Sitting of 29 May 1946

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  WEST MIDLANDS JOINT ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
  Read a Second time, and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ROYAL NAVY

    Burglary, Culham
    Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Foxasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, following the discovery of the theft of £6,900 at R.N.A.S., Culham, how long elapsed before Oxfordshire civil police and Royal Naval Special Investigation Branch police were informed and visited the station, respectively.
    The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): The burglary was discovered soon after 8 a.m. on 6th September, 1945, and the Oxfordshire Police were informed by telephone at 8.15 a.m. A police constable arrived shortly afterwards, followed by a sergeant at 9 a.m., and at 11 a.m. an inspector from Wheatley took charge of the investigations. Royal Marine Police Headquarters, Portsmouth, were informed by telephone at 9.45 a.m., and detectives arrived at R.N. Air Station, Culham, at 2 p.m.
    Sir G. Fox: Were the police able to discover whether this was the work of a highly organised outside gang?
    Mr. Dugdale: I have no reason for supposing so.
    Sir G. Foxasked the First Lord of the Admiralty following the theft of £6,900 at Royal Naval Air Station, Culham, if he has made an investigation into the precautions taken by the Royal Naval Police; and if he has any statement to make in connection therewith.
    Mr. Dugdale: Yes, Sir. The investigations showed that the night patrols by the Royal Marine Police were inadequately carried out, and that their supervision and instructions were insufficient. Suitable disciplinary action has been taken.
    Sir G. Fox: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it is a disgrace to his Department that three heavy safes, one weighing three cwt., can be spirited away from a Royal Naval Air Station?
    Mr. Gallacher: Does not the hon. Gentleman find it very difficult to keep pace with private enterprise?
    Mr. Medland: In view of the admission in the answer, are the Admiralty prepared to make good the losses to personnel who had money lodged in the safes?
    Mr. Dugdale: If the hon. Gentleman will await my answer to the next Question he will see.
    Sir. G. Foxasked the First Lord of the Admiralty why, following the theft of £6,900 at the Royal Naval Air Station, Culham, directions have been given to all royal naval air stations for bricking in safes; and when will a decision be taken to reimburse the naval personnel who suffered losses.
    Mr. Dugdale: The directions for safes to be embedded in brick and concrete are part of the additional security measures taken to prevent a recurrence of this type of theft.
    As regards the moneys lost, approval has been given for the reimbursement out of public funds of the amounts lost by the three Station funds, and of the clothing gratuity lost by the W.R.N.S. officer. The question of the replacement of the private money lost by the two naval officers is under consideration, but I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will realise that as it raises a matter having wide repercussions, not only in the Navy but elsewhere, I cannot give an immediate reply today.
    Sir G. Fox: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his Department have now been discussing this for eight months with other Departments, and why should these officers, who have lost £200, not be reimbursed?
    Mr. Dugdale: I only want to make it quite clear that this is not a rule which affects the Royal Navy alone. It affects other Departments. That is why I am having it examined.
    Mr. E. P. Smith: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether these losses are covered by insurance?
    Mr. Dugdale: Not without notice

    Demobilisation Pay (Crossed Cheques)
    Mr. Hobosonasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will make arrangements whereby R.N. ratings can receive their pay and leave allowance on demobilisation by means of money orders in lieu of crossed cheques.
    Mr. Dugdale: While it is possible that issue of crossed cheques can well cause some inconvenience to R.N. ratings, the Admiralty has, in fact, received few complaints. As my hon. Friend will realise, it would be impracticable to effect a change at this precise moment, when demobilisation is at its height, owing to the great pressure of work on the Admiralty accounts staff. I am, however, considering, as a result of my hon. Friend's Question, whether later in the year, when the pressure of work is less, the Amiralty can adopt the system of payment by money order which he has suggested.
    Mr. Silverman: Can my hon. Friend say what is the legal authority for compelling men who probably have no banking account to accept payment by means of a crossed cheque; and why is it thought that ratings will find it easier to cash cheques than for the authorities to make other arrangements?
    Mr. Dugdale: As regards the first question, I am afraid I cannot say the legal authority. As regards the second question, I have found this system to be that which is taking place in the Admiralty, and, quite frankly, I personally would like to see another system. However, the change cannot be effected during the very great pressure of work that is now engag-
    1132
    ing the Department as the result of demobilisation.
    Captain Sir Peter Macdonald: Why could not they be paid with open cheques instead of crossed cheques?
    Mr. Dugdale: Because it would be extremely unsafe. They might well get lost and be cashed by somebody else.
    Captain Marsden: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the method of payment used in the United States to both naval and Merchant Service ratings, namely, by travellers' cheques of small denomination?
    Mr. Dugdale: I will certainly consider that.

    Ex-Prisoners (Refresher Courses)
    Mr. Willisasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what arrangements are being made to enable chief and E.R.A. ex-prisoners of war to refresh their knowledge, so that they will suffer no handicap when seeking promotion, as the result of the time they have spent in prisoner-of-war camps.
    Mr. Dugdale: So far, no cases have been reported of chief or engine room artificers ex-prisoners of war experiencing difficulty in qualifying for advancement, but special refresher courses will be instituted if found to be necessary.

    Industrial Staff (Discharges)
    Mr. Willisasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, if he is aware that the Department of Inspection of Naval Ordnance, when considering discharges on the grounds of redundancy on the basis of those with least Government service being discharged first, allow civilian service in other Admiralty departments to count, but do not allow ex-naval employees to count their naval service; and if he will take steps to remove this anomaly.
    Mr. Dugdale: I am not clear whether my hon. Friend is referring to industrial or non-industrial staff. Discharges among non-industrial staff are governed by the procedure agreed by a committee of the National Whitley Council. Under this procedure, time spent in the Forces during the recent war is included in the calculation of length of service for the purpose of determining the order of discharge

    1133
    on redundancy. Industrial staff discharges are regulated by an agreement made between the trade union and official sides of the Admiralty Industrial Council. This provides that in the case of workpeople in Admiralty employ who later joined the Forces, " length of service," as one of the factors determining the order of discharge, includes service with the Forces.
    My hon. Friend will appreciate that in both fields, the rules followed by the Admiralty are those laid down in agreement with the representatives of the employees concerned. If, however, he would care to let me have details of any particular cases giving rise to his Question, I should be pleased to look into the matter further.

    Chief Ordnance Artificers
    Commander Maitlandasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many applications since 1st January, 1946, have been made by ordnance artificers who are eligible to take the examination for chief ordnance artificer; and whether he is satisfied that this number is sufficient to meet naval requirements.
    Mr. Dugdale: Fourteen applications for examination for chief ordnance artificer have been received since 1st January, 1946. This is enough to meet requirements.

    Petty Officers
    Commander Maitlandasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what percentage of petty officers of the seaman branch, who are eligible, have elected to complete time for pension since January, 1946.
    Mr. Dugdale: Twenty-seven per cent.
    Commander Maitland: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that this is most unsatisfactory? Does he not consider that it is very largely due to the lack of inducement held out by the new pay code? How are we going to get senior petty officers in the Navy in future?
    Mr. Dugdale: I cannot admit that at all.
    Commander Noble: Can the hon. Gentleman say how it is proposed to raise these ratings in the future, in view of this rather disturbing figure?
    Mr. Dugdale: There is a recruiting campaign now being carried on, and I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will do his utmost to support it.
    Mr. James Callaghan: Can the hon. Gentleman say why the percentage is as low as 27 per cent.?
    Mr. Dugdale: Not without notice.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is this not a question of the inducements? How can any publicity campaign or recruiting campaign affect the matter if the conditions are not improved?
    Mr. Dugdale: Conditions are considerably improved in many respects on those under previous Governments.
    Major Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman note the Opposition campaign for economies in this regard, when he considers this question?
    Commander Maitland: Can the hon. Gentleman say how he thinks this recruiting campaign is going to help us in the provision of petty officers and chief petty officers in the Royal Navy in the immediate future?
    Mr. Dugdale: Obviously, it cannot affect them in the immediate future, but I hope those people who are recruited will obtain rapid promotion and become petty officers and chief petty officers.

    Warrant Officers
    Commander Maitlandasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can now state the terms of service for warrant officers.
    Mr. Dugdale: Consideration of the position of the warrant officer classes in the postwar Royal Navy is not yet completed. It is hoped, however, that a considerable measure of improvement in their general conditions of service will shortly be promulgated.
    Mr. Medland: Will the Parliamentary Secretary consider the abolition of this class distinction, and put these men straight into the wardroom?
    Mr. Dugdale: That is quite another question.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the terms will be published, so that warrant officers may know as soon as possible what they are?
    Mr. Dugdale: I can say only " as soon as possible."I cannot give the date today.

