, the Government have to be as, careful with £80,000, as with £80 million. It is one of the foundations of Parliamentary government that this House maintains the most careful control over any form of expenditure. If this sum cannot be justified on its merits, I cannot justify it on the grounds that it is "only a little one." That argument has often been used but has seldom found favour with those to whom it has been used. I cannot see any justification for such a payment, for the reasons given by the Attorney-General and those which I have now added. We cannot pay this sum without paying compensation to the very large numbers of persons who come in similar categories. Hundreds of thousands of persons have not been able to resume the occupations which they had before the war. That is the essence of the argument which led us after much consideration to the conclusion that no compensation could be paid to the prewar airline operators put out of business in 1940.
There are one or two other points raised in the Debate today to which I ought to reply. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs said that the aerodrome owners were being put into a different category because they had many votes, whereas the prewar airline operators had few votes. Such considerations would not enter our mind, but I must point out that the aerodrome owners have a physical asset which is being taken over. There is no compensation for goodwill or development, and the basis of compensation is laid down in the public Acts. These are, of course, the Acquisition of Land Act, as amended by the Town and Country
134
Planning Act. They will be paid at 1939 values, with the appropriate supplement, where a supplement is due. They are being paid, therefore, for their physical assets on the basis of existing enactments, and there is no differentiation of treatment. The hon. and gallant Member for Derby (Group-Captain Wilcock), has a very generous heart indeed. He argued that the money being paid would be "ploughed back" into the aircraft industry in some form or other. I hope that it would go back in that way, and that might mitigate the payment to some extent, but if we want to help the aircraft industry, we can find many ways of doing it other than by paying the sums now claimed. I think that the hon. and gallant Member's argument amounted to no more than this: He wants to, be sympathetic and generous to these, companies, the sum involved is small, and the Government can very well afford this small act of generosity. I should like to be able to do it, bin I can only do it if there is some principle on which I can work. I cannot see drat any case has been made out to pay compensation to these operators, who are in the same position as many hundreds of thousands of other people.
Colonel Hutchison: I should like to reply very briefly to the Debate and to the views of the Front Bench. We have seen a classic example of schizophrenia between the Parliamentary Secretary and the right hon. and learned Attorney-General. The Parliamentary Secretary, whose mentality in this matter I like-much better than that of the Attorney-General, has been labouring with difficulty to try to show us that there is nothing in a case for compensation for goodwill. Our argument is that if there is; a case for compensation, let the arbitrators and the accountants get working on it. The Parliamentary Secretary has shown he has weakened sufficiently in his attitude to take over those concerns which, in principle, were going concerns, at November, 1945. That principle we thoroughly commend, and that is the principle we wish applied to those who were shut down in 1939 and 1940 and prevented from operating. We ask the Parliamentary Secretary to apply the same logic to those concerns as to those which were going concerns up to 1945. What is the mentality of the Attorney-General? He introduced so many in-

135
consequences and so many unparalleled examples of the case we tried to make, that it would delay the House if I tried to follow him, but I should like to fix on two words of transcendental importance that he used. He said the Government's policy was to pay only for tangible assets. I am glad to see that the Attorney-General has just come back, because shortly after he uttered those words he fled, no doubt to find some tangible assets in some dining room. I would like to ask the Attorney-General is he prepared to substantiate that attitude as regards purchase money with the
Minister of Health, and preach the same doctrine in regard to doctors and dentists. Is that the Government policy in regard to the coal stockholders, to small transport undertakings and to those shareholders in iron and steel because it is a new and desperately dangerous departure? So far from our apprehension being lightened, it is only deepened by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's pregnant words.
Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The House divided: Ayes, 90; Noes, 258.

Division No. 237.]

AYES.

[8.25 p.m.

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Hope, Lord J.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Amory, D. Heathcoat

Hulbert, Wing-Comdr. N. J.

Prescott, Stanley

Astor, Hon. M.

Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

Renton, D.

Baldwin, A. E.

Hutchison, Cot. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

Roberts, Mai, P. G. (Ecclesall)

Bower, N.

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Langford-Holt, J.

Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

Braithwaite, Lt-Comdr. J. G.

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

Ropner, Col. L.

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Ross, Sir R.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Bullock, Capt. M.

Linstead, H. N.

Smithers, Sir W.

Channon, H.

Lipson, D. L.

Snadden, W. M.

Clarke, Col. R. S.

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

Grosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

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

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.

Studholme, H. G.

Drayson, Capt. G. B.

Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Taylor, Vice-A dm. E. A. (P'ddt'n, S.)

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

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Teeling, William

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Marsden, Capt. A.

Thorneyoroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

Gage, Lt.-Col. C.

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

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

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

Turton, R. H.

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Maude, J. C.

Vane, W. M. T.

Gridley, Sir A.

Mellor, Sir J.

Walker-Smith, D.

Grimston, R. V.

Molson, A. H. E.

Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

White, J. B. (Canterbury)

Hare, Lieut.-Col. Hon. J. H. (W'db'ge)

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

Neven-Spenee, Sir B.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Haughton, S. G.

Nicholson, G.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Peto, Brig. G. H. M.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hollis, M. C.

Pickthorn, K.

Major Conant and Mr. Drewe.

NOES.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Blenkinsop, Capt. A.

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

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

Boardman, H.

Corlett, Dr. J.

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

Bottomley, A. G.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Daggar, G.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

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

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Allighan, Garry

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Alpass, J. H.

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Attewell, H. C.

Brown. George (Belper)

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

Austin, H. L.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Awbery, S. S.

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Deer, G

Ayles, W. H.

Buchanan, G.

Diamond, J.

Bacon, Miss A.

Burden, T. W.

Dobbie, W

Baird, Capt. J.

Burke, W. A.

Donovan, T.

Balfour, A.

Callaghan, James

Driberg, T. E. N.

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Castle, Mrs. B A.

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Barstow, P. G.

Champion, A. J.

Durbin, E. F. M.

Barton, C.

Chaster, D.

Dye, S.

Battley, J. R.

Ghetwynd, Capt. G. R.

Edelman, M.

Bechervaise, A. E.

Clitherow, Dr R.

Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

Belcher, J. W.

Cluse, W. S.

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Benson, G.

Cocks, F. S.

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

Berry, H.

Collick, P.

Evans, J. (Ogmore)

Bing, G. H. C.

Collins, V. J.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Binns, J.

Comyns, Dr. L.

Ewart, R.

Blackburn, A. R.

Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

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

Follick, M.

Marshall, F. (Brightside)

Skinnard, F. W.

Foot, M. M.

Mayhew, C. P.

Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)

Foster, W. (Wigan)

Medland, H. M.

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

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Middleton, Mrs. L.

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

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Mikardo, Ian

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Gibbins, J.

Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.

Snow, Capt. J. W.

Gibson. C. W.

Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

Solley, L. J.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Monslow, W.

Sorensen, R. W.

Goodrich, H. E.

Moody, A. S.

Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

Gordon-Walker, P. C.

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Stamford, W.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

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

Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

Greenwood, A. W. d. (Heywood)

Moyle, A.

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

Grenfell, D. R.

Murray, J. D.

Stubbs, A. E.

Grey, C. F.

Nally, W

Swingler, S.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Naylor, T. E.

Symonds, Maj. A. L.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Gunter, Capt. R. J.

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

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

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

Noel-Buxton, Lady

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Hale, Leslie

O'Brien, T.

Thomas, John R. (Dover)

Hamilton. Lieut.-Col. R.

Oldfield, W. H.

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

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Oliver, G. H.

Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)

Hardy, E. A.

Orbach, M.

Tiffany, S.

Harrison, J.

Paget, R. T.

Titterington, M. F.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Tolley, L.

Haworth, J.

Palmar, A. M. F.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Pargiter, G. A.

Turner-Samuels, M.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Parker, J.

Ungoed-Thomas, L.

Hicks, G.

Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.

Usborne, Henry

Holman, P.

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Pearson, A.

Viant, S. P.

House, G.

Peart, Capt. T. F.

Walkden, E.

Hoy, J.

Perrins, W.

Walker, G. H.

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

Popplewell, E.

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Porter, G. (Leeds)

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

Irving, W. J.

Price, M. Philips

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Pritt, D. N.

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

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

Proctor, W. T.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Wigs, Col. G. E.

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Randall, H. E.

Wilkes, Maj. L.

Key, C. W.

Ranger, J.

Wilkins, W. A.

Kinley, J.

Rankin, J.

Wilkinson, Rt. Hon. Ellen

Kirby, B. V.

Rees-Williams, D. R.

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Lang, G.

Reeves, J.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Richards, R.

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

Leslie, J. R.

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Lewis, A. W J. (Upton)

Robens, A.

Williamson, T.

Lewis, J. (Bolton)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Willis, E.

Lindgren, G. S.

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.

Logan, D. G.

Rogers, G. H. R.

Wilson, J. H.

Lyne, A. W.

Royle, C.

Woodburn, A.

McAdam, W.

Scollan, T.

Woods, G. S.

McEntee, V. La T

Scott-Elliot, W.

Wyatt, Maj. W

McGhee, H. G.

Segal, Dr. S.

Yates, V. F.

McGovern, J.

Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Mack, J. D

Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Zilliacus, K.

McLeavy, F.

Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Shurmer, P.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Mr. Collindridge and

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

Simmons, C. J.

Mr. Coldrick.

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Skeffington, A. M.

CLAUSE 1.—(Establishment and constitution of British European Airways Corporation and British South American Airways Corporation.)
8.30 p.m.
Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, in page line 20, to leave out "three" and to insert "new".
There was a little misunderstanding upstairs between the Government and the Committee. The Committee altered the words of the Bill as they stood originally, and by this Amendment we seek to restore those words. We have no quarrel at all
138
with the substance of the Amendment which was made in Committee, namely, that the minimum number of members of B.O.A.C. shall be the same as the minimum number of members of the other corporations, that is to say, that there shall be three members, in addition to the chairman and deputy-chairman. Obviously, it is not worth quarrelling about whether there ought to be a minimum of three or five members, in addition to the chairman or deputy-chairman, but the proper place for making that change is in Clause 25. I ask the House to restore the original language of the Bill,

139
and I intend to move the necessary Amendment when we come to Clause 25.
Sir T. Moore: This is one further example of the uncertainty of the Government both as to their own intentions and their own phraseology. When we discussed the matter in Committee it was obvious that it was the wish of the Committee to have this Clause tidied up, and we, and, I think, the Parliamentary Secretary, were all of one accord that it would be better to have the word "three" than the word "new", because "three" more accurately represented the general views of the Committee and also brought the broad scheme which the Government had in view more into line as regards the three corporations. All that we on this side of the House are concerned with is to do everything we can to help the Government now that their policy has been accepted. The Government do not get much help from their own supporters; therefore, that duty obviously lies upon us.
When we discussed the matter before, it was obvious that the Government representatives, except possibly the Parliamentary Secretary, had not read the Bill very intelligently. Possibly the Parliamentary draftsmen said, "We have made the best of a bad job; you can take our word for it, and we will put you right if there is any difficulty with the Opposition." They hoped for the best, but unfortunately they did not take note of the fact that they had to deal with a very quick, agile, eager, competent, efficient and helpful Opposition. Whenever Ate saw the Government going wrong, we immediately tried to put them right. Sometimes our help was accepted in that urbane manner for which the Parliamentary Secretary is properly so popular, and sometimes it was resisted because of ignorance, or lack of appreciation of what we were endeavouring to do. In this particular case, however, we were all of one accord. It was generally accepted that the substitution of "three" for "new" was in accord with what the Committee intended. Then, suddenly, the Parliamentary. Secretary said, "Ah, there is something wrong; we should not have been too quick about that"; and he sent for the Parliamentary draftsmen. Of course, they have forgotten all about the Bill now, because they are so engaged
140
with the next five or six Bills that have to be pushed through the printing presses, that they do not have much time to consider the phraseology of any one Government Bill. That is rather sad, because it puts an extra responsibility and burden on the House which, I think, the House has some reason to resist. We are not Parliamentary draftsmen, but certainly when we find that "three" can be changed to "new" and "new" be changed to "three," it is time we sat up and asked where the division of responsibility lies between the sponsors of a Bill and those who oppose it. The time must come when we, as an Opposition, shall sit back and say that our task is done and we can do no more.
Mr. Mikardo: I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not mind my intervening, because we became old friends after our tussles upstairs. The hon. and gallant Gentleman appears to have forgotten that this assistance given to the Government in Committee, for which he is claiming credit to the Opposition, was the result of an Amendment moved by hon. Members on this side of the House. In spite of the hon. and gallant Gentleman having been there, he appears to have been misled by a false report in the "Evening Standard."
Sir T. Moore: The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) is quite right. It was one of the few occasions on which hon. Gentlemen opposite moved an intelligent Amendment. We seized the opportunity immediately to give it all support. I return to the small but fundamental point of whether the Government may from day to day change their minds —even on small points, apart altogether from matters of principle, which of course matter little to them. We on this side of the House, as an Opposition, must take up a definite stand on this question. Are we to stand by and allow the Government to change their minds overnight without a full explanation? A full explanation has certainly not been given in this case, did the Parliamentary Secretary imagine that with his few bland and persuasive words the Opposition would sit back and say," Very good, sir As one who has watched the present Measure through its various stages from its unhappy birth to, I suppose, a prosperous death—although this depends on the amount of compensation the Minister will

141
pay under the last Clause—I feel that we have a duty to perform. I felt that I would not have been acting in accordance with the best traditions of this House had I not made it clear to those hon. Members who were not present in the Committee that they are in a dangerous position if they give blind support to the Government without receiving a full and complete explanation as to why that support should be given.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. C. S. Taylor: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Would it be in Order for rue to make a respectful submission to you on why the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friends and myself on Clause 2, page 2, line 11, should be called?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It would not be in Order. The Amendment has not been selected.

CLAUSE 5.—(Employment of British subjects and use of aircraft registered in His Majesty's Dominions.)
Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, in page 4, line 13, to leave out from "Dominions" to the end of the Clause.
This Amendment is designed to meet a wish expressed from both sides of the Committee upstairs, and one which surprised me at the time. It was requested that the Minister should not be empowered to make regulations for securing that pilots and other persons concerned should have a connection with His Majesty's Armed Forces. However, the wish was general, and we are prepared to omit the words in question.
Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 23.—(Reservation of certain air services to the three corporations and their associates.)
Sir T. Moore: I beg to move——
Mr. Ivor Thomas: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it in Order for the Amendment to be moved by the hon. and gallant Gentleman since his name does not appear on the Order Paper?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is within the Rules of Order although somewhat to be deprecated. In view of the absence of the hon. and right hon. Members who have put down the Amendment, I have called on the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore).
8.45 p.m.
Sir T. Moore: I beg to move, in page 14, line 25, at the end, to insert:
"but does not include any such journey undertaken for the purpose of carrying passengers to any place at which accommodation has been reserved for such passengers under a contract or agreement which provides for the carriage of such passengers to, and the reservation of accommodation for such passengers at, that place, at an inclusive charge of which the charge for such accommodation forms a substantial part."
This is an obvious Amendment. But for the fact that hon. Members on the other side have shown such inability to understand the argument that we have been using during the day, I would not have taken the trouble to say anything about it. Such a large number of hon. Members who support the Government seem, however, to be unaware of the implications of this very important Clause, and of this even more important Amendment, that we must give the matter rather more time, and a rather wider explanation than I had at first intended. Hon. Members who look for further explanation had better get it from one of those hon. Members of the Committee who have studied this matter at considerable length, whilst I was busily engaged on studying other Amendments.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It would very much facilitate my task if I knew exactly which Amendment we were discussing.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is the Amendment to Clause 23, in page 14, line 25, at the end, to insert the words that are on the Order Paper.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do not think it is irregular for such an Amendment to be seconded from the Front Bench.
Mr. Gordon-Walker (Smethwick): On a point of Order. Is it possible for an hon. Member to speak relevantly if lie does not know which Amendment is before the House?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a question which the Chair should be asked to decide. The speech of the hon. Member will have to be relevant or it will be out of Order.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) who spoke earlier has perhaps done so under some misapprehension. I now

143
know clearly which Amendment I am seconding, and I apologise to the Parliamentary Secretary, to the House, and to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for any discourtesy which may have appeared to have arisen. There was an unexpected collapse of an earlier Amendment which I had thought the back benchers on the Government side would certainly prolong for at least another 10 minutes.
The Amendment, moved with great eloquence by my hon. and gallant Friend, deals with a point that causes some uncertainty in the minds of people whose interests this House should safeguard. They are, in particular, the various travel agencies, and many hundreds of thousands of people for whom we hope the agencies will cater in the future in respect of holidays by air overseas. We had a very long discussion upstairs on the subject of charter companies and scheduled services. I do not wish to be drawn into the subject at any length now, but one thing emerged from our deliberations. It was the great uncertainty from which a large number of people may suffer who might wish to take tickets from travel agencies, unless this matter is cleared up.
The House will remember from a knowledge of the Bill—certainly the Members of the Committee will remember—that if an air line operator advertises a regular service from the same place to the same place and advertises to the public seats upon that service, it is a scheduled service, and it is therefore reserved for the three corporations. Anybody who infringes that rule will be fined on indictment £5,000, and there are various other penalties. A number of travel agencies have this sort of project in mind. They want to run a regular service, for example, every weekend to various resorts in Switzerland or Northern Italy. That includes not only companies like Cooks, but the Workers' Educational Association and others. They want to advertise a regular service going possibly every Friday or Saturday to the same place. From comments which we obtained from the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee, it is obvious that if they did so it would fall under the ban of being a scheduled service, and it would be illegal.
I think that is not what the House as a whole would like to see done. We should like to see the travel agencies, whoever they may be—private ones or the
144
Workers' Educational Association, which is a perfectly orderly private company and has done admirable work in the past—free to advertise a regular service to places of historic interest overseas. We have put down this Amendment to protect the position of such agencies. We see that they cannot be permitted to impinge on the regular work of the corporations, and we have drawn up the Amendment in this way—that if there is a single figure for the ticket which includes the air travel, the hotel accommodation and journeys from one historic place to another by bus or anything else, and if the hotel accommodation forms a substantial part of the cost of the ticket, the service shall not be ranked as a scheduled service.
No doubt the Parliamentary Secretary or the Attorney-General may suggest in reply that this can safely be left to the corporation, but it is highly unlikely that the corporations will run the sort of delightful tours overseas that we hope hundreds of thousands of our people will enjoy in ever increasing numbers in the future. It would be outside the main purpose of the corporations, whose job is to run straight routes from one place to another and to speed up air travel. This is the sort of service in which the experience of the travel agencies will be extremely valuable, and we should make use of them in this new field of the air in order to give large numbers of our people the chance of having such a trip.
It is likely that the Government will say that these trips could be run by the charter services, but the cost for tours of that kind would be high and far beyond the reach of the large numbers of people we hope to see enjoying them. For all these reasons, I hope the Government will give sympathetic consideration to this Amendment which is not designed to sabotage the Government's three corporation fabric or to add to their difficulties, but to give legitimacy to what we think would be a highly desirable form of enterprise.
Air-Commodore Harvey: I told the Committee upstairs that I have an interest in an air charter company, and it would be fair to tell the House that also. Perhaps in time the Attorney-General will fly up North by Westminster Airways. He will get there very rapidly. The tourist industry of this country will increase, and once we get over our immediate difficulties, we shall have many Americans

145
coming to this country, particularly to the parts where American troops have been. They will bring their wives and families with them, and will set off from this country to Germany, Italy, Austria and the whole of the Continent. There is a great opportunity for us to "cash in" on these Americans when they come over. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may not have been very successful in "cashing in" on the Americans, but the chances do exist and I submit that there is real business to be done if the private companies in this country are given the opportunity to carry out their form of trading. The charter companies are eminently suited for this type of work, which can be carried on by a small organisation of perhaps a dozen men running the whole company, giving that personal touch which makes passengers feel that they are being well looked after. They will probably be well looked after by the Government corporations but there is not that individual attention which is given by the smaller concerns. Unless these facilities are given I believe we shall lose this type of trade to the Dutch, the Swiss and the French, who are all ready to undertake it with their own charter companies. I believe the Government would be doing a good stroke of business in allowing this type of work, which can be defined quite clearly, say, once a week, or so many days on the Continent, hotel bills combined with the charges for flying, and the other services thrown in. Ti the Government do this they will have no regrets about it later on.
The Attorney-General: I hope the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) and the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) will not think me guilty of any discourtesy if I say that the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) who moved this Amendment was perhaps rather more directed to the subject matter which the House has to discuss than that of the two hon. Members who succeeded him. Indeed, I am bound to confess that having listened to the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs on a number of occasions, I have never known one when he was able to speak more concisely and more to the point than he did in the course of his speech on this Amendment.
The effect of the Amendment would be very largely to deprive the statutory cor-
146
porations of the benefit of the tourist traffic, part of the "cream" of the service for which they are quite properly entitled to cater. It is, as hon. Members have said, a common and increasing and, I venture to think, desirable practice for travel agencies and transport operators to quote inclusive charges to cover both the transport to a holiday resort and the price of accommodation at that resort. No doubt that is a practice which has met and will continue to meet the convenience of a large section of the public. If private operators were allowed to come in and cater for that kind of service, not by way of ad hoc charter work but by way of providing a regular schedule service, it would mean that one would set up in this field a large scale and uneconomic competition with the statutory corporations on all the scheduled services which they might operate. They would run to places like Torquay or Switzerland or any of the holiday resorts to which people are more likely to go for the purpose of a holiday visit than for the purpose of business or permanent residence, and in effect provide a regular service for return passengers.
In our view, that is exactly the type of traffic which the statutory corporations ought to encourage and ought to cater for. There will be no difficulty—hon. Members seemed to envisage that there might be—in any of the recognised travel agencies arranging with the corporations to run scheduled services of this kind, and providing would-be passengers and holiday makers with an inclusive ticket covering the scheduled service and the holiday accommodation in Switzerland or in Torquay, as the case may be. To allow the private operator to come in there and to "cream" that part of the service, would be to destroy a very valuable part of the public monopoly which Parliament is creating and would, in the end, not in any way further the public interest or improve the accommodation available at holiday resorts, the transport services, or the air facilities available for travelling to them. I ask the House to say that this is a clear case where private operators should he left free to deal with ad hoc cases on a charter basis——
9 p.m.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Rich people.
The Attorney-General: Rich and poor. If they cannot afford to run charter

147
services at a price ordinary people can pay, that says little for private operators. There-is no reason why private operators could not come in and run ad hoc charter services, but every reason why we should not make a general exception to Clause 23 and deny this right to the corporations.
Wing-Commander Robinson: I rise to support the Amendment. I think that behind it there is a plan which shows a certain amount of initiative and enterprise which we need. I am sorry that the Attorney-General should be afraid of this kind of competition. It is, indeed, a frail flower that cannot stand some of the gentle winds of competition in a sphere in which it may not be acting itself. The idea is not a new one. One can take the example of the motor touring industry. One may travel all over the country and an inclusive price is charged which sometimes includes a week's holiday. I do not see why something like that should harm any of the three corporations. Have the railway companies ever suggested that arrangements of that kind have taken the cream of their traffic?
The Attorney-General: If the hon. and gallant Member really asks that with the intention of getting an answer, the answer is that of course they have. The Ribble Company, an example which operates in his part of the world, has catered for this kind of traffic. It is a railway-owned company and has opposed other people who have come in and tried to cater for that traffic also.
Wing-Commander Robinson: They have tried to cater for it, and have been able to cater for it in the past by private enterprise. Both have been able to go on side by side under independent operators. I think the plan is very reasonable and sensible. The Attorney-General does not tell us that any of the corporations propose to operate tours of this kind. We are told that perhaps some travel agent may hire them to do the job. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will address himself a little further to the problem. Are the three corporations to have great masses of small planes available at any time to take on this kind of work? I do not for a moment believe that they are, as we know how small the output of aircraft is at present. They are engaged in producing bigger planes which will not be suitable for
148
this kind of work. Why cannot the chance be given to the small man with some energy and inspiration to carry on this job? I do not believe that the idea behind the Amendment is to take away the cream of the traffic. There are many small resorts that are not adjacent to any of the main airlines. It may be that some hotel proprietor would wish to hire aircraft every third or fourth week end to bring out parties to his hotel. It is a chance of employment which could keep a small man going in this country. I beg the Government to reconsider the matter.
Commander Galbraith: I wonder if we might have a little more information from the Parliamentary Secretary? I am rather struck by this fact, and would like the assistance of the Parliamentary Secretary on the matter. As I see it, these great corporations will be running scheduled services as economically as possible. Therefore, it seems to me that they will have the number of planes required to operate the services at any time, that is, throughout the entire year. When the summer months come, and there is a sudden rush of traffic, will the corporations be equipped to deal with that? If they are, will it not mean that during the greater part of the year they will have a lot of machines laid up? That is merely how it strikes me. I would like an explanation on that point from the Parliamentary Secretary.
Mr. Ivor Thomas: The corporations will be in a position no different from the charter companies. They also will have the problem of seasonal and non-seasonal traffic. It is more likely that three corporations, operating as a whole over the whole world, will have the aircraft than will a small charter company. In reply to the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for South Blackpool (Wing-Commander Robinson), I do not know why he assumes that small aircraft will be used for this purpose. We believe, and I think that those who are proposing this Amendment believe, that there is a large traffic waiting to be taken in this way. Normally, I imagine that for services to holiday countries such as Switzerland, medium sized aircraft will be needed, and they are more likely to be in the possession of the corporations than of a private company.
Wing-Commander Robinson: I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary

149
one question. Suppose a travel agency desires to develop such a week-end service, and goes to the one of the three corporations which covers that particular area, and asks if it can charter a plane. If the big corporation says "No, we have not got an aeroplane available," does that mean that the whole thing cannot be done, because if a private operator had that opportunity, it would mean a scheduled service for him, and enable him to carry on his activities and earn his daily bread?
Mr. Thomas: No, Sir. The possibility is not ruled out. We are not guided by any doctrinaire spirit in this matter, and at the present time there are certain arrangements between the corporations
and charter companies by which charter companies act as agents for the corporations, because the corporations are fully occupied in developing their main services. That method would still he open in the cases he has suggested, and also the carriage of mails for Christmas. I make no promises. Each case must be considered on its merits when the time comes. Clearly the suggestion in the Amendment would open a wide door to infringement of the Government's policy, which is that scheduled services should be reserved to the three corporations.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
The House divided: Ayes, 91; Noes, 260.

Division No. 238.]

AYES

[9.10 p.m.

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Hope, Lord J.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Amory, D. Heathcoat

Hulbert, Wing-Comdr. N. J.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Astor, Hon. M.

Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Baldwin, A. E.

Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

Pickthorn, K.

Bower, N.

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Prescott, Stanley

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Renton, D.

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

Langford-Holt, J.

Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)

Buchan-Hcpburn, P. G. T.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

Bullock, Capt. M.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Ropner, Col. L.

Channon, H.

Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

Ross, Sir R.

Clarke, Col. R. S.

Linstead, H. N.

Shepherd, W S. (Bucklow)

Clifton-Brown. Lt.-Col. G.

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Smithers, Sir W.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Lucas, Major Sir J.

Snadden, W. M.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H-

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Dower, E. L. G (Caithness)

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

Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

Drayson, Capt. G. B.

Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L

Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

Studholme, H. G.

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

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Taylor, C. S (Eastbourne)

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A (P'ddt'n, S)

Gags, Lt.-Col. C.

Marsden, Capt A.

Teeling, William

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Thorneycroft, G E. P. (Monmouth)

Gridley, Sir A.

Marshall, S. H. (button)

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

Grimston, R. V.

Maude, J. C.

Turton, R. H.

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Mellor, Sir J.

Vane, W. M. T.

Hare, Lieut.-Col. Hon. J. H. (W'db'ge)

Molson, A. H. E.

Walker-Smith, D.

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

Haughton, S. G.

Morris-Jones, Sir H.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

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

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Neven-Spence, Sir B.

Hollis, M. C

Nicholson, G

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Mr. Drewe and Major Conant

NOES

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Bing, G. H. C

Cooks, F. S.

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

Binns, J.

Coldrick, W.

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

Blackburn, A. R.

Collick, P.

Allen, A. C (Bosworth)

Blenkinsop, Capt. A

Collindridge, F.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Boardman, H.

Collins, V. J.

Alpass, J. H.

Bottomley, A. G.

Comyns, Dr. L.

Attewell, H. C.

Bowles, F G. (Nuneaton)

Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

Austin, H. L.

Braddook, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

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

Awbery, S. S.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Corlett, Dr, J.

Ayles, W. H.

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Crossman, R. H. S.

Ayrton, Gould, Mrs. B

Brown, George (Belper)

Daggar, G.

Bacon, Miss A.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Baird, Capt. J.

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Balfour, A.

Buchanan, G.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Burden, T. W.

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

Barstow, P. G

Burke, W. A.

Davies, R. J. (Westhaughton)

Barton, C.

Callaghan, James

Deer, G.

Battley, J. R.

Champion, A. J.

Diamond, J.

Bechervaise, A. E

Chater, D.

Dobbie, W.

Belcher, J. W.

Chetwynd, Capt. G. R

Dodds, N. N.

Benson, G.

Clitherow, Dr. R.

Donovan, T.

Berry, H.

Cluse, W. S.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

McAdam, W.

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Durbin, E. F. M.

McEntee, V. La T.

Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)

Dye, S.

McGhee, H. G.

Shurmer, P.

Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

McGovern, J.

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Mack, J. D.

Simmons, C. J.

Evans, E (Lowestoft)

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Skeffington, A. M.

Evans, J. (Ogmore)

McLeavy, F.

Skinnard, F. W.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)

Ewart, R.

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

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

Farthing, W. J.

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

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

Follick, M.

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Foot, M. M.

Marshall, F. (Brightside)

Snow, Capt. J. W.

Foster, W. (Wigan)

Mayhew, C. P.

Solley, L. J.

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Medland, H. M.

Sorensen, R. W.

Freeman. Maj J. (Watford)

Middletan, Mrs. L.

Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Mikardo, Ian

Stamford, W.

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Millington, Wins Comdr. E. R.

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

Gibbins, J.

Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

Stubbs, A. E.

Gibson, C. W.

Monslow, W.

Swingler, S.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Moody, A. S.

Symonds, Maj. A. L.

Gordon-Walker, P. C

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

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

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Moyle, A.

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

Grenfell, D. R.

Murray, J. D.

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Grey, C. F.

Nally, W.

Thomas, John R. (Dover)

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Naylor, T. E.

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

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Tiffany, S.

Gunter, Capt. R. J.

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

Titterington, M. F.

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

Noel-Buxton, Lady

Tolley, L.

Hale, Leslie

Oldfield, W. H.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Oliver, G. H.

Turner-Samuels, M.

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Orbach, M.

Ungoed-Thomas, L.

Hardy, E. A.

Paget, R. T.

Usborne, Henry

Harrison, J.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Pargiter, G. A.

Viant, S. P.

Haworth, J.

Parker, J.

Walkden, E.

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Parkin, Flt-Lieut. B. T.

Walker, G. H.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Hicks, G.

Pearson, A.

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

Hobson, C. R.

Peart, Capt. T. F.

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Holman, P.

Perrins, W.

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

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

House, G.

Price, M. Philips

Wigg, Col. G. E.

Hoy, J.

Pritt, D N.

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

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

Proctor, W. T.

Wilkins, W. A.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Willey, F. T, (Sunderland)

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Randall, H. E.

Willey. O. G. (Cleveland)

Irving, W. J.

Ranger, J.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Rankin, J.

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

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

Rees-Williams, D. R

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Reeves, J.

Williamson, T.

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Willis, E.

Kenyon, C.

Richards, R.

Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.

Key, C. W.

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Wilson, J. H.

Kinley, J.

Robens, A.

Woodburn, A.

Kirby, B. V.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Woods, G. S.

Lang, G.

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Wyatt, Maj. W.

Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Yates, V. F.

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Rogers, G. H. R.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Leslie, J. R.

Royle, C.

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

Sultan, T.

Zilliacus, K.

Lewis, J. (Bolton)

Scott-Elliot, W.

Lindgren, G. S.

Segal, Dr. S.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Lipson, D. L.

Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.

Captain Michael Stewart

Lyne, A. W.

Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

Mr. Popplewell

Sir T. Moore: I beg to move, in page 15, line 1, to leave out paragraph (b).
I now come to one of the most monstrous proposals in this ill-conceived Bill —[Laughter]—and if the hon. Members who giggled just now will read the title of the Clause, they will see what a menacing character it has—"Reservation of certain air services to the three corporations." My intention is to show the House exactly how the Government proceed to reserve these services and to protect their chil-
152
dren, the corporations. When one looks at the paragraph which this Amendment seeks to exclude—[Interruption]. I was just wondering, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if this House had any subject of conversation beyond this Bill, because, if so, hon. Members might let me know about it and I will join in it. I do not want to miss anything good that is going on. I imagine that my remarks would be more intelligible and more interesting to many hon. Members opposite if they were heard, and I would suggest to them that they should

153
listen to me. We are trying-to eliminate from this Bill the paragraph which imposes a fine of £5,000 and/or two years' imprisonment on any subject of His Majesty who unwittingly or unknowingly breaks this provision.
How, I ask the right hon. and learned Attorney-General, can he possibly justify such a savage penalty? I have asked him the same question before, and he has been unable to answer it. Unfortunately, we were not in a position to put down an Amendment on the Committee stage and, therefore, this is the first opportunity on which he can be challenged to give any real explanation of this outrageous penalty on an unwitting breaker of the law. It must be remembered that the vast majority of the young men who will be engaged on charter services will have come out of the Forces with their blood still running hot and high in their veins, and that same blood will not yet, I presume, have been watered down or dried up by the acts of the present Government. Therefore, it is to be presumed that they will have the spirit of adventure still so strong in their hearts and minds that they will naturally seek to take to the air.
Every hon. Member knows that the number of Regulations passed by the Government during the last year has so bemused the public that very few people know whether they are criminals or not. In fact, I would hazard the suggestion that every one in this House and every member of the public outside is a criminal and an offender against some Regulation issued by the Government. We in this House presume to know something about Parliamentary phraseology, but how is the member of the outside public, with little opportunity to delve into Dr examine the verbose and difficult phraseology used by the Parliamentary draftsmen, able to understand it? I regret to have to bring in the Parliamentary draftsmen, because it is not their fault. They are merely the interpreters of a bemused Front Bench, and they do their best with very poor material. The point is, how are these young men who are just out of the Forces, eager and anxious not only to earn a living but to serve the public, to understand when and where they are breaking the law? We have found it almost impossible sometimes to get an explanation of the word "charter" which would satisfy us. We tried it for two hours in Com-
154
mittee, and could not get a satisfactory explanation.
How are these young men to find out what "charter" means, when they are breaking the law, and when they are offending against one of these sacred corporations which may be brought down into disrepute and bankruptcy it too many of these charterers get to work? The Government are taking an improper and unfair advantage of their power and strength of a two to one majority in this House to frighten off these young men from competing with these cherished corporations. I cannot remember in all my 21 years in this House an Act of Parliament of quite such a monstrous character. I cannot remember on any occasion in any Bill that has been discussed in this House the proposal that a servant of the public should be liable to a fine of is£5,000 and/or two years' imprisonment for serving the public. The whole thing seems almost the tale of an idiot, and, looking round at some of those who framed this Bill, I would not go so far as that, but pretty near.
In moving this Amendment, I am speaking for a body of young men who look to this Government to prepare a pleasant trail to glory and honour. They voted for them; there is no question about that. They believed in a grand new world in which every man might rise to the highest levels by his own unaided efforts, but supported by this great, new, vital, young Government. This is the answer they get. This is the reward they get—a fine of £5,000 and/or two years' imprisonment if they dare to touch these sacred, treasured corporations which mean the success or failure of the Government's policy of nationalising civil aviation. That is why the Government are so careful. They do not want these young men to get into the charter service. They want to reserve everything they possibly can for the corporations. They know their reputation will stand or fall—and it will more likely fall —according to whether these corporations are a failure. We on this side of the House know that they will almost inevitably be a failure. Therefore, in order that there shall not be vital, young, healthy, active competition, the Government wish to put every possible obstacle into the way of these young men having a fair chance.

155
It is a disgrace to a man for whose friendship and character I have the highest regard—the Parliamentary Secretary. I cannot believe that he ever wittingly and of his own free will allowed himself to be a party to this Clause. I feel that the learned Attorney-General sitting beside him, whose cold, icy brain is immune to any human emotion, has unduly influenced him, or possibly he has been deluded into being a party to this Clause.
I know what his answer will be. His answer will be: "Yes, but that is the maximum penalty." Thank goodness, the Socialist Government do not breed judges; they are outside the Government. The Parliamentary Secretary will say, "No judges will ever impose such a fantastic penalty unless it is well and truly earned." But can he expect to be the arbiter of what the judges will do? To me it seems to be an act of criminal folly to put such a high ceiling on penalties which might be imposed on young man who are unaware that they are committing a felony or infringing the law. Therefore, I know that I will have the general support of the House and that, at any rate, Members on this side of the House will press this monstrous thing to a Division, so that we can establish for all time our determination that, our young men who have returned safely from this war will have an opportunity of putting their lives to some use.
9.30 p.m.
Air-Commodore Harvey: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman has, in spite of his eloquence, missed the real point.
Mr. Mikardo: Not in spite of, because of:
Air-Commodore Harvey: The Government are very frightened about the by-'elections coming off in the next two months, and they see, by bringing in this Act of Parliament, a possibility of three or four more by-elections by bringing about the imprisonment of Conservative Members who may infringe this law. It is very subtle. I feel extremely sorry for the young men who are trying to start off in this business, who, if they are prosecuted and fined even half this amount, will go into bankruptcy. To
156
the average individual £100 is a very severe fine. I ask the Government to reconsider this matter and to modify their views. It is monstrous that people should receive this term of imprisonment or a £5,000 fine; it is out of all proportion to reason.
The Attorney-General: I wish I could share with the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) the confident, not to say the complacent satisfaction, he has in the interest and intelligence of his own observations. I cannot help thinking—and in this I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey)—that on this occasion, he was perhaps addressing his mind to one of the previous Amendments on which he had intended to speak but had forgotten. The hon. and gallant Gentleman professes to think, if indeed he thinks at all—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—the hon. and gallant Gentleman professes to think that this Clause will impose excessive, monstrous, wicked and unjust penalties on comparatively innocent people. Of course, it does nothing of the kind. In point of fact, the speech of the hon. and gallant Member was a scarcely veiled attack on the integrity, common sense and justice of those who are appointed in this country to administer our laws. I am bound to say that I resent the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member. I consider it most unfortunate that he should have thought it right, in a serious discussion in this House, impliedly to suggest that His Majesty's judges, or those who may be responsible for administering this Bill, would administer it in a way which involved the slightest injustice to those who may find themselves in breach of its provisions.
What is the position here? The position is that Parliament, when this Bill becomes law, will have decided that the reservation of certain scheduled services is in the public interest, and that the private operator who, for purposes of private gain, chooses to defy the provisions laid down by Parliament should be criminally responsible for what he does. Of course, there are degrees of guilt in any such contravention as may occur. Some of the offences under this Clause may he comparatively insignificant. There may be cases in which there is a substantial degree of innocence; cases in which, perhaps

157
somebody has not understood what a scheduled service is—though heaven knows one would have thought anyone who was fit to conduct air services in this country would be capable of understanding the very clear and simple definition of a scheduled service, contained in Clause 23 of this Bill. There may be cases in which owing to some innocent mistake, or some inadvertence of that kind, a private operator may find he has unwittingly and unintentionally broken the law. That is one class of case.
At the other end of the scale is the serious kind of case, where an operator, intending to make private profit so long as he is able to do so, has deliberately and by some calculated scheme set out to evade the plain purpose of this Measure, and to run scheduled services in defiance of the statutory provision that such services are to be reserved for the statutory corporations. It may well be that an operator who has set out to do that, who has prepared a careful scheme to do it, may get away with it for some little time, and by securing the cream of the traffic on some particular route make a considerable sum by way of profit before adequate steps could be taken to stop him. In such a case a fine of £500, which is the maximum penalty which would be left if this Amendment were adopted by the House, would be completely and entirely inadequate I ask the House to say——
Wing-Commander Robinson: I am sure the right hon. and learned Attorney-General would not wish to mislead the House. He said that a fine of £500 is the only penalty left. The wording of the Bill is:
"to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such fine and such imprisonment."
The Attorney-General: The great difficulty which the hon. and gallant Member will have experienced in his extensive practice at the Bar, as I have in my more modest way, lies in sending companies to prison. That is the difficulty one is up against. One has to deal with the possibility of an offence by a limited company, and the possibility of an offence by a private individual where the penalty of £500 or three months' imprisonment might still be totally inadequate for a person who, in a period of some months, as could easily happen in such a case, had made a profit of £5,000.
Commander Galbraith: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman be good enough to explain how this enormous profit will be made in competition with the great air corporations? How would this wonderful "cream of the traffic" arise if the corporations were actually doing their job?
The Attorney-General: I do not propose to help hon. Members to develop schemes for evading the provisions of this Bill, but one can contemplate it as a possibility that some private operator, by running a scheduled service which was not immediately put an end to, and not in direct competition with an existing service over the same route, would be able to make considerable profits. It is to deal with that kind of case that one has to make provisions. If such cases cannot arise, if nobody will be able to make £5,000 profit, or a substantial profit, by a contravention of this Clause, then there is no danger in this penalty. Do hon. Members opposite say that any of His Majesty's judges will send a man to prison for two years or fine him £5,000, or both, unless he has committed some serious offence which is worthy of a punishment of that kind? I do not know if hon. Members opposite are inviting the House to take that view; my own experience of these matters in a small way—and hon. Members opposite will have an opportunity of saying whether they agree with it or not—is that on the whole, those who administer the criminal laws of this country take a just and reasonable view of the laws which they have to enforce, and if they err at all, err on the side of mercy. What danger is there, then, in giving the judges power to impose a penalty of two, years' imprisonment or a fine of £5,000 if in fact, in the opinion of the judge who has to try a particular case, such a penalty has not been justly merited?
Sir T. Moore: Why then limit any penalties?
The Attorney-General: The practice in dealing with these matters, as the hon. and gallant Member probably knows, is to set what is considered the maximum limit beyond which it would not be reasonable to go, and to give the judge the discretion, within that maximum, what sentence he should award in a particular case. I invite the House to say that, with the experience we have in this country of the

159
proper, fair and merciful administration of criminal justice, this is a perfectly proper provision, and that to suggest otherwise is to cast a most unfortunate reflection on those whose business it is to administer the criminal law.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I should like at once to answer the charge which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just made. His jokes having fallen singularly flat, and the effectiveness of one not having even produced a cheer from the disciplined ranks behind him, he now thinks the best thing to do is to accuse the Opposition of suggesting that the judiciary cannot be trusted to arrive at proper decisions. I can rebut that accusation at once. We are not in the least frightened of the impartiality of our judges. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health recently referred to what he called "judicial sabotage," thereby showing, presumably, that the threat to the judiciary comes from His Majesty's Government and not from the Opposition. We are not frightened of the impartiality of the Bench or of the judges.
We know the object of this Clause, the object of this particular proposal. We are not frightened of justice being done, if ever a defendant gets to the courts; but we know that the purpose of this Subsection is to frighten off any possible chartered competition of scheduled services, so as to prevent that competition arising. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) said, if any should fear making a mistake for which they might find themselves liable to a fine of £5,000, about 25 times their gratuity, they would say, "This does not seem to be the sort of business into which we ought to venture." So people would be penalised for providing the yardstick by which the right hon. and learned Gentleman's corporations could be measured, to see whether they were being properly run. They are frightened off.
This is a penal fine. No one can deny it. It is a most interesting development, that the party which once called itself the party of the "forgotten man" is now coming round to legislating for penal fines and penal punishment. We know that so often in the past, certainly when President Roosevelt called himself the leader of the "forgotten men," the name was
160
taken up by a large number of Labour candidates all over the country, who said that the Labour Party was the party of the "forgotten man." We have heard a good deal about the wicked old days when grotesque and fantastic penalties were exacted for small breaches of the law, and we have heard it suggested that they were co-terminus with the Tory Party. Now we find that, day by day, this Government are indulging in fines so large as to put any others to shame. A fine of the kind proposed here is not only large in itself, but certainly calculated to frighten off possible competition.
We had no answer, not even from the experienced and learned Attorney, to the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) just now. What are the Government frightened of, if they have got the best corporations in the world, giving the best service, and showing private enterprise how to do the job? Why do they want to equip themselves with a penal provision of this kind? The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that some operator might secretly operate I scheduled service for some time before he was caught out. It is not saying much for the assiduity of the Government, whose snoopers far outnumber an army. A scheduled service has to be an advertised service; we were told so. It has to be advertised in some way to the public who are to travel by it. If it were advertised, it should be known even to His Majesty'', Government.
9.45 p.m.
Wing - Commander Robinson: I listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. and learned Attorney-General, and I do not know whether we were more amazed than dissatisfied. His suggestion that we were making an attack on the integrity of His Majesty's judges was very wrong, especially coming from one in his position. The Attorney-General knows very well that it is the job of a judge to administer the law and it is the job of the House to make the law, and that is all we are discussing. It is my contention that the penalties are savage. The Attorney-General has spoken about a fine of £5,000 or a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years, but if we read the Clause to the end, we find it says:
"or to both such fine and such imprisonment."

161
The Attorney-General rather passed it off by saying that this might be a long continuing series of offences, but the words are that a fine and imprisonment can be applied to each offence committed. I regard the matter this way. By indicating this maximum penalty, the House is showing the severity of the offence, and in consequence, when the courts come to consider the matter, they must regard an offence in relation to the severity of the penalty laid down. I believe that the Government are taking us back almost to the Middle Ages, when a man could be hanged for stealing a sheep With enlightenment, through the centuries, we came to the idea that the punishment should fit the crime, and penalties became much more reasonable. This Government are now taking us back to the Middle Ages, by having severe penalties for offences which many of us do not think are so serious. We are now saying that £5,000 and two years imprisonment is to be the penalty of enterprise which may have been mistaken It is easy for the Attorney-General to say that anyone can read and understand the Bill. I read through the whole of the Debates, and I observed that the Committee upstairs took a long time to make up its mind on the difference between a chartered service and a scheduled service. Even the Parliamentary Secretary was at times not at all sure of his position, and the Attorney-General had to come along and give a ruling on what was meant. I vigorously oppose the idea that young men returning from the Royal Air Force, and trying to play some part in developing civil aviation in this country, should be made liable to penalties of such severity.
Sir Ian Fraser: I wish to ask the Attorney-General a question. It arises out of what seems to me to be a very curious doctrine, which he introduced, as to the basis on which a penalty or fine may be imposed. Apparently if you make a profit you are to be fined more than if you do not make a profit. I should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make clear whether that is the basis which, it is intended, judges should have in mind. In the case of an offence relating, for instance, to the sale of food in the black market, we have passed Statutes whereby the fine imposed is related to the profits made. In connection with evasion of Customs duty and smuggling, the fine is
162
related to the amount of tax which was sought to be evaded. It is a new thing to me, however, that we should base the amount of a penalty upon the profit made out of the offence. Surely, the crime of running an illegal service over a scheduled route is the same whether you make a profit or not. If I am wrong I should be glad to be put right, but it seems to me a rather curious suggestion which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is importing into our law.
I want to emphasise the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for South Blackpool (Wing-Commander Robinson). It is not enough for the Attorney-General to say that the judges will deal leniently with small offences. The measure of the maximum penalty put into the Clause by Parliament must surely impress upon the judges the importance of the crime; not the amount of profit that is made out of it. There is surely a distinction there. Is it really suggested that it is a crime to run a service knowingly, cunningly and cleverly or do we not want people to be enterprising and take a chance? Do we or do we not? [Laughter.] Hon. Members seem to think that we do not want people to take a chance. Are we entering a period when the dead hand of the State is to he laid on one industry after another and private persons are to be forbidden from going out to try to render service to their fellows and make money; and are they to be fined in relation to the profit they make? Is it a crime to make a profit? It almost seems that that is being written into our law. I suggest to hon. Members opposite that if they go on with the policy shown in this Measure, in the Finance Bill, and in their speeches up and down the country of making it known that it is the view of His Majesty's Government that to make a profit is a crime, and that the larger the profit the greater the crime, they will kill private enterprise on which the bulk of the work of this world continues to be based. I consider this is a penal fine, and I submit that something more reasonable ought to be substituted.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is a somewhat new experience to hear the learned Attorney-General of England justify the inclusion of heavy penalties into a Bill by saying that His Majesty's judges can be relied upon not to impose penalties which Parliament has seen fit to include in the Bill.
Mr. Mikardo: He did not say that.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That was the whole tenor of the learned Attorney-General's reply. Of course, it is somewhat gratifying to hear the learned Attorney-General taking a somewhat different attitude towards His Majesty's judges than he saw fit to take on the Trade Disputes Bill, and we can welcome perhaps that change of heart. It is no argument whatever for the inclusion of severe penalties in a Bill to say that they will never be imposed. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did not say that."] I can assure the hon. Gentlemen behind the learned Attorney-General that he is quite capable of looking after himself. The learned Attorney-General intervened during the speech of one of my hon. Friends to justify these penalties by pointing out the profoundly analytical proposition that it is difficult to send a company to prison. That would have been relevant had the Subsection covered by this Amendment related solely to financial penalties, but it is no argument whatever for the inclusion of a penalty of two years' imprisonment, and that is surely far more important than the fine.
I do not wholly agree with the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) that if a large profit is made by illegal activities that should be disregarded from the point of view of financial penalties, but what is surely material is the very serious sentence of two years' imprisonment for this offence which is included in this Subsection. Can the learned Attorney-General describe the circumstances of any case under this Subsection in which it would be reasonable or humane to impose a penalty of two years' imprisonment. Unless there are some such facts which leap to the fertile and resilient imagination of the Attorney-General, I submit that is quite monstrous to include these penalties in the Bill. This House, during the last few months, has manufactured an enormous number of criminal offences of great severity. I do suggest that we should not in this easy way create yet another. I submit we are entitled to have from the Government a statement of the facts, the extreme facts if you like, upon which it is permissible and right and even conceivable to impose a penalty of two years' imprisonment for a breach of Clause 23.
Squadron-Leader Fleming: I rise to support my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore), because it seems to me, from my experience after the 1914–18 war, than the very men who will be hit most by these penalties will be the ex-pilots. It is a well known fact that some of these men attempted to earn their living by flying service after they left the R.F.C. I see no reason why they should not be given the opportunity to do so again. They will have certain opportunities in the big corporations, but that is only for a limited few. Are we to condemn the vast number of these men to run the risk of what I look upon as savage penalties for anyone who infringes Clause 23? It refers to:
"A person who carries a passenger."
etc. The words to emphasise are "a passenger." That is one offence. Supposing, as the learned Attorney-General pointed out, somebody has a scheme for skimming the cream of the scheduled services—I do not know how it could be done, but let us asume it for one moment—many passengers would have to be carried. How many offences would that be, because each represents a separate offence? At least that is my interpretation of the Clause. The pilot would be liable under Subsection (b) to a fine not exceeding £5,000 or two years' imprisonment or both. I look upon that as very savage indeed. To say that the judges of the High Court would not be influenced by such penalties is beside the point. What we must take into account is that there are some Members of this House who think that such penalties should be imposed or they would not put it in the Bill. I am not suggesting that that would particularly influence any of His Majesty's judges, but this is the point. If one of these ex-pilots dared to run the risk in a desire to earn his own living, are there Members who would suggest that he should be penalised to the extent of a £5,000 fine or two years or both for carrying every single passenger? I for one would never agree to it. I would look upon myself as being disloyal to my own comrades. I sincerely hope the House will not allow this Subsection to remain in the Bill.
Captain Crookshank: The penalties in this Clause are certainly very savage and nothing that the

165
Attorney-General has said is considered by us on this side of the House as an adequate defence for them. We shall, therefore, wish to make our protest against it in the Division Lobby. I know that there are a great many more Clauses to be discussed, but I hope the Attorney-General will tell us something further In any event, it will be done under the assurance that we are going to divide to express our protest in the best way in which we can.
Mr. C. Williams: I should like to say one or two things on this Amendment from this point of view. I have listened to a great number of discussions on the fixing of fines in other Acts of Parliament, and I have heard a great number of learned Law Officers on both sides of the House laying down, whether they have been in opposition or in office, that it is a bad thing for the House of Commons to put a fine into a Bill unless they think that these powers, maximum fines though they be, are the standard type of fines that are going to be imposed. No one in the House wishes to attack the judiciary. But in laying down such penalties we are laying it down that the opinion of the House of Commons is that they are the penalties which should be inflicted. The Attorney-General, using vivid powers of imagination, drew a picture of a person who, for some time, has continued to run a service, has advertised it, and has got away with a profit of £5,000. That is unlikely to happen. The whole of the tendency of modern thought —and especially among Members opposite—has for a long time been that savage and excessive penalties do not stop crime. I agree with that. It is true that the penalties may not be inflicted, but the Socialist Party intend to lay it down that they wish these penalties to be put into the Bill. I appeal to the Government on this matter. In matters of this kind we should level the penalties through all our legislation.
10.0 p.m.
Would it not be better for the Government to see whether they could put into the Bill something more in keeping with modern thought and outlook? Members of the Government, when in opposition, often made this kind of appeal, and almost always it was met. I honestly believe that it would be far better, in the interests of this Clause and of the community in general, if the Government
166
would make a concession and lay down penalties far more in keeping with the ordinary outlook at the present time. I do not justify for one second the breaking of the law. It is no good the Attorney-General getting up and snarling at me that I want to be a law-breaker, because I do not. I thought Members on the Government Front Bench were kindly well-meaning people, who did not wish to inflict savage penalties on their fellows and, that being so, I ask them to think again.
The Attorney-General: The right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) has hardly encouraged me to say anything further about this matter, because he said that whatever I might say, would be said under the assurance that the House would divide on this Amendment; but I venture to suggest that hon. Members are disturbing themselves unnecessarily about this not very dangerous and not very harmful provision. It really is rather beside the point to talk about this provision being an attack on private enterprise. The most enterprising person with whom I ever had any professional association, and the most private also, was a cat burglar. He got seven years for it. Of course, a person who sets himself out, as the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) said, knowingly and cunningly to take a chance of breaking the law, may be a very enterprising person——
Sir I. Fraser: I do not think I said anything about taking a chance of breaking the law. I referred to taking a chance at legal evasion.
The Attorney-General: That is a subtle distinction which may not appeal so strongly to other hon. Members as it does to the hon. Member for Lonsdale and to myself, as a lawyer. People who set themselves out, knowingly and cunningly, to take a chance at legal evasion are no doubt engaged in a very high form of adventure, and of course, if the penalty at the end of it all is two years' imprisonment or a fine of £5,000, I suppose that makes the adventure all the greater; but, after all, if people do set themselves "cunningly and knowingly to take a chance at evading the law" they must expect, if eventually they get found out, that the law may impose its penalties upon them. All that this provision does—and in doing this it follows the normal tradition in criminal legis-

167
lation of this kind—is to provide that His Majesty's judges, in dealing with this particular type of case, shall have regard to what is the maximum penalty for the worst possible offence. It is not for me to imagine what that particular case might be. It might be the case of a man who, for the fourth time, was convicted of some offence. Perhaps every season he had come along and, for a month or so, had creamed the traffic. The first time he was fined £50, but that was not enough—he did it again. The next time, £500—but that was not enough—he did it again. What, then, is the judge to do? Let it be remembered that the judge can do nothing until a jury of the twelve men in the Clapham omnibus has convicted the prisoner of having committed a criminal offence. What, then, is the judge to do? Is he not bound, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case before him, to impose what he considers to be a proper, just and reasonable penalty, always with this limitation, that however serious a view he may take, he is not to give more than two years' imprisonment, which is, although a long term, a comparatively small term, when one looks at the provisions on the Statute Book in regard to sentences of imprisonment? He is not to give more than two years' imprisonment, or to impose a fine of £5,000, or, if he thinks right, both.
In providing a standard for the worst kind of offence which may arise, one must trust those who administer the law —the juries who have to find a person guilty before he can be sentenced, and the judges or magistrates who have to
sentence if the jury have brought in a verdict of guilty. One must place confidence and trust in their sense of justice, and assume that they will not impose penalties which do not appeal to them as being proper and just in the circumstances of the particular case. In reply to the specific question which the hon. Member for Lonsdale put to me, I must say that one of the purposes of a penalty is to deter, and obviously, in the particular class of offence which is likely to result in considerable profit, a penalty which is much less than the profit likely to be made will not deter a person from the commission of that type of offence. Consequently, there has to be the possibility of a heavy fine to guard against the chance that people may think it pecuniarily worth while to do what the hon. Member for Lonsdale regards as a fitting form of private enterprise—knowingly and cunningly to take a chance of evading the law. Do not let hon. Members think that this provision is really directed against the proper private enterprise of the honest ex-pilot seeking to make a living. The people who will find that the heavy penalty may be imposed on them, are not the ex-pilots who have made a mistake but the financiers, the crafty, cunning financiers who are shielding themselves behind the anonymity of some company in the city and using the ex-pilot, in order to make illicit profit.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
The House divided: Ayes, 253; Noes, 85.

Division No. 239.]

AYES.

[10.10 p.m.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Blackburn, A. R.

Corlett, Dr. J.

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

Blenkinsop, Capt. A.

Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A.

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V

Boardman, H.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Daggar, G.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

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

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Alpass, J. H.

Brook, D. (Haifax)

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Attewell, H. C.

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Austin, H. L.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

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

Awbery, S. S.

Buchanan, G.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Ayles, W. H.

Burden, T. W.

Deer, G.

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

Burke, W A.

Diamond, J.

Bacon, Miss A.

Chamberlain, R. A.

Dobbie, W.

Baird, Capt. J.

Champion, A. J.

Dodds, N. N.

Balfour, A.

Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Clitherow, Dr. R.

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Barslow, P. G.

Cluse, W. S.

Durbin, E. F. M.

Barton, C.

Cocks, F. S.

Dye, S.

Battley, J. R.

Coldrick, W.

Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

Bechervaise, A. E.

Collick, P.

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Belcher, J. W.

Collindridge, F.

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

Benson, G.

Collins, V. J.

Evans, J. (Ogmore)

Berry, H.

Comyns, Dr. L.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Bins, G. H. C.

Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

Ewart, R.

Binns, J.

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

Farthing, W. J.

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

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Simmons, C. J.

Follick, M.

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

Skeffington, A. M.

Foot, M. M.

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Skinnard, F. W.

Foster, W. (Wigan)

Marshall, F. (Brightside)

Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Medland, H. M.

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

Freeman, Mai. J. (Watford)

Middleton, Mrs. L.

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

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Mikardo, Ian

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Gibbins, J.

Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.

Snow, Capt. J. W.

Gibson, C. W.

Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

Solley, L. J.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Monslow, W.

Sorensen, R. W.

Gordon-Walker, P. C.

Moody, A. S.

Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Stamford, W.

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

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

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

Grenfell, D. R.

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

Swingler, S.

Grey, C. F.

Moyle, A.

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Murray, J. D.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

Nally, W.

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

Gunter, Capt. R. J.

Naylor, T. E.

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Guy, W. H.

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Thomas, John R. (Dover)

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

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

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

Hale, Leslie

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

Thorneyoroft, H (Clayton)

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R

Noel-Buxton, Lady

Tiffany, S.

Hardy, E. A.

O'Brien, T.

Titterington, M. F.

Harrison, J.

Oldfield, W. H.

Tolley, L.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Oliver, G. H.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Orbach, M.

Turner-Samuels, M.

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Paget, R. T.

Ungoed-Thomas, L.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Usborne, Henry

Hicks, G.

Pargiter, G. A.

Vernon, Maj. W F.

Hobson, C. R.

Parker, J.

Viant, S. P.

Holman, P.

Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.

Walkden, E.

House, G.

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Walker, G. H.

Hoy, J.

Pearson, A.

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

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

Peart, Capt. T. F.

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

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Perrins, W.

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Irving, W. J.

Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

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

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Popplewell, E.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Janner, B.

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Wigg, Col. G. E.

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Pritt, D. N.

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

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

Proctor, W. T

Wilkins, W. A.

Jones, D. T (Hartlepools)

Randall, H. E.

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Ranger, J.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Kenyan, C.

Rankin, J.

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Key, C. W.

Rees-Williams, D. R.

Williams, J L. (Kelvingrove)

Kinley, J.

Reeves, J.

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

Kirby, B. V.

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Lang, G.

Richards, R.

Williamson, T.

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Willis, E.

Leslie, J. R.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Wilson, J. H.

Lewis, J. (Bolton)

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Woodburn, A.

Lindgren, G. S.

Rogers, G. H R.

Woods, G. S.

Lynn, A. W.

Royle, C.

Wyatt, Maj. W.

McAdam, W.

Scollan, T.

Yates, V F.

McEntee, V. La T.

Scott-Elliot, W.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

McGhee, H. G.

Segal, Dr. S.

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

McGovern, J.

Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A

Zilliacut, K.

Mack, J. O.

Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Shawcross, C. K. (Widnes)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)

Capt. Stewart and

McLeavy, F.

Shurmer, P.

Mr. Hannan

Macphorson, T. (Romford)

Silverman, S. S (Nelson)

NOES

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Drewe, C.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Astor, Hon. M.

Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

Baldwin, A. E.

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

Lipson, D. L.

Baxter, A. B.

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Bossom, A. C.

Gage, Lt.-Col. C.

Lucas, Major Sir J.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

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

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

Grimston, R. V.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

Bullock, Capt. M.

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Carson, E.

Haughton, S. G.

Marsden, Capt. A.

Channon, H.

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

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Clarke, Col. R. S.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

Hollis, M. C.

Maude, J. C.

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

Hulbert, Wing-Comdr. N. J.

Mellor, Sir J.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'brgh W)

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sit T.

Cuthbert, W N.

Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

Morrison, Maj. J G. (Salisbury)

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Neven-Spenee, Sir B.

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

Lambert, Hon. G.

Nicholson, G.

Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

Langford-Holt, J.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Drayson, Capt. G. B.

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

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

170

171

Pitman, I. J.

Snadden, W. M.

Walker-Smith, D.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

Prescott, Stanley

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Williams, C, (Torquay)

Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Renton, D.