    Quartermaster Branch
    Commander Nobleasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what are the duties of the new quartermaster branch of the Royal Navy.
    Mr. Dugdale: Precise details of this new branch are still under consideration. There will be three grades, corresponding to the rates of able seamen, leading seamen, and petty officer or chief petty officer, respectively. Courses of instruction will be given, and ratings will have to pass qualifying examinations for promotion as for other technical rates. The quartermaster branch will provide quartermasters and boatswain's mates in all H.M. ships, and will absorb the existing rates of destroyer and submarine coxswain. The quartermaster will be able to rise to warrant and commissioned rank under the same conditions as other seamen.

    Tormentor Maintenance Yard, Warsash
    Mr. Spenceasked the First Lord of the Admiralty why the derequisitioning of the Tormentor maintenance yard at Warsash has been held up, having regard to the fact that the service vacated it two months ago and that it is required for civilian boat building.
    Mr. Dugdale: The future of this establishment, on which a considerable amount of public money has been spent, and which is now occupied by a naval care and maintenance party, is the subject of active consideration by the Admiralty, in consultation with the other authorities concerned. I will undertake to inform the hon. Member as soon as a decision is reached.
    Mr. Spence: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind, in looking into this matter, that the new owners of this yard are ex-Servicemen who want to get a start in earning their living? Will he take that into consideration?
    Mr. Dugdale: Certainly, Sir.

    Royal Hospital School, Holbrook
    Commander Purseyasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of applications for the last entry into the Royal Hospital School, Holbrook; the number of boys who were accepted; and the reasons for the rejections.
    Mr. Dugdale: The number of applicants for the May, 1946, entry to the Royal Hospital School, Holbrook, was 96, of whom 70 were accepted, 12 failed medically, and 14 failed educationally.
    Commander Pursey: When does the Admiralty intend to fill this orphanage to capacity, preferably with the orphans of men who served in the Navy and the Mercantile Marine during the last war?
    Mr. Dugdale: We are anxious to do that as soon as possible.
    Commander Purseyasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of boys who entered the Royal Hospital School, Holbrook, on the last occasion who had, respectively, both parents dead, father dead, mother dead, and both parents alive.
    Mr. Dugdale: Of the 70 boys entered at the last entry, one had lost both parents, 47 had lost father, two had lost mother, and 20 had both parents living.

    Compassionate Leave (Parents' Illness)
    Mr. Stokesasked the First Lord of the Admiralty on what grounds compassionate leave is refused to serving men to come home to see dying parents merely because they have brothers or sisters already at home; and whether he is satisfied that this policy is fair both to the parents and to the man.
    Mr. Dugdale: Until this year compassionate leave to visit parents who are seriously ill was not granted in the Royal Navy except in very rare cases. This rule has now, however, been altered so as to allow leave in cases where no other son or daughter is available. It has been adopted by all three Services in fairness to men due to return to the United Kingdom and other compassionate cases, such as the illness of a wife. The number of cases of serious illness of parents is large, and if the rule were extended to cover every such case, considerable difficulties would occur both in manning the Fleet and in providing passages. I will, however, consult my Service colleagues with a view to seeing whether any relaxation is possible.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware that the case to which he knows I specifically refer is that of a mother who has several sons serving, who is dying of

    1137
    cancer, and who is prevented from seeing her sons—whom she has not seen for a long time—wholly on account of this arbitrary rule of the Admiralty? Will he please have that rule changed so that the boys can come home?
    Mr. Dugdale: I have said I will look into the matter in consultation with the other Service Ministers.

    Families of Personnel (Foreign Stations)
    Mr. Dribergasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what arrangements have been made to grant free passages to the families of Naval personnel stationed abroad for long periods.
    Mr. Dugdale: I should like to apologise for the length of the reply. The Government have decided to accept the principle of paying the cost of passage and removal expenses for the families of naval officers and men appointed to serve normal commissions on stations abroad, other than B.A.O.R., where suitable accommodation can be found for them on the station. Provision of accommodation and payment for it must remain the responsibility of the officer or man concerned: and permission to have his family with him will be subject in each instance to the sanction of the Commander-in-Chief who will assure himself that the man has suitable and accessible accommodation to which to bring his family, and that the main object of the scheme—to enable the man to be with his family during periods on leave and off duty—will be achieved. I should like to make it quite clear that owing to the shortage of accommodation this concession will not mean that every man serving abroad will at once be able to have his family with him. Until there is enough accommodation, there will have to be a limit on the number of passages granted.
    The concession will for the present apply to all ratings appointed for a normal commission to shore or harbour duties abroad, and to officers, chief petty officers and petty officers appointed for a normal commission to a sea-going ship based on a port abroad. It will apply equally to Royal Marines of corresponding ranks. It will be limited to those areas to which the families of Servicemen generally are admitted. The arrangements will be brought into force at an early date, and
    1138
    will be applied under the conditions described above to all at present serving abroad who can normally expect to remain for at least another year on the station.
    In all cases application must in the first instance be made by the officer or man himself to the Commander-in-Chief through the usual Service channels. As soon as adequate accommodation becomes available, the scheme will be extended in accordance with the principles enunciated in the opening words of this statement.
    Captain Marsden: Can the Financial Secretary explain " accommodation " a little more, because he used the word several times? Will this be a matter for the senior naval officer on the station? Is it Government accommodation which will be made available, or accommodation generally obtained privately?
    Mr. Dugdale: It is accommodation generally obtained privately. At the moment it is quite impossible for the Admiralty to provide the necessary accommodation, particularly in places such as Malta.
    Mr. Stephen: In view of the fact that the limited accommodation will be less than the number of applicants, will there be a ballot, or on what principles will it be decided who is to get the accommodation?
    Mr. Dugdale: It will be a question of hardship. The man who has the greatest need will have first preference.
    Commander Noble: Is the question of married quarters for those serving ashore under consideration?
    Mr. Dugdale: If the hon. and gallant Member reads the answer, he will see that ratings ashore will be entitled to accommodation when serving abroad.

    Pensioners' Medals (Restoration)
    Commander Nobleasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what are the regulations governing the restoration of the Long Service and Good Conduct Medal to pensioners who have been deprived of it for misconduct during the period of their recall to the R.N.
    Mr. Dugdale: If a pensioner loses his Long Service and Good Conduct Medal

    1139
    for misconduct during the period of recall, the regulations do not provide for its restoration.
    Commander Noble: Will the Financial Secretary give sympathetic consideration to any applications for the restoration of these medals, bearing in mind the great store men set on them?
    Mr. Dugdale: Certainly, but in view of the very high honour attached to these medals, we have to be careful that the standard is maintained.
    Commander Maitland: Can the Financial Secretary say whether the conditions attaching to active service cannot be made to apply, whereby when a man has had five years of continuous " V.G." service after he has lost the medal, he gets it back automatically and before he retires?
    Mr. Dugdale: I will certainly give that consideration.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Bombing Exercises
    Mr. William Shepherdasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many aircraft have been lost in bombing practices since the end of the war; and the number of such practices held.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): Fifteen large scale bombing exercises, in which 766 aircraft of Bomber Command and 82 aircraft of Fighter Command took part, have been carried out from the United Kingdom between VJ-Day and the end of April, 1946. No aircraft have been lost or have suffered major damage on these practices.
    Mr. Shepherd: In view of the alarming and absolutely inaccurate statements which are going about the country, will the Under-Secretary see that that statement receives the widest publicity?
    Mr. de Freitas: I hope that this Question and answer will receive the widest publicity.

    Education Officers
    Mr. Ralph Morleyasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is now in a position to state if education officers in the R.A.F. will, in future, be a fully mobilised service with good conditions.
    Mr. de Freitas: I hope to be able to make a statement on this matter after the Whitsun Recess.
    Mr. Morley: Is the Under-Secretary aware that there is very grave discontent among the officers in the Royal Air Force, and that unless some improvement is made we shall not be able to maintain the establishment of these officers?
    Mr. de Freitas: I am aware that there is some dissatisfaction, but I must ask my hon. Friend to await the statement which I hope to make after Whitsun.

    Incidents, India (Courts Martial)
    Mr. Callaghanasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many more courts martial are to take place in connection with the R.A.F. strikes of last February; and how much longer the present inquiries will last.
    Mr. de Freitas: Two more courts martial in connection with the incidents in India are pending, but it is not certain that the men Will be brought to trial. The inquiries have now been completed.
    Mr. Callaghan: May we assume from that reply that the period of tenseness in the Royal Air Force has now come to an end, and that there will be no more of these courts of inquiry regarding the unhappy events of last February?
    Mr. de Freitas: These inquiries have been completed; they are now being considered and two courts martial are pending, but it is not certain that the men will be brought to trial.