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A (P'ddt'n. S.)

Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

Teeling, William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Ropner, Col. L.

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

Mr. Studholme and

Ross, Sir R.

Turton, R. H.

Major Conant

Smithers, Sir W.

Vane, W. M. T.

CLAUSE 25.—(Amendments and adaptations of 2 & 3 Geo. 6. c. 61.)
10.20 p.m.
Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, in page 15, line 33, to leave out "five," and to insert "three."
This means that the minimum number of directors of the British Overseas Airways Corporation will be the same as for the other two corporations. This is in Amendment which I promised at an earlier stage.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, in page 16, line 4, at the end, to insert:
"Provided that, without prejudice to the provisions of Subsection (2) of Section thirty-eight of the Interpretation Act, 1889 (which relates to the effect of repeals), nothing in this Subsection shall affect the provisions of Subsection (2) of Section one of the said Act of 1939 relating to the time when the British Overseas Airways Corporation is deemed to have been established."
This is consequential on the Amendment I have just moved. At a later stage we shall he moving a repeal of the proviso to Section 1 (2) of the British Overseas Airways Act, 1939. It therefore needs to be clearly stated that this does not affect the time at which the British Overseas Airways Corporation came into existence. There might otherwise be some doubt.
Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 27.—(Power of Minister to obtain rights over land.)
Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, in page 17, line 6, at the end, to insert:
"(3) No person shall, in the exercise of a power conferred by any such order, enter upon land which is occupied, unless, not less than seven days before the day upon which the entry is made, there has been served upon the occupier of the land a notice stating that an entry will be made upon the land upon that day in the exercise of powers conferred by the order, and specifying the purposes for which the entry will be made:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall restrict the right of any person to enter upon land in a case of emergency or for the purpose of performing any functions which are required to he performed from time to
172
time in connection with the maintenance or use of any works structures or apparatus."
This Amendment has the same purpose as the two which precede it on the Order Paper with the names of the hon. Members opposite. It was pointed out in Committee by hon. Gentlemen opposite that it would be reasonable to have notice of entry upon land. On our side of the Committee, we pointed out that it was necessary to carry out routine work of maintenance and to enter on the land in an emergency—for instance to mend a leaking pipe, or put a radar beacon right—without any notice, and that it would be impracticable to have seven days' notice for such entry. We have reached a compromise in the Amendment which we think will be satisfactory. It means that for routine entry and emergency there may he entry without notice, but in other cases of entry there shall be seven days' notice.
Mr. Turton: As the Minister has said, this is a satisfactory compromise. I wish we could have reached it earlier on the Committee stage when our Amendments were proposed. It would have saved a certain amount of time. I wish to thank the Minister for it.
Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 29.—(Power of Minister to impose restrictions on land in the interests of civil aviation.)
Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 20, line 43, at the end, to insert:
"A copy of the notice required to be given in relation to any such order by the Minister under paragraph 1 of the First Schedule to the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, shall be served upon the owner and occupier (except tenants of a month or a less period than a month) of any land to which the order relates, and the provisions of paragraphs 2 to 4 of that Schedule shall have effect accordingly."
I submit that unless these words are inserted considerable injustice will occur. The present position is this. The Minister may make an Order defining an area in which he is going to order the demolition of people's homes, the cutting down of trees or woods, the extinction of private

173
rights of way or the stopping of any electrical installations or any new rural water supply, or indeed any telephone wires. At that period all he does is to publish it in the "London Gazette." I do not know if hon. Members have the same experiences in their constituencies as I do, but I do not often find the "London Gazette" on the tables of my constituents for Sunday reading. In addition, there has to be publication in any one other local newspaper which the Minister chooses. Again I really do not trust the Minister of Civil Aviation to know what is the light literature that my constituents find most popular. Therefore it may well be that many of our constituents will not know when he makes an Order defining a particular area as one where he is going to demolish their homes. It does happen; it is what he is doing in my constituency near York. However, I know that the hon. Gentleman does not want me to talk about that now.
At that stage, therefore, only those who have read the Order in the "London Gazette" or in a local newspaper can object. When they object they have the great advantage of a local inquiry at which objections will be properly heard, and in due course they can carry their objections to Parliament in the proper democratic manner. When the later stage comes, and when he is issuing a direction under that general Order saying that a particular home is to come down, it is quite true that then the Government have provided that there shall be due notice of that direction served upon the owner and the occupier of the house. When the owner and the occupier of the house learn that their house is coming down under the Minister's Order, then they have their right under the Fourth Schedule, which is a right to compensation. The point I want to weigh with the House is this, and I hope hon. Members will consider it. I do not think it enough that the only right you have when you know your house is coming down, is one of compensation. I think that any owner or occupier who is to lose his house should have the right, at an early stage, to put his case before a local inquiry or, if necessary, before Parliament. Therefore, I submit to the House—which has always had great regard in these matters to the right of any owner or occupier shall I say, in the Yorkshire phrase, having "a fair crack of the whip"—that a notice shall be served in
174
the first instance upon the owner or occupier whereby he has the right to learn about this and of appealing to a local inquiry and thence to Parliament.
I think this Government are rather too apt to believe that injuries and insults and deprivations can be made to individuals and all be compensated by some sum in hard cash. It is not true to say that any sum of money can today compensate you for your home being pulled down, or for the natural beauties of the countryside being destroyed or for interference with rural amenities. For those reasons I ask the House and, indeed, the Government, to consider what I believe to be a reasonable Amendment. I may add that the Attorney-General, when I moved a similar Amendment in Committee, said he had great sympathy with out words, but felt it difficult for him to amend an Act that his Government had passed in their first flight in the autumn, when they rushed legislation without always considering whether it was truly wise or unwise. They passed this Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman said he could not possibly accept any sort of amendment of that Measure because it would make matters rather difficult. I do not think that Act was meant to envisage the possibility of Orders that would take people's homes away from them. It rather envisaged some hope that a Socialist Government would build homes, not destroy them, and perhaps instal rural amenities, and not take them away, as these Orders will do. I hope these are powers that neither this Government nor any other Government will take. I admit there may be cases, like Heathrow, where great injury and damage will be caused both to the rights of individuals and to the beauties of the countryside, but I think there ought to be a special procedure under which owners and occupiers would be served with notice, notwithstanding anything in the Act which the Socialist Government passed last autumn. For these reasons I hope the House will accept the Amendment.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to second the Amendment.
10.30 p.m.
The Attorney-General: The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) always puts his arguments so fairly and reasonably that it is difficult not to feel

175
great sympathy with them. But we have considered this matter again and we are forced to the conclusion that it really is undesirable and impracticable, in these particular circumstances, to depart from the procedure which was recently laid down by this House in regard to all matters which are made the subject of special Parliamentary procedure.
Hon. Members will recall that very recently we passed the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, which, as the hon. Member has correctly said, laid down a uniform code of procedure on all matters that were provided for within the scope of that Act. It provided that before any Order was made or confirmed, it ought to be advertised not only in the "London Gazette" but in a newspaper which circulated in the locality affected. It would be, as I say, both undesirable and impracticable to start making departures from that general code in the case of Orders made by virtue of Clause 29 of this Bill. Nor is there, we think, the slightest danger that these Orders will be made in such a way that the persons likely to be affected by them will be in ignorance of them. Let us consider what happens. First, there is a notice in the "London Gazette." That may pass unnoticed by the occupiers of the land concerned if it stands alone. But of course it does not stand alone. In addition, there is the notice in the local newspaper, and do hon. Members think that, if an Order of this kind is made under Clause 29, and advertised in the local newspapers, indicating the possibility of certain houses being demolished, that it will not be taken up. It will be taken up immediately, just as the bread ration was taken up. You will get the Tory newspapers saying, "this is an attack on the people's homes." The Primrose League, disguised as a Housewives Association, will say, "Look what this Socialist Government is doing: look at these restrictions. Let us have a public inquiry; let us put every possible obstacle in their way, even though we know the inevitable result of any such inquiry will be to confirm what is done under the Act." We really are living in a world of make-believe—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I am glad that hon. Members agree with me. They do live in a world of make-believe if they think there is any
176
risk of Orders like this being made, and not coming to their notice.
In any case, it would be impracticable to make this departure from the provisions of the 1945 Act. Let me give an example —an extreme example, but one has to test the practicability of amending the 1945 Act in this regard, by taking extreme, but by no means impossible, cases. Take the London Airport case. It is possible that Orders made there may affect, in some small degree, many thousands of cases. It would be intolerable if, because the Government had failed to discover some person who might have some remote interest in some small plot of land, insignificantly affected by an Order proposed to be made under Clause 29, and had failed to serve the proper notice in advance on such a person, the whole proceedings should run the risk of being invalidated. We ask the House to say that there is no serious risk here any more than in any other case—and they are numerous—which might fall to be dealt with under the 1945 Act, that persons affected will remain ignorant and that we ought to adhere to the code Parliament have laid down.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The right hon. and learned Gentleman appeared at one stage to have a very good case to which I think both sides of the House were listening in sympathy. But then, towards the end—as he does so often—he spoiled it by a possibly quite unintended remark, but one on which we must ask for elucidation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman does this so often. Rumour has it that he is going shortly to Nuremberg to make the winding-up speech at the trial there. Let us hope that he will not spoil all the good work done by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe). [Interruption.] I would point out to hon. Members that the Rule has been suspended today, and that we are not responsible for the Government cluttering up their programme with legislation. We are ready to go on.
In talking of a public inquiry, the Attorney-General said that any public inquiry would "inevitably" end in the confirmation of the Order. The Government are making a series of promises to the inhabitants of Stevenage. Is it to lull people into a sense of security that they have said: "We will have a public inquiry before we do anything drastic about your

177
town"? There are other cases. In any case, do we know that a public inquiry will "inevitably" result in a confirmation of the Order? If so, is that a practical working out in a libertarian country, of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's jeer, "We are the masters now"? This is most interesting, and I think his colleagues, who are equally bound by statements of the senior Law Officer of the Crown, will have something to say to him when the report is published. Not for the first time the right hon. and learned Gentleman will realise he has embarrassed his colleagues.
The Attorney-General: As the hon. Member put a question to me, perhaps I might venture to correct the complete misrepresentation he has made both of my observation that "We are the masters now" and of this statement I made about this particular form of inquiry. What I said was that in regard to inquiries of this kind—and the hon. Member knows quite well this is what I said, but he is seeking to introduce one of those debating points which he makes with sun charm but little effect—that the Primrose League, disguising themselves as an association of housewives, would no doubt seek to engineer any obstruction they could. Even though they knew the inquiry was going to result in the Order being confirmed, they would still oppose it——
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Beverley Baxter: Let the right hon. and learned Gentleman read it in HANSARD.
The Attorney-General: Hon. Members will see that in HANSARD tomorrow, and I am quite content to leave it there, [Interruption.] I am not sure that I heard the observation which the hon. Member made. Perhaps it is better so because I think it was a most unfortunate one. I am quite content to rely upon HANSARD tomorrow.
Mr. Beverley Baxter: I did not intend to be discourteous to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
The Attorney-General: I was not referring to the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter). I am sorry that I did not hear the gem which fell from his lips. I was referring to another hon. Gentle-
178
man who is occupying a seat on the Opposition Front Brench. He said something which I am sure on reflection he would not wish to say. As I have already said, I am quite content to leave the matter as it is and await what may appear in HANSARD tomorrow. In case the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) should really have misunderstood what I said—and I confess to some doubt whether he did—I want to make it clear that I said nothing of the kind which he suggested.
Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I must rise for once in support of the Attorney-General. He has said one thing which I must support. He said that Mernhers of Parliament stood up for the rights of private citizens whether Tory or not, and as a Tory I thank him for that.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, in page 20, line 43, at the end, to insert:
"(5) Before making any order under this section, the Minister shall consult every local authority within the area of which the whole or any part of the area to which the proposed order will relate is situated.
Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) of section two of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, the duty of the Minister to comply with the requirements of this subsection shall not excuse him from the duty of complying with the requirements of the First Schedule to that Act."
These words are also designed to meet wishes expressed by hon. Members in the Standing Committee. They provide for consultation, before an Order is made, with the local authority for the area concerned. We also lay down in this Amendment that notwithstanding anything in Section 2 (1) of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, the duty of the Minister to comply with the requirements of consulting with the local authority does not excuse him from the duty of complying with the First Schedule of the Act.
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
Mr. Turton: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, after the second "area", to insert "of land."
This is purely a drafting Amendment. The Minister's Amendment is not altogether clear. It reads:

179
"Before making any order under this section the Minister shall consult every local authority within the area of which the whole or any part of the area…"
Not many hon. Members will appreciate that the first "area" refers to the local authority area and the second "area" refers to a specified area under the Bill. Therefore, I think that the Government should accept this drafting Amendment to make it clear that the second "area" refers to specified land.
Mr. Thomas: I should have thought that the word "area" simpliciter meant an area of land, not the area of a local authority, but for the sake of clarity the Government are prepared to accept the Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.

CLAUSE. 36.—(Air Transport Advisory Council).
Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, in page 26, line 11, to leave out from "Order", to the end of the Subsection, and to insert:
"(2) In the appointment of members of the Ai' Transport Advisory Council the Minister shall have regard to all appropriate interests, including the interests of—

(a) the technical, professional, industrial and commercial bodies, including those of organised labour, directly concerned with the provision of air transport services; and

(b) those bodies which appear to the Minister to represent the persons who use air transport services, or any class of the said persons."

This is to meet an Amendment moved in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper). We told him at the time that we were willing to accept the principle of the Amendment but wished to consider the wording. In particular we pointed out that there were other interests besides those mentioned by him which the Minister had to consider in regard to the making of appointments to the Air Transport Advisory Council. We have, however, found ourselves able to accept the words that he proposed with the addition of the words "all appropriate interests." This means also we must omit certain words from Subsection (1), where it is laid down that the members of the Council shall have
180
"such qualifications as His Majesty thinks necessary for' the performance of the duties imposed on the Council by this section."
As the qualifications are now specified, it is necessary that these words should be deleted.
Amendment agreed to.
10.45 p.m.
Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, in page 26, line 16, to leave out from "question," to the end of line 19, and to insert:
"which may be referred to the Council by the Minister, being a question relating to facilities for transport by air in any part of the world, or relating to the charges for such facilities, or being a question which in the opinion of the Minister requires consideration with a view to improving the adequacy or efficiency of air transport services."
This also is an Amendment designed to meet the wishes of the Committee upstairs. In this case, we have found it possible to accept the identical words proposed in Committee.
Mr. Mikardo: I would like to ask your guidance in this matter, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It is my view, and the view of some of my hon. Friends, that the Amendment proposed by the Government does not in fact carry out the pledge given in the Committee. It is our view that, in order to fulfil that pledge, the Amendment to the proposed Amendment which is on the Paper in my name would have to be included. May I ask whether it would be in Order, in discussing the Amendment moved by hon. Friend, to refer also to the Amendment to the Amendment which follows; and whether an opportunity will be provided to take the view of the House on the Amendment to the proposed Amendment?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): It is competent for the hon. Member to make his point on the Amendment moved by the Parliamentary Secretary; and, if he is not satisfied, to move his Amendment to the Amendment for the purpose of having a Division if that is necessary.
Mr. Mikardo: Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I would like to take the opportunity to explain my point to Members of the House who were not Members of the Committee and, consequently, did not take part in the extremely interesting debate which we had on this subject. Its full significance may be missed except

181
by those who go into considerable detail in the study of the wording, and in the study of the promise made by the Parliamentary Secretary. The Clause, as originally drafted, gave the Air Transport Council not only the authority, but the duty, to investigate particularly two types of subjects. One was matters relating to services and fares raised by consumers, and to that extent the Air Transport Council was a consumers' council, or rather a tribunal to which might be referred objections and grievances on the part of consumers against the services which were being provided. As far as that goes, I am sure that the House will agree that this is an excellent instrument, whereby those who use, either in wholesale or retail, so to speak, the services of the Air Transport authority—the nationalised airways—can bring their views to the notice of the Minister when they think the services are inadequate, or the charges excessive.
The second duty imposed upon the Air Transport Advisory Council was to investigate matters other than those covering the mere question of facilities and charges, only in those cases where the Minister directed them to make such an investigation. It was the view of a number of my hon. Friends in the Committee that the restriction upon the second of these duties was unwarranted, and that, in point of fad, the Air Transport Advisory Council should be empowered to consider all questions brought to their notice which concerned in any way any of the services of any of the air transport corporations, irrespective of the source from which the reference came. If it is important that a service should be provided which is not being provided, then the importance of that question does not diminish, if it is brought to the notice of the Air Transport Advisory Council by a Member of this House and not by the Minister. The relative importance of the question is not affected by the source from which it comes, and it seems wrong that only two classes of individuals, or, rather, one class of individuals and one individual, shall be allowed to bring things to the notice of the Air Transport Advisory Council. Further, in the case of the class of individuals so allowed—namely, the consumers—the terms of reference under which they make representations to the Minister are very grievously limited indeed.
182
May I put it this way? It should be open to anybody who knows anything about air transport, and who thinks he has an idea to contribute which will improve the service being offered by the air corporations—it should be open to any such bona fide person to put his views before the Air Transport Advisory Council for their consideration. This is not permitted in the Clause as it stands, or as it would be altered by the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend. In order to be able to make any representation at all to the Council he would, first, have to take a ride in one of the corporations' aeroplanes. Then, having taken that ride, he could then write to the Air Transport Advisory Council and say not that the aeroplane was unsafe, but only that he was charged too much for his flight. Apart from such persons, who are consumers, the only person who can make representation to the Council, and, indeed, the only person in the whole world who can make representation to the Council on any subject connected with the work of the corporations, is the Minister himself.
When we argued this case in Committee upstairs my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper), feeling, perhaps in a prophetic moment that the Parliamentary Secretary did not fully understand the full implication of the pledge he gave, in the very last moment of the discussion, indeed, in the very last words that were said in the discussion, made quite sure that the Parliamentary Secretary did realise to what he was committing himself and the Government. What my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough said was the following:
"It will be noticed, perhaps, by the Parliamentary Secretary that two avenues of approach are taken into consideration here. One is the reference made to the Advisory Council by the Minister, and the other, matters brought to the notice of the Council from outside.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 27th June, 1946, c. 533.]
It is the second point which is not covered in the Amendment as moved by the Parliamentary Secretary. My hon. Friends and I feel strongly about this, because even if a failure to implement a promise given in Committee is inadvertent and due to error, this does not diminish its importance. Unless the Parliamentary Secretary proposes to ask his noble Friend, who is conveniently in the

183
other place, to use the machinery of the other place to alter this, along the lines have indicated, we feel in duty bound to test the view of the House on this important question.
Mr. Ivor Thomas: The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) has made what any Minister standing at this Box must regard as a very serious charge, namely, that I have not carried out a pledge given in Committee upstairs. I have a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I am bound to remark that he gave a wholly misleading statement of what took place. Anyone interested in the subject will find a record in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the eleventh Sitting in cols. 532 and 533. First the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper) spoke to an Amendment, which in fact has been accepted. Then the hon. Member moved a further Amendment, which I have also moved. He asked me to see that the proper weight which
"will be given to the wording of the previous Amendment will apply also in the case of the two Amendments to which I have just referred."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 27th June, 1946, c. 532.]
It was not clear at the time what he meant, but I presumed he meant those Amendments which were in his name and which we have accepted, but it now appears that there was another. The hon. Member for Reading has quoted the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough. I did not understand at the time what they meant, but he has not informed the House that there was no comment of mine upon them, and no promise of mine that they would be taken into account.
What my hon. Friend the Member for Reading now wants, and what the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough wanted in an Amendment not called upstairs, is something quite different. This is meant to be a consumers' council. We believe that it will serve a very useful purpose, and we do not wish to see it transformed from that character into a body which could deliberate upon any subject connected with the air services of the corporations. That is a very different proposition indeed. We have agreed that the Minister may refer matters affecting the adequacy or efficiency of the air transport services to the Air Transport Council, but it would be a different matter if any member of the public could bring any question affect-
184
ing, not only consumer interests but the adequacy or efficiency of air transport services, before the Council. It would alter the character of the Council entirely. There may be an argument for doing that, but we want to have a consumers' council here, and we have gone as far as we can, providing that that fundamental object is preserved. I am bound to oppose my hon. Friend in this because this proposition would convert the Air Transport Advisory Council from a consumers' council into a body concerned with all questions affecting air transport.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Debate has not taken the general form I understood it would take. I think we must dispose of the first Question, to leave out the words indicated in the Amendment, and propose the second Question, to insert words, and then the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) could move his Amendment to the Amendment.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
Mr. Mikardo Mr. Mikardo rose——
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member has already spoken. I think that the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper) was about to move the Amendment to the Amendment.
Mr. Cooper: I am not clear what are your intentions, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Do you wish me to speak on the Amendment?
11.0 p.m.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There is an Amendment to insert certain words, and there is on the Order Paper an Amendment to the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo). Perhaps the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper) will move the Amendment to the proposed Amendment to leave out the words "by the Minister."
Mr. Cooper: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line r, to leave out "by the Minister."
I will not take up much time in describing what has led up to what appears to be a misunderstanding. It seems to me extraordinary that the Parliamentary

185
Secretary, when he proposed this Amendment, should say that he had implemented the principles that were enunciated during the Committee stage. I hope to show that that is, from our point of view, a hopeless misconception of the principles which we tried so carefully to describe.
There were two main conceptions which could be taken by the Government on this idea of an advisory council. It could either be a judicial body, rather like the Railway Rates Tribunal, dealing with facilities and rates, so that if anyone had complaints on those two matters they could bring them before the council to get a decision, which would presumably be implemented by the corporation, or which would at least go to the Minister for his consideration. The other line tint might be taken was that the advisory council should be a representative and independent body of skilled and experienced opinion. That was the second line taken in Committee by a number of hon. Members on both sides, and that is what we thought was agreed to by the Government. The whole purpose of following the second line of argument was this: Here we have a nationalised undertaking coming into being. What is going to be the reaction of the people who are associated with this corporation; that is the people who use the services which the corporation provide and the people who provide the services, employed inside the corporation —the producers of the services? There are two main bodies of opinion which can reasonably come together on the advisory council, representing the producers and the consumers. We are anxious that, in these nationalised undertakings, there shall be some body recognised under the Act, which gives a chance for the democratic spirit of nationalised industry to express itself.
That seems to us to be a terribly important principle, and we adhere to it -very tenaciously, because we feel that unless there is some body of opinion that can express this sense of democratic participation both by producers—the employees and management—and the users, these things can become autocratic organisations run by the Minister, from whom it may be very difficult to get answers in this House. We see already objections being taken to the powers of hon. Members to bring matters to this House of an
186
unpleasant nature. The earlier Debate illustrated exactly that sort of thing being forced on hon. Members, because there is no such body as is envisaged in this very important Amendment. I suggest that the Government, by refusing to recognise the principle which we feel was clearly indicated in the Committee will enforce that situation, and it may deteriorate into a position which is most unpleasant for all hon. Members of this House. When the overwhelming consideration must be the efficiency of our air lines what else is there for hon. Members to do? I suggest that there is a feeling of dissatisfaction on the part of the employees because they feel that these organisations are not being run efficiently. Under this proposal, if they make recommendations to the executives, managers and directors of these organisations and find that their difficulties are not remedied, they can then adopt a recognised procedure, a clear straightforward procedure, which is provided for in the Bill. They can make their representations on questions of efficiency, and on improved methods of organisation, which is an essential principle in large scale industrial management in order that the proper development of the corporations shall not be hindered. They can put their ideas before the consultative and advisory body which can give the points proper and independent consideration. As the Clause now stands all sorts of stupid and frivolous points may be put to the Minister, but this Amendment would prevent the Minister from having to sift these and it prevents unnecessary criticism in this House. As nationalized undertakings are extended it is necessary that this House should be relieved of all unnecessary and petty details of criticism.
I should like to go farther. It is the intention of this Amendment, and of those who spoke on it in Committee, that there should be a proper advisory and consultative system from top to bottom of these industries, with a sense of participation and responsibility of the employees in the way in which each industry is run. It applies to all those interested in the operation of efficient air services, whether producers or users. A case has come to me of a man who travelled with the British Overseas Airways Corporation. He travelled quite extensively to the Middle East, and to East and West Africa. When

187
he returned to this country, he was indignant at the way he had been treated. He was a man of influence, and he was able to bring the point before one of the directors of the corporation. I do not know if the criticisms were dealt with adequately, but if the ordinary person has a complaint, what has he to do? I suggest that he should use this consultative advisory body.
This idea of the need for participation on the part of all the people concerned in nationalised industry has already been recognised by the organised trade unions. It has been expressed over a period of many years by the T.U.C., to which I referred in the Committee stage. In 1944, in its interim report on nationalised industries, it is quite specific, and proposes at the top level this body of opinion, representing the ideas and suggestions which come from those people who are engaged in the industry. The suggestion therefore by the Parliamentary Secretary, that we require a purely consumer council cuts right across the arguments brought forward by the T.U.C. and held by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I would suggest, further, that a recent development in industry in this country gives a special lead to the point we are making. I refer to the working parties.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is going far too wide. He should deal with the question of the Minister, but he is ranging over a very wide field, and over a variety of subjects which are not relevant. I must ask him to keep to the point.
Mr. Cooper: I was endeavouring to show the background against which the points I am giving can be intelligently appreciated. I have tried to indicate the function of, and the need for, this advisory council. In the Amendment which was accepted by the Government, there was reference in the Committee to the need for referring to it not only to facilities and charges, but also matters of adequacy and efficiency. In the Clause, as amended, if we read the Government's Amendment in conjunction with Subsection (2, b), it will be noticed that representations may be brought before the Council "from any quarter,"but the matters are restricted to "facilities and charges." We suggest
188
that in order to incorporate in the Government's Amendment the principle we advocate which the Parliamentary Secretary has assured us it has been the intention to incorporate, in paragraph (b) there should be added to "facilities and charges" the words "adequacy and efficiency," otherwise the Clause will restrict too much the considerations that may be brought before the Council. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) has made the point clear that this was our intention. I specifically referred to it at the close of the Debate in Committee on this Clause, and the Parliamentary Secretary did not deny the point. This was that it should be possible for the Advisory and Consultative Council to consider matters brought to it not only by the Minister, but also from outside interests, covering not only facilities and charges, but the two further points of adequacy and efficiency.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is now dealing with a later Amendment and is going far too wide. He must confine himself to the question whether the words "by the Minister" should be left in the Amendment or not.
Mr. Cooper: I appreciate the point, but I thought it was necessary to make the description of this matter complete. Before I conclude, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether it was his intention to incorporate the principles which we described in the Committee? A further point will depend upon his answer to that question.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must await the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary.
Sir I. Fraser: I have had the experience of being a director, or, in this particular case, a governor, of the B.B.C. for nearly 10 years. It is the most obvious example of one of these public corporations of large-scale operation and large staff. I venture to warn the House against acceptance of the suggestion which has been made by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper). He seeks to widen the terms of reference of the Advisory Council so that it may become an opposition to the executive. In particular, he says that members of the staff, presumably all grades of the staff, em-

189
ployed by a corporation, should be able to go to the Advisory Council with suggestions as to the efficiency and adequacy of the service or of the organisation as a whole. The directors must be responsible to the Minister. It seems to me impossible to have some parallel organisation, call it what you will, to which their own staff can go, and put up suggestions and complaints because they have been unable to get them heard through the ordinary channels. Discipline would break down and there would be an impossible situation. If we must have these corporations —and I for one deplore the increase in the number and variety of them—if we are to have our industries run by public corporations, we must vest in the directors of the industry full discretion in the day to day carrying out of their job; otherwise you will have inefficiency beyond description.
11.15 p.m.
The Attorney-General: I think there has been some misunderstanding about what happened in Committee and about the effect of the Clause and the Amendment, misunderstanding which perhaps results from too narrow an interpretation of the wording of the Clause as drafted. I shall try very shortly to show the House wily it is necessary that these words should he retained. Under Clause 36 (2, b), as the matter now stands the door is open—and very widely open—to representations being made to the Council from any quarter at all. It is perfectly true that that would not enable the Advisory Council to conduct a kind of roving inquiry into all the activities of these corporations at the same time, or to undertake any general attack on the economic efficiency of the corporations as a whole. Those matters, in our view, are essentially for Parliament to deal with but whilst it would not be open for the Advisory Council to deal with matters of that kind, the Council can fully protect both the consumer interest, and the producer interest.
So far as the consumer interest is concerned, the consumers, without as the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) suggested ever having travelled in an aeroplane at all, as far as I can make Out under the terms of this Clause, are entitled to bring up questions about the facilities provided, possibly the adequacy of a particular service between point and
190
point, possibly its frequency, possibly its efficiency, possibly the fact that it was not comfortable or had too many breakdowns, or a question of the charges made in respect of any particular service. Those are matters which consumers could, quite properly, bring before the Advisory Council. Again, the producers' interest is protected because, producers would be entitled to bring matters before the Advisory Council if they thought, and could show, that inefficient organisation of the corporation was reflected in the facilities which the corporation was providing; that the facilities were inadequate or that the charges were too high, or whatever it might be. In those ways, in our submission to the House, both consumers and producers may bring any proper representation to the notice of this body; and this body having had such matter brought to its notice, would be required to deal with it in a semi-judicial way.
Mr. Mikardo: Before the Attorney-General leaves that point, would he answer this simple question? Supposing an aircraft manufacturer, whose products were being used by one of the corporations, felt that his machines were being incorrectly used so that his goodwill would be lost and that this would adversely affect the service of passengers, under which Subsection of the Clause as it now stands could he make representation to the Air Transport Advisory Council to the effect that his machines were being used differently from the way in which they were constructed to be used?
The Attorney-General: If the improper use of the manufacturer's machines was resulting in the facilities available to the public being prejudiced in some way—the charges being too high or the time being too slow, or whatever it might be; if he could say that because his machines were being flown upside down, or whatever it was, that they were uncomfortable, and that the facilities were not as good as they ought to be, that would seem to me to come exactly within the four walls of the Clause as at present framed. Any matter affecting the facilities or the charges could be referred to the Council from any quarter at all. If they could say that they were not being properly served because there were too few machines, or because they were being flown too slowly, or because the charges were too high, these are all matters about which the Advisory Council would have

191
to arrive at some conclusion, that is, on representations that may be made from any quarter.
But in addition, it is desired to enable the Minister to obtain advice—not to ask the Council for some semi-judicial finding on a particular representation, but to ask the council to give its advice. The Minister could take into account such advice as the experts were able to bring to bear on the matter in order to come to a definite conclusion. Clause 36 (2, a) is intended to cover that case of the Minister. If the words were omitted, the Clause would become wholly ineffective and indeed would be completely otiose. I hope therefore that hon. Members behind me, while they may not feel that in every respect they are getting the comprehensive body that they desire to see, will feel that the Advisory Council has very wide powers, which can be very properly used on representations from practically any quarter.
Mr. Cooper: I should be obliged if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could tell the House why under the new Clause there should be the reference to "adequacy and efficiency" while under paragraph (b) there is a specific reference only to "facilities and charges." Why should such a specific differentiation be made? Is it a drafting error? I think that is an
important issue and if an answer could be given to it, or even if the words "adequacy and efficiency" could be included in the second reference, I think that that would cover my point.
The Attorney-General: I do not think there is any question of a drafting error. It is true that different words are used, but if one refers to the Clause it will be seen that there is reference to
"any question relating to facilities for transport by air in any part of the world, or relating to the charges for such facilities."
Those words are about as wide as anything could be. It may be that for abundance of caution other matters have been inserted, but taking these words alone, it is obvious that the Advisory Council can, on representations from any quarter, consider almost anything.
Mr. Cooper Mr. Cooper rose——
Mr. McKie: On a point of Order. Has the hon. Member received the leave of the House to make a further speech?
Mr. Cooper: I want to raise a specific point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]
Question put, "That the words by the Minister ' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
The House divided: Ayes, 203; Noes, 30.

Division No. 240.]

AYES.

[11.25 p.m.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Collindridge, F.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

Collins, V. J.

Gordon-Walker, P. C.

Allen, A C. (Bosworth)

Comyns, Dr. J.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

Allen, Scholefield (Crews)

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

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Attewell, H. C.

Corlett, Dr. J.

Grenfell, D. R.

Austin, H. L.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Grey, C. F.

Awbery, S. S.

Crostriwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

Daggar, G.

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

Bacon, Miss A.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Gunter, Capt. R. J.

Balfour, A.

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

Guy, W. H.

Barstow, P. G.

Deer, G.

Hale, Leslie

Barton, C.

Diamond, J.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Bechervaise, A. E.

Dobbie, W.

Hardy, E. A.

Benson, G.

Dodds, N. N.

Harrison, J.

Bing, G. H. C

Driberg, T. E. N.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Binns, J.

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Haworth, J.

Blackburn, A. R.

Dye, S.

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

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

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Hicks, G.

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

Hobson, C. R.

Brook, D. (Haifax)

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Holman, P.

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Evans, J. (Ogmore)

Hoy, J.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

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

Buchanan, G.

Ewart, R.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Burden, T. W.

Farthing, W J.

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Burke, W. A.

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

Irving, W. J.

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

Foster, W. (Wigan)

Janner, B.

Chamberlain, R. A.

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Champion, A. J.

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

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

Chetwynd, Capt. G. B.

Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Clitherow, Dr. R.

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Kenyon, C.

Cocks, F. S.

Gibbins, J.

Key, C. W.

Coldrick, W.

Gibson, C. W.

Kinley, J.

Kirby, B. V.

Pargiter, G. A.

Swingler, S.

Lang, G.

Parker, J.

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Peart, Capt. T. F.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

Perrins, W.

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

Lindgren, G. S.

Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Lyne, A. W.

Popplewell, E.

Thomas, John R. (Dover)

McAdam, W.

Porter, G. (Leeds)

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

McGhee, H. G.

Pritt, D. N.

Tiffany, S.

Mack, J. D.

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Titterington, M. F.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Randall, H. E.

Tolley, L.

Maclean, N, (Govan)

Ranger, J.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

McLeavy, F.

Rankin, J.

Ungood-Thomas, L.

Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Mallaljeu, J. P. W.

Richards, R.

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

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

Rubens, A.

Weitzman, D.

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Marquand, H. A.

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

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

Marshall, F. (Brightside)

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Medland, H. M.

Rogers, G. H. R

Wigg, Col. G. E.

Messer, F.

Royle, C

Wilkins, W. A.

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Scollan, T

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Millington, Wing-Comdr, E. R.

Scott-Elliot, W.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Mitchison, Maj. G. R

Shackleton. Wing-Cdr. E. A. A

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Monslow, W.

Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrave)

Moody, A. S.

Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)

Williams, W R. (Heston)

Moyle, A.

Shurmer, P.

Willis, E.

Murray, J. D.

Simmons, C. J.

Wills, Mrs. E. A

Nally, W.

Skeffington, A. M.

Wilson, J. H.

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Skinnard, F. W.

Woods, G. S.

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Smith, Capt, C. (Colchester)

Wyatt, Maj. W.

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

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

Yates, V. F.

Noel-Buxton, Lady

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

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

O'Brien, T.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Zilliacus, K.

Oldfield, W. H.

Snow, Capt. J. W.

Orbach, M.

Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Paget, R. T.

Stamford, W.

Mr. Pearson and Mr. Hannan.

Palmer. A. M. F.

Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

NOES.

Baird, Capt. J.

Haire, Flt-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)

Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.

Baldwin, A. E.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Renton, D.

Bossom, A. C.

Hutchison, Ll.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

Ross, Sir R.

Cooper, Wing-Comdr G.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Darling, Sir W. Y.

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

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

Mellor, Sir J.

Walkden, E.

Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

Foot, M. M.

Neven-Spence, Sir B.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

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

Pitman, I. J.

Major Vernon and Mr. Mikardo

Question put, and agreed to.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Whiteley.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committees and on recommittal), to be further considered Tomorrow.

BIRTH RATE
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. R. J. Taylor.]
11.31 p.m.
Mr. Hollis: I beg to bring to the notice of this House a subject of the first importance, a subject which I think transcends party divisions, because without a solution of it none of our party questions could possibly be solved. It is the question of the birth rate. If we look
194
to history we find some rather alarming lessons about the habits of the birth rate. The general lesson so often repeated by history seems to be that when nations have attained what is called a higher standard of living, one of the consequences of that high standard of living is a fall of the birth rate, with a resulting decline in the population. As a result, the nations of a lower standard break in, in order to destroy that civilisation, and in their turn become less fecund and fall into decadence. There are many instances of that. It is the object of all men of good will to prevent a repetition of that sad lesson in the history of our own civilisation today.
Now the story of the British people in the 19th century, from this point of view, was an extraordinary story. In the ninety-nine years between 1815 and 1914, the population of this island multiplied

195
itself by almost four, and during that same period we were also populating a very large proportion of the rest of the world. So there must have been some six or seven times as many people of British origin in the world in 1914 as there were in 1815. On the other hand, there was, during those years, the first signs of the appearance of a curve which seemed to resemble those all-too-familiar curves in history; and from the 1870's onwards you got the beginning of a steady decline in the birth rate. It is true, of course, that for some years that decline in the birth rate does not reflect itself in a declining population. As everyone knows, the birth rate can decline for a considerable time without population declining because, though each particular woman may, on the average, have fewer children, with each generation for some time there will be a larger number of women of child-bearing age. Therefore, though even the immediate result may not be wholly healthy, since each year a larger proportion of the population is old and a smaller proportion is young, yet it will be some considerable time before there will be an actual decline in the population.
We have now reached a stage where, on our present curve, we shall have something like a stable population for some time, and when we get to about the 1970's the danger of the beginning of a rather rapidly declining population. There are some people who say "Why does that matter?" If population were declining at the same time in every part of the of the world, or changing in the same proportion as our own, it might perhaps not matter. But obviously that is not happening, and there is no way in which you can make it happen. It is clearly one of the major causes of the disturbances of history. As has been proved again and again, when population changes at one pace in one part of the world, and at a totally different pace in different parts of the world. Therefore, I think there can be no one who has considered this problem who does agree that the most important of our problems is that some means should be discovered at least to prevent this decline of population in this country.
The reasons for the fall in the birth rate are by no means simple. The deepest are clearly somewhat mysterious,
196
deep and spiritual reasons, which cannot be corrected by any simple Act of Parliament. Briefly speaking, it is fair to say that people have children when they want to have children, and that the number of children born depends on the extent to which people are able to have a faith in the purpose of life, whether natural or supernatural. And the amount the Government can do is, therefore, limited, but, though it is limited, it is not by any means unimportant. There are certain things which Governments can definitely do in the way of encouraging a population policy which I will venture to bring to the notice of the House and to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health who has been kind enough to come here to answer in this Debate.
It seems to me there are three or four ways in which it can properly be tackled. Firstly, and obviously, the growth of the population depends upon two things—a high birth rate and a low death rate, and the reason we have been able to suffer a much lower birth rate without a fall in the population is because we have had a gradually declining death rate. This is a thing upon which we can congratulate ourselves, and about which, obviously, there need by no controversy. Firstly we can recommend to the Government that they should follow out every measure that is possible in order to have as low a death rate as possible. But when we come to study the medical statistics we find that, whereas every other medical statistic gives the most satisfactory results, there has been by no means the decline in maternal mortality there has been in every other sort of mortality. I would ask the Government to meditate upon the reason for that. It seems to me one reason for it is that there has been a gradual raising of the age at which marriage takes place and at which the first child is born. Therefore, if we are to decrease maternal mortality it is greatly desirable that marriages should take place at an earlier age, and that is, to a large extent, an economic problem. When hon. Members talk about equalisation of incomes I would beg them —having in mind the admirable text book written by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—to realise that as important as the equalisation between one class and other class or between one profession and another profession, is a much greater equalisation between the old and the young. A substantial contribution to this problem

197
will be made if it can be so arranged that the rewards, both in public and private life, be more equally distributed between the different ages of the population.
Then we come to another question which, obviously, one approaches with a certain amount of diffidence. That is that very clearly there has been, over the last generation, a very great change in the status of the women of this country. Now such words as feminism, or any words ending in "-ism," are vague words which cover a number of things, some of which are ill-defined, some of which are good and some of which are bad. Nobody could possibly advocate that women should be asked to return in every way to the sort of life, whether from the point of view of child-bearing or from other points of view, that they were required to live 100 years ago. With our lower death rate population policy would not require that. On the other hand, under the name of feminism, women have sometimes been encouraged to think that other avocations are of greater importance than the vocation of motherhood, and I would suggest that that is a danger. So far as careers and motherhood can be combined with a public career this is wholly desirable, but the old adage remains true—that the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. When it ceases to rock the cradle, it will soon cease to rule the world. It is highly doubtful whether the influence of women will not be decreased rather than increased if it is reflected in a sharply declining birth rate.
Again, if we turn to the more intellectual walks, we find that at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution the great mark of the progressive was that he was anxious to take women out of industry. Today the mark of the progressive seems sometimes to be an anxiety to put women back into industry; we have a peculiar problem at the moment with the necessity to increase production in our crisis and I make no criticism of the temporary employment of women labour. But in general we should be extremely careful as to what extent it is desirable that women should play a large part in industry. We have only to contrast the birth rate figures between mining populations and textile populations. We find that among mining populations, where for obvious reasons women do not as a general rule take a part in the industry, the birth rate is
198
more than twice as high compared with textile districts.
There is a third Government Department which, by its very nature, must he intimately concerned with this problem, and that is the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. I would commend to hon. Members the recent works of Lewis Mumford, who argues with cogency that if you want a high birth rate it is very important not to have an over-concentration of population in enormous towns, and not geographically to have over-concentrations of population in flats. Whether we accept his conclusions or not, I beg the Government to investigate extremely carefully what conditions of town planning are most favourable to a high birth rate.
Another Minister who must be intimately concerned with this problem is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have recently voted for family allowances. Family allowances in themselves are admirable things, and I support them. But they are not, in themselves, the solution of this problem, for the obvious reason that very properly the class which benefits most is the poorest section of the population, which also happens to be the class among which the birth rate has fallen least. A more effective contribution to this particular problem would be something in the nature of a larger children's allowance for Income Tax. But I would not like to give the impression that this is a simple economic problem. People sometimes speak as if you would inevitably get a higher birth rate if only you could banish fear of war, and increase economic security among the population. Both these things, on their merits, would be most desirable, but we have to face the fact that the birth rate has been steadily falling since 1870, and that during the first 44 years of that period people enjoyed what they imagined to be greater security than at any time in human history. Therefore, the problem is not a simple economic problem.
Time is limited, and I have done no more than set out the headings under which this problem can be considered. I shall look forward to the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary. At the moment we have come to a time when the birth rate has taken a slight turn upwards. Nothing could be more important than that that opportunity should be seized and turned into a permanent trend, so

199
that we can prevent this threatened fail of population in the 1970's, which may be a most serious threat to world stability. That should remain a permanent trend rather than a mere temporary postwar trend, as happened at the end of the 1914–18 war, when there was a temporary upward trend, and then a further and more disastrous fall in the birth rate. One could develop this point at greater length. I have raised it in order that the Parliamentary Secretary may have an opportunity of telling us that the Government are keenly alive to the importance of this problem and are prepared to sketch out the outlines of a great population policy which will, I think, be the underlying and necessary condition for the success of all policies of social reform in this country.
11.52 p.m.
Mr. Paget: It has been found in all civilisations, and during all ages, that a declining birth rate has invariably been associated with an increased standard of living. I am afraid that if we, as we hope, have a steadily increasing standard of living in this country, judging by history, there is not any very great likelihood of an increasing birth rate as well. Associated with that problem are the problems which arise from full employment. For the first time this country, with the consent of the people of all political views, has adopted a policy of full employment, which means this: There is always work of a type which is essential to the community, but it becomes progressively more difficult to get people to undertake that work, like coal mining. The solution is not simply to raise wages, because the more we raise the standard of living of an occupation such as coal mining, the less inclined people are to do it. Suppose we offered £10,000 a year to the coal miner, how many hon. Members of this House would, not for a year or two but for life, even at that wage, go into the coal mines? Therefore, we have the situation that, with full employment, it becomes progressively more difficult to man our basic industries, and, at the same time, we have a declining birth rate. I am afraid that the time will come when we shall have to face the solution of that problem. The solution may well be that, when it comes to coal mining and that sort of thing, the jobs will have to be thrown open to those
200
who are prepared to accept them, and those people will be the inhabitants of Central Europe where there is a lower standard of living. Where there is a full employment economy, with a rising standard of living, the birth rate may have to be corrected by a policy of immigration, whereby the immigrants first pass through the lower grades of employment and are gradually absorbed in the second generation into the general population. I believe that is the situation which, although very unwelcome and unpopular at this stage, will one day have to be faced.
11.55 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Key): We are all indebted to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) for raising this point and to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) for the most interesting speech to which we have just listened. But, when I am asked to give in broad outline a policy for dealing with this problem, I find that at this hour, and in the short space of time left, I am being asked to achieve the impossible. With much of what has been said, I am in agreement, but I think that the hon. Member for Devizes would be the first to say that he has not fully analysed this problem. There are indeed many problems involved. One has to consider many social, economic and cultural problems before one can realise all that is involved in this one great problem of the birth rate. There is in existence a Commission inquiring into the question of population. Last year they took a family census which may throw a considerable amount of light on what is happening. We may be able to discover whether the size of families is or is not declining. We may be able to discover if childlessness is increasing. There is at the moment a considerable increase in the birth rate and the figures seem to indicate that the size of the family is really increasing. If that were true, then we might be able to say that we were at the turning-point in the decline of population. But until we have a full Report from that Commission we shall not be in a position to analyse this problem or to know its real causes and its extent. Certainly by improving the standard of life, by giving a greater sense of security and by providing homes which make family life more possible to our people, we shall make conditions which

201
will conduce to an increase in the size of our families. But until the Commission's report is available, I can go no farther.
11.58 p.m.
Mr. Beverley Baxter: In the one or two minutes left I would like to say that the population increase depends surely on the return of our men. Apart from that I would add one thought. We may discuss economic and housing difficulties and distrust of the future, but what is important, I think, is that there is in the world at present a conspiracy against life itself—a conspiracy against faith in the future. It comes from sources which one cannot explain, but it exists. I have just come back from Germany and there psychologically, and from experience, one sees the great contrast between us. Deep down in the hearts of men and women is a doubt about the future. Which of us who are about middle age can do anything but thank God we lived as young men forty years ago. Who would contrast the chances of the young man today with those of the young man of an earlier age? What is the faith in life of the young
202
man today and his faith in the future, compared with what we had in the end of the 19th century? This is an age of spiritual barrenness. It may be that Christianity itself is the only answer. Women are instinct with the life force. Women have a sense of things which they cannot put into words. They are concerned with the birth rate, with the institution of the family and with the preservation of that race, but all those things are under the shadow of this conspiracy against life itself. I cannot give that answer to the problem, but I enunciate it as one of the most sinister things in human affairs today.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Can the Minister give any indication when the Commission is likely to produce its Report, or when it will have finished taking evidence?
Mr. Key: I could not.
Adjourned accordingly at One minute after Twelve o'clock.

ROADS
  Bus Services, Oxfordshire
  Bus Services, Oxfordshire
  Otley Bridge (Control System)
  Otley Bridge (Control System)
  Furniture Removal Trade
  Furniture Removal Trade
  Traffic Conditions, Durham
  Traffic Conditions, Durham
  THAMES FLOW, SANDFORD
  THAMES FLOW, SANDFORD
RAILWAYS
  Organised Parties
  Organised Parties
  Stolen and Lost Goods (Compensation)
  Stolen and Lost Goods (Compensation)
  FREIGHTER SAMSHEE " (COMPLAINT)
  FREIGHTER SAMSHEE " (COMPLAINT)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Government Motor Vehicles (Auctions)
  Government Motor Vehicles (Auctions)
  Aluminium House (Cost)
  Aluminium House (Cost)
  Atomic Energy
  Atomic Energy
AGRICULTURE
  Allotments
  Allotments
  Dispossessed Farmers
  Dispossessed Farmers
  Grass Drying
  Grass Drying
  Handley Common, Salisbury (Cropping)
  Handley Common, Salisbury (Cropping)
GERMANY
  Berlin University
  Berlin University
  General Schönaich
  General Schönaich
  BECHUANALAND (FUTURE STATUS)
  BECHUANALAND (FUTURE STATUS)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Spain
  Spain
  Departmental Decisions
  Departmental Decisions
  Furniture Industry Working Party
  Furniture Industry Working Party
  Cigarettes
  Cigarettes
  Rubber
  Rubber
  Steel (Export)
  Steel (Export)
  Sodium Chlorate
  Sodium Chlorate
  Men's Clothing
  Men's Clothing
  Textile Machinery (Closed Mill)
  Textile Machinery (Closed Mill)
  Clothing Coupons
  Clothing Coupons
  Surgical Footwear
  Surgical Footwear
  Silicotic Workers. North Wales
  Silicotic Workers. North Wales
  War Office Surplus Buildings
  War Office Surplus Buildings
  Departmental Correspondence
  Departmental Correspondence
  Book Exports (Greece)
  Book Exports (Greece)
  Timber
  Timber
  Paint Industry (Raw Materials)
  Paint Industry (Raw Materials)
  Wool Control (Sales to Russia)
  Wool Control (Sales to Russia)
  Bedsteads (Local Authority Houses)
  Bedsteads (Local Authority Houses)
  China (Good Will Mission)
  China (Good Will Mission)
  Cotton Buying Commission
  Cotton Buying Commission
  Perambulators
  Perambulators
  South Wales Ports
  South Wales Ports
INDIA
  Religious Liberty
  Religious Liberty
  Anglo-Indian Community (Representation)
  Anglo-Indian Community (Representation)
  Indian Workers, Ceylon
  Indian Workers, Ceylon
  Labour Investigation Committee (Reports)
  Labour Investigation Committee (Reports)
  Prisoners of War, Germany
  Prisoners of War, Germany
  I.C.S. and Police
  I.C.S. and Police
  BURMA (COST OF LIVING)
  BURMA (COST OF LIVING)
  PASSPORTS AND VISAS
  PASSPORTS AND VISAS
  SPAIN (NAZI AGENTS)
  SPAIN (NAZI AGENTS)
  PALESTINE (JEWISH AGENCY, GOVERNMENT ACTION)
  PALESTINE (JEWISH AGENCY, GOVERNMENT ACTION)
HOUSING
  B.I.S.F. Programme
  B.I.S.F. Programme
  Milfield Airfield
  Milfield Airfield
  Sewerage, Bucknall, Oxfordshire
  Sewerage, Bucknall, Oxfordshire
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Mobile Canteens (Farm Workers)
  Mobile Canteens (Farm Workers)
  Channel Island Tomatoes (Entry Ports)
  Channel Island Tomatoes (Entry Ports)
  Fish Prices
  Fish Prices
  Nuts and Tropical Fruit
  Nuts and Tropical Fruit
  Bread Rationing
  Bread Rationing
  Stone-Ground Wheatmeal
  Stone-Ground Wheatmeal
  National Flour (Composition)
  National Flour (Composition)
  Increased Meat Ration (Duration)
  Increased Meat Ration (Duration)
  Groundnuts
  Groundnuts
  Apples
  Apples
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Oil Seeds (Supplies)
  Oil Seeds (Supplies)
  Milk Ration (Priorities)
  Milk Ration (Priorities)
  Whitsun Ceremony, St. Briavells (Bread)
  Whitsun Ceremony, St. Briavells (Bread)
  Barley
  Barley
  Cereals for Germany
  Cereals for Germany
  SHAVING SOAPS AND CREAMS
  SHAVING SOAPS AND CREAMS
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Egg-Box Store, Leicester
  Egg-Box Store, Leicester
  Electrical Components and Fittings (Inquiry)
  Electrical Components and Fittings (Inquiry)
POLES
  Military Uniform
  Military Uniform
  Accommodation and Food
  Accommodation and Food
  PRISONERS OF WAR (WORK INCENTIVES)
  PRISONERS OF WAR (WORK INCENTIVES)
  ARMY CAMPS MERIONETH (CIVILIANS)
  ARMY CAMPS MERIONETH (CIVILIANS)
  UNEMPLOYMENT BNEFIT CLAIM
  UNEMPLOYMENT BNEFIT CLAIM
  CIVIL AVIATION (GREAT BRITAIN—IRELAND)
  CIVIL AVIATION (GREAT BRITAIN—IRELAND)
  CHILDREN'S HEALTH. LONDON
  CHILDREN'S HEALTH. LONDON
  CONTINENTAL MAILS (HOUSE OF COMMONS)
  CONTINENTAL MAILS (HOUSE OF COMMONS)
EMPLOYMENT
  Training (Building Trades)
  Training (Building Trades)
  North Staffordshire
  North Staffordshire
  Trawler Fishing (Court of Inquiry)
  Trawler Fishing (Court of Inquiry)
  South Wales
  South Wales
  Woollen and Worsted Industry
  Woollen and Worsted Industry
  Hosiery Trade
  Hosiery Trade
  Glasgow
  Glasgow
  Ramsgate and Margate
  Ramsgate and Margate
  AUXILIARY AIR FORCE (WELSH SQUADRONS)
  AUXILIARY AIR FORCE (WELSH SQUADRONS)
  GATEWAYS, HYDE PARK (ACCIDENTS)
  GATEWAYS, HYDE PARK (ACCIDENTS)
ALIENS
  Re-Entry
  Re-Entry
  Polish Lady Student
  Polish Lady Student
  Displaced Persons
  Displaced Persons
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
  CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL.
  Read 2ª.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE VISCOUNT CRANBORNE had given Notice to move, That leave be given to the Viscount Templewood to advance his motion (now standing for Wednesday the 24th instant) to Monday, the 15th instant. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I understand it would be more convenient if this matter were postponed until Thursday. I do not therefore propose to move.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): I thank the noble Lord for the course he has taken.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Source of funds.
2.—(1) For the purpose of providing the funds required for paying benefit, and for making any other payments which under this Act are to be made out of the National Insurance Fund established under this Act, contributions shall be payable by insured persons, by employers and out of moneys provided by Parliament in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act—
(c) every self-employed person of any description set out in the first column of

195
Part III of the said Schedule, shall be liable, as from the said day, to pay weekly contributions at the rate respectively set out in the second column of the said Part III;
2.40 p.m.
LORD MESTON LORD MESTON moved at the end of subsection (2) (c) to insert "or at any lower rate as the Minister may by order from time to time determine." The noble Lord said: I rise to move the Amendment which stands in my name. It is a matter of satisfaction that the Government have included self-employed persons in the new State insurance scheme, and I am sure we should all be very grateful to the Government for having taken this line. At the same time, I would point out the difference in the scale of contributions between self-employed and employed persons, namely, the difference between 6s. 2d. and 4s. 7d. a week. Many self-employed persons will have difficulty in paying the present suggested contribution. What is required is a lower scale of contribution, say, of 4s. to 4s. 6d. a week, with rates of benefit reduced on a similar scale, or a sliding scale of contributions.
The effect of the present high contributions on certain self-employed persons, such as ditchers, hedgers, and other similar people, will be to drive them into the employed class. These rural craftsmen are going into the insurance scheme for the first time. I understand there are a considerable number of self-employed persons, including small shopkeepers, who are not only willing but able to pay the suggested higher rate of contribution. At the same time there are a considerable, and even greater, number of self-employed persons, not only ditchers and hedgers, but also people employed in the fishing industry, who may find difficulty in paying the higher rate of contribution. I hope, therefore, that the Government will be able to give this matter sympathetic consideration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 15, at end insert ("or at any lower rate as the Minister may by order from time to time determine.").—(Lord Meston.)
LORD PAKENHAM: We appreciate the concern that the noble Lord has shown for self-employed people, and more particularly those with low incomes, whose case he has just put to us. I should make it plain that the Exchequer supplement in respect of the benefit payable to self-employed persons is the same amount
196
as that in respect of the corresponding benefits payable to the employed class. In these circumstances it would clearly be wrong (and I am sure the noble Lord would agree with this) that we should reduce the contributions without reducing the benefits in the same fashion. I take it from his remarks that the noble Lord realizes that. At the same time, I do not think that the noble Lord, when he turns the whole matter over in his mind, will seriously desire to alter the whole basis of the scheme, which is essentially one for flat rates of contribution and flat rates of benefit, as distinct from the usual practice in other countries where there are proportionate contributions and proportionate benefits.
The best we have been able to do is to permit certain classes of persons who are unable to pay the contributions to be exempted from the scheme. I would mention this to the noble Lord. The fact that a person is not compelled to pay contributions under the Act, that is to say, that he is outside the scheme, does not necessarily mean that the Minister is precluded from receiving non-employed contributions from such a person under conditions to be arranged. I would stress that last phrase—under conditions to be arranged. In view of that last indication, I hope the noble Lord will see fit to with draw his Amendment.
LORD MESTON: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for his explanation, and I hope it will go at all events some way towards meeting the point. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 19 agreed to.
Clause 20:
Retirement Pensions.
20.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a person shall be entitled to a retirement pension if—

(a)he is over pensionable age and has retired from regular employment; and

(b)he satisfies the relevant contribution conditions.

(2) For the purposes of this Act—
(5) Where the earnings of a beneficiary who is less than five years over pensionable age have exceeded twenty shillings for the week preceding any week for which he is entitled to a retirement pension, the weekly rate of

197
his pension shall for the last mentioned week be reduced by one shilling for each complete shilling of the excess:
2.44 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved in subsection (5), after "excess," to insert
"Provided that where at the expiration of any calendar year such beneficiary shows that the total of the reductions made under this subsection during such period exceeds the total of the reductions which would have been made if the earnings of the beneficiary for each week of such period had been the weekly average of the total of the earnings of the beneficiary for such period he shall be entitled to a refund equal to the amount of such excess."
The noble Lord said: In this Amendment I seek to amend subsection (5) which, as I understand it, means that if a person is regularly in employment and is earning more than twenty shillings a week, he will get a reduction in pension. The Amendment I am now proposing to your Lordships would have this effect, that a man could average his earnings over the period of a whole year. The person I am trying to cater for is the person who comes to work for a fortnight or three weeks, say, to help in harvest work. He may come in for two or three weeks and in those two or three weeks have quite substantial earnings—at any rate for a retired person—which would drop him down for each of those weeks. When he has helped in the harvest he goes back to his retirement position for the remainder of the year. That is the kind of case I had in mind. What I want to emphasize is that although he may have these reductions for those four weeks if, at the end of the whole year, he can show that he would not have had any deductions made if he had worked throughout the year, he could then take the average and get a refund. I think there are quite a number of cases where we want people in this country to be able, without any drawback or financial disadvantage, to come in and help in periods when we need occasional extra help which does not flood out the market and which merely applies to seasonal occupations such as I have mentioned. My idea in putting this forward is that where a man in three or four weeks earns too much he can then get a refund over the whole of the period because perhaps during the remaining forty-eight weeks of the year he may have done no work at all. That is the object of my Amendment. I hope it is
198
one which will commend itself to your Lordships' House.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 20, at end, insert the said proviso.—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD PAKENHAM: I confess that when I first saw the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, I wondered if something could not be done along the lines that he suggested, but having examined it very closely with the Ministry I am quite clear that it would be exceptionally awkward to work and I must therefore in a moment or two ask him to see fit to withdraw it. I am not sure whether the noble Lord and the House are aware that at present, under the provisions of the Bill, the Ministry will not be concerned with and will have no record of earnings in any week where they are below 20s., since the pension will not be affected. They will not have any record of any earnings over 46s. a week since, by a calculation which your Lordships will have no doubt made, no pension will be payable for the following week and it is immaterial in such circumstances, whether the earnings are 47s. or 57s. If the earnings were to be averaged over the whole year, it might theoretically have some attractions but it would add enormously to the burden of work involved.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but will they not have any record of earnings over 46s.?
LORD PAKENHAM: No.
LORD LLEWELLIN: If I might just ask the question, I would like to know why not.
LORD PAKENHAM: Because it does not matter. If you have over 46s. you will not get the pension. You might be a millionaire or someone with 47s. a week and your earnings will not be recorded.
LORD LLEWELLIN: That is every week?
LORD PAKENHAM: Yes, weeks in which you have over 46s. In other words, the wages will not be recorded for very rich people or for those only just over 46s. a week. That is the administrative point, but the noble Lord will perhaps agree that logically—if we are going to apply logic—if the pensioner is allowed to choose the system to his advantage,

199
the Ministry should really in fairness be allowed to choose a system which would be to its own advantage. What I have in mind is this. If you have a man earning £4 a week for forty-eight weeks, but only 15s. a week for four weeks, at present he would get four weeks' pension at 26s., but if you averaged it both ways, and not only in the way the noble Lord suggests, he would not get any pension in those circumstances. So some people would gain under the Amendment if it were extended logically and some would lose. I am informed it is rather hard to know whether on balance the group of old-age pensioners would receive more or less if the Amendment were logically extended in that fashion.
I should just call the attention of the noble Lord, to console him a little, to Clause 78 (5) of the Bill where there is power to enable a person's earnings to be calculated on a prescribed basis. It is contemplated that this should be used to permit averaging in exceptional cases, where for example the earnings of a particular week cannot really be isolated as in the case of a shopkeeper, or where, owing to the circumstances of the employment, they are bound to fluctuate very markedly, for example, an agent on commission. I hope the noble Lord will feel therefore that a genuine attempt is being made if not to meet this case completely, at any rate to deal with the kind of problem which might arise from the consideration that he has mentioned. I do ask him whether, in the circumstances, he will be able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: If, as the noble Lord has said, this kind of case is going to be dealt with under Regulation, under Clause 78 (5), that is good enough for me. I only want to see that there is no discouragement to the man who is occasionally going to give a helping hand with purely seasonal work. If this is going to be dealt with in these Regulations, I am completely satisfied. If that is the effect of what the noble Lord has told me, then I certainly do not wish to press my Amendment any further. I have indicated what I want to secure, and as to the way in which I secure it I really do not mind.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am anxious to placate the noble Lord but not to mislead him. I do not think that the particular
200
case of, for example, an agricultural labourer would be covered according to present intentions. The relevant illustrations are those which I have mentioned; they are illustrations with which I have been provided. As your Lordships will recollect, I have cited the cases of the shopkeeper and the commission agent. I am bound to tell the noble Lord that it is not felt to be possible at present to throw these facilities open to the agricultural labourer, though we have a great deal of sympathy with his position.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am afraid, then, that the noble Lord's reference to Clause 78 (5) does not help very much in what I was seeking to do. I do not see why, if this is going to be done for the grocer, the candlestick-maker and who- ever else it may be, the noble Lord should not take steps to see whether it cannot be done in other exceptional cases under Clause 78 (5) for the purely seasonal worker. Will the noble Lord say that he will go into this with the Department, and see whether it cannot be made to fit these cases, which, I think, have the sympathy of everyone in the House, for it is the kind of case we want to meet? We do not want to see deductions made in the case of this sort of man because he goes in to give a helping hand where it is most needed—in the harvest for instance. If the noble Lord can look into this, I shall be glad to give him occasion on the Report stage, to put down, on Clause 78 (5), something to cover the case of the seasonal worker. If the noble Lord will say that he will look into it and try to get something done, then I will withdraw my Amendment.
LORD PAKENHAM: I will most certainly look into it. I hope, at the same time, that the noble Lord will decide whether he desires to extend the logic of his argument both ways, up and down. Again, being anxious not to mislead, I must not be held to be holding out any indication that a change is likely. But I will, as I say, look into the case. It seems to me a most interesting point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21:
Special provisions as to women.
(4) A woman shall not be entitled for the same period to more than one retirement pension, whether under this section alone or

201
under this and the last foregoing section, but if she would be so entitled but for this provision may, on such occasions and in such manner as may be prescribed, choose which she shall be entitled to.
LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "whether under this section alone or under this and the last foregoing section." The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment only. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 19, leave out from ("pension") to ("but") in line 20.—(Lord Pakenham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22:
Death Grant.
22.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a person shall be entitled to a death grant in respect of the death of any person (hereafter in this section referred to as "the deceased") if—
(a) he has reasonably incurred or reasonably intends to incur, in connection with the deceased's death, expenses to which this section applies; and
(2) The expenses to which this section applies are any expenses, of an appreciable amount, in connection with the funeral of the deceased, or with the claimant's attendance thereat, or with the attendance thereat of other persons, or with the purchase of mourning; and for the purposes of this subsection—

(a) the expression "funeral" includes any memorial service or similar observance; and

(b) references to expenses in connection with attendance at a funeral include references to any loss of remunerative time due to the attendance.