    Raid, Cluntoe Aerodrome
    Professor Savoryasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether any of the arms stolen in the raid on Cluntoe aerodrome, County Tyrone, on the night of 17th April have been recovered, and if so, under what circumstances.
    Mr. de Freitas: I understand that the Royal Ulster Constabulary have recovered the stolen revolver, but I have no knowledge of the circumstances.
    Professor Savory: Is the Under-Secretary not aware that all the weapons, with the exception of one revolver, have been recovered at a dump of the Irish Republican Army near Dungannon, and will he deny the allegations that this was a frame-up on behalf of the Royal Air Force?
    Mr. de Freitas: I have no other information except that the Royal Ulster Constabulary recovered the stolen revolver. I have no knowledge of the circumstances in which it was recovered.

    Permanent Airfields, Norfolk
    Mr. Goochasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number and names of airfields in Norfolk which his Department propose to retain permanently.
    Mr. de Freitas: The airfields to be retained for the peacetime Air Force have not yet been finally decided, but at present we are planning to keep 22 airfields in Norfolk. I am sending my hon. Friend a list showing the names of the stations.
    Mr. Gooeh: Does the Under-Secretary realise that the retention of so many airfields in my county is restricting food production? Does he not realise that this matter is extremely urgent?
    Mr. de Freitas: I realise it is urgent that they should be released. During the war we had 37 Service airfields in Norfolk, and 15 of these we are now declaring to be surplus. We are, of course, in close touch with the Minister of Agriculture on this matter.
    Mr. Stephen: Will the Under-Secretary publish the names in HANSARD?
    Mr. de Freitas: I deliberately did not do that because I felt it was a local matter and not a matter of general interest. If the names are required, they will certainly be published in HANSARD.
    Mr. Keeling: Will the Under-Secretary give an assurance that the defence of this country will have priority over the interests of Norfolk?
    Mr. de Freitas.
    Mr. Osborne: Is the same thing being carried out in the county of Lincolnshire?
    Mr. Hare: Is the Under-Secretary prepared to issue a general statement, in a reasonable period of time, stating which aerodromes in the country the Royal Air Force intend to retain, as this is a question of great importance to many counties.
    Mr. de Freitas: I will look into that and see what can be done.

    Personal Case
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the nature of the charge against No. 62801 L.A.C. Robert Deans, Headquarters, Desert Air Force, Udine, Italy; and how long he has been under arrest in the guard room, awaiting trial.
    Mr. de Freitas: This airman has been in close arrest since 16th January awaiting trial on charges of absence without leave on two occasions. There have been difficulties in bringing him to trial owing to the release of material witnesses, out I am awaiting a fuller report on this long delay and will circulate a statement in HANSARD as soon as I can.
    Mr. Stokes: Has the Service any right to keep a man under close arrest for so long? Surely he ought not to be under close arrest?
    Mr. de Freitas: I have called for a full report on this matter. It requires a great deal of explanation, on the face of it, and that is why I have asked for this report. I will circulate a statement in HANSARD.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braith-waite: When is the man likely to be brought to trial?
    Mr. de Freitas: Within a month
    Mr. Willis: Will the Under-Secretary bear in mind that the original charges against this man are entirely different from those stated in the answer?
    Mr. de Freitas: I am not aware of that. The facts are that he is charged with being absent without leave for two periods, one of eight days, and one of two months.
    Mr. Driberg: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that this long period of time awaiting trial will be taken into account if the man is found guilty?
    Mr. de Freitas: Under the Rules of Procedure, paragraph 46, that automatically happens.

    Demobilisation Delay, Palestine
    Mr. Haleasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air to what extent delay in demobilisation of troops in the district of Haifa has been due to transport difficultties; and what steps are being taken to see that demobilisation will not again fall be hind schedule.
    Mr. de Freitas: I am afraid that the demobilisation of some airmen was delayed owing to a railway strike in Palestine in April. The men were sent by sea to Port Said after having been held up about five days. Unfortunately, there is very little we can do to prevent delays due to happenings of this kind.

    Typists, Records Office, Ruislip
    Mr. Hurdasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is satisfied that all the W.A.A.F. shorthand-typists at the R.A.F. Records Office, Ruislip, are fully employed; and, if not, if he will expedite the rate of release so that these girls may be more usefully occupied in civilian life.
    Mr. de Freitas: The R.A.F. Record Office is very fully employed on the demobilisation programme and consequent postings. I should be grateful if the hon. Member would give me particulars of under employment in the office, and I will, of course, look into the matter.
    Mr. Hurd: Will the Minister give these girls the pleasure of a surprise visit and ask them himself if time is hanging heavily on their hands?
    Mr. de Freitas: I shall be delighted to go and look at these girls, and I shall attempt to do so.

  CIVIL AVIATION

    Heathrow (Technical Report)
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation when it is intended to publish the expert report on which the development of the London airport at Heathrow is now proceeding.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Ivor Thomas): The report in question was prepared for Departmental use only. The subject matter is highly technical, and I do not think that the report would be of sufficient general interest to warrant publication. A precis is being prepared, and I will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library as soon as possible.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in view of the very large sum of money expended on this airport, it is a matter of general interest, and cannot the whole of the report be published?
    Mr. Thomas: There is certainly general interest in the aerodrome, but I think that the precis will meet that general interest, which I thoroughly recognise.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Can the hon. Gentleman say why this airport at Heathrow is being formally opened before it is really finished?
    Mr. Thomas: I will reply to a later Question on that subject.

    Ex-R.A.F. Pilots
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation how many ex-R.A.F. pilots have been engaged by B.O.A.C. and British-South American Air Lines since VE-Day; and what percentage had operated with multi and single-engined aircraft.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: The answer to the first part of the Question is 101 and 36 respectively. As to the second part of the Question, all these pilots have had operational experience on multi-engined types of aircraft except that 4 per cent. of the British Overseas Airways Corporation total had had operational experience only on single-engined aircraft.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the figures show that there is discrimination in favour of pilots who have been trained in Bomber Command, and will he see that pilots who have been in other commands get an equal opportunity of employment with these air lines?
    Mr. Thomas: I should hesitate to make that inference, but the moral which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has drawn has been pointed out to the corporations.

    Fire Fighting and Crash Tender Work
    Flying-Officer Bowdenasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, what arrangements are made on civil aerodromes under the control of his Department to deal with aircraft crashes and aircraft fires; and what arrangements are being made to train personnel in aircraft fire fighting and crash tender work, particularly on British aerodromes overseas.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: Crash and fire lighting equipment manned by trained persons are provided on all the more important civil aerodromes under the control of the

    1145
    Ministry of Civil Aviation. Similar provision will be made at the smaller aerodromes as soon as the necessary staff can be recruited, trained and equipped. Existing crash crews have been trained in aircraft fire fighting and crash tender work and new entrants are trained in these duties before they are employed on airfields. No British aerodromes overseas are controlled by my Noble Friend.
    Flying-Officer Bowden: Would my hon. Friend say whether or not trained aircraft crash tender crews stand by whenever aircraft take off or land, or are.they distributed over the aerodrome awaiting for calls?
    Mr. Thomas: It is the regular practice for the crews to be ready whenever an aircraft takes off or lands.
    Mr. Stokes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in a recent crash in which I took part, the first persons to arrive at the wreck were the Customs officials?

    Renfrew Airport
    Mr. Rankinasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation when he proposes to instal at Renfrew Airport, radar and air navigational aids necessary for receiving aircraft in foggy weather; and to make accommodation available for the collection of Customs and Excise duties.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: Medium frequency direction finding radio equipment has been in use at Renfrew for many years, and high frequency radio telephony has recently been added to the navigational aids available. It is hoped to instal a standard beam approach system within the next two months and to provide ground lighting before next winter. Decisions have not yet been taken on types of radar aid to be used on internal and continental air services generally; the results of the recent International Conference in Paris, which discussed this subject amongst others, are being studied. International air services are not, at present, using Renfrew, but plans are in hand to provide accommodation for Customs examination to make such services possible.

  COLONIAL EMPIRE

    Master and Servant Legislation
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in how many
    1146
    British colonial territories the master and servant legislation is not in accordance with the provisions and recommendations of the I.L.O. Convention of 1939; in what respects the law differs from the standards laid down by that convention; and what plans have been made to bring the law into line with those standards.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): As the answer is rather long and detailed, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    There were two relevant International Labour Conventions of 1939, the Contracts of Employment (Indigenous Workers) Convention which is a natural complement to the Recruiting of Indigenous Workers' Convention of 1936 and the Penal Sanctions (Indigenous Workers) Convention. I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the latter, which deals with breaches of contract in the form of:

    (a) any refusal or failure of the worker to commence or to perform the work stipulated in the contract;

    (b)any neglect of duty or lack of diligence on the part of the worker;

    (c)the absence of the worker without permission or valid reason; and

    (d)desertion by the worker.