2.58 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved in subsection (1) to leave out "to a death grant." The noble Lord said: On the Second Reading debate, as those of your Lordships who were in the House may remember, I dealt with the point that under Clause 22, as I read it, before a person can actually collect a death grant he will have to show that he has paid out expenses to which the Clause applies—expenses which are defined in subsection (2) as
"any expenses of an appreciable amount, in connection with the funeral of the deceased, or with the claimant's attendance thereat, or with the attendance thereat of other persons, or with the purchase of mourning."
And then it says what "funeral" shall include.
The object of my Amendment is to make certain that a person, after having a death in the family, shall not have to go to all the trouble of sending in accounts to satisfy somebody somewhere—it may perhaps be at Newcastle-on-Tyne, I do not know. As the clause stands, as I understand it, in order to get the grant he will have to show that he has incurred or is about to incur these expenses which have to be defined, and which fall within the categories laid down by Act of Parliament. My Amendments to this clause, though at the moment I am only moving the first one, are all designed to ensure that a person is entitled to death grant of such of the amounts set out in Part II of the Second Schedule as is applicable (there are different death grants for different ages of persons) and that he shall get that amount. I looked through Clause 22 and I saw no reference in it (perhaps somebody else has been more fortunate) to the Schedule at all. It may be that it is covered by the words "subject to the provisions of this Act," but that is not the usual way of referring to a particular matter in a Schedule. So I thought it would be as well to get this clause connected with the Schedule by saying definitely that persons concerned are entitled to such of the amounts set out in the Schedule as may be applicable.
Subsequent Amendments of mine deal with who shall get the grants. I think, if I may say so, that in drafting the clause in the Bill as it stands, the draftsmen were trying to ensure that only the right person got the death grant; and it seems to me that they have not gone the right way about it. So I provide that the man or woman concerned has not to show on the death of a relative that he or she has had this, that or the other expense to meet, but has only to show that he or she is the next of kin of the deceased, or is such other person as, in the circumstances of the case, has the duty of making the funeral or other arrangements in connexion with the death of the deceased person. Such persons would have to show that it is on them that the duty falls of making the arrangements in order to get, without question or deduction, the amounts they have contracted to receive. For this is not just a case of a benefit from the State. This is a scheme into which people are going to pay money in order to get a particular sum, and it really cannot be administered by having some

203
administration in the background, some little man the persons concerned never see, who may declare: "Oh, in this case you are not entitled to it. What you have applied for does not all come within Clause 22 (2), so we cannot pay you the full death grant."
I want these people to know what they are going to get; to know that if they have subscribed they will be entitled to the grant without deductions which might otherwise be made. I do not want people who have just suffered a bereavement to have to cope with all the difficulties, which may be very distressing in the circumstances, of collecting bills and so forth, and going through all these formula before any death grant is paid to them. That is the object which I have in moving this series of Amendments. I believe that they would effect a great improvement on what is at present set out in the Bill. It is solely with the idea of improvement that I have put them down. If the noble Lord is not going to accept them, I hope he will be able to satisfy me that the words as they stand will not lead to all this submitting of bills to which I have referred, and to a lot of cross-correspondence with a remote office, before a person who is only trying to get what he or she is entitled to has a just claim satisfied.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 3, leave out ("to a death grant").—(Lord Llewellin.)
3.0 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: I hope it will be for the convenience of the House if, with the permission of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, I deal with the four Amendments on this clause in two stages. I will take the first two together, and then the last two together.
LORD LLEWELLIN: If that is convenient to the noble Lord. I took all four together.
LORD PAKENHAM: I will try to proceed on those lines. At the Second Reading stage, the noble Lord rather startled the House by declaring that this death grant, which appeared to be a fixed sum, was really a maximum and I feel that until other sources of information were available, he did not at once make that prompt withdrawal which one might expect on these occasions. It was not at
204
once obvious to everybody in the House whether his statement was right or wrong. That being so, I am inclined to agree that as it stands the clause is not completely clear. Anyone who knows the Bill by heart, would at once jump back mentally to Clause 10, where they would find a general reference to the Schedule, so that when it came to Clause 22 they would turn back to Clause 10. There they would see the reference to death grants under subsection (1) (g) and would then pass on to the Schedule. I agree with the noble Lord that that is a mental operation which we cannot expect everybody who reads this Bill to undertake. Therefore, speaking for the Government, I am anxious to meet the noble Lord, and to include words which will satisfy him that this is a fixed sum and not a maximum. To that extent, I am prepared to meet the point in the Amendment.
I do not know, if I pass over to him a form of words, whether he would care to move them in manuscript at this stage, whether he would prefer to move them on the Report stage, or whether he will leave it to us to move them. I am entirely in his hands in this matter. The words we would propose are these:
"Clause 22, page 23, line 7, after ("applies") insert ('of an appreciable amount but not necessarily of an amount equal to or exceeding that of the grant')."
Those qualifying words must be put in to guard against the case where the contribution conditions have been only partially satisfied. Those words would suit us, and we should desire to acid to them, consequentially, a further Amendment as follows:
"Line 18, leave out the words ('of an appreciable amount')."
The noble Lord may ask why do we not do it in the way he has proposed? The answer is, that we should be making an exception if we referred to the Schedule in this particular clause dealing with death grants, and not in any clauses dealing with other kinds of benefit. I think he would agree that, from the point of view of drafting, it would be rather strange to refer the reader to the Schedule for death grants but not for other benefits. I hope that the noble Lord will look favourably on these words, and if he chooses to move them now, I have authority for saying that the Government will accept them.
LORD LLEWELLIN: It would be rather difficult for me to accept something

205
coming in at the end of subsection (1) (a) when the Amendment of mine, to which the noble Lord has not yet referred, seeks to delete the whole of paragraph (a) and to substitute something else. Therefore, I think I had better wait and see what happens about that. I had overlooked that the matter is dealt with in Clause 10. I think it is an inconvenient way of dealing with the matter, because it means that the reader has to keep looking back; it would be better to have each clause self-contained. I agree, however, that it would be wrong to insert words with regard to death grants if you do not do so with regard to any other grants. The whole gravamen of my Amendment is to make certain that people do not have to send in small claims for this, that or the other. If people are entitled to these grants, I want them to receive them. I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, for what he has said.
LORD SALTOUN: If a contributor on a sea voyage falls overboard and his body is not recovered, would his representatives not receive the grant?
LORD PAKENHAM: Such a person would be outside the United Kingdom. The case of territorial waters would require special consideration. If the noble Lord is raising that case specifically, I am afraid that I must ask for more time to examine the position. But we can meet the broad points made by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. We are as anxious as he is that there should not be any question of having to satisfy someone that the precise sum has been spent. There will not be any haggling about the amount to be paid. The sum paid will be a lump sum, in the largest case £20, and it will not be necessary for the recipient to prove that he has spent £20. He will have to prove that he conducted the funeral in the proper manner, and incurred substantial expense. He will not have to prove that he spent £20. It might be £15, or it might be £25. We are clear that it is better to allow the claim to come from the individual who has actually paid for the funeral, rather than from the next-of-kin. When all is said and done, the man who has paid for the funeral is the man who should get the money. In any case, the next-of-kin may be a long way away, and it may be extremely hard to find them. We are as anxious as the noble Lord to make sure that there will not be any long delay
206
about proving what are the precise expenses. All that will be necessary, in fact, is to prove that a decent funeral has been paid for.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: It does not seem quite as simple as has been represented. There may easily be cases where no funeral can take place; for example, if the victim has been drowned. It need not be in territorial waters, or outside the United Kingdom; it might be off Westminster Bridge. In such a case, would the next-of-kin draw nothing in return for all their contributions? Would they be allowed to pay for a memorial service in return for all those contributions? Perhaps the noble Lord will look into these points.
LORD PAKENHAM: Refinements have been introduced, to which I do not pretend to have a complete answer to-day—particularly the point about a memorial service; or it might be a celebration in some cases. I think the object of the clause is plain to all of us and is accepted by all of us, but if noble Lords feel that more information about a memorial service or—
LORD AMMON: Or wakes.
LORD PAKENHAM: —or wakes—should be available at the next stage, perhaps they would raise the matter again. I am anxious, that the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, should realize that there will not be this difficulty about proving the case in any ordinary circumstances.
LORD LLEWELLIN: The noble Lord, if I may say so, has been very forthcoming, and perhaps he and I might have a talk between now and the Report stage with regard to these words which he has been good enough to suggest. What I think both of us want to ensure is that the right person gets the grant. I certainly do not want the wrong person to get it. The second thing is to ensure that there will not be a lot of unnecessary trouble in getting it. Once there is proof that a person is entitled to the grant, he or she should get the whole of the grant. I do not know that my words are very effective to secure that, but I still have a sneaking suspicion in my mind that the words in the Bill are not quite the right ones. I think if the noble Lord and I had a talk we might between us find

207
words that would put the matter beyond all doubt. I hope that the noble Lord will respond to that.
LORD PAKENHAM: I will respond with alacrity. What will interest the noble Lord more is that the Lord Chancellor has signified his intention of joining us for the purpose.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am much obliged to the Lord Chancellor. I think we are certainly likely to improve the wording. After that I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment and, if it is convenient for me to say so now, I do not propose to move the other three Amendments standing in my name.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clauses 23 to 42 agreed to.
Clause 43:
Determination of claims and questions.
43.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, regulations may provide for the determination by the Minister, or by a person or tribunal appointed or constituted in accordance with the regulations, of any question arising under or in connection with this Act, including any claim for benefit, and subject to the provisions of the regulations the decision in accordance therewith of any such question shall be final.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) of this section shall not provide for the determination by the Minister of questions as to the right to benefit, but shall provide—

(a) for the submission of such questions in the first instance to an officer appointed by the Minister;

(b) for authorising the said officer either himself to determine any such question or to refer it to a local tribunal, and for enabling appeals to be brought from the officer's decisions to such a tribunal;

(c)for enabling appeals to be brought from such a tribunal to a Commissioner (to be called "the National Insurance Commissioner") or deputy Commissioner appointed by His Majesty for the purposes of this Act or to a tribunal presided over by the National Insurance Commissioner or a deputy Commissioner:

Provided that this subsection shall not apply to questions—

(i) whether the contribution conditions for any benefit are satisfied, or otherwise relating to an insured person's contributions; or

(ii) as to entitlement to a death grant; or

(iii) which of two or more persons satisfying the conditions for an increase of benefit, whether of the same or a different description, shall be entitled to the increase
208
where by virtue of some provision of this Act not more than one of them is entitled to the increase; or

(iv) as to the class of insured persons in which a person is to be included.

(4) Regulations under subsection (1) of this section may provide for the reference to the High Court for decision of any question of law arising in connection with the determination of a question by the Minister, and for appeals to the High Court from the decision of the Minister on any such question of law; and—
(a) provision shall be made by rules of court for regulating references and appeals to the High Court under this subsection and for limiting the time within which appeals may be brought thereunder;
3.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Before the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, rises to move the first Amendment to this clause, I should like to make a suggestion with regard to the business of the House. It seems to me that as we now have a number of Amendments dealing with the same question—namely, the position of the friendly societies in connexion with the proposed scheme—it would probably be for the convenience of the House that there should be a general discussion about these various Amendments. It is the main point with which we have to deal this afternoon.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT): I was going to make exactly the same suggestion. I am sure that is the convenient course. We have got a series of Amendments which raise this point, although they are very different Amendments because there is a difference between the responsible agent and paying agent. I think the course which the noble Viscount suggests is a convenient course. We might use this first Amendment as a peg on which to hang the general discussion, and at an early stage I shall take the opportunity of speaking to your Lordships with regard to the position and giving your Lordships the Government view.
3.17 p.m.
LORD BEVERIDGE LORD BEVERIDGE moved, in subsection (1), after the second "regulations," to insert
"or (as regards sickness benefit maternity benefit widow's allowance or death grant of or in respect of a member of a friendly society) by any officer of a friendly society authorized for that purpose by the friendly society with the approval of the Minister."
The noble Lord said: May I at once associate myself with what has been said as to procedure? I was going to ask leave, in moving the first of this series of Amendments on Clause 43, to speak with regard to the whole series which have a common purpose, the common purpose being that of securing that the friendly societies are used as responsible agents for the administration of specified State benefits, with their own benefits, to their own members. That is the common object of these Amendments, and in moving the first of them I am glad that I shall have permission to explain the object of them all.
The friendly societies to which these Amendments relate are defined in a proposed Amendment to Clause 78. That definition excludes deliberately the industrial life offices which do the business of collecting life insurance. It excludes the trade unions, not if I may say so, so far as I am concerned, deliberately, but because the trade unions up to the present have not shown any desire to come in, and, as I shall argue later, the position of the friendly societies and the trade unions in relation to the problem before us is in fact quite different. I will come to that in a moment. The specified benefits which it is proposed that friendly societies should administer as responsible agents are those four which are named in the Amendment—sickness benefit, maternity benefit, widows' allowance, and death grant. The most important of them, of course, is sickness benefit, but they are all benefits with which the friendly societies have been largely concerned in their voluntary system of insurance. The specified benefits which I suggest the friendly societies should administer exclude many of the most important—unemployment benefit, retirement pensions and industrial injury insurance. They are concerned with what I may call friendly society benefits, and are limited to them.
This proposal, I need perhaps hardly remind your Lordships, is in accord with the proposal made by Sir William Beveridge three or four years ago. I do not attach any importance to that fact. To me what Sir William Beveridge said was not a matter of plenary inspiration and I do not imagine it is so to your Lordships' House. Indeed, I have been reading the debates in another place, and I very much
210
agree with what was said by an honourable Member there, that Mount Sinai and Tuggal Hall are different places; so I shall not press my argument at all on the argument of the Beveridge Report. But your Lordships will realize that what I am proposing is also in accord with the pledges that were given in the recent General Election by a large number of members of the Liberal and Labour Parties, and it may be also of the Conservative Party. Once again I am not going to stress that point particularly. I think we in this House have all admired the disarming gracefulness with which the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, disengaged himself from that pledge when he spoke on the Second Reading of this Bill.
I would also add that there are, of course, very important members of the Government who were in no way committed on this matter in the General Election. One in particular was the Minister of National insurance. From the beginning he has always taken the line of a centralized administration down into the homes of the people. He made a speech on those lines when the Coalition White Paper was under discussion in another place. I used to cite that speech a good deal in the General Election as a reason for voting Liberal rather than voting Labour. My advice was not taken, but I did use it in that way. That particular weapon in my armoury was somewhat spiked by the election pledges given by a large majority of the Labour Members. I accept completely what the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, said, that you can, and indeed you must, if reason compels you, alter your mind on a matter of this sort. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, and the members of the Government will also agree with me that to alter your mind on a matter of this sort, when election pledges have been given, should be done only if it is absolutely necessary; in other words, that the Government should be seeking means of carrying out those pledges rather than seeking and finding bad reasons for not carrying them out. I want here to try to persuade them that all the reasons they have yet given, and also the reasons they may give in future, for the line they are now taking, are bad reasons—bad in relation to what I am proposing in these Amendments.
What is being proposed in these Amendments? First the Amendments are not designed to maintain in any way the approved society system; they are not concerned with the approved societies at all. They exclude all the industrial life offices and many others. If your Lordships have refreshed your minds, as I have, by reading what was said on the Committee stage in another place when this matter was under discussion, your Lordships will have realized that two Amendments, one about approved societies and one about friendly societies, were taken more or less together, and that the argument turned upon the approved societies. Then the Minister of National Insurance said that we could not have the approved society system as it gave unequal benefits for equal contributions. I agree, of course, and I am sure your Lordships agree. But that is not the issue before us. What happened in another place on the Committee stage was that the discussion turned upon approved societies, and when that Amendment had been defeated another Amendment dealing with friendly societies was defeated also, with very inadequate discussion. I am not concerned with approved societies but only with friendly societies.
Secondly, these Amendments are not concerned with all benefits. I have already said they are not concerned with unemployment insurance, with retirement pensions, with industrial injury and so on. That makes it to me a little more remarkable that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, on the Second Reading, should have used, as one of his strongest arguments for the attitude of the Government, a quotation from Sir John Anderson. It is quite obvious that the reason why he used that quotation from Sir John (Anderson is because Sir John Anderson has the name for being a great authority upon insurance. He also is more nearly associated with the noble Lords who sit on this side of the House than with the noble Lords on the other side.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: And also he is a very fine administrator.
LORD BEVERIDGE: Yes. What Sir John Anderson said, and what was then quoted by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, was that it would be
212
harmful to the friendly societies to call them in to administer benefits which they had never before administered, namely unemployment insurance benefits. I do not know whether Sir John Anderson's criticism was intended as a criticism of what was proposed in the Beveridge Report, or of what I am proposing now, but if it was meant as a criticism of the proposal to use the friendly societies as responsible agents for administering sickness benefit, then one can only say that Sir John Anderson criticized a report without having read it and without understanding it. That is the reference the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, used—that it would be harmful to the friendly societies to ask them to come in and do a thing which they have never done. I am not asking that they should come in and do a thing they have never done. I am asking only that they should deal with sickness benefit and certain allied benefits, about which they knew one hundred years before anybody else in this country knew anything about it.
Thirdly, I am not asking that the friendly societies should do the whole of the work in relation to the sickness benefit and the other specified benefits. I must here enter into a rather technical problem in regard to sickness benefits, and I hope your Lordships will excuse me. In relation to any claim for sickness benefit you have broadly to determine questions of two types. You have to determine whether the person who wants sickness benefit when he is sick is in the class entitled to benefit and has contributed—he has to satisfy certain contribution conditions—and you have to determine whether he is sick and taking the proper steps to get well again. Those are the two kinds of condition—contribution condition and personal condition—which have to be satisfied in dealing with a claim to sickness benefit. The contribution condition under this system can only be dealt with centrally, because you have only one card for all the various benefits. The insurance card with the stamps, which is the record of contribution, does not, under this system, belong to the friendly societies as now it belongs to the approved societies. I am not proposing that, and if I were proposing it I would be breaking up central administration.
But when you come to what I may call the personal conditions that have to

213
be satisfied—is the man sick; is he taking the reasonable steps necessary to get well again?—that is not going to be dealt with centrally. That has to be dealt with locally. There is not the slightest reason in the world why all sick persons should have that personal test applied to them by the officials of a Government Department rather than by the officials of a friendly society. You do not, by adopting the latter method, break up your administration, or multiply your administration or make it more difficult. Remember what the Government are themselves doing, quite rightly, in regard to unemployment insurance. The satisfying of the contribution condition is going to be tested by a divisional register. Testing whether a man is really unemployed and able to work and looking for work is going to be done locally, and it will be done by people other than the ordinary national social insurance officials.
This distinction between contribution condition and local personal condition is of the essence of the proposition I am making here today. Let me make it also clear that the proposition I am making is not one by which the friendly societies become a mere channel for posting money under orders to the recipient; it is a proposition that they shall be the responsible agents for deciding in regard to one particular set of conditions about which they know everything, namely, whether a man is sick and is behaving satisfactorily. I want them to be the responsible agents for that purpose. Let me say that that is the point of proposing the Amendment to Clause 43, and not waiting till Clause 45 is considered, because the Amendment to Clause 45 merely says how the money shall be paid, and it is quite consistent with the Government's attitude that they should accept the Amendment to Clause 45 and make the friendly societies the channel for just posting the 15s. a week, the 40s. a week, or the 26s. a week, under orders, without taking any responsible part in the decision. The Amendment I propose, however, would make them responsible agents and not mere channels for sending the money.
I am not proposing that this should be done automatically by every friendly society. As you know, under this Bill a great deal is left to regulations, and I think rightly. If need be, I should very strongly support the Government's attitude
214
that they must proceed by regulation. But let them make regulations which will authorize the making of arrangements with friendly societies on specified conditions. One would be that they must either have themselves, or make available for their members, district visiting, wherever those members might be. Another, of course, would be that they should be paying sickness benefit of their own. On that proposition we have had in the past a variety of arguments which I still venture to call bad arguments. In the White Paper we had the argument that we could not use the friendly societies because they covered perhaps only a quarter of all the insured persons. But that is no argument at all, because every one of the 20,000,000 or 30,000,000 insured persons, whatever the number may be, is an individual and has to be dealt with individually. The fact that only one quarter of insured persons are dealt with by the friendly societies, while three-quarters are dealt with by officers of the State, is no argument at all against using the friendly societies.
I come now to another argument, one which was used in the Second Reading debate by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, and that is that you cannot really trust the friendly societies to be careful in their administration because after they have given a substantial benefit for twenty-six weeks, a year, or whatever it is, they cut it down, and it may come down to as little as 2s. 6d. at the end. May I, with all respect, say to the noble and learned Lord that in using that argument I think he was badly briefed—misled by his officials? The nature of sickness insurance finance is such that for every individual insured person you have to get contributions which will cover the whole of the sickness and all that you need to give him. You can go bankrupt as completely by not allowing sufficiently for the 2s. 6d. at the end of a period of sickness benefit as by not allowing sufficiently for the 15s. or the pounds at the beginning of the period. I do not think you need be afraid that the argument about the redaction of the benefit to a very small amount at the end of the period is a very serious one.
I will go further and say this. We can all recognize that when sickness or un-employment has gone on for a long time, there may be a case for taking special steps to see whether something better can

215
be done to heal the sick person or to restore the unemployed person to work. I think it would be quite reasonable to say that after a person had received sickness benefit for a year, two years, or whatever it may be, and before the benefit was reduced to this small amount, he should have a second medical inspection, or something of that sort. There would be no difficulty in doing that, and it would be very desirable in the interests of the man himself. But the fact that you may think such a course is necessary in a long period of sickness, is no reason at all for not using the friendly societies to give benefit during all the earlier period, when the benefit is large and substantial. I agree that you cannot necessarily automatically use all the friendly societies—some of them might not wish to come in—but I do not believe that you need exclude many of them.
In that connexion, let me refer to what I think was another bad argument used in another place by the Minister of National Insurance. He said that the only people who could satisfy the conditions of having long benefit, of having district visiting and so on, were the big centralized societies, and they were no more human than the Civil Service would be. Even if you could use only the big centralized societies, I should still think it important to bring them in, because they do bring in a different element, something in competition with the Civil Service, and a different approach, which is, I still think, useful. But, of course, it is not the case that you would be driven by any reasonable conditions of administration to use only the big centralized societies like the Hearts of Oak, or the National Deposit Friendly Society. There are the Foresters, the Oddfellows, and the Loyal Shepherds, to which I belong, which have branches all over the country and which keep in human and intimate touch with their own members. You could use them. If you want to use the friendly societies, you can, but you must not make the terms on which they are allowed to come in too hard. If you want to use them, you can do so, and there will be no difficulty in discovering whether you are in fact losing money by doing so, because you can compare their sickness experience with that of everybody else. If you decide not to use them, you will never learn what you have lost by not using them.
216
The question really comes to this: Do you want the friendly societies, for voluntary sickness insurance, to continue as an important element in the community? Do you want it, or do you not want it? Of course, every Government spokesman will say, "Yes, we do want it; we think it is going to be their most important task." Then I go on and ask: "Do you propose that sickness benefit by the State, which the friendly societies are not to be allowed to administer, shall be sent to insured persons through the post, or shall be brought to them in their homes?" With equal lightheartedness the Government spokesman will say: "Of course, we are going to send it to them in their homes." I suggest that if there is to be a great friendly society movement, with 8,000,000 people insured voluntarily for sickness benefit, as well as a State system, and if you are going to pay the sickness benefit under a State system in the home, and if you are going to say at the same time that the man who pays out the State benefit may not touch the voluntary benefit, and the man who pays out the voluntary benefit may not touch the State benefit, then you are insisting on duplication in the home of every friendly society member whenever he is sick. The idea that that can be anything but utterly extravagant in manpower does not stand scrutiny at all. Of course, if you ask the Government spokesmen: "Do you believe in keeping the friendly societies strong?" they say, "Yes," but they do no: really mean it. May I suggest that their attitude is really rather that which is mentioned in Clough's Decalogue: they do not wish to kill the friendly societies, but
"Thou shalt not kill; but need'st not strive Officiously to keep alive."
They will not stir a finger to keep them alive. This brings me to the last of the arguments which, although it has not yet been used may be used. It is this: Why do the friendly societies make such a noise about this? Why, when the industrial life offices have sat down under the Government proposals and the trade unions have accepted them, do the friendly societies make such a nuisance of themselves? Why cannot they be as reasonable as the industrial life offices and as reasonable as the trade unions in this matter? There is a very simple answer to that. The industrial life offices are not

217
mainly concerned with sickness benefit; in fact they do not themselves give sickness benefit. They have another line of business, and although they are dealing with sickness benefit and health insurance, for them it has been only a sideline. They will not be badly damaged by this and they will find some other employment for their great army of collectors. I think you will find they will develop themselves very well indeed. Having built themselves up on the approved society system they can accept the Government's decision and they will go on quite happily.
The same consideration applies to the trade unions. The trade unions are mainly industrial and political organizations. This is not their whole livelihood; it is only a small part of their interest which is affected by this Bill. But the friendly societies' sickness benefit, maternity benefit, provision for death and for widows is the whole of their interest. It is the whole of that which the Government are invading. They are told that they can go on and do that voluntary work, but must not touch this State money.
I have dealt with the technicalities and before I finish I should like to make a general appeal, not on technicalities at all, to the Government. I feel very strongly in this matter, and I hope even now to be able to persuade the Government to modify their attitude. What many of us—and I think most of us—feel is being done by this great Bill is to show that in Britain we can build security without totalitarian methods, without everything being done by the State. We are proud of this country as a country which can get economic security and yet not get everything done by the State. If a country is to be kept from being totalitarian it is essential to have a very large field of activity which is not part of the State. We have organizations and institutions in which people who differ violently on political issues can meet and be active together. In this country there are three great democratic working-class movements of self-help which have grown up; they are the trade unions, the co-operative societies and the friendly societies. Two of them, I regret to say, have become rather unduly political. The trade unions and the co-operative societies are in fact associated with a particular Party in the State. The
218
third remains unassociated with any Party in the State, and for that reason, because they are outside any politics, I beg the Government to strive most carefully to keep the friendly societies a real place in the machinery of the State.
But there is something else wanted if a country is not totalitarian but yet has to do many things through State action. There are many things we can do only by State action in this country, and it is of vital importance that the State and voluntary agencies should co-operate. I am asking your Lordships to take the opportunity of bringing about this co-operation between the State and voluntary agencies in relation to sickness benefit and in relation to the other friendly society benefits. I hope that the spokesmen of the Government are not just going to give us another wooden answer turning away sense, but will give us some indication that this Amendment which I have endeavoured to put purely on the ground of reason, will, in some form or other, be accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 35, after ("regulations") insert the said word.—(Lord Beveridge.)
3.47 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I gather it would be convenient to your Lordships if I at once make some observations on this question and give your Lordships some of the relevant facts. May I say this at the outset. I have had very many months in which to consider this matter—I might almost say years. If I may, I would like to tell noble Lords that I am not really dependent upon what is written in the brief in this matter because—having given, as I say, great consideration to the matter—I have some views of my own. I formed those views a very long time ago, and I maintain those views although I quite realize that great minds have nothing to do with consistency. The man who adheres to his opinion is not necessarily wooden and every argument which is advanced against the course we recommend is not necessarily bad or rotten. The noble Lord himself stated that the Beveridge Report was not like the tablets of stone from Mount Sinai. It does not necessarily follow that everybody who differs from the tentative conclusions is suffering from some kind of mental instability.