    The Convention provides that all penal sanctions for such breaches of contract shall be abolished as soon as possible, and that all penal sanctions for any such breach by a non-adult person shall be abolished immediately.
    Penal sanctions for adults only exist, in respect of one or more of the breaches of contract mentioned in the Convention, in the master and servants legislation or similar legislation in Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika, Northern Rhodesia, Zanzibar, Seychelles, Fiji and the Western Pacific Islands, but much of this legislation has fallen into disuse.
    It is the policy of His Majesty's Government to see that all penal sanctions are abolished at the earliest date practicable. In many of the above cases the necessary legislation has been delayed through wartime shortage of legal staff.

    Civil Service (Pensions)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what revision of present pensions of Colonial civil

    1147
    servants is under consideration; and whether he is satisfied that the temporary increases recently authorised, subject to a means test, are adequate to prevent hardship.
    Mr. George Hall: Pensions of Colonial civil servants are paid from the funds of Colonial Governments, and the question of temporary increases is primarily one for the legislatures concerned. A number of Colonial Governments have awarded temporary increases at the same rates, and subject to the same conditions, as those prescribed in Section I of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1944, and their awards are accordingly subject to the same limits as regards pensioners' income as those prescribed in that Section of the Act. As the hon. Member is aware the Pensions Increase Act is now under review and if changes are made in this country as a result of that review, I shall invite the attention of all Colonial Governments to them.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with those Colonial Governments that have not conformed to this practice of bringing their procedure into line with those that have?
    Mr. Hall: Yes, Sir. They are very few and I am doing what I can to get them to conform.
    Captain Marsden: Should the applications for increases in pensions be made to the right hon. Gentleman's office or to himself, or through him to the Colonial Offices themselves?
    Mr. Hall: The applications can be made to myself, but, as I said in reply to the Question, we follow the practice of increases in the United Kingdom.

    MALAYA (PUBLIC ORDER)
    Sir Arnold Gridleyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on public order in Malaya, and on the extent of outrages by Chinese bandits.
    Mr. George Hall: In the area of the Malayan Union, depredations by isolated gangs of armed robbers operating close to towns continue to cause grave concern. With the return of trained European police officers, rigorous and systematic action to round up these gangs is being intensified. The figures for minor crime
    1148
    continue to improve and in some areas approach pre-war levels. One gang recently rounded up consisted wholly of Japanese who had remained in hiding.
    In Singapore before 15th February, 1946, there was wholesale intimidation of workers, shopkeepers and rickshaw coolies by subversive elements whose activities approached a direct challenge to Government. The situation changed entirely after action taken on and subsequent to the 15th February. There are however still isolated case of intimidation, and there have been a number of robberies by individuals and armed gangs.
    Sir A. Gridley: May I ask the Colonial Secretary whether he is satisfied that there are sufficient military forces to come to the aid of the civil powers to protect the lives of Malayan citizens?
    Mr. Hall: The military forces are engaged with the police in dealing with these matters, and I am satisfied that this cooperation is bringing about a peaceful solution of the matter.

    PALESTINE

      Illegal Possession of Arms
      Viscount Hinchingbrookeasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many persons have been arrested by the military police in Palestine in the last six months for the illegal possession of arms; how many of these persons have been brought to trial; and how many convictions obtained.
      Mr. George Hall: During the last six months, 345 Arabs and 93 Jews have been arrested for the illegal possession of arms. Of these, 159 Arabs and 17 Jews have been brought to trial, 122 Arabs and 14 Jews have been convicted and 101 Arabs and 71 Jews are awaiting trial.
      Viscount Hinchingbrooke: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the impression is gaining ground in Palestine that the administration is being somewhat lax in instituting proceedings, as these figures rather go to show, and will he secure that something is done by the administration to tighten up proceedings?
      Mr. Hall: I have every confidence in the administration and that they are doing all they possibly can, in the circumstances in Palestine at the present time.

      Police Force (Awards)
      Earl Wintertonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of the hardship and danger incurred and the gallantry shown by members of the Palestine Police Force, he will authorise the issue of a medal to members of that force who have served in it for a period of not less than five years from 1931 onwards.
      Mr. George Hall: The issue of a medal such as is suggested by the right hon. Member has not been contemplated, but provision was made for the award to the Palestine Police of the General Service Medal with clasp " Palestine "Instituted to recognise service during the disturbances from April, 1936, to September, 1939. The Palestine Police are eligible for the Colonial Police Medal and the King's Police Medal for meritorious service or gallantry, and a number of awards have been made recently. I need not say how heartily I endorse the reference to the gallantry of the Palestine Police and their fine record of service in most difficult circumstances. The suggestion of recognition in the form of the award of a further medal will certainly be borne in mind.

      The locations of civil internment camps in Germany and their holdings of S.S. and political prisoners as at 23rd May, 1946.

      Location of Civilian Internment Camp.

      S.S. Prisoners.

      Political Prisoners.

      Total Internees.

      Male.

      Female.

      Male.

      Female.

      Male.

      Female.

      Neumunster

      …

      …

      1,156

      —

      6,196

      —

      7,352

      —

      Sandbostal

      …

      …

      1,703

      —

      2,183

      —

      3,886

      —

      Fallingbostel

      …

      …

      —

      —

      2,843

      —

      2,843

      —

      Recklinghausen

      …

      …

      678

      —

      5,094

      —

      5,772

      —

      Paderborn

      …

      …

      1,813

      247

      7,186

      599

      8,999

      846

      Neuengamme

      …

      …

      2,102

      —

      4,967

      —

      7,069

      —

      Hemer

      …

      …

      466

      —

      2,564

      —

      3,030

      —

      Westertimke

      …

      …

      180

      —

      2,230

      —

      2,410

      —

      Esterwegen

      …

      …

      —

      —

      2,099

      1

      2,099

      1

      8,098

      247

      35,362

      600

      43,460

      847

      In civil prisons for preliminary interrogation or in transit to camps or under
      trial as War Criminals

      …

      —

      —

      382

      —

      382

      —

      8,098

      247

      35,744

      600

      43,842

      847

      8,345

      36,344

      44,689

      The caloric value of the rations in the camps as at 1st December,
      1945:

    GERMANY

      Prison Camps (Conditions)
      Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will give a list of the camps in Germany in which S.S. men are detained, stating the numbers in each camp; whether he will give a similar list of camps used for political prisoners, and state the caloric value of the rations as at 1st December, 1945.
      The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): The answer is long, and with permission, I am circulating a full statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
      Mr. Stokes: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he can tell the House that the rations being served out to these people are living rations, and not in accordance with the terrible revelations that have come forward now in regard to some military camps?
      Mr. Hynd: I would not guarantee that any rations in Germany at the present time are up to what I consider a reasonable living standard, but having regard to conditions in Germany I am satisfied that the rations in those camps are adequate and extremely favourable in comparison with the ordinary civilian ration.
      Following is the statement:
      Major Tufton Beamishasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many Germans are at present imprisoned in the British zone in Germany without trial; how many of these are imprisoned as Nazis; how many because they belong to certain categories and how many as suspected war criminals; by what date he estimates that the last of such persons will have undergone trial; and whether he is satisfied that the standard of accommodation, feeding, medical facilities and general treatment in the camps in which these men and women are interned and, in particular, in the senior officers' internment camp at Ostend are entirely satisfactory.
      Mr. J. Hynd: Roughly 45,000 are at present in prison, including 41,000 dangerous Nazis and security suspects and 4,000 suspected war criminals. These persons will be tried as quickly as possible, but I cannot give a date by which their trials will be completed; large numbers are involved and the majority cannot be tried until the Nuremberg Tribunal has given its verdict on criminal organisations.
      The treatment of internees in the British zone has recently been reviewed. As a result, food production activities have been intensified; balanced rations are provided for hospital patients; postal facilities have been extended and welfare arrangements generally have been improved. The senior officers' internment camp at Ostend is a prisoner of war camp for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War is responsible.
      Major Beamish: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there have been a number of disquieting reports from reliable officers and even more disquieting rumours regarding conditions in a number of camps in Germany, and if half those reports are true they cast a grave reflection indeed on our administration? In the light of that, can the Minister give us an assurance that our treatment of German prisoners has been guided, is guided and will be guided by justice combined with firmness?
      Mr. Hynd: I can give the hon. and gallant Member the assurance from the time I took over the administration on 5th April. I know that there are a number of rumours and a number of statements made concerning the conditions in these camps. Obviously I cannot check.
      1152
      up every single statement, but I can assure the House that I have made personal investigation into some of the statements, and I have been assured by the internees themselves that the statements are entirely without foundation. The latest story was concerned with a camp at Recklinghausen, and I took the opportunity of inviting the party of Members now in the British zone to visit the camp. I believe they completely satisfied themselves that the situation was far from as stated.
      Mr. Eden: In view of the importance of the matter and cognate military matters to our good name, would the hon. Gentleman undertake in respect not only of his own administration but of the time before that, which is also a Government responsibility, to institute an inquiry so that all the facts will be publicly known?
      Mr. Hynd: There is a Question on the Order Paper to the Secretary of State for War in regard to the previous period.
      Captain Francis Noel-Baker: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the staffs preparing and sifting the evidence against these persons are adequate? Is he also satisfied that they are not being asked to rush through a number of cases anyhow? Is sufficient importance given to the accuracy and justice of the cases rather than to the speed with which they are being conducted?
      Mr. Hynd: I certainly am not satisfied that the British staff on this particular section is adequate to the task, nor is the British staff adequate to the general work of the administration of this tremendous area, but within the facilities that are at our disposal and with the staff available I think I can give the assurance that the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks.

      Music Performances
      Mr. Vaneasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which musical compositions, other than the Horst Wessel song, are not allowed by his Department to be performed in public in the British zones of Germany and Austria primarily on account of their association with Nazism and militarism.
      Mr. J. Hynd: There is no list of musical compositions the public performance of which is banned in the British zones of

      1153
      Germany and Austria. This is a matter which is left to the good sense and discretion of the British authorities on the spot.

      War Memorials
      Mr. Wilson Harrisasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what German war memorials have been destroyed in the British zone.
      Mr. J. Hynd: None, Sir, so far as I am aware, except for any which may have been destroyed as a result of land or air operations during the war.
      Mr. Harris: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to regard this matter as one which is receiving immediate attention?
      Mr. Hynd: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by " receiving immediate attention."
      Mr. Harris: Is he prepared to let the matter remain where it is?
      Mr. Hynd: No, I should not have thought the House would wish it to be left where it is. If the inference of the question is that nothing should be done in this connection at all, I am quite sure that neither the House nor the country would wish us to allow the issue or circulation of the Lusitania Medal amongst other things.
      Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will the hon. Gentleman remember amongst other things that many thousands of British dead rest permanently in Germany, and that there would be the possible risk of reprisals against their memorials or graves if we declared war upon the German dead?
      Mr. Hynd: I have given adequate assurance to the House, but this matter is being administered and interpreted by our own authorities in Germany, who have no intention of destroying legitimate war memorials, but, as I have stated, such things as the Lusitania Medal must be dealt with.
      Earl Winterton: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if part of the answer he read out relates to the graves of those who died in the 1914–18 war, and is that being put into operation? In other words, are these memorials not to be destroyed?
      Mr. Hynd: It is being put into operation. If the Noble Lord will read the
      1154
      answer he will see that the directive issued makes provision for the destruction of any offensive memorials or other statues or inscriptions or anything of that kind which may be reminiscent of, or an encouragement to, Nazi ideals. There are many of these statues in that form in the British zone.
      Mr. Churchill: Is not the destruction of these memorials in stone or bronze the way to write the ideals even more deeply in the minds of the people?
      Mr. Hynd: I should certainly agree if it were a question of destroying memorials as such, but I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman would be one of the first to agree that such an inscription as " Unbeaten Army " which appears on a number of memorials in Germany in the centre of towns is something which should not be encouraged in future.
      Mr. Churchill: No. I think we have far more to do in building up a new world than that.
      Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will the Minister bear in mind that it is quite impossible to differentiate between one type of memorial and another? Will he also bear in mind that it is a blasphemous thing to interfere with or destroy any memorial to those who fell in the war of 1914–18 or in the more recent war?
      Mr. Nicholson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the German nation, though it has been guilty of almost every war crime, has as a whole respected British war graves? I know that from my own personal experience and I was most impressed by what I saw in Germany.
      Mr. Keeling: Instead of saying that this or that must be done or that this or that is offensive, would the hon. Gentleman not leave this matter, as in the case of music, to the persons on the spot?
      Mr. Hynd: I would gladly have left it to the people on the spot, but it appears to be the wish of the House that the people on the spot should not have it left to them. The matter of the interpretation of some of the clauses of the directive is still under discussion by our representatives in Berlin.
      An Hon. Member: Why not destroy the lot?

    COAST EROSION (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
    Mr. Goochasked the Prime Minister whether the investigation to determine which Ministry should be made responsible for dealing with coast erosion matters is completed; and if he will indicate the result.
    The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) on 27th May.
    Mr. Gooch: When the right hon. Gentleman visits my county will he spare a little time to look at the colossal problem with which that county is faced?
    Mr. Morrison: I will think about it, but I was hoping to have a little rest when I was not on the platform.

    TANKS (REPORTS)
    Mr. Stokesasked the Lord President of the Council whether he will now announce the decision regarding the publication of the two secret reports on tanks.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. I am arranging for the publication of these reports as soon as possible, with the replies which were made to them by the Government at the time.
    Mr. Stokes: I am greatly obliged.

    FOOD SUPPLIES

      Rationing
      Mr. Hobsonasked the Minister of Food if he will now give an assurance that there will be no further cut in the rations of the British people, and that no other foodstuffs will be rationed.
      The M inister of Food (Mr. Strachey):
      A Minister of Food could ask for nothing better than to be able to give this assurance. But as the whole House knows the world food situation is far too grave for this to be possible. If the House will permit me to say so, nothing could be more irresponsible than for a new Minister to begin his period of office by making sweeping promises of this kind.
      52.Mr. Errollasked the Minister of Food if he is now able to announce the end of tea rationing.
      Mr. Strachey: I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) on 17th April. I can assure the hon. Member that I shall not maintain tea rationing a day longer than is necessary.
      Mr. Erroll: In view of the newness of the Minister's appointment, could he make this one of the first things he looks into?
      Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir.

      Pilchard Fishing Industry (Costings)
      Mr. Beechmanasked the Minister of Food whether he will publish in HANSARD or in some other convenient form, the results of the costings taken out in regard to the pilchard fishing in dustry.
      Mr. Strachey: The results of costings investigations undertaken by my Department are confidential and I cannot, therefore, publish the results of the investigation into the pilchard fishing industry as the hon. Member asks.
      Mr. Beechman: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that not only is there great interest in the industry in this matter, but that the future of the industry depends upon these costings being known, considered and understood?
      Mr. Strachey: I realise that it is of great importance. Investigation is still going on, but for many reasons I think it would be a great pity to depart from the rule that these costings investigations cannot be made public.

      Food Ships (Unloading, Supervision)
      Dr. Comynsasked the Minister of Food what measures he has taken to prevent the wastage of food unloaded at the Royal Albert Dock, following upon the letter sent to his Department by the hon. Member for Silvertown.
      Mr. Strachey: A detailed reply has already been sent to my hon. Friend by

      1157
      my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary.
      Dr. Comyns: While thanking my hon. Friend for the written reply which I received subsequent to this Question being put on the Order Paper, may I ask him whether he will ensure that there will be more adequate supervision, by the officials of his Ministry, of the unloading of food ships?
      Mr. Strachey: I am willing to look into that, but I am sure that the supervision is very adequate.

      Co-operative Society (Membership Campaign)
      Mr. W. Shepherdasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the Manchester and Salford Co-operative Society is exhibiting posters throughout its branches offering 5s. to each of its members who will introduce new members; and what steps he proposes to take in view of the repeated requests by his Department that traders should not, under rationing conditions, canvass for registration.
      Mr. Strachey: The posters exhibited by the Co-operative Society in question are concerned not with registration but with a new membership campaign. And membership of the society does not necessarily carry with it registration for rationed foods. The second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.
      Mr. Shepherd: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a breach of the spirit which has been asked for, and that exception is taken to this action by private traders in the area?
      Mr. Strachey: I cannot agree that there is a breach of the spirit of our desires in this matter, or of our regulations. There is no inducement offered to the potential customer; there is only inducement offered to the member to make other members, which is a very different thing.
      Mr. Robens: Is my hon. Friend aware that thousands of people in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd) are members of this Society, and bitterly resent the implications in his Question?
      Mr. Butcher: Is it not a fact that many members of the Co-operative Society prefer to deal with private traders?
      Mr. Strachey: It is perfectly true that they are free to do so.
      Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that the Co-operative Movement exists to serve people, and that it should be encouraged to make new members?