219
Let me say this at once. Every single motive the Government have for dealing with this matter would lead us to accept this Amendment. It would get us out of a very awkward political difficulty. I am being quite candid with your Lordships. As you all know, a large number of members of my Party gave pledges that they would treat these societies as responsible agents. I hope to goodness I did not give one. I am certain that if I signed anything I never read it. It is not my usual habit to sign things without reading them. Possibly what happened is this. At the time of an Election I always used—and I did this time—to suggest to my opponents that we should make a common bargain to sign none of these documents, and I think it is much the better way. You come back tired after a series of meetings and your agent meets you with a lot of these documents. He says he has gone through them and they are in accordance with the Party programme and you should sign them. If you are young and inexperienced you sometimes do sign.
It would be very convenient for us to accept this Amendment because we should get out of our political difficulty—I am being quite frank about that. But would the noble Lord want me to get out of a political difficulty at the price of setting up an administration which I honestly believe to be thoroughly unsound? I could get out of my difficulty, and I could set up this administration, but if I am right (I will give my reason presently) and it is unsound, the whole scheme, in due course, would be brought into discredit. That would be too big a price. Therefore, I am going to stand absolutely firm on this—I did before when I was Minister of National Insurance—that if my colleagues had imposed this scheme on me, I would not have remained responsible for carrying out the scheme. I take absolutely the same stand today. I believe that this would be a thoroughly unsound method of administration, and I would be no party to adopting it.
Now perhaps it would be convenient—these are rather technical matters and I am afraid that I have to make rather a long speech on them—if I were to deal with some of the relevant facts. The insured population today is round about 20,000,000. The possible insured population
220
as it will be when this scheme comes into operation (it will of course bring in many new classes of insured persons) will be of the order of about 28,000,000. It is generally stated that about 8,000,000 of the present 20,000,000—I do not think it would be a much larger number out of the 28,000,000—are members of friendly societies. My own view is—and I do not get this from a brief—that that figure is considerably watered; it is increased by the fact that there are many men who are members of more than one friendly society. They do not put all their eggs in one basket, but they take out policies in more than one friendly society. A man who does that, of course, would count as two in the relevant statistics. That I mention by way of warning, but I accept 8,000,000 as a working figure. I do not want your Lordships to think that I believe it is entirely correct, but, as I say, I will accept it as a working figure. So we will take it that 8,000,000 out of the 20,000,000 or 28,000,000 is the proportion.
What are these friendly societies? Let me deal with them. I have not a word to say against the administration of any one of them. The idea that the friendly societies to-day are like they used to be in their early days, like for instance the Rochdale Weavers or something of that sort, I consider, would be a complete fallacy. There are some 2,000,000 of the 8,000,000 to whom I have referred in three large centralized societies—the Hearts of Oak (whose head office is in London) the National Deposit Friendly Society (I think their head offices are also in London though I believe they have been temporarily established at Shepton Mallet) and the Cooperative Wholesale Society at Manchester. They are completely centralized societies. Then there are 1,000,000 persons in centralized societies with a membership of between 50,000 and 150,000. Again these societies are completely centralized. Then there are another 2,000,000 individuals in centralized societies with less than 50,000 members each. And there are 3,000,000 in societies with branches. I would ask your Lordships to remember that figure of 3,000,000 in societies with branches—that is, little local branches dealing with their own affairs, effectively self-governed and self-controlled. That is 3,000,000 people out of the 28,000,000.

221
I will take one of the great centralized societies. I have nothing to say against any of them, and the Hearts of Oak will do as well for my purpose as any other. Compare that society with the Prudential. The conclusion I have come to, having heard and talked with many deputations, is that there is no doubt that for home service, and for efficiency of management (by efficiency of management I mean prompt management and consideration of the people concerned in the homes) the service rendered by the Prudential will compare very favourably with any other service at all. It may be awkward for me to make that admission, but it is only right that I should do so as I believe it to be true. So far as personal attention is concerned you will find that in fact you will get home service in a greater proportion of cases from the Prudential than you will from the average friendly society. No doubt your Lordships who have studied this will know about the matters of which I am now speaking, but it may be that there are some of you who are not so fully acquainted with them.
In these large centralized friendly societies I should say that something like fifty per cent. of the cases are dealt with by post. They come to the notice of the local agent who has to refer to headquarters, and then they go on to the centre and are in due course referred back to the local agent. That is the sort of thing which in my view happens in a very large majority of cases. It is, however, one of these topics on which unfortunately there are no statistics. In connexion with the whole of this topic one finds an absence of statistics that is quite deplorable. But, as I say, I believe that in a very large number of cases service is by post, whereas the service of industrial approved societies in the vast majority of instances is at home. And that, of course, is for a very simple reason: it is because a collector is going round in connexion with his other business; he finds himself at the home, and accordingly he deals with the matter at the home.
LORD BEVERIDGE: I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord will forgive me for interrupting him, but there are statistics relating to the proportion in the Hearts of Oak of the sickness benefit payments which are paid by agents in the
222
home and not by post. These show that about ninety per cent. are paid by the agents in the homes, and not by post.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We will certainly look at the statistics. But in my belief, so far as centralized friendly societies are concerned, you will find, for the reason which I have just given, in a far larger number of cases services by post and not in the home than you will find where the industrial approved societies are concerned. So much for the facts. The next proposition is that as we are going to have 28,000,000 people to deal with it is obviously necessary for us to set up a service which covers the whole country. You cannot get away from that. You must have your central register, and you have to set up a service which covers the whole country. Adding to that service some separate service dealing with a comparatively small section of the community will not save you anything at all. You have to set up a complete service. When we started to examine this matter in the first instance, in the days of the Coalition Government, we all set out with the view that we wanted to bring in the friendly societies if we possibly could.
The other day Lord Rushcliffe revealed a secret which ought perhaps not to have been made known, but it is a fact that the Committee which considered this matter consisted of Sir John Anderson, whose knowledge on this matter is monumental, the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, who is certainly a very good administrator—you will all agree about that—Mr. Butler, myself, and representatives of all Parties. We all started off with the desire to help friendly societies and we were all impressed with the fact that it would be an enormous advantage if we could use friendly societies since, when a man has a voluntary policy of insurance, he would then be able to draw from one source both the sickness benefit received under this scheme and the sickness benefit received under his voluntary insurance. Your Lordships may think that I have some feeling against friendly societies. I can assure you that I have not. I recognize that they have done very fine work. I do not suppose that anyone would think my collaborators in this work had any feelings against the friendly societies. But we all came to the conclusion, and we set it out in the White Paper, with our reasons, that it was impossible con-

223
sistently with good administration, to use friendly societies in this scheme.
I have already shown your Lordships that there must be a complete administration covering the whole country. I have endeavoured to suggest that you would save nothing by taking out a certain section of people for particular benefits. I propose now to propound a few questions which we have to consider in looking at this matter. I am dealing with these Amendments generally. The first question is this: Are the societies which you propose to use to be responsible agents or are they to be mere paying agents? I am afraid this is rather elementary, but may I say what I mean? By responsible agents I mean agents who take decisions, who authorize payments and who make provision for sickness visitation, subject only, of course, to Government supervision. Such agents would take responsibility. For instance, a man falls sick and a question arises whether A or B is a dependant within the meaning of the Act. Or there may be a question whether a man is sick or unemployed. Is this officer of the friendly society the responsible agent, to be entitled to take decisions which put the Government under an obligation to pay money? The alternative view is that if you have no responsibility of that kind, the officers are merely paying agents.
As I understand the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, is to move shortly, the proposal is that they are not to be responsible agents, but merely paying agents. If the noble Lord will refer to the ninth day of the Committee proceedings in another place, he will see that Mr. R. A. Butler made a most well-thought-out and constructive speech in which he prayed us not to make these people responsible agents. He stated that that would break up the unity of the scheme altogether. He hoped these people would be used as paying agents, and if they were he stated that there was no reason why we should not also have other approved societies, such as industrial societies in the scheme. With that I agree. That is the first question we have to discuss.
The next question is this. Are these agents to deal with all benefits, or are they to confine themselves to sickness benefits or some other range of benefits? The noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, has
224
come to the conclusion quite recently that they should have a wider scope than he has ever suggested heretofore. He now wants them to deal with maternity benefits and, I suppose, attendance grant, widows' allowance and death grant. In his Report, and as recently as his speech in your Lordships' House the other day, if I understood him aright, he was dealing entirely with the special matter of sickness benefit. If he will let me give him a reference to his own speech, I would refer him to Column 1109 of Hansard, where he in terms limits himself to sickness benefits. That was as recently as 25th June. Today is 8th July. Maternity benefit, widows' allowances and death grants have all been added to us since 25th June. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, was equally specific. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, asked him a question, and in Column 1130 the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, makes it quite plain that he wants this to be confined to sickness benefit. I am referring to the last paragraph of the page. He now proposes to add other benefits.
The third question is, are these societies to be confined to friendly societies, or are they to embrace approved societies connected with industrial insurance companies? On this matter the Liberal Party are becoming ideological. They would leave out any societies connected with industrial insurance societies, because they work for profit. Perhaps I am rather heretical about this, but I have always thought that working for profit is not harmful so long as the conception of profit does not supersede other motives and that it takes its right place. If you have a society which is rendering efficient service—more efficient service, if you like, than another—I would not rule it out because it worked for profit in favour of a less efficient society which did not. If you are to make these agents paying agents, and not responsible agents, I see no reason why all types of societies should not be included. If I understand it aright, the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, proposes to make these societies mere paying agents. I am surprised at that, and surprised that he does not propose what Mr. Butler thought of such value, bringing in all classes of societies. I am against doing that, but, if I may say so with respect, I see no point whatever in making them paying agents and leaving out one section.

225
Another point I would raise is whether the Minister is to be entitled merely to avail himself of the services of such societies, or is he bound to do so? An Amendment in another place on the Committee stage merely gave the Minister the right to avail himself. As I understand the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, he would make that compulsory. Let me go in rather greater detail into some of the points. The first question, of course, if there is to be responsibility, is what conditions are you to impose? In the Beveridge Report the author suggested five conditions, and I think these five are perfectly reasonable if the societies are to be responsible agents. The words in that Report were these:
"… gave a substantial disability benefit from its own resources, i.e. from the voluntary contributions of its members."
Why did he insist on that? For this reason. You cannot have anybody other than a servant of the State dispensing State money and giving decisions whether payments should be made in certain cases or not, unless he also has to pay money out of his own pocket in the event of a decision to pay money. That is quite certain. In our Coalition White Paper, we said that the incentive to efficient administration is one to which the Government attach the utmost importance. Supervisory measures, such as Government inspections and audit, are normal features of any scheme involving a public expenditure of Government funds, but they are subsidiary to and in no way substitute for the safeguard of direct financial responsibility. Therefore you insist as your first condition that they must be paying substantial disability benefits out of their own private funds before they give a decision that the Government are to pay.
Let us apply this to friendly societies. What happens in their case? Their rules are very varied. You often find that all benefit stops after fifty-two weeks; sometimes it stops after twenty-six weeks. In a deposit society a man pays in so much money and his benefit stops when he has exhausted his money. Just consider what happens from the point of view of administration. I am confining myself to sickness benefit Assume I hand over the administration of the sickness benefit to a friendly society, and at the end of (twenty-six weeks, if it is one of these
226
cases where a society ceases to pay after that period, I have to take it back again, and a new man has to come in and deal with it. How is the administration to work? I do not believe it is practicable.
What does the noble Lord mean by "substantial disability benefit"? It is a very common thing for the disability benefit to drop, as he said, to 5s. or 2s. 6d., and there is a time limit on that. But the disability benefit we are dealing with here for a man and his wife and child will be 49s. 6d. Is it really to be said, as a matter of good, clean, healthy administration, that some person who is not a State servant but is a servant of one of the friendly societies is to give a decision that the Government are to pay 49s. 6d. a week, when the only control over the possibility of lax administration is that he himself is paying 2s. 6d.? What did the noble Lord mean by saying "substantial disability benefit"? Is 2s. 6d., as compared to 49s. 6d., substantial? Is 5s., as compared to 49s. 6d., substantial? I admit that we must, on the one hand, avoid an inhuman administration, but for goodness sake do not let us have an administration which is lax. Do not let us have people handing out large sums of public money without any incentive for them to administer it on a strict basis.
And there is one other point which deserves consideration. Your Lordships know how dispersed these societies are. If I may take Reading as an illustration, there are 361 societies. Some of them would be approved societies, but it might be proper to say that half of them were friendly societies. In Reading, therefore, there are something like 180 friendly societies, many of which probably have only one officer, and the effect of the noble Lord's Amendment would be that in that town there would be 180 people who would be entitled to require the Government to make payment. And there would be this most unfortunate situation. One officer would get the reputation of being more kind-hearted than another. An officer of the A Society would perhaps let through a dependant, and an officer of the B Society would turn him down. Then there would be the most unfortunate result that these minor officials of friendly societies would be competing with each other to see who was the most kindhearted at the expense of the fund.

227
That is the first condition. The second condition is that the society had an efficient system for sick visiting its members, wherever they might be; and the third is that it was effectively self-governing. What does the adverb mean—"effectively" self-governing? Every-company in this country is self-governing. If I buy a share in I.C.I., I am a member of it, but I cannot control it very well. If I have a policy with one of these great centralized societies, such as the Hearts of Oak, it is perfectly democratic but I cannot control it. It is self-governing. But what is meant by the adverb—"effectively" self-governing? I am really not sure. Then the fourth condition is an ideological reason, that it did not work for profit and was not associated with any body working for profit; and the fifth is that it was registered under the Friendly Societies Act.
Well, in those circumstances I am asked to set up a separate administration for some of the benefits—some only—for a section of the community which, at the most, numbers 8,000,000 out of 28,000,000, and I strongly suspect in fact very much less, if only for this reason: that the 8,000,000 are people who belong to friendly societies; but how many of the people who belong to those societies have effective policies in existence, how many have ever had them, and in how many cases have they lapsed? The noble Lord frowns and looks confused.
LORD BEVERIDGE: Not at all.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: One of the troubles in this case is that we have no statistics. How many of the 8,000,000 does the noble Lord think have voluntary insurance policies of their own now current? No one knows. They may have had them; they may have lapsed. They may never have had them, having joined the friendly society as their approved society because their father did. We have not the least idea how many of these 8,000,000 have effective policies today; and therefore in how many cases the friendly societies will have any obligation whatever to make a payment under policies we simply do not know. So the proposition is that for a section of the community, at the outside one quarter, we have to set up a different system dealing with particular benefits, and you get this odd result. As I said, one feature which
228
will arise is this question of dependence. Who decides the question of dependency in the case of an unemployed man? An officer of the Minister. He makes a quasi-judicial decision. If the man is dissatisfied he applies to a local tribunal, and from there can appeal to a Commissioner. That is the scheme.
But the unemployed man falls sick, as some unemployed men do. Who then has to decide on the dependency? A different officer, who may come to a different conclusion—an officer of the friendly society now—and you may have one decision that the man is unemployed and another decision that the man is sick, which shows how appalling is the position you will get into if you have this sort of duplication. That proposition, therefore, is one which I could not possibly accept.
I come to another proposition—that of paying agents. If they are paying agents then, as I see it, we can dispense with the five conditions—there is no point in having them. We can include all classes of societies. I am not going to quote, because I do not think I shall be in order, but I should refer the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, to the speech of Mr. Butler on the Committee stage. I ask the noble Lord this question, and he will be able to answer it when he comes to speak. Does he agree—because I have the quotation handy—that it is impossible to have a unified scheme and to delegate one aspect of it to one section of approved societies? Would he give me this exhortation: Stick at all costs to Your unified scheme; centralised control must be under the Minister; there must be no question of these societies remaining financially autonomous; the assets if they are to be used must be under direct Government control? Therefore, said Mr. Butler—giving those propositions in the unequivocal way I have stated them—the friendly societies must be merely paying agents; accordingly, you can dispense with the five conditions. He went on to add that there must be some drastic reduction in the number of societies.
If I have had one deputation about this matter I must have had twenty or thirty, and I was a little amused to hear the noble Lord say to your Lordships that the industrial societies had taken it all so quietly. I wish he had been with me in those early days and heard them take it all so quietly! That was not the

229
position at all. The approved societies put up to me a proposition including these very points. They realized that with a vast number of societies with scattered memberships (I remember in Glasgow there were ninety-seven societies and each with one officer, and you can duplicate that all over the country) this thing was impossible, and they wanted to form a lot of what I may call synthetic societies, each with its own area. But that would have completely got away from the old touch. That was their suggestion, and we turned it down.
Let me say that I am most anxious to work with the friendly societies. I believe we can help them to a very considerable extent. I attach enormous importance to voluntary insurance. I think the fact that we have given a fellow something good with which to start is a reason why he is more likely to increase it by voluntary insurance. We hope to work in this way. When we get a medical certificate from the applicant for benefit, which we shall have to do, we are quite prepared to provide a certificate to that effect for the man to send to the friendly society. I welcome the friendly societies, too, because I think they will be a check on our administration. They will be in very close touch with the Minister and we shall co-operate with them wherever we can. But I do say, quite sincerely, that in the old days if this proposal had been carried I would not have remained responsible for the Ministry of National Insurance. I would not have been a party to a scheme which I believed was thoroughly unsound, the administration of which was bound to break down and which involved, to my mind, crossing the wires at every stage. In any case you have to set up your central organization, and then you have to set up your regional offices, and you must have your local agents. Somebody falls ill or becomes unemployed in, say, Merthyr Tydvil. What is going to happen? A local agent of the Ministry will go into the case. He has to communicate with the centre to find out what the contribution position is, and that sort of thing. The centre tells the local agent that it is all right, and that the man is qualified. What does the local agent then do? Let us suppose this man is a co-operative society member. The Government agent, who has been round to the man, who has investigated his case and is in the home, has to say to him:
230
"My dear fellow, I am very sorry but I cannot pay you; it is the duty of the co-operative society to pay you." Then off goes another letter to Manchester, and a letter comes back from the co-operative society authorizing this fellow to pay. It is crossing the wires altogether. I do not believe you will get any efficient administration at all by that method, and, that being so, I want to make it quite plain to your Lordships that the Government cannot accept it, although the politics of the thing would lead us to say "Yes."
It is thought this is the popular thing, but I do not think myself there is much in it, from that point of view, and I will tell you why. When I was Minister of National Insurance, I never received a single protest from any insured people against not using the friendly societies, and I have not received one to this day. I have received a lot of protests from the officers of the friendly societies, but I have not received a single protest from any insured person. The Minister of National Insurance is, I think, in exactly the same position. I do not really believe there is very much in the politics of the thing. But whether popular or unpopular, I do sincerely and honestly believe that the system of making these people either responsible agents authorizing payment on behalf of the Government or paying agents, would cross the wires and would make administration ineffective, lax and impossible. The Minister feels exactly as I felt in the old days.
Let me make this quite plain. The conclusions to which we came in the Coalition Government White Paper, and the reasons for them, were set out in detail in Appendix II, and I would ask your Lordships to refer to that. It is Command Paper 6500. They were the conclusions of the Coalition Government. When this Government came in the Minister of National Insurance considered the whole thing again. He went into the matter with an open mind. He went into the matter with a strong inducement, because since then the election had taken place and the pledges had been given. We, in the old days, knew nothing about pledges or elections in this matter. He has come to exactly the same conclusion. The Government will not be responsible for the administration of a scheme which the Minister, the past Minister, this Government and the last Government believe is not practical.

231
The consequences are unfortunate of course.
Your Lordships, if you so desire, can carry against the Government either the Amendment making these people the responsible agents, or the Amendment making them paying agents. We can accept no such Amendment. The result will be that we shall not be able to get the Royal Assent to this measure this month, and the consequence of that will be that we shall be unable to start paying increased old age pensions next October, as we shall have no legislative authority to do so. I do not say that by way of a threat, but it is the fact, and it is one which I, and I am sure we all, should regret. Frankly, I should feel very sorry if the responsibility for that was placed upon this House—I am not talking about parties. It would be said that although increased old age pensions had been promised, they could not be paid as a result of a House of Lords' decision. The people will, not understand why, and that will not endear us particularly to them. But the consequences must be taken. I ask your Lordships to believe that I have no motive whatever in this thing except that I care passionately about this scheme, and I recognize that the success or failure of it depends upon the administration. If wires get crossed, and if there are weeks of waiting while one person argues with another person, then the whole thing will be brought into discredit. I believe the only thing we can do is to set up our central administration and have our organization extending over the whole country; and do not, for goodness sake, refer one set of questions to one set of people and another set of questions to another set of people to give decisions.
I thought it just as well at this stage to talk to your Lordships about this, and to tell you how we stood. I have tried to be perfectly frank about it, because there is nothing to be gained by hedging. I thought it right to tell your Lordships how the Government stood, and we regret to say that this is a matter on which we intend to stand absolutely firm.
4.30 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am certain the whole House will believe that the noble and learned Lord was quite sincere in all that he addressed to us; but I must say that on looking at the approximate
232
length of the Chamber in which we are now sitting, I began to think that the noble and learned Lord was setting up quite a number of skittles. I counted seven—I believe there are normally nine—and then, with considerable skill, he knocked them all down. But a lot of them did not concern the points we are discussing; a lot of them seemed to me to be beside the very direct point of these Amendments. The whole of the speech of the noble and learned Lord seemed to be made on the basis that we are setting up something new. We are doing nothing of the sort.
These friendly societies have been administering sickness benefit since 1911, and the only thing that is sought to do now is to allow them to continue to do that in respect of those persons who are members of the particular societies concerned. It is said that there are only 8,000,000 members. The societies, I believe, claim 9,000,000, but whether it is 8,000,000 or 9,000,000 (and we will not argue about that) quite a number of the population have been receiving their benefits through the societies in the past, and all we are suggesting from this side of the House is that they should be allowed to continue do so in the future. Then we hear that the administration may be lax, but it has not been lax in the past, and indeed the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack started off to-day by saying that he was not making any charge about their poor administration of the scheme in the past. That was quite the right attitude. Let us see what the criticism of this new method amounts to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Will the noble Lord forgive me? In the past they have been financially autonomous; they have been administering their own money; they could go bankrupt, and they had every inducement to be careful because they declared bonuses and so on. This is a wholly new scheme and they would have to administer State money.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I appreciate that in so far as it will concern these benefits under this Act it will be State money, but I hope (as I believe the Lord Chancellor hopes) that in many cases they will be administering an additional amount of their own money at the same time. What are the three factors really involved in administering these different benefits? The first is to see that the person's con-

233
tributions have been paid. How is that going to be done? I believe that the only way of doing that efficiently and effectively, so that you get a quick reply, is not to have it all done at the centre, but to have it, to a large extent, regionalized, so that you can immediately get a return from the local office. That, at any rate, can quite easily be done by the State at the same time as the friendly societies take on either one or both of the two functions about which I am going to speak. It is merely a mathematical calculation as to whether a particular contributor qualifies for benefit or not. There is no question of the human touch about that; it is simply mathematics.
Then we get down to what is covered by the Amendment that is now technically the one before the House, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, as to whether they should have any part in saying whether, because a man is disabled by sickness or other causes, he is entitled to benefit. Why should not these people be entrusted with that task? The gravamen of the charge is that it is State money, not the money of the societies, and that there is nothing to control them in making too lax a payment of it. That is really the whole charge. An employee of a friendly society will be in exactly the same position in administering these funds as an official of the Government Department, except that he would act, not on the orders of the head of the Government Department, or of the senior man in the region, or whoever the orders come from, but on the orders of the head of the friendly society concerned. Each of those senior people, whichever scheme you have, will have to give overriding instructions to his representative in the different neighbourhoods. Does anyone think that the overriding instructions, if we still continue to use the friendly societies, will not be in every case proper instruction for the societies to give to their officers? If the friendly societies are used, they will obviously have to show those instructions to the Ministry, out of common sense if out of nothing else, and they will that far be approved all down the line.
Is there any reason whatever to think that the employee of one of these friendly societies will not be as strict in his duties as he would if he became a Government official? I do not believe the people of
234
Great Britain are made that way. I believe they will be absolutely strict in interpreting what they should do and in taking the right course in the administration of these benefits, whether they are civil servants or whether they are officers of friendly societies. If it came to the knowledge of the Ministry that a particular man was being lax, all that would have to be done would be to report his name to the headquarters of the Ministry. The Ministry would take it up with the head office of the friendly society, and I do not suppose that any responsible friendly society would keep that lax employee any longer in its employment. So you have the complete remedy.
In our view the advantage of still using the friendly societies is that they have got people who have practical experience at the moment of administering National Health Insurance. The other people you recruit will not come in with that built-up experience. The friendly societies have got the experience of administering to some 8,000,0000 people. There will be also this great advantage. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, himself told us that he wanted to have people still going on with voluntary insurance and that he could make available a copy of the medical certificate, which I must say is a very proper thing to do. But if we really want to see, as a lot of us do want to see, thrift encouraged in this way by people providing for their old age and for the other accidents of life which may befall them, the way to encourage that is to have a man who is there to collect subscriptions, going into the home under the Health Insurance scheme. He would not come as a stranger but as a trusted man who comes in and says, "Would you not like to have rather more security than you have got at the present moment?" If we want to encourage that kind of thrift and greater provision for old age and sickness, the way to do it is by still giving these men an excuse to go into those homes and to be in a position to collect the extra subscription. I feel there can be no doubt whatever about that.
The names have been given so I can say I was not one who was at all concerned, as the noble Lord knows, with any of the working up of this national insurance scheme. I had quite enough—if these are appropriate words—on my stomach as

235
Minister of Food without having that burden put upon me as well. But what is the ideal scheme from the Whitehall point of view is not always the right one to adopt. After all, we pride ourselves in this country on being a democracy and my Amendment, as noble Lords will see, does not deal with the right of the friendly society of its agent or collector, but deals with the right of the contributor. If a person wishes to have what is due to him or her paid through his or her society, that person can fill up a form and apply for it to be paid in that way.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am very anxious to get this plain. Do I understand that the Amendment is merely to make these people paying agents and not responsible agents? That is what I want to understand.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I was going to deal with that. That of course is the effect of my Amendment. I want quite clearly to show by that Amendment that these people have this as of right. They have subscribed all their lives and if they want the payments made through the friendly societies they should be able to have their payments so made, especially those who have done it for years in this way. On the other hand, that is an alternative to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, under Clause 46. I much prefer to see the people get it as of right laid down in black and white in the Statute rather than have it prescribed in some sort of way by regulation, which is the form in which the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, puts it down.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I was not quite clear on that. Was the noble Lord speaking of receiving the friendly society benefit or the friendly society benefit and also the State benefit? Should they be allowed to receive that through the friendly society?
LORD LLEWELLIN: I was referring to the State benefit paid through the friendly societies. Of course there is no other channel which could pay out the friendly society benefit. I was dealing with the contributors getting this State benefit and any extra voluntary insurance they may have through the same channel, the friendly society. I hope that is quite clear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry, but the noble Lord has not made it plain to me. The point I want to get clear is this. Does the noble Lord's Amendment contemplate that the officers of the friendly society are going to adjudicate? That is the difference between responsible agents and mere paving agents.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I was coming to that. I was just saying that my Amendment on Clause 45 is really an alternative to the one on Clause 46 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge. Those with whom I have consulted on these Benches prefer that way of dealing with this part of the question rather than the way the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, deals with it. On the other hand, that does not preclude us from supporting the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, on the Amendments to Clause 43. For myself, I do not see why we should not try and see how this works under Clause 43 and give the friendly societies a chance of proving themselves. They have done this work for the State now for thirty-five years or something like that. It is true a society has only one member here or one member there and that you have two systems running side by side, but you have no more two systems than you have in the General Post Office.
The General Post Office runs a part of its business through the paid civil servants who are in the main post offices in every large town and city in the country. But if you go to the village, it is a completely different system. It is not the civil servant at all, but the woman who keeps the grocer's shop or the woman who keeps the little general village store, or whatever else it is. Without those people the system would break down. Because they are not civil servants they do not steal the stamps and they are no more lax in their administration than any responsible member of this community. All we are asking is that if you want to encourage thrift and keep the expanded scheme going you should still employ these people who have done good work in the past.
As I was saying, it may be that in Whitehall there is absolutely good administration, and I can certainly see Sir John Anderson—a man for whom I have the greatest admiration—taking the view that it is administration which really counts. But I believe we can serve the

237
people better by continuing to employ these friendly societies. I have been no party to any of these kind of pledges. I was—as I have no doubt was the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor—too old a hand to give any pledge about this at the last Election. The noble Lord who replied to the Second Reading was good enough to tell us that he was in the category who had given a pledge on this matter.
I do not hold it against him, because he was not returned, and he has, therefore, got nothing to answer for in that way. All I would say is "Let's give it a trial." When the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, was asked the question: "If elected to Parliament will you support the friendly societies' claim to be retained as responsible agents of the Government in the new scheme of national insurance in the administration of sickness and allied benefits "I am credibly informed that Lord Pakenham answered, "Yes, a hundred times yes." I only hope that before the end of this debate he will just say "Yes" once.
LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: I rise with considerable hesitation to address your Lordships on this subject, partly because my noble friend Lord Beveridge, at the end of his speech, expressed what I call the substance of my political faith. I start by believing it to be of enormous importance to the democracy of this country that it should have an independent working-class movement, that the voluntary societies, the friendly societies, organizations such as the Workers' Educational Association and the co-operative societies should be strong and active. That is the prejudice with which I start. I have not only been for forty years closely associated with that great voluntary organization, the Workers' Educational Association and other working-class societies, but it was also my business for about ten years to be chairman of the unemployment committee of the National Council of Social Service. In that capacity, I learned a great deal as to the difference between what happens from the Government end and what happens from the end of the people concerned.
Therefore, there is one Amendment of my noble friend, Lord Beveridge, which I would support, whatever anyone said on this side of the House. That is his
238
Amendment at page 83, line 32, where he proposes to insert "after consultation with an organization or organizations representative of friendly societies; and". I think it is of great importance that there should be in the Bill something to say that the friendly societies have a locus standi in this matter. I also wish to say this, arising out of my experience with voluntary organizations. I do not think that it will be necessary at all for them to disappear when the State is extending its activities. On the contrary, I think, as the result of my experience, that as we extend the work of the State there is more to be done by voluntary organizations. I am also sure, as the result of my experience, that it is the fate of voluntary organizations to be prepared to change their activities as State activities change, and it is of enormous importance that they should do the things for which they are peculiarly fitted.
What was impressed upon me very strongly in administering quite a fair sum of money provided by the State through the National Council of Social Service (one year we distributed something like £150,000 to unemployed clubs) was how different is the account of what happens given by the very best administration from what it feels like at the other end. This was the position. We had this committee and the Ministry of Labour was represented upon it. I was completely satisfied that the representatives of the Ministry were humane, sympathetic, efficient people. They described what happened in the giving-out of money for the unemployed, that is to say they described what was supposed to happen. They did not in the least realize how the ordinary simple person does not understand forms, how he is suspicious of them and frightened at them. I am quite certain that no Government administration, however well it is carried out, and no bureaucratic administration, can ever be successful unless the beneficiaries have behind them agents of voluntary associations who are not the people who are giving out the money.
I think that the part to be played by the friendly societies in the future is the part which was once played by the representatives of trade unions. One of the most dreadful things I saw happen in regard to unemployment was in those parts of the country where trade union assistance disappeared because men had