      Personal Case
      Mr. Moyleasked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the death of John Thomas Taylor, South Road, Stourbridge, recently discharged from the R.A.F.; and why his Department refused an application for extra food which would have given him a better chance of resisting the illness from which he died.
      Mr. Strachey: The application for extra food was examined urgently by my medical advisers, who did not consider that the course of the illness from which Mr. Taylor was certified to be suffering would be influenced by extra allowances of food. I am deeply sorry to learn of Mr. Taylor's death, but I cannot accept the view that the absence of extra food was in any way a contributory factor.
      Mr. Moyle: Is my hon. Friend aware that medical evidence given at the inquest stated that if extra food had been given to this man it would have prolonged his life by enabling him to offer greater resistance to his illness?
      Mr. Strachey: The medical evidence submitted to me was in an exactly contrary sense.
      Mr. Moyle: In view of the great interest which this matter has aroused, and because I cannot accept my hon. Friend's reply as being satisfactory, I propose to raise the question again on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

      Surrendered Wheat
      Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Minister of Food how much of the 200,000 tons of wheat, which it is proposed to send to Europe, was bought from the Canadian Government at the special price of 7s. 8d. a bushel, when the world price is about us.; and what price the Government will receive for the wheat now to be sent.
      Mr. Strachey: The answer to the first part of the Question is, " None, Sir." As none of this wheat was either bought or sold the second part of the Question does not arise.
      Sir W. Smithers: In order to clear up any misunderstanding there may be, will the hon. Gentleman give a definite assurance that His Majesty's Government are not making any profit out of the wheat which has been sent to us by Canada at a reduced price?
      Mr. Strachey: The wheat was not sent to us by Canada, there was ho buying or selling involved in the transaction and, therefore, there was no possibility of profit.

      Argentine Maize
      Mr. Yorkasked the Minister of Food whether His Majesty's Government purchased all available supplies of maize from the Argentine during the year April, 1945, to March, 1946; or to what extent, and in favour of which countries, were purchases cut down by the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Strachey:. No, Sir; it was not possible for us to buy all the Argentine's maize exports available between April, 1945, and March, 1946, for the United Kingdom was only one of several buyers. Exports of maize from Argentina to the United Kingdom during the period amounted to about 32 per cent. of the total quantity which, according to trade estimates, was exported. We had to buy in the open market, and I am satisfied that we got our fair share.
      Mr. York: Could the hon. Gentleman say exactly how this proportion was arrived at, by bargaining on the open market through the Combined Food Board, or in what manner?
      Mr. Strachey: It was an open market transaction, and it was not governed by the Combined Food Board.

      Food Losses (Transport Delays)
      Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Food if he will estimate the quantity of fresh food lost by reason of delays in transport within the United Kingdom since 1st January, 1946.
      Mr. Strachey: I cannot give any exact figures, but I am satisfied that only an extremely small proportion of fresh food transported has been lost in this way, If the hon. Member, or any other Member, has any specific case in mind, and will let me have details, I will gladly have inquiry made and write to him.
      Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the statement made by the Secretary of the Liverpool Road Haulage Association, that such food was being wasted daily by reason of the inefficiency of the Ministry of Transport's organisation, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will look in the direction of Liverpool?
      Mr. Strachey: Perhaps the informant will give me specific details.

    LINSEED OIL
    Mr. Hubbardasked the Minister of Food (1) if he is aware that the linoleum industry is at present only receiving an amount of linseed oil equal to 13.88 per cent. of that imported into this country and only 38 per cent. of that used by the industry in 1938; that unless supplies are increased the industry will be unable to reinstate men returning from the Forces and that a large number of men at present employed in the industry will have to be dispensed with; and what steps he is taking to prevent this;
    (2) if he is satisfied that supplies of linseed oil acquired under the present control method are being equitably divided as between one country and another.
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of Food whether our supplies of linseed oil are purchased from the Argentine through the Combined Food Board or on our own account; and what steps are being taken with the Argentine Government to ensure that prices are not raised owing to purchases by countries not represented on the Combined Food Board.
    Mr. Strachey: Supplies of linseed oil are allocated between the various importing countries under the Combined Food Board. Under a unified purchasing plan the United Kingdom is responsible for buying in India and the United States for buying in Argentina. I am satisfied that the original allocation for 1946 was equitable, and gave this country its fair share. Nevertheless, the position is very serious because supplies have not come forward as was expected. This is partly because famine conditions have compelled the Indian Government to put a

    1161
    ban upon exports and partly because the negotiations for purchase in Argentina have been very prolonged.
    I am aware that a Russian mission has been negotiating for the purchase of linseed or linseed oil in South America. So long as Russia is not a member of the Combined Food Board she has, of course, a perfect right to do this. I am informed that so far, however, they have not been able to obtain any substantial quantities of oil. Everything that can properly be done by us to bring negotiations in Argentina on behalf of the Combined Food Board to a satisfactory conclusion is being done.
    The allocation of our restricted supplies of linseed oil between the various using industries, including the manufacturers of paint and linoleum, is made in consultation with the various Departments concerned, and I am well aware that we have not found it possible to give to some industries, including the linoleum industry more than a small part of their prewar quantity. Moreover, whatever may happen in Argentina, the supply of linseed oil must give cause for anxiety for some time to come, and we are at this moment in course of reviewing the allocations for all purposes.
    Mr. Hubbard: Is the Minister aware that, while the allocation of linseed oil to this country is only 40 per cent. of the prewar requirements, the allocation to the linoleum industry in America is roughly 80 per cent., and will he make representations with a view to bringing about a redistribution of the available supply?
    Major Legge-Bourke: Which industry is to have priority, the paint industry or the linoleum industry?
    Mr. Strachey: There cannot be any absolute priorities in this matter; it is a question of sharing out what supplies are available, in the best interests of the nation.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Is the Minister aware that the increasing shortage of linseed oil is endangering the whole operation of the linoleum industry in Scotland, particularly the part from which I come, and that the people there are very much concerned about it?
    Mr. Strachey: The hon. Gentleman may be assured that they are no more con-
    1162
    cerned about it than we are. It is a most serious situation. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Hubbard), we are, of course, making our needs known to the Combined Food Board as vigorously as we can.
    Sir Frank Sanderson: Is the Minister satisfied that an economic price is being offered to the Argentine for linseed, and does he not consider that if we were to offer a price more comparable with that which Russia is prepared to pay, we should be able to secure greater and increasing quantities?
    Mr. Strachey: There is, no doubt that great increases in price might improve the bargaining power of this country, but I ask hon. Members not to press the Government to increases in prices for our important imports. It is a most dangerous thing to do.
    Mr. Churchill: It is still more dangerous not to get them.
    Sir F. Sanderson: Is it not the case that linseed is available, and will go to the countries which are prepared to pay higher prices? If we need the linseed, should we not pay the price for it?
    Mr. Strachey: It is not true in the case of most countries, because they are organised in the Combined Food Board, but in the case of the Argentine we are buying not merely for ourselves but for all the countries in the Combined Food Board.

WORLD FOOD SITUATION (MINISTER'S MISSION TO AMERICA)
Mr. H. Morrison: The House will no doubt have wondered, as I did, what lay behind the Press reports from Washington over the weekend suggesting that differences of interpretation have arisen between His Majesty's Government and the United States Government over the food agreement announced on 17th May and reported in my statement to the House on 23rd May. I find that various misunderstandings were caused by cabled Press messages of my statement before the official text was received by the State Department in Washington. One passage in particular was interpreted in some quarters as implying that the United States Government had assumed specific

1163
commitments to export American wheat to particular areas, thus by-passing the established procedure by which these questions are settled through the Combined Food Board. I have confirmed to the United States Government what I have already told the House, namely that
"These decisions are the decisions of the Governments concerned … to instruct their representative on the Combined Food Board."
The question of export commitments from particular countries to particular destinations did not arise during my visit to Washington and all claims upon the United States or other countries will, of course, be settled through Combined Food Board machinery at the appropriate stage in the usual way.
I have been in touch with Mr. Clayton, United States Assistant Secretary of State, and I am glad to say on his authority that there is not and never has been any misunderstanding between us on what we agreed. After receiving the official text of my statement and ascertaining that the first versions of it had been misinterpreted in the way I have explained, Mr. Clayton confirms that my statement—I quote his words—" correctly represents the understanding reached in our discussions."
Mr. Churchill: Was it not rather a pity that a subordinate official of the United States State Department should have contradicted the right hon. Gentleman in this rather disconcerting manner? Would it not be possible to revert to the policy which we always used during the war, namely, of telegraphing over beforehand to the United States the actual text of the words which were to be used? That must have occurred on dozens and even scores of occasions, and I never remember any trouble having arisen before. While perhaps the right hon. Gentleman had some right to complain, I think also we must put on record the fact that it is quite possible by telegraphic exchanges to have agreed statements made on matters which have been the subject of verbal discussion, and public advantage would arise therefrom.
Mr. Morrison: I follow the right hon. Gentleman's point. It would not have been practicable to have done this in advance without a delay in informing the House, and I do not think it would have
1164
been appropriate on this occasion. In any case no harm has arisen in the sense that there is, or ever was, disagreement about the interpretation of the agreement between us and the United States Government. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it was a pity that a subordinate official, a public relations officer, I think, of the State Department, should have entered into the matter, although I understand the circumstances in which he got drawn; but he is not my officer— he is an officer of the United States Government. We have made representations on that point to the State Department, and Mr. Clayton has expressed his regret on behalf of the United States Government, and, therefore, I think that side of the incident may now be regarded as closed.
Mr. Churchill: It may be regarded as closed, and in a very satisfactory manner, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said about Mr. Clayton's statement; but there is another question I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman on the merits, apart from the procedure. I think I was right in hearing the right hon. Gentleman say that the question of export commitments from particular countries for particular destinations did not arise during his visit to Washington. May I ask how he reconciles that with the statement which he made to the House that:
"The United States Government have now felt able to associate themselves unreservedly with the task of supplying India and the British zone of Germany to the full extent that available resources allow and they have instructed their representatives on the Combined Food Board accordingly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May, 1946; Vol. 423, c. 543–4.]
The misunderstanding between the two countries is cleared up but the misunderstanding between the right hon. Gentle-roan and the House still requires further elucidation.
Mr. Morrison: The only difficulty about this is that the right hon. Gentleman—I am not complaining—does not understand the normal procedure these things follow.
Mr. Churchill: That is no doubt due to my lack of experience.
Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman does not understand everything. In this matter he has made it clear to the House that he does not understand the

1165
procedure which is followed. Our business was to arrive at agreements about how much should be provided for. It was not our business to decide as to which country should provide how much to go to a particular place. That is the affair of the Combined Food Board and it is now being followed up in the ordinary way. There is nothing exceptional about this procedure. It is the usual procedure, and the only new factor was that there were high level negotiations to clear up some difficulties.
Mr. Churchill: Is it not a fact—[Interruption]—I am so glad to give any occasion for hilarity to the hon. Gentlemen opposite who are, no doubt, feeling somewhat depressed over this matter. Is it not a fact that this matter was presented to us in the form of a very great sacrifice of 200,000 tons of wheat to be made by this country, involving we do not know what serious difficulties and increased privations, and were we not assured that in return for this, and linked with this, would be what I have read out, that
"The United States Government have now felt able to associate themselves unreservedly with the task of supplying India and the British zone of Germany to the full extent that available resources allow and they have instructed their representatives on the Combined Food Board accordingly "?
Now all this latter part is whittled away, but the 200,000 tons cut for Great Britain remains.
Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman will persist in a most dogged determination to try to make politics out of this. He is utterly incapable of judging the matter on its merits or the words themselves on their English meaning. The United States Government are associating themselves with us to the maximum extent to that end within the available resources on the Combined Food Board by instructing their representatives. The statement did not say, did not portend to say, and ought not to be understood by a reader of the King's English to mean, that thereby the United States said that the wheat would come from a particular place and go to a particular place.
It is perfectly clear that the statement I have made as to whether any of it will come from the United States—
Mr. R. S. Hudson: But not from the United States.
Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman the former Minister of Agriculture now says, " But not from the United States." He will, I am sure, be quite disappointed to know that some of it is actually on the move from the United States.
Several hon. Members Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I am becoming a little puzzled. We seem to be entering into a Debate by a process of question and answer. This is a most unsatisfactory way of dealing with the matter. There is to be a Debate on Friday devoted to this subject and the present procedure is somewhat irregular.
Mr. Churchill: I do not wish in any way to trespass upon your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, but a statement was made of very great importance by the Minister, on which it would be very necessary to point out in what ways matters had been cleared up and in what ways they had not. I should like to say that I used the interrogative form throughout my contribution.
Mr. Walkden: I should like to ask the Minister whether we are likely to have the promised Debate on Friday on the general question of his visit to America, in view of more recent Press reports from America concerning doubts about our supplies of wheat and the cut that will take place in August in the pipe line, and the fact that there may be a real gap which may determine the question of rationing bread because we shall not have much left.
Mr. Nicholson: May I be allowed to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman's statement does need a little clearing up? I should like to put a simple question to him. Are the American and British zones in Germany in future to be regarded as one area from the point of view of food? Where does Austria come in?. What does his statement mean in India? Which Minister is to instruct our representatives on the Combined Food Board?
Mr. Morrison: That is covered in the statement I made last week. At any rate those parts of the question upon which I am able to give any information were so covered.
Mr. Nicholson: Are the British and American zones to be regarded as one food area in future?
Mr. Morrison: I made a perfectly clear statement on that last week, to which I have nothing to add.
Mr. Stokes: In view of the fact that the bubble which the Opposition were endeavouring to exploit has now burst, may I point out to the Lord President of the Council that we on this side of the House are most interested and anxious about the general food situation in the world? Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to allow a Debate on Friday so that the whole matter may be discussed?
Mr. Morrison: The question of a Debate on Friday is, of course, under the usual procedure of the House, a matter for the Opposition. The House will be in Committee of Supply on Friday. Whether it will be discussing this subject or another is for the Opposition to decide. I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if the Leader of the Opposition was in a position to say now, because then hon. Members would know whether the subject was coming up.
Mr. Churchill: In view of the anxiety that there is upon the other side of the House and the request by the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway for a Debate at an early date and, if possible, on Friday, I can assure the Leader of the House at this moment that we shall consider most earnestly this evening how far we can further the general desires of the supporters of the Government to have a fuller opportunity of interrogating Ministers upon the question.
Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Having regard to the real human tragedy which lies behind this problem, is the Lord President aware that the spiteful and malicious misrepresentation to which he has been subjected by hon. Members of the Opposition is in no way endorsed by the people of this country?
Mr. Speaker: Insinuations and imputations are out of Order in questions.
Hon. Members: Withdraw.

RAILWAYS FARES AND FREIGHTS (INCREASES)
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): In spite of an average increase of about 70 per cent. in railway costs, railway charges have been increased by only 16f per cent. generally and by 10 per cent. in the case of workmen's fares, season ticket rates, and the fares of the London Passenger Transport Board. This has been possible mainly because of the large volume of war-time traffic, much of it on Government account. Government traffic is now decreasing rapidly and there is a sharp fall in railway receipts. It is estimated that the surplus of £19 million earned last year over the fixed annual sums payable to the controlled undertakings will this year be transformed into a deficit of some £40 million. The Government have therefore decided, as a first and urgent step, to make as from 1st July, certain increases in the additions made to charges during the war. The principal items are increases of passenger fares from 16f per cent. to 33$ per cent. over prewar level, of workmen's fares and season ticket rates from 10 per cent. to 25 per cent. over prewar level, and of charges for goods train traffic from 16⅔ per cent. to 25 per cent. over prewar level. The increases of passenger fares will apply to the Green Line Services of the London Passenger Transport Board, but not to their other services. Fuller details will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
It is estimated that these increases will produce additional revenue of about £30 million in a full year. The Exchequer will therefore bear not only the full deficit up to the time when the increased charges bring in the additional revenue but also what remains of the deficit thereafter. I propose, accordingly, as a second step, to request the permanent members of the Railway Rates Tribunal, to act as they did in 1940 as a Consultative Committee, and to advise me as to the best method of adjusting charges so that, for the year 1947, the aggregate of the net revenues paid into the Pool will approximate to the aggregate of the fixed annual sums paid out. The Committee will be asked to deal with the fares of the London Passenger Transport Board separately, and to hold public inquiries at which local authorities and representative bodies will have an opportunity of being heard. The