239
not been able to pay their unemployment contributions, and the trade unions consequently had not been able to help them. The ordinary unemployed person was frightened. He felt himself to be alone. What he wanted was someone to back him up against the person who decided against him. It will not help, I think, if you have the friendly societies mainly occupied with the distribution of a lot of benefit money. What you want to do somehow is to make such arrangements that there will be somebody who can stand up for the individual who is claiming benefit. You want someone who is trusted by the individual, someone who understands him and who will help to present his case against the State organization, however good, or any large bureaucratic organization, however good. I do not think that simply making these friendly societies part of the State machine is using the voluntary organizations in the right way. I would sooner that the State organization was used to pay the benefits of the friendly societies as well as its own, in order that there should be persons like these friendly society officials whose concern it would be to back up the individual, to help him with the letter which he gets, and to fight the decision adverse to him that is given. I think that if you mix up the functions of the different organizations in the way suggested in this Amendment you will be on the wrong path.
LORD PAKENHAM: I have been treated with so much consideration by noble Lords opposite, so far as my personal position is concerned, that I certainly have no cause for any complaint on that score. I only say in all friendliness to those who have spoken of my past that I have at least had the frankness to come here and say that I have changed my mind. I cannot help hoping that before the debate concludes noble Lords opposite—I am not speaking of individuals but of the Conservative Party—through their spokesmen, will be able to tell us that they have changed their minds once and must support the Amendment, or that they have changed their minds twice and will return to the position they occupied when they were holding responsible office. You will not wish me to add to or comment on the tremendous effort on the part of the Lord Chancellor. There is something very odious in compliments thrown by
240
junior members of the Government to one of the pundits. But if I ever hear a finer speech than that in this House or anywhere else, I shall count myself a lucky man.
May I now, in a few sentences, try to clarify this issue, which, in spite of all that has been said, may not be absolutely plain to some of your Lordships who come fresh to it. There is only one point which the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, did not mention in his survey. It concerns one special difficulty which arises under these Amendments, more particularly under the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge. One of the great objects of this scheme is that it shall be a unified scheme. That is desired from many points of view, but from no point of view more than that industrial injury and ordinary sickness benefit shall be dealt with under the same auspices. The Amendments separate these two benefits, with the result that when a man is injured or sick and it is not clear whether it is industrial injury or not, there may be a long wait, under those Amendments, before benefit is drawn.
Let me briefly explain how this scheme would work out, as I see it. Let us look at the point of contact, whatever the scheme, whatever the organization or organizations which are to pay the sickness benefit. First of all, the contributor pays his contribution to someone; secondly, someone keeps the record; thirdly, when the contributor goes sick, he forwards his application or medical certificate to someone; fourthly, someone has to discover whether his contribution record is in order fifthly, someone has to adjudicate on his claim and decide whether he is entitled to sickness benefit; sixthly, someone has to pay him; and, seventhly, someone has to visit him to decide if he is entitled to receive it. I suggest that these seven stages are worth careful consideration.
One point I wish to make this evening is that under the existing system, the approved society system, one kind of organization, the friendly society, deals with all seven points which I have mentioned. Under the Government's proposed new scheme one organization, the State organization, will deal with the contributor at all points. Under the Amendments proposed the contributor will be bandied about from one organiza-

241
tion to another. The noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, shakes his head, but under the scheme suggested by the Amendment, although not under the past system nor under the scheme which the Government suggest, the contributor is bandied about from one organization to another. I cannot honestly believe that an experienced administrator like the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, the ideal chief, I should have thought, of any administrative organization, would be happy with a scheme of this kind. I will not say it is unworkable, but I do say, "God forbid any noble Lord who values his reputation ever being asked to work such a scheme."
Under the scheme suggested in the Amendments, the contributor comes under a State organization for the first two stages; then he goes back to the friendly society; then back to the State; then again to the friendly society organization. This chopping and changing between the two organizations is, to my mind, the critical defect of the scheme under either proposal, although the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, is not quite so bad as that of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge. I am not quite clear, even at this late hour, whether Lord Llewellin is supporting the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, that the societies should be adjudicators as well as paying agents. Is he, in fact, supporting the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge?
LORD LLEWELLIN: Perhaps the noble Lord had better wait until the Division, if we have one.
LORD PAKENHAM: If he cannot tell us very much about this Amendment, or about his attitude—
LORD LLEWELLIN: We are not discussing my Amendment.
LORD PAKENHAM: If, as a result of his very informative speech, the noble Lord has not been able to make it plain to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, or to myself, whether he suggests the societies should be responsible agents or simply paying agents, and if he declines to tell us now which view he takes, I can only say that it is very unlike the noble Lord. Speaking for the Government, and expressing my own views, newly formed, if you like, but genuine, I beg your Lordships to decline to start this great scheme to which we
242
are all dedicated with provisions which we believe will do infinite harm, not to a few officials but to millions of people now and in years to come.
5.5 p.m.
LORD BEVERIDGE: I should like to speak as shortly as I can. I feel bound to answer one or two questions put to me at the beginning of the speech of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. He asked, am I proposing a responsible or a paying agent? I propose a responsible agency for certain purposes, but not for all purposes—not for counting contributions, but for local dealings. I propose, broadly speaking, an agency which does for friendly society members through the friendly societies what will be done for non-friendly society members by the local offices of the Ministry of National Insurance. I agree that it would not be worth while putting forward anything except a responsible agency.
Secondly, I was asked with which benefits I am concerned. The main benefit with which I am concerned is sickness benefit, but if you give the administration of sickness benefit to friendly societies so far as it relates to their own members, then it is a question whether it is convenient to give also certain other benefits through those societies. On the whole, I think that maternity benefit, widow's allowance, and death grant, which have been so much bound up with friendly societies in the past, go more conveniently with sickness benefit than with other forms of benefit. Thirdly, I was asked: Is this to be mandatory upon the Minister, or at his option? In the Amendment which I have put down, I propose that it should be mandatory, because we do want to make sure, if the Amendment is adopted, that it is carried out. In normal practice, in a Bill the word "may" is used. If I felt sure that the Minister would accept it, I would use it here.
May I add that I have now looked up the figures of how, benefit is paid by what the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, described as a highly centralized society, the Hearts of Oak? Looking up the figures, I find that 91 per cent. of their payments are made by the agents in the homes of the people. Nine per cent. of the payments are made by post, even in war. The noble and learned

243
Lord on the Woolsack spoke a good deal about the conditions which I proposed in my Report for arrangements with friendly societies. He wished to know what I meant by "effectively self-governing." In order to deal with debts it was a condition, even under the National Insurance Act of 1911, that before a society could be an approved society its affairs should be subject to the absolute control of its members. But it is quite notorious that the affairs of the great approved societies, run by the industrial life companies, are not effectively governed by the members. The word "effectively" is meant to suggest that the Parliamentary draftsmen and administrators should find something more effective than was found under the Act of 1911. I think I can also assure the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, that in my view the Hearts of Oak friendly society is effectively self-governing, because it has an effective delegate meeting.
I come to what is perhaps the main question. What did I mean by "substantial benefit"? I did not mean 2s. 6d. a week from the beginning. I cannot say exactly how much I meant, but I meant enough to give the society a real interest in careful finance. In my earlier speech I tried to suggest that if, after giving twenty-six weeks' benefit of perhaps 20s., or 30s., you then come down after a time to something much lower, it does not follow that you are not interested in the financial soundness of your scheme. Actually under the way finances work in a friendly society you still go on being interested in your final half-crown as much as in your early payment.
I do not think at this hour it is necessary for me to follow all that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, said about scattered membership in Glasgow and in Reading. I know all those figures. He knows all those. They all relate to approved societies, not friendly societies, and indeed there did seem to be a good deal of crossing purposes. I was trying to argue solely about friendly societies as distinct from approved societies, as distinct from the industrial life offices, but all these arguments have been produced about industrial life offices, about bringing in approved societies as paying agencies and so on. Those things are not in my proposal at all. What I am concerned with
244
is that the 8,000,000 or 9,000,000 people in friendly societies, the people who are contributing voluntarily from their own resources, shall have something through their own voluntary subscriptions in addition to what they get from a state insurance scheme.
What is to happen when one of those people falls sick? Under the Government proposal he has to fill in two separate forms, one through his friendly society and one through the State machine. He has got to have two visits. He has got to have his money sent to him or brought to him by hand by two separate people, because the Government make great play of the fact that they are going to pay money in the home. That is what is going to happen to the 8,000,000 or 9,000,000 when they fall sick under the Government scheme. What is going to happen under my scheme? The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, has tried to describe it—I am going to suggest in a moment entirely wrongly—as one which bandies people about from one place to another. What is going to happen under my scheme is that a man is going to make application through his friendly society, and he will deal only with a friendly society man. The friendly society man will have to send his form to get the contributions checked through a central office, just as if he were not a friendly society man; it would go from the local office to some central office, to have the contributions checked, but when it comes back it will not be bandied about by anyone. It will come back with the decision that benefit is payable while he is sick and behaving properly, or that it is not payable. He will have one person to deal with and through that one source he will get both benefits or none. There is no question of being bandied about.
In any scheme of national insurance you must have local action for dealing with the individual man, and you must have central action for keeping his records and checking his contributions. All I am proposing is that since you must have local offices which will not have authority to deal with this contribution question, which will in fact have to refer him continually to headquarters, you should have local offices for the friendly society members which will be the local offices also for the friendly society benefits. I come back again and again to this point. If you really believe that the

245
friendly society movement has to go on, if you have a vision of 28,000,000 people insured altogether, of whom at least 9,000,000 are members of friendly societies, then you should do something to prevent the duplication of the 9,000,000. If you do not do it, then the friendly societies, rightly or wrongly, will think that they are threatened. I think they are threatened. I think they were very much afraid at an early stage of having high benefits given for sickness. At one time they wanted to keep them down to the figure of subsistence level so that men should have a motive for joining the friendly societies. I persuaded them out of that, and they have given it up, and they support the giving of adequate State benefits.
There was, I think, a great show of grace on their part in sacrificing their sectional interest to the national purpose. If you accept my proposal you do not now do anything whatever except slightly add to the work of a few officials. That is all you do. Instead of having 2,000 local offices you will have 2,500, or whatever may be the extra number, from which they will get applications for sickness benefit. It is no good going on and on with this question of administrative difficulty. I think we all realize that the art of an administrator is to get rid of administrative difficulties. You must find some administrative solution if you want to achieve a real purpose. I believe, given co-operation between the State and the friendly societies, there is a great purpose to be achieved for which it is worth the sacrifice if necessary of administrative convenience, although I do not believe that any real sacrifice would be needed.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
5.23 p.m.
LORD MESTON LORD MESTON moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "may," where that word first occurs, and insert "shall." The noble Lord said: There are three Amendments to Clause 43 which stand in my name, and it will be convenient if I speak about them together. The object of the first is to make subsection (4) mandatory instead of permissive. Your Lordships will observe that subsection (1) gives the Minister power to make regulations for various matters therein specified, as for example "determination by the Minister, or by a person or tribunal appointed or constituted in accordance with the regulations." It is therefore
246
quite clear that everything depends upon the regulations. The Minister may not make any regulations at all. On the other hand, the Minister may frame his regulations so as completely to exclude any appeal to the High Court. If I may say so with respect, I do not understand why the words "High Court" are not mentioned in this Bill at all. I can understand an Act of Parliament saying that there shall be an appeal to the High Court; I can understand an Act of Parliament saying that there shall not be an appeal to the High Court, but I cannot understand an Act of Parliament saying that a Minister may decide questions one way or the other by means of regulations.
The second Amendment arises in this way. It will be seen that subsection (3) enables various persons to decide a case. An officer appointed by the Minister can then refer it to a tribunal and the tribunal can then refer it to the National Insurance Commissioner or the deputy Commissioner. But there is no further appeal from that, because apparently that is not the Minister's decision. As a result, there may be varying decisions from varying National Insurance Commissioners and deputy Commissioners all over the country. If you exclude the High Court it will mean that there will be no uniformity of decisions in these matters.
Let me refer for a moment to the recent series of decisions in appeals from the pensions appeals tribunals in which the judges have laid down the principles which are to govern determination of claims in cases where the injury or disease was not mentioned in the claimant's medical report at the commencement of his war service. I think that may be regarded as a classic case where an appeal to the High Court has been found to be the only means of obtaining any kind of uniformity in dealing with these difficult questions of law. By way of reply the Government may say that the National Insurance Commissioners will be lawyers, and they will be assisted by two assessors who will also be lawyers. That will only make the position worse. As your Lordships know, lawyers are paid to disagree and not to agree. I think it is essential that in all Acts of Parliament where you have a number of tribunals governed by commissioners or deputy commissioners there should be some Judge of the High Court to whom an appeal can be made on a point of law, and who can

247
collect and collate the facts and give a binding decision on all the points which may arise. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 43, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Meston.)
LORD PAKENHAM: I am obliged to the noble Lord for explaining so clearly Amendments which on the Paper may not convey a great deal to the House. I hope the noble Lord will allow me to reply to all three Amendments together, which I think will be for the convenience of the House. The total effect of these three Amendments would be to establish an appeal on points of law in all cases to the High Court from the decision of the Minister or from the decision of the National Insurance Commissioner. In reply to those three Amendments perhaps your Lordships will allow me to make three points. I do not say the first point relates to the first Amendment, the second point relates to the second Amendment and the third point relates to the third Amendment, but I think those three points will be found to deal fairly with the three Amendments.
I would say to begin with that under the Bill in almost every case where the Minister makes the decision there will be the possibility of appeal to the High Court on questions of law. It will not be quite true to say that there will be appeal from the Minister's decision in every case. Hence the word "shall" is unacceptable. There is only one case of any substance where there would not be an appeal on a point of law to the High Court. That is the case of the death grant. In a fashion, that is unique in the Bill. In the case of the death grant the Minister is given an initial right to determine a question of benefit and to answer "Yes" or "No" to someone who applies for benefit. That is unique in the Bill and it is accorded to the Minister in the case of the death grant in the interests of speed. In that case there is an appeal, but the appeal, following the general rules for benefit determination, passes to the Commissioner. It is really that exception that makes it impossible for us to say that there will be in every case an appeal on a point of law from the Minister's decision.
Secondly, I would point out that ordinary claims for benefit will not be
248
decided by the Minister but by the statutory authorities running up to the Commissioner. We follow the practice observed hitherto in the unemployment insurance scheme in making the Commissioner the final court of appeal in such cases. That has been found to work very well and I do not think anybody has objected to it in the case of the unemployment insurance scheme. Therefore in the case of this benefit the last word will always rest with the Commissioner. In those cases, therefore, there will not be an appeal on a point of law to the High Court. But it should be clear that the Commissioner could not be described as a Ministerial tribunal. He is not appointed by the Minister. I should like to make a feature of that and to stress it. He has come to be regarded, following the experience of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, as a high judicial authority. He is himself a barrister of high standing and is to have pension rights that are, I believe, the same as those of a County Court judge. I hope the House will not take the view that the Commissioner is some kind of bureaucrat appointed by the Minister. We are simply following and "extending, as the scheme extends, the practice which has been so successful in the unemployment insurance arrangements.
I promised to lay three points before the House, but perhaps I might add a fourth. The noble Lord need have no fear that there will be a lot of contradiction and conflict between decisions arrived at by various deputy Commissioners. In all the crucial cases the Commissioner himself will make the decision, and in other cases the deputy Commissioners will act under his supervision and co-ordinating authority.
I hope that the noble Lord (who has obviously, if I may say so, given a great deal of thought to these Amendments) will feel that the points I have sought to lay before the House are sufficient to enable him to withdraw the Amendments he has put before us, or which he is about to move.
LORD MESTON: I am very obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, for having put the matter so clearly, but it does appear to me that if in point of fact the regulations are going to be framed in such a way that there is going to be an appeal to the High Court except in one

249
or two specified cases, the matter might have been put in that way in the Act of Parliament.
The only other comment I would make is that I think there will be a great number of conflicting decisions by different Commissioners, as indeed there have been in cases arising in connexion with pensions, and that therefore it would have been eminently satisfactory if all these matters could have been referred to and decided by a Judge of the High Court. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clauses 44 and 45 agreed to.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN had given notice that he would move after Clause 45 to insert the following new clause:
Payment of benefit to Members of Friendly Societies.
Any insured person who is a member of a friendly society may by notice in writing in the prescribed form addressed to the Minister elect that on and after the date specified in such notice he or she will receive any payments to which he or she may at any time be entitled in respect of sickness benefit, maternity benefit, widow's allowance and death grant through the friendly society of which he or she is a member and payment shall be made accordingly.
Provided that any insured person may at any time by notice in writing in the prescribed form revoke such election.
The noble Lord said: We have had, by general agreement of the House, a discussion covering all these clauses. I rise only to say one thing, and that is that we on this side of the House wish very carefully to consider what the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, said in his speech, which covered this clause as well as the one immediately then before the House. We all realize that the noble and learned Lord was the one who had the foundation of this scheme in his particular charge, and we would, therefore, like to take further time to consider his remarks. I hope that before the Bill leaves this House we shall be able to do something, by common consent, to associate, rather more fully than we are doing at the present moment, the friendly societies with some of these new activities. That, I think, should be the aim of us all. We wish to consider what the noble and learned Lord said and to see if there is any way in which we can do it by general agreement, because, after all, this is a Bill that has come forward by general
250
agreement. At this stage I do not propose to move my Amendment, although I leave it open to raise this topic again at a later stage.
Clauses 46 to 58 agreed to.
Clause 59:
Married Women.
59.—(1) Without prejudice to the generality of any other power to make regulations, the Minister may make regulations modifying in such manner, subject to the following provisions of this section, as he thinks proper the provisions of this Act in their application in relation to married women, and in relation to women who have been married and during their marriage were affected by any such regulations:
Provided that, save as expressly authorised by the following provisions of this section, regulations there under shall not modify any provision of this Act which has any special application in relation to a married woman or widow as such.
(2) Regulations under this section shall provide, subject to any prescribed conditions and exceptions—

(a) for excepting a woman, if she so elects or if she does not elect otherwise (as may be provided by the regulations)—

(i) from insurance during any period during which she is married and is a non-employed person;

(ii) from liability to pay contributions as an insured person for any period during which she is married and is not excepted from insurance;

(b) for crediting to a woman, for the purpose of her right to a maternity allowance, contributions as an employed or self-employed person for periods in respect of which she would have been liable to pay such contributions but for the foregoing provisions of this subsection.

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, regulations thereunder may in particular provide—

(a) for making it a condition for the receipt of benefit by a woman, or in respect of her insurance, that she shall have been an insured person at such time, or during such period, as may be prescribed;

(b) for determining the manner in which references to entry into insurance are to be construed in relation to a woman who has been an insured person for two or more distinct periods.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I think there is an error in the marshalled list of Amendments. Of the three Amendments standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, the first one printed should have been the last. I believe it is customary for Amendments which aim at leaving out a clause to come last, and therefore I would ask the noble Lord to deal with the Amendment to line 30.
5.35 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved in subsection (1) to leave out "and in relation to women who have been married and during their marriage were affected by any such regulations."
The noble Lord said: I regret that the Lord Chairman has noticed the irregularity in the order of these Amendments, because it would have been extremely convenient for me to have dealt in a general way with proposals to leave out the clause. I hope that your Lordships will permit me, as I cannot put forward my general arguments on that Amendment, to deal rather generally with the question on this Amendment.
My objection to this clause is that it is delegated legislation of the worst kind. It has been claimed that this is a universal, national Bill, but it is, of course, nothing of the kind If your Lordships have the figures of the actuary, you will see that in 1948 it is anticipated that there will be about 9,600,000 married women and 16,200,000 men in the three classes, employed, self-employed and non-employed. Of those 9,600,000 women, only 1,400,000 are going to come under the Bill, and they will do so because they come under the heading "employed under contract of service." It really is a ridiculous claim to say that this Bill is national and universal when it leaves out 8,000,000 married women. These women, 8,000,000 of them, are going to be classed as non-employed. Did you ever hear such a ridiculous description to apply to the housewives of this country, particularly after all they have done in the war? I agree, however, that it is a little better than the classification these women used to have in the Census not so very long ago, when they were classed as "unoccupied."
LORD PAKENHAM: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I do so simply in the desire not to let him proceed on a false assumption, which I am sure he would not wish to do. They will not be classed as non-employed, unless they so opt. If the great majority of them choose to stay outside the machine and rely on their husbands' insurance, they will not come into any of the three categories. They can come into the non-employed category in certain circumstances, but I think the noble Lord is assuming that the vast majority of women will be described as non-employed. I am not trying to
252
spoil his humour, because it can apply to a certain category of woman under the Bill, but it will not apply to the 8,000,000.
LORD LLEWELLIN: If they come in at all, they come in as non-employed.
LORD PAKENHAM: They may come in as non-employed, or they may come in as self-employed, or as employed under a contract of service.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Do let us get this quite clear. I thought it was perfectly clear under the Bill that the only women who come in as of right are the gainfully employed women. That was a concession made by the Minister at a very late stage of the Bill in the other House, under pressure from a certain section of his own Party. The noble Lord will contradict me if I am wrong, but I understand that the only married women who are in this Bill by right, without the rules of the Minister, are the gainfully employed married women under a contract of service. Is that not right?
LORD PAKENHAM: I think the matter is particularly complicated. I am going to reply to the noble Lord in one moment, but I think, having corrected him on one point, I will not attempt to proceed along antiphonal lines.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The noble Lord says he has corrected me, but I still think I am right. If the advice I have had is correct, then unless a married woman is gainfully occupied under a contract of service, she does not come under this Bill at all, except by an administrative decision taken in Whitehall. The beginning of Clause 59 says:
"Without prejudice to the generality of any other power to make regulations, the Minister may make regulations modifying in such, manner, subject to the following provisions of this section. As he thinks proper the provisions of this Act in their application in relation to married women. …"
That is contrary to Clause 1 of the Bill, which says:
"every person who on or after the appointed day, being over school leaving age and under pensionable age, is in Great Britain, and fulfils such conditions as may be prescribed as to residence in Great Britain, shall become insured under this Act and thereafter continue throughout his life to be so insured."
I am advised that there is a principle of law which may mean that the making of

253
such regulations really is ultra vires, because it is entirely contrary to the main principle of the Bill. This is, of course, a matter for the lawyers, but I am told that in one of the best law books, which is called Law and Orders, there is this statement about interpretation:
"The rule on interpretation is that if subordinate legislation is directly repugnant to the general purpose of the Act which authorizes it, or is, indeed, repugnant to any well-established principle of statute or common law, it is either ultra vires altogether, or must be so interpreted as not to create antinomy."
I am not going to delay your Lordships long with what is a purely legal point. I shall be most grateful if the Lord Chancellor would tell us whether there is anything in that point. I am much too frightened of lawyers to say there is, except that I feel there must be something in it. That is a debating point and I do not wish to stress it.
What I do wish to stress, however, is that this is class legislation of the worst kind. We in this country have given up legislating as a class against Jews and Dissenters, and I think it is all wrong that we should legislate as a class against married women. The consequences, I think, are, serious. It means, unless I have understood it wrongly, that no married woman other than a woman who is gainfully employed under contract of service can come into this Bill except by a decision in Whitehall. I am not arguing that it is unfair that there should be unequal benefits and unequal contributions, although I regret that there should be unequal contributions and benefits. I would much rather see the married woman and single woman and the single man and married man all on the same footing as adult citizens. I am not arguing about that. What I am saying is that the unequal benefits and contributions are laid down in the Schedule and they cannot be altered. But this clause is putting the whole of these married women at the mercy of the Minister, and putting them at the mercy of the Minister means putting them at the mercy of civil servants sitting in Whitehall. That is delegated legislation of the worst order.
It is not so very long since the Opposition saw fit to keep another place pretty well all night on a question of delegated legislation because it is a thing about which we feel very strongly. Members of the Opposition, whether they sit on this side of the House or the other
254
side of the House, feel very strongly that delegated legislation is a bad thing. The actual matter which kept another place up so late was the price of cucumbers. I think it is not unfair to suggest that the status of married women in this country is just as important as the price of cucumbers. Consequently, I was hoping I would get the support of my noble friends on both sides of the House in pressing one or two of these Amendments. I must not talk about the other Amendment to the clause, but I must deal with the particular Amendment about which I am talking, which is, in line 30, to omit the words "in relation to women who have been married and during their marriage were affected by such regulations."
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: If the noble Lord wishes, he can deal with the whole clause.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Then I shall deal now with my Amendment to omit the two lines from "elects" on line 39. The fact of the matter is that married women under this Bill are in a less favourable position than unmarried women. A gainfully employed married woman—the Schedules are terribly complicated, but I think I am right—would get 20s. a week unemployment benefit and 16s. a week sickness benefit. If unmarried she would get 26s. unemployment benefit and 26s. sickness benefit in her own right. A woman who becomes a widow very often goes out to work, and she ought to be able to go back to the insurance status of a single woman with 26s. a week benefit. A widow is a single woman, and these two lines seem to me to put it in the power of a civil servant sitting in Whitehall to turn a widow into a married woman. It really is ridiculous. It keeps under the power of the Minister, with this delegated legislation, not only women who are married, but women who have been married; that is to say, a woman widowed or separated from her husband by divorce remains "married" at the whim of the Minister—I use that expression in the general sense—and nothing that she can do gives her the right to recover her status as a single woman. You will recollect that all professional women and all women with independent incomes come under the Bill unless and until they marry. After that they are only brought in if they are under

255
contract of service. I think it would be perhaps convenient to give the noble Lord his opportunity of replying, and I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 30, leave out from ("women") to the end of line 32.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
5.47 p.m.
LORD BEVERIDGE: May I contribute my reasons for thinking that, on the whole, in a rather difficult matter the Government have really found the right words for dealing with this problem of married women, and in fact have given married women, by the words of this clause, the choice of deciding their own fates. All that this says is not that the Minister or officials may determine whether a married woman shall be insured or not, but that he must make regulations giving her a choice either to be insured or not. There are those governing words: "excepting a woman, if she so elects, or if she does not elect otherwise." In other words, I should say that the whole purpose of this clause is to give married women the maximum of choice in determining how they will stand in relation to insurance. Those surely are the important words. She is given either a positive or a negative choice, but in either case it is her choice. Therefore I feel, after trying to make the best study of this as carefully as possible, that on the whole, in a very complicated matter, the Government have come to the right decision. I wish they always came to decisions as right as this.
LORD PAKENHAM: I hope that once again the House will allow me to reply to three Amendments together, although I am not quite sure whether they have all been moved or will be moved.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: At the moment, only one has been moved.
LORD PAKENHAM: I think the noble Lord will find it convenient if I reply to all three.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I would rather like to hear my arguments discussed.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am not precluding the noble Lord from replying to me, but I think it would be of general convenience
256
if I replied to them all because the noble Lord has discussed the whole position of married women. There are two things I wish to say as a start. First of all, Clause 59, as the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, I think was arguing, confers an option. It is giving them something as married women which people who are not married do not possess. It is therefore a clause which adds to the opportunities which would otherwise exist for them in the Bill. Secondly, I would point out, that when the noble Lord talks of delegated legislation he should appreciate that, as provided in Clause 76, this Clause 59 is one of those where the regulations must be laid before Parliament and be approved by affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament, so that it is subject to proper safeguard.
Now may I set out the position of married women under the scheme? Putting it briefly, a married woman may adopt one of three courses. First she may remain insured and pay contributions in whatever class is appropriate, that is employed, self-employed or non-employed. In this case the only substantial difference between her position after marriage and her position before marriage is, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, says, that she will receive 20s. unemployment or sickness benefit after, instead of 26s. which she would have received before marriage, and she will receive 16s. sickness benefit in her own right, instead of 26s. before marriage.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Would the noble Lord say what contribution she pays for that?
LORD PAKENHAM: It will depend of course on her class. This would be the benefit she would receive.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: What I mean is, would it be the same contribution she would have paid for the bigger benefits if unmarried?
LORD PAKENHAM: The answer is yes. I must pause here to explain that, in our view, it is hopeless—I think everybody who has looked at this agrees, including Lord Beveridge and members of the late Coalition Government—to treat a married woman as though her husband did not exist. I would add that she would receive the full rate of benefit if her husband were totally incapacitated or

257
unwilling to support her. So when saying that she gets less benefit for the same contribution after marriage, we are assuming that she has a husband to support her. I would suggest (and this is a matter which has received a great deal of consideration in recent years) that you cannot ignore a woman's husband. You must assume that the husband brings a certain responsibility along with him when he marries, and also that he brings certain resources. If he does not in fact provide resources, the woman does not have her benefit reduced. The scheme is an insurance scheme to abolish want, and in deciding what a married woman requires to abolish want it would be unrealistic and against the facts to assume that although she has a husband there is no support forthcoming. So there is this lower rate provided for married women than for women who have no husbands.
There is the option by which she may decide to be insured and pay contribution and there is technically an option whereby she is insured but does not pay contributions—but that is a technicality and we do not need to consider that now. She may decide to rely solely on her husband's contribution, which means that she gets an extra 16s. through her husband in certain contingencies, as for instance when he becomes sick or unemployed. He is not paid any extra money in respect of contingencies in her case, except in respect of maternity or death. Broadly speaking if a woman relies on her husband's insurance, extra income comes in when the earned income fails. I have endeavoured to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, with regard to his suggestion that most women under this part of the scheme would be called non-employed, that he is perfectly right in his suggestion in so far as he thinks that that would be an unfortunate term to apply. But it is assumed that the majority of such women would probably prefer to rely on their husband's insurance, in which case they would be outside the scheme except for drawing benefits out of his insurance. Clause 59 is intended to offer a special option to married women.
I might just add that I am not quite clear whether Lord Balfour of Burleigh has conceived correctly the meaning of lines 30 to 32 in Clause 59. He seems to feel that some limitation of benefit
258
rights incurred by a woman during marriage are, by the regulations, to continue to apply to her after widowhood. In fact the intention is the opposite. The intention of these two lines—which I admit may require some assistance to interpret correctly—is to give the power to modify the general provisions in relation to a widow in these cases, and this modification is required to save her from losing the benefit for retirement pension purposes of her pre-marriage contributions and the contributions of her husband during marriage. Without such provision a widow who had elected not to be insured during marriage would have a deficient life record of contributions, and suffer consequent loss or reduction of retirement pension.
If a woman's husband died to-day and she reached pensionable age in a few years' time, were it not for these two lines she would not receive her pension, or, at any rate, her full pension, because it would probably be found that over a long period of years she had not kept up her contribution. These two lines enable the widow to receive her pension after her husband's death in the same way as if her husband were alive. She receives it without her husband having retired—unless of course you look upon death as a retirement to another and better sphere. This is needed to enable a widow who has not kept up her contributions during marriage to receive pension after her husband's death in the same way, broadly speaking, as if he were still alive.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: May I ask the noble Lord a question, the answer to which must affect my attitude? Supposing, as a single woman, a woman accrues a good deal of benefit to her credit and then she marries and her husband dies. As a widow, will she get the benefit of what she paid in when single?
LORD PAKENHAM: Yes, but if she has failed to keep it up for a great number of years, it might be that her record would be deficient—
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Would that mean that she would lose everything that had accrued?
LORD PAKENHAM: She might not have acquired enough contribution record. Without the inclusion of these

259
lines widows might find that they had failed to acquire the right to an old age pension.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Can the noble Lord tell me what expressly is intended by lines 33 to 36? I cannot understand them and they have a bearing on both Amendments.
LORD PAKENHAM: Well, briefly, the position is that special arrangements regarding married women are envisaged under this Clause 59, and they are also further indicated in the Second Schedule. Clause 59 gives the Minister power to make regulations in a broad way, but in issuing these regulations he has, you may say, two kinds of directives. He has a negative directive in the sense that he must not contradict other parts of the Bill, and a positive directive in that he has to make special provisions along the line of Subsection (2).
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. I hope I shall understand what he has just said when I have read it two or three times in Hansard. With regard to his reply generally, I must say that I do not think it is quite a fair way of putting it to say that this Clause confers an option—that is what the noble Lord said—which others do not possess. What they will have is the right to continue making the same contribution for substantially less benefit. That is not in the ordinary way what one would call a very good option. I have listened to what the noble Lord said, although I cannot accept his argument. In the circumstances, however, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am very grateful to the noble Lord. The option I have referred to, which is contained in Clause 59, does not include the lower benefits that the noble Lord has mentioned. They are to be found in the Schedule which would, of course, be independent of Clause 59. When he reads my remarks in Hansard, I think he will see that it is perfectly true that Clause 59 contains a welcome option.
6.2 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved in subsection (2) (a) to leave out does not elect otherwise (as
260
may be provided by the regulations). "The noble Lord said: From what the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, has said, I think it is more than likely that I have got this wrong. What I understand the Bill to mean, as it is drafted, is that these women have the right to insure only by opting in. This Amendment is intended to twist it the other way, so that women who are not insured under the Bill, whether they are gainfully occupied or not, should have what I consider the right of every adult citizen. That is, if they are not to be in, they must opt out. We had a good deal of discussion in another connexion about contracting in and contracting out. If I remember rightly, in the most notorious case which we recently discussed, the Government believed it is fairer to make people contract out than to contract in. I only ask the Government to apply the same principle here. The married woman is an adult, as we agreed in our discussions the other day on the Motion by my noble friend, Viscount Samuel, and I think that she ought to have the right to this insurance unless she opts out. All that would happen is that the single woman who gets married would continue her insurance under the Bill unless she opts out. Under the Bill, as I understand it, if the woman wants to continue insurance, she has to opt in. I think that is all wrong. I hope the noble Lord will accept my Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 39, leave out from ("elects") to the end of line 41.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD PAKENHAM: I should like to be able to make some small concession to the noble Lord, because he has obviously put a great deal of thought into these Amendments. I am afraid that there can be no question of doing so, however, and I hope that on reflection he will feel there is more to be said for our point of view than he supposes. The Government propose that a woman who marries and stays in employment should be assumed to continue as an insured person. That is obviously quite convenient from the administrative point of view; there is no great difficulty, and no harassing of anybody. But we do feel that a self-employed woman, and still more, perhaps, a non-employed woman, would not wish to be forced to continue in insurance

261
after marriage. And whereas she could be given the option of contracting out, we feel that if she were given the preference she would much prefer to be allowed to do as we propose.
The noble Lord is obviously looking at the matter, as we are, from the point of view of the woman. From the point of view of the scheme you may say that it would be more convenient if it were assumed that she continued in insurance. I very much doubt if that is so. In the case of the self-employed woman, and of course, of the ordinary housewives of the country, it would mean sending round inspectors to make sure that these women had complied with the regulations. If I may put it quite simply, it would mean that when this Bill came into force, about 8,000,000 women would have to fill up a form saying that they desired to opt out or opt in, as the case may be. Under this scheme you assume that the self-employed woman and non-employed woman prefer to remain outside, unless they indicate that they wish to come in. Whether you look at it from the point of view of the woman, or that of the Government, what we propose is the fairer and more sensible course.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am afraid that I am entirely unconvinced by what my noble friend has said. He says that all these women would prefer to make their own decision, but you are depriving them of the opportunity of making their decision in the sense that I argued it, because you are assuming, for administrative reasons, that they will make the decision that you want them to make. Apparently, for administrative reasons you assume that these women do not want to come in. From my point of view, the point of view of the citizen, it means denying to widows their true status. They are no longer regarded as single, although obviously they should revert to their true status of single women. Now you are going to say, "Once a married woman, always a married woman; always small contributions; and always smaller benefits." I cannot understand the noble Lord offering a gross injustice such as that—unless I have got it wrong. Through marriage, a woman has no right to revert to her status. That is what I cannot understand. I would be glad if the noble Lord could enlighten me a little further.
LORD PAKENHAM: I cannot offer the noble Lord much more enlightenment on this point. He does appreciate that the right to which he refers would be the right to have a form. These women would be told that they must choose whether they will stay in or stay out. That is the right the noble Lord thinks that we are denying them. We, on the other hand, are not bothering these women to make this decision unless they decide that they wish to make it. There is no question of denying them the opportunity of staying in the scheme.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: May I just ask the noble Lord this question, and if he can give me the right answer I shall be satisfied. Will a widow, who is in fact a single person, pay the contributions and have the benefits which she would be entitled to as a single woman?
LORD PAKENHAM: Yes. I understand that a widow would be able to resume her position as a single woman.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: That is quite definite? A widow would be able to resume her position as a single woman, both for contribution and benefits? I suppose there is no catch about a widow?
LORD PAKENHAM: I should hesitate to say that there will be no catches about anything in a Bill of these dimensions. I do want to make it plain to the noble Lord that a widow would be able to revert to her status as a single woman. Of course it should be brought out that these two lines referred to in an earlier Amendment do confer on a widow a position which she would not have obtained unless she had been married and in that respect she has an advantage.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his kindness. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 59 agreed to.
Clauses 60 to 66 agreed to.
Clause 67:
Compensation for displaced employees.
67.—(1) Regulations shall provide, subject to any prescribed exceptions or conditions, for compensating out of the National Insurance Fund, for loss of employment or for loss

263
or diminution of emoluments or of superannuation or similar rights where the loss or diminution is shown to be directly attributable to the passing of this Act or the making of any regulations, persons of the following classes, namely—
(a) persons who were employed full-time, during such periods and on such date before the commencement of this Act as may be prescribed, either—
(i) by an approved society; or
6.10 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "directly." The noble Lord said: I shall deeply regret if my failing voice causes any of your Lordships to strain your attention. I shall do my best. What I am asking for appears to me to be a simple act of justice. I am asking that the relieving officers of this country who will lose their positions by reason of the passing of this Bill should receive compensation under Clause 67, in the same way as other persons who are displaced. I do not want to repeat anything that I said on the Second Reading, but I should like to express the hope that the views of His Majesty's Government have changed a little since that time. On that occasion I quoted the Minister in another place as saying that the relieving officers did not stand high on the list, and I am going to quote the reasons he gave for that remark because I wish to answer them by giving your Lordships the facts. He said:
"With regard to the local authorities, it is not unfair to say that local authorities have a duty to staffs, who have served them for twenty or thirty years, to absorb any redundancy that arises."
He also said:
"They are not as a rule ruthless in discharging members of their staffs."
And then he said:
"It may be said that the responsibility is upon local authorities to absorb their own redundancy."
I pointed out to your Lordships on the previous occasion—and I gave you chapter and verse for it—that the relieving officers are not, strictly speaking, members of local government staffs. They are employed by them but they have a position that is entirely independent either of the Civil Service or of the local government service. They date from the reign of Queen Elizabeth. They are functionaries who are charged by the State with an executive duty to the people under their charge. In a sense they may say about
264
the local government service that they are in the position of the "Mona Lisa," they are older than the rocks amongst which they sit. They came before the local government service in most cases. They are also most carefully put under the Minister. These men are specialists, they are trained and they pass examinations to enable them to perform certain functions for the State. They are not really fitted for ordinary local government jobs.
I should also like to point out to His Majesty's Government that the local authorities cannot be held responsible for solving questions of redundancy which are put upon them by the action of His Majesty's Government through Parliament. It can hardly be said to be the duty of local authorities to absorb employees who become redundant for that reason. In any case I may cut short the argument by saying that I expect His Majesty's Government know that a large number of local authorities have already made preparations to discharge relieving officers, who become redundant by reason of the passing of this Bill, when it is passed. If they do not know that, perhaps my noble friend will accept it from me that that is the case. Think of what is going to happen. One will have these relieving officers at the age of fifty forced to accept premature and reduced pensions, and unable to take any other work because they have been precluded by their occupation from training for any other work. They have devoted all their time and attention to gaining the qualities requisite for the service of the State. I think, when I have said that, that the noble Lord will admit that I am asking for simple justice.
There is this further point. The noble Lord suggested on the last occasion that it is quite possible that there will be no redundancy. I have tried to show that there is certain to be some redundancy and that relieving officers are certain to lose their occupation by reason of the passing of this measure. That will be the position as soon as this measure is passed. If there is to be no redundancy and no reduction of staff, then the Amendment will merely act as a guarantee of good faith by His Majesty's Government. It will practically be inoperative and will not hurt anybody. If there is going to be this reduction, then I think that I have said enough, as far as these

265
men are concerned, to show that it is a simple act of justice for which I am asking. These men—I think I am authorized to put their position for them—say: "We possess unique experience in dealing with poverty and in the relief of distress in this country, and we would far rather be used when this Bill, which is now going through Parliament, is passed. We are members of a dedicated profession. Nobody comes into our profession for the sake of money."
Those who enter that profession do so because they are dedicated to the service of mankind. It is a strange thing that, in spite of what their position may be by the passage of this Bill, I know of men leaving the Services who are entering this service even now, simply in the hope of being of use to their fellow-men in spite of the possibility of their losing their employment. It is a dedicated profession. They would far rather be employed, but, if they are not employed, then they are entitled to compensation. They take the attitude, that they wish to be employed in the relief of poverty and distress and in any way in which they can be of service to the State under this Act. In the wonderful speech made by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, he indicated that under this Bill we will need a very large number of people who are capable of taking decisions on the spot. Those relieving officers are the very men you really could use for that purpose, because it is part of their function that they must decide; they never refer things further back; they have to take their own decisions.
To turn to the question of distress, in spite of the hopes expressed by His Majesty's Government, I do not believe that this Bill, even if it passes, is going to do away with poverty and distress, and I do not think that even the most sanguine of my noble friends opposite really think that either. You will always have persons who, somehow or another, fail in their subscriptions, which after all are very heavy under this Bill. When those people come for benefits, of course they will find themselves in a difficult position. There will be other cases. There will be thriftlessness in the world, just as there always has been. Those misfortunes in my view are very much better dealt with by the relieving officers we have, than by any other method. The point about the relieving officer is that he
266
resides in the locality. He can be got at any moment. His hours of the days are twenty-four. He can give an answer; he can act at once and give money if necessary.
To show that Parliament intended his hours to be twenty-four, I would just remind your Lordships of one point about these relieving officers, and that is this. As you know, a relieving officer has to give notice within three days when a case of suspected mental deficiency is reported to him, and in those cases Sunday counts as one of the three days. That indicates that Parliament has always envisaged these officers as being employed in an all-time service round the clock. That is how these men stand. As you know, many persons have been removed from the charge of these relieving officers, who were formerly under their charge. I have tried to investigate this matter. I will tell your Lordships what I have done, amongst other things. I have made friends with more than one relieving officer. I have gone for a week at a time and sat in their offices as a young officer goes under instruction in order to learn something of their work. I really do know something about it.
I am absolutely convinced that it would be possible for me to give your Lordships cases of real distress which in former times would never have been allowed to occur because they would have immediately been succoured by the relieving officers. I could give your Lordships in a starred question, to which the Government could have no answer, bad cases all over England every day from now until Christmas. I do not believe the old people are being looked after as well as they used to be; in fact I am convinced they are not. There are only two things which prevent me from doing that, and one of them is obvious. If I were to produce a case from a parish in Manchester the relieving officer there would "get it in the neck" as soon as the question was put down in your Lordships' House. The other is that it would be good propaganda at the next election to produce a series of 150 starred questions which passed without satisfactory answer by His Majesty's Government. But I am convinced that every member of His Majesty's Government is as earnest and eager for the relief of poverty as I am myself. While I cannot do that for the first practical reason I have given—and I would not do it for the

267
second reason I have given—I can give your Lordships something to show that I am not making a wild statement in this matter. Many of your Lordships have probably recently read an article in The Times upon the unfortunate pressure that exists upon old people in institutions, and how they cannot now find the places which they so obviously need in institutions.
I would like to remind your Lordships of the position. Some six years ago these old persons were removed from the care of relieving officers. They come under them for medical appliances and things like that, but in the ordinary way they are not under the relieving officer except when they go back to go into an institution. It is an onerous duty on the relieving officer to provide a place in an institution for everyone who wants it, and action can be taken against him if he fails to do that. Not only that, but if death ensues thereby he may have to meet a charge of manslaughter. The expenses of that will not be paid for by his employer but he will have to pay them himself. It is a monstrous position, but it exists to-day and causes a good deal of uneasiness. I have had a good deal of experience in visiting old people in the city of Glasgow. There are two classes there. There is the school that believes in keeping people in their own homes as far as possible, where they have had their joys and they have had their sorrows of life, and where, in our phrase, they can "have their bits of things about them." There is the other school which says that these people can be much more economically and much more efficiently looked after in Homes. The larger number of us always prefer to keep the people in their own homes. The point I am making is this. In the days when the relieving officers had the care of the old people, as I told your Lordships on the last occasion, they always regularly visited, they were well known to the old people under their charge, and they gave by their friendliness and by their companionship the moral stamina to these people to preserve their own homes for themselves while they could. When conditions arose under which these people had to go into an institution they prepared the ground, and they used to work off the people who must go to an institution by the places at their disposal
268
and get them away, because they were always aware of the onerous duty upon them. Since that time these people have been removed from their charge. Although the war has aged us all very considerably I do not think it has added to the number of our years, and I do not suppose there are many more old people coming along than there were ten years ago. But the fact is that these people are now all being brought in a heap to the relieving officers, who are asked to get places for them. That indicates that old people are not being so well looked after now as they used to be by the constant care from relieving officers.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for saying that he is going rather away from the Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: I am trying to get the Government to say they will make provision for these people under the Bill, and I am saying how the poor are going to suffer. I am sorry if I did not make that clear. It seems to me a perfectly logical position. I am quite convinced of this, that you will have to retain people in the State service whose duty is that of these relieving officers, which is, as laid down by the Act of 1930, to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick, harbour the homeless and bury the dead. That is what they have done in the past. They deserve better from your Lordships and they should be found employment.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 14, leave out ("directly").—(Lord Saltoun.)
LORD PAKENHAM: Perhaps the House will allow me to answer this and the following Amendment together. I have been asked by the noble Lord to accept something from him. I can assure him that I will accept anything from him except these two Amendments. I am afraid they cannot be accepted but not, I assure the House, from any lack of concern for the old people on the part of the Government or on my part personally. I will not attempt to swap information about the position of the old with the noble Lord, although I have been concerned with the old in many different ways. I can, however, impart one piece of information to him which will be a consolation to him. The people of this country are living longer. There are

269
some rather striking statistics which recently appeared which show that, curiously enough, from 1942 onwards, which was just about the time the Beveridge Report came out—I do not know whether that was the reason—there was a sudden spurt in the figures of population. So the noble Lord must not imagine that the old people are dying off. I am glad to say they are living on.
Coming back to the Amendment, we appreciate the great services that the relieving officers can render. The noble Lord can be assured that everything possible will be done to look after them and to make use of them. But I should explain, from the formal point of view, that this Bill does not withdraw any functions from local authorities. In so far as the Public Assistance departments are affected by the Bill, that comes about simply because with increased benefits it is thought that the volume of work falling on these officers will certainly decrease. I think the House will agree that the proper place to include provision for compensating these officers—and certainly such provisions must be considered—is not in this Bill but the proposed Bill to deal with the break-up of the Poor Law. If the noble Lord raises the transitional point and says: "What about them when the Bill comes into operation?", I would point out that this Bill is not expected to come into operation until 1948, and by that time the proposals for the Poor Law should be far advanced. We certainly accept from the noble Lord that very great concern should be shown for the welfare of these people and for services they have rendered to the country, but I must ask him, in view of what I have said, to withdraw this and the following Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: I must say that I have been very unfortunate on this Bill, because on both occasions I have been very anxious to get the support of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, because I know he has devoted special study to this point. I have told the noble Lord that local authorities are now making preparations to reduce their relieving officers staff owing to the approaching pattern of this Bill, and it is not really reasonable for him to say that these men who are going to be put on reduced pensions at an early age should wait until 1948 for their case to be considered. I know I have no hope of
270
carrying this Amendment in this House, but I want to put it on record that I think this is an act of gross and signal injustice on the part of His Majesty's Government. I am afraid that they may need the services of men like these when it is too late.
LORD PAKENHAM: As the noble Lord has used strong language, I must say in one sentence that I think his final remarks are an example of a gross misconception on his part, a misconception of the intentions behind this Bill and of the intentions behind the Bill that is to follow concerning the break-up of the Poor Law.
LORD SALTOUN: I should be very happy to see the noble Lord's intentions carried out. It would give me great pleasure, and I should be the first to say so.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved after subsection (1) (c) to insert:
"Provided that the amount of compensation payable to any of the said persons shall not be diminished on the ground that such person has refused an offer of employment by the Minister unless the Minister proves to an arbitration tribunal to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor for the purpose of the determination of such disputes that such refusal having regard to all the circumstances including such person's domestic and personal circumstances was unreasonable."
The noble Lord said: It is quite true that in Clause 67 as drafted it is said that the Regulations shall provide certain things about compensation for persons who were previously employed full-time with the societies previously administering these services. It is also quite true that any regulation made under that clause requires an affirmative resolution, both of this House and of the other place. I may be told that if I do not like anything in it, that will be my opportunity to voice my opinion and throw the whole regulation back, but one does not want to do that, because there may be a lot of other particulars in it. All I want to ensure is that when it comes to a question of paying these men compensation, they shall not be debarred from receiving that compensation because they have refused to take up employment offered them by the State, and that if they have refused to take up that employment, it has to be thought to be an unreasonable act on their part by some body set up by the

271
noble and learned Lord before they are barred from receiving compensation. If people say, "No, I do not want to go on; it is quite true you have offered me this job, but I want to draw my compensation and to go into some other walk of life," I do not want to see them for that reason debarred from receiving compensation. If the noble Lord will say there is no intention to do that, and that the Government would not contemplate putting such a thing into the regulations, I shall be satisfied, but I do want some assurance that a man will not be penalized because he does not intend, in the new circumstances, to take on some other job. After all, the days of the Essential Work Order, except in one or two walks of life, are now finished, as are the days of direction into one employment or another. I hope it will be possible very soon to get rid of the Essential Work Order altogether, but at any rate we do not want it applied by a sort of side wind and to have it said, "If you do not take on this job you will lose your compensation." I hope the noble Lord will be able to give me some assurances on this point.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 36, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD PAKENHAM: I do not know that I can give the noble Lord satisfaction in exactly the form he has mentioned, but I hope that none the less my answer will be of some assistance to him. I would point out that this question is one of those which is under consideration by a Committee representing the approved societies and their staffs which the Minister has appointed to advise him on the staffing problems arising out of the proposed takeover of the approved societies. The Committee (which I am sure the noble Lord will agree is a most proper kind of Committee in the circumstances) has not yet reported, and I think he would agree that it would be improper, before the Committee has made its report, to put anything detailed into the Bill on this matter. He can be sure, however, that it will not escape the attention of the Government, and even if there were any danger of that, I am sure the noble Lord would keep us up to the mark, because obviously this question of what is and what is not to be regarded as a reasonable refusal is one
272
on which we must try to secure justice and fair play.
LORD LLEWELLIN: One hopes that the Committee will take a reasonable view. I suppose that any kind of provision to make them take on this employment will have to be in one of these regulations.
LORD PAKENHAM: I should imagine so.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Perhaps the noble Lord would be good enough to look that up between now and the Report stage. I do not think that any person who has a home in some part of the country, and who is told to take on employment in Newcastle, where the main headquarters are perhaps going to be, could be considered to be unreasonable if he said he did not want to do that. In those circumstances I think he should still be able to get his compensation, and that is the kind of case I have in mind. Perhaps the noble Lord would enquire whether it is certain to be in the regulations and would communicate with me. I want to see that justice is done to these men. At the moment I will withdraw my Amendment, but perhaps the noble Lord will be good enough to communicate with me, giving me enough time, if necessary, to return to the charge on the Report stage.
LORD PAKENHAM: It will be a great pleasure to me to communicate the information to the noble Lord in a matter of, I should fancy, minutes rather than days.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 67 agreed to.
Clause 68 [Consequential amendments and savings]:
LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM moved, at the end of subsection (4), to insert
"(5) The amendments made by this section and Part IV of the said Eleventh Schedule in section six of, and the Schedule to, the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939, shall not affect any proceedings begun, regulations made or thing done under or for the purposes of the said section six before the appointed day, but the National Service Acts, 1939 to 1941, with the amendments so made, shall apply in relation thereto as if begun, made or done by, to or before, or with reference to, the umpire or any deputy umpire appointed for the purposes of the Reinstate-

273
ment in Civil Employment Act, 1944, or the chairman of a local tribunal or the panels appointed or constituted for the purposes of section forty-three of this Act, as the case may be."
The noble Lord said: I have no doubt that all of your Lordships, being far more experienced at interpreting clauses than I am, will make light of this. I am very proud of the Bill as a whole, and equally proud of the drafting of this clause, which presents few terrrors to the initiated. The point here is quite simple, although the actual phraseology is complicated. The procedure for appeals under the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939, depends upon the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, because appeals from decisions of Military Service (Hardship) Committees are to the Umpire or Deputy Umpires appointed under that Act. By the present Bill we are repealing the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, and therefore we find ourselves in a small tangle which has to be straightened out. It is expedient, therefore, to make a small adjustment in this Bill.
In the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act, 1944, Section 8, there is a provision for the separate appointment of an Umpire, and one or more Deputy Umpires, but the Umpire and Deputy Umpires under the Unemployment Insurance Act have been appointed for this purpose, so that what has happened hitherto is that the same Umpire has done duty for all three purposes; for the Unemployment Insurance Act, the National Service Act and the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act. The long and short of it is that under the Amendment proposed we shall leave the Minister of Labour on the one hand and the Minister of National Insurance on the other to appoint separate Umpires if they desire to do so, but in practice it is intended that the same Umpire will do duty for all three in the future as in the past. I hope that that makes it as plain to your Lordships as it is to me.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 32, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Pakenham.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: I gather that the noble Lord hopes he made it as plain to us as it is to him. I do not want in the least to insult him, but it is not at all plain to me. I have read through
274
these words in this new subsection quite a number of times, and I must say I am not much wiser now I have done so. I will take it that it is a necessary provision to keep something in being which otherwise will be repealed, and to keep some form of umpire going who otherwise might be abolished. I take it there is no deception, and I certainly have no objection to passing these words as they stand. Fortunately, they do not affect any contributors or recipients under the measure, so I think we are safe in passing them in this frightful form.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am very grateful to the noble Lord and I will pass on his remarks to the draftsman. I can only say that if there is any deception we are deceived together.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 69 to 73 agreed to.
Clause 74 [Provisions as to non-contributory pensions]:
LORD PAKENHAM: The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 21, leave out ("pensions") and insert ("pension").—(Lord Pakenham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 75 agreed to.
Clause 76:
Regulations and orders to be laid before Parliament.
76.—(1) No order shall be made under Section three or Section twenty-seven of this Act and no regulations shall be made under the following provisions of this Act, namely subsection (4) of Section thirteen, Section fifty-eight, Section fifty-nine, Section sixty-two or Section sixty-seven, unless a draft of the order or regulations has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (1), after "thirteen" to insert" Section twenty-eight." The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to put Clause 28 amongst those sections of this Bill which, when it becomes an Act, will need to have an affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament. The reason why I selected Clause 28 is a very simple

275
one. Under Clause 28, regulations may be made providing for disqualifying persons from receiving benefits for which they have contributed. Regulations need not be made once and for all. New regulations can be made from time to time under any of these clauses. No ordinary insurance company can alter a policy once it has been agreed and people have started subscribing to it. I know the difficulties many people have in filling up these applications in time, so when you are disqualifying people for receiving benefits because they are out of time I think it is a matter which needs the full publicity of each House of Parliament and a matter in which each of us should be concerned and should look into most carefully.
That is the sole reason for this Amendment and there is nothing else behind it at all. When once you are disqualifying people because their applications are not in time you have really got to be very careful what you do. I think it is the kind of provision which should come under the scrutiny of each House of Parliament by being presented to us for our approval rather than be bunched, as these regulations otherwise will be, with fifty or sixty in one of the Order Papers which may not catch the eye of anyone. I think it is an important matter for a lot of humble people in this country, and I would like to see this Amendment accepted and these regulations very carefully scrutinized.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 13, after ("thirteen") insert ("section twenty-eight").—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD PAKENHAM: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to point out what I know is in his mind already, the distinction drawn in the Bill between what you might call plain scrutiny of regulations and scrutiny plus affirmative resolution. The noble Lord is aware that there is provision for scrutiny under this Bill which is not provided under all Bills. There is rather an elaborate procedure with which he will not wish me to detain the House, but it would not be quite fair not to mention it at all as though these were simply regulations under an ordinary Bill where there was no special arrangement for scrutiny. The noble Lord knows that the National Insurance Advisory Committee are brought in and so on, so
276
there is in any case a fairly elaborate scrutiny. In addition to that, there is provision for submitting a considerable number of regulations to affirmative resotion. I will not go into that in detail unless the noble Lord wishes, but I would mention Clause 13 (4), Clause 58, Clause 59, which is the section about married women which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, was concerned with, Clause 62, the important section about extending unemployment benefit, and Clause 67.
I was a little surprised that the noble Lord should have picked on Clause 28. I do not know that this is a safe argument by any means, but it roused no controversy in another place. There was no suggestion there that it should be subjected to affirmative resolution procedure. Anyhow, it is up to us to improve on what they do. The point I would make to the noble Lord is that the powers contained in this clause are almost entirely matters of machinery which have always appeared in regulations and therefore we are not doing anything in any way new in placing this clause in the Bill without affirmative regulation procedure. The powers here are those which have been left in this form for many years in the Insurance Acts which will be repealed by this Bill, so I do not think he need fear there is anything sinister or revolutionary in this proposal. It is simply carrying on arrangements which have existed for unemployment insurance for many years.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Does the noble Lord say these provisions have been in the Insurance Acts?
LORD PAKENHAM: Yes. They are in line with the present Acts
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am glad to hear that. I think it is a thing about which one ought to be very careful. All I would say to the noble Lord is that I do not slavishly follow what is raised in another place. We ought to show a little initiative ourselves and look at things here with a fresh mind because otherwise we are not very much good. With the assurance that this has been the form in the Unemployment Insurance Acts and the Health Insurance Acts for some time—and they have worked well, we all know—I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 76 agreed to.
Remaining Clauses agreed to.
First, Second, Third and Fourth Schedules agreed to.
Fifth Schedule:
Constitution, etc., of National Insurance Advisory Committee
1. The National Insurance Advisory Committee (in this Schedule referred to as "the Committee") shall consist of a chairman appointed by the Minister and not less than three nor more than seven other members so appointed. At least one member of the Committee shall be a woman.
4. Of the said members, other than the chairman, there shall be appointed—

(a) one after consultation with organizations representative of employers;

(b) one after consultation with organizations representative of workers; and

(c) if and when reciprocal arrangements with the appropriate Northern Irish authority are in force under this Act, one after consultation with that authority.

6.50 p.m.
LORD BEVERIDGE LORD BEVERIDGE moved, in paragraph 4, at end of sub-paragraph (b), to leave out "and," and insert "(c) one after consultation with an organization or organizations representative of friendly societies; and."
The noble Lord said: I will, if I may, begin not by simply moving this Amendment but by asking if His Majesty's Government will give further consideration to the matter of the personnel of the National Insurance Advisory Committee. I think that if earlier Amendments of mine had been carried it is very likely that I should not have felt it necessary to move this one. As those Amendments have not been carried I will detain the House, for a few moments only, to ask if the Government will consider my request concerning the membership of this Committee. It is based on the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee, of which I was chairman for some time. The provisions of paragraph 4 of the Fifth Schedule were all right when you were dealing only with unemployment insurance. On the committee of which I was chairman, representatives of the employers came from the Employers' Federation, representatives of the workers from the Trades Union Congress. That was all right when one was dealing with unemployment and with employees. Now you will be dealing not
278
only with unemployment benefits but with many others. You are going to bring in many new insured people who are not workers at all. Many of these people may be non-employed. I have drawn up this Amendment because I think it may well be useful to bring in the friendly societies in this way. I hope that the Government will be willing to consider this between now and the Report stage, for this committee is entirely different in scope and purpose from the committee on which it is based.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 32, leave out ("and") and insert—
("(c) one after consultation with an organization or organizations representative of friendly societies; and")—(Lord Beveridge.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: I very much hope that the Government may see their way to do more than merely consider this. It would be of great value if you had on this committee a representative appointed after consultation with an organization or organizations representing the friendly societies. These societies, as has been said over and over again this afternoon, have had very considerable experience, and it would be just as well that one of the members referred to in (a), (b) or (c) should be suggested by the friendly societies. I have no doubt the Government would be very glad to have the help of somebody with such experience. Whether this is a matter which wants looking at or not, I do not know. My noble friend Lord Beveridge has much greater knowledge of this subject than I have, but, looking at it in advance, I should have thought it would be well to tell him that one of the members of this committee can be suggested by the friendly societies.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am authorized to say that the Government will give careful and friendly consideration to the weighty points which have been made by my noble friends Lord. Beveridge and Lord Llewellin before the next stage of this Bill is reached.
LORD BEVERIDGE: On that undertaking, I gladly withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Fifth Schedule agreed to.
Sixth to Tenth Schedules agreed to.
Eleventh Schedule:
Consequential Amendments.

PART IV.
MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS.

Enactment amended

Subject matter

Amendments

LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM moved to insert:

"National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939—

Section six

Postponement certificates.

For the references to the umpire or any deputy umpire appointed by his Majesty for the purposes of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, there shall be substituted references to the umpire or any deputy umpire appointed by His Majesty for the purposes of the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act, 1944.

Part II of the Schedule

Constitution of Military Service (Hard-ship) Committee.

For the reference to one or other of the panels constituted under section forty-one of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, there shall be substituted a reference to any panel constituted for the purposes of section forty-three of this Act in connection with the establishment of the local tribunals referred to in subsection (3) of that section, and for the reference to a person holding the office of chairman of a court of referees under the said section forty-one there shall be substituted a reference to a person holding the office of chairman of any such local tribunal as aforesaid."

The noble Lord said: The first part of this Amendment is consequential. The second part does introduce a very small fresh point. Part II of the Schedule to the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939, provides that the chairman of a Military Service (Hardship) Committee shall be a person holding the office of Chairman of a Court of Referees, under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, and that the members of the Committee shall be drawn from panels which include all persons who are members of panels constituted for the Courts of Referees.
The Amendment to Part IV of the Eleventh Schedule provides that in constituting the Hardship Committees in future the Minister of Labour and National Service will be able to draw upon the chairmen of local tribunals and upon the panels of persons appointed under Clause 43 of this Bill. Those persons will be available for the purposes of the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 97, line 42, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Pakenham.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: Whether or not both halves of this Amendment are consequential, they are certainly both very much clearer than the original paragraph upon which they are based. I should have thought it fair to say that both these paragraphs were consequential.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Eleventh Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.

CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2ª and committed.

TEES CONSERVANCY BILL.
Committed.
Report from the Committee of Selection that the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for consideration of the Bill, namely:

E. Munster (Chairman),

V. Chelmsford,

L. Monson,

L. Hindlip,

L. Calverley.

Agreed to, and the said Lords appointed accordingly.

NORTHMET POWER BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1ª, and referred to the Examiners.
GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES) (AMEND MENT) ORDER, 1946.
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution (in lieu of the draft Order presented on the 6th of June last which has been withdrawn), and referred to the India and Burma Orders Committee.
GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (GOVER- NOR'S LEAVE AND TRAVELLING ALLOWANCES) ORDER, 1946.

  INDIA AND BURMA (BURMA MONE- TARY ARRANGEMENTS) (SECOND AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1946.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the India and Burma Orders Committee.
  House adjourned at seven o'clock.