1169
proposed terms of reference to the Committee will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Mr. R. S. Hudson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what effect this increase in charges will have on the cost of food and of other elements that enter into the cost of living; and also whether it will not have a serious effect on the cost of our exports?
Mr. Barnes: With regard to the increase of 8 per cent. on goods train traffic, we have reason to believe that it will not appreciably affect the cost of production. With regard to the increase in passenger fares, that will not, in our view, substantially affect the general cost of living. With regard to the effect on food supplies, that will be adjusted by the present Treasury arrangement.
Mr. Hudson: May we take it that this is the first of many further increases that will take place in transport costs, as the Government increase their control over transport?
Mr. Barnes: The right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that the increases in transport costs have been relatively small compared with the general rise of prices in the community—the general increases of prices of goods and commodities. [An HON. MEMBER: "And wages."] That has been operating because of the very large sums paid into railway accounts as a result of Government traffic during the war. I think it is obvious to everybody that there has been a substantial cessation of Government traffic. It is desirable that as soon as possible transport, as an industry, should be able to pay its way, and be adjusted to normal conditions.
Mr. Leslie Hale: Is the Minister aware that there has been not merely an alteration in the distribution of traffic, but -a diminution of service given by the railway companies? Does he think that having to travel standing on one foot in the passage between two carriages of a main line train that stops only at four or five stations instead of going straight through, can go on much longer in peace time? Is he aware that the increases will cause great disquiet? Finally, will the House have an opportunity of debating the matter before the increases come into operation?
Mr. Barnes: The question of debating the increases should be directed to the Leader of the House. I am not respon-
1170
sible for determining the timetable of the House. On the question of general traffic facilities, overcrowding has been one of the factors obscuring the general economic position of railways during the war. A rapid transformation is taking place just now, and that is one of.the matters taken into consideration.
Captain John Crowder: In view of the very large increases in passenger fares, will the Minister now be able to restore the cheap day tickets?
Mr. Barnes: The House will remember that from time to time I have been asked Questions about cheap day fares and I have indicated that the matter will come under review. I think the House can now see that I was facing this problem, and that it would have been inopportune to deal with matters of that kind until the general rate structure had been brought more into conformity with postwar prices.
Mr. Stephen: In view of the statement about the increased charges that the public will have to pay, may I ask whether the Minister will arrange with the London and North Eastern Railway to increase the rate of travel on their suburban lines from what is evidently their present maximum, 15 miles an hour, to 20 miles an hour?
Mr. Barnes: That is a matter on which a Question can be put down for answer in the ordinary way.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the Minister aware that the effect of the decision that he has announced will be far more adverse, from the inflationary point of view, than the aggregate of the tax concessions refused by the Chancellor in his recent Budget?
Mr. Barnes: The Noble Lord is quite wrong in assuming that there has been any refusal of tax concessions. The situation that we are facing in this proposed adjustment would have to be met either by the taxpayers or by the users of the railways. I do not think anyone could justify a policy of subsidising an industry like transport which, normally, should be able to meet its own expenses.
Mr. Warbey: Is the Minister not aware that many people in this country have not had a holiday for seven years and that pensioners and people in the lower income

1171
ranges have been saving up for many months for the holiday season in order to visit relatives living at a distance whom they have not seen for years? Would he not consider postponing the increase in passenger fares, for, say, three months, until after the holiday sėason?
Mr. Barnes: No, Sir. I regret that cannot adopt that policy. Every month more would make the situation increasingly difficult to grapple with. Railway accounts date from 1st January to 31st December. These increases will come into operation on 1st July. I am already in a deficiency of six months on these accounts, and the deficiency.will be met by the Exchequer. I cannot possibly delay the operation of this policy any longer.
Mr. Percy Morris: Do the new rates bear any reference to the financial arrangements now in existence between His Majesty's Government and the railways? Does the question of standard revenue enter into the discussion? Is additional money being raised for greater payment to the railway companies?
Mr. Barnes: Not for a greater payment, but to meet the sum of £43 million which is the Government's obligation to the railway pool account.
Mr. P. Morris: The standard arrangement is not being varied at all?
Mr. Barnes: Certainly not. I cannot vary the standard arrangement while it is under a Government controlled account.
Wing-Commander Hulbert: May I ask the Minister whether the policy of increased railway fares was included in the Government's mandate?
Mr. Barnes: The policy that the services should economically pay their way has always been a part of our Socialist philosophy.
Mr. G. Lang: Does the Minister realise that there are many thousands of ex-Servicemen, without whose sacrifice the railways would not matter at all, who will this year be taking their families away for the first time for years? Are they not to be considered?
Mr. Barnes: All these matters have been considered, but ultimately we have to face the question of whether we are going to
1172
run an industry of this kind on its own strength and stability, or whether we are going to subsidise it. The policy of subsidising transport cannot possibly be continued.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: In view of the answers the Minister has just given, may I ask whether we can take it that a policy of subsidising the railways will not be followed in future, whether or not they are nationalised?
Mr. Barnes: I think the position that the Government are adopting at this moment—when it is quite clear what policy sentiment in all parts of the House would wish us to follow—is a clear indication that we shall follow sound economic rules.
Sir Frank Sanderson: Is it not a fact that the price increase in the rate charges is incomparably less than the increase paid to the men and in other costs of running the railways? Is it not essential that the railways should be run on an economic basis?
Mr. Barnes: That is the reason why I am submitting these proposals. The average overall increase of materials—
Mr. Speaker: That question is really hypothetical and has nothing to do with the subject.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the fact that the Minister justifies this decision on the ground of the decrease of traffic, does he not consider that this increase in rates will lead to a further decrease in the volume of traffic?
Mr. Barnes: I have stated that the transformation of the account is due to the withdrawal of Government wartime traffic which, while I am unable to give accurate figures, has certainly been over £100 million a year. The industry is not yet able to replace that traffic, and I have had to deal with the situation as I have found it.
Sir Waldron Smithers Sir Waldron Smithers rose—
Mr. Speaker: I think we should proceed to the next Business.
Sir W. Smithers: Am I allowed to say, Mr. Speaker, that in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the statement, I propose to raise the subject on the Motion for the Adjournment?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is certainly allowed to say that. I am now about to call the next Business.

Controlled Railway Companies.

Existing addition.

Substituted addition.

Fares (other than workmen's and seasons)

16⅔%

33⅓%

Charges for parcels and miscellaneous traffic by passenger train

Workmen's fares and season ticket rates

10%

25%

Charges for goods train traffic

16⅔%

25%

Charges on railway-owned canals

16⅔%

25%

Charges at railway-owned docks

20%*

40%†

London Passenger

Transport Board.

Green Lines Fares

16⅔%

33⅓%

Charges for merchandise traffic

as Railway

for Companies.

* Certain coastwise traffic 7½ per cent.

† Certain coastwise traffic 15 per cent.

Following are the proposed terms of reference to the Charges Consultative Committee:
(a) London Passenger Transport Board.
I am directed by the Minister of Transport to request the Committee to advise him as to the best method of adjusting the fares on the railways and road services of the London Passenger Transport Board, and on such other railways as are covered by the definition of Railways of the Transport Board in paragraph 2 of S.R. & O. 1940, No. 2037, so that, for the year 1947, the balance of the net revenue account, prepared by the Board under Article 1 of the Railway Control Agreement, together with the appropriate
1174
proportion of the balances of the net revenue accounts of Joint Committees, will approximate to the fixed annual sum £4835.705) payable by His Majesty's Government to the Board under that Agreement. The Minister wishes the Committee to hold a public inquiry and to hear thereat the representations of the Board and of any local authority of body representing the interests of passengers in the London Passenger Transport Area which may give notice of desire to be heard in such manner and within such time as the Committee may prescribe.
(b) Railway Companies.
I am directed by the Minister of Transport to request the Committee to advise him as to the best method of adjusting the charges made by the controlled Railway Companies and Joint Lines, considered as a whole, in connection with their railways (excepting such as are covered by the definition of Railways of the Transport Board in paragraph 2 of S.R. & O. 1940, No. 2037). dock and canal undertakings and collection and delivery services, so that, for the year 1947, the aggregate of the balances of the net revenue accounts prepared by the controlled Railway Companies under Article 1 of the Railway Control Agreement, together with the appropriate proportion of the balances of the net revenue accounts of Joint Committees, will approximate to the aggregate of the fixed annual sums (£38,633,000) payable by His Majesty's Government to the controlled Railway Companies under that Agreement.
In considering such adjustments the Committee are asked to take into account all relevant considerations and, while aiming at an equitable distribution of charges between the various classes or groups of classes of traffic, to have regard to the Government's policy of full employment and to the importance of maintaining adequate coastwise shipping services. The Minister wishes the Committee to hold a public inquiry and to hear thereat the representations of the Railway Companies, and of any local authority or body representing the interests of passengers or traders or other forms of transport which may give notice of desire to be heard in such manner and within such time as the Committee may prescribe.

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. Herbert Morrison.]
The House divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 124.

Division No. 186.]

AYES.

[4.5 p.m.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

Lindgren, G. S.

Allan, A. C. (Bosworth)

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

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

Allighan, Garry

Ewart, R.

Lipton, D. L.

Alpass, J. H.

Fairhurst, F.

Lipton, Lt.-Col- M.

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Farthing, W. J.

Logan, D. G.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Foot, M. M.

Lyne, A. W.

Attewell, H. C.

Forman, J. C.

MoEntee, V. La T

Austin, H. L.

Foster, W. (Wigan)

Mack, J. D.

Awbery, S. S.

Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Ayles, W. H.

Gallacher, W.

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

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

Ganley, Mrs. C. S

McKinlay, A. S.

Bacon, Miss A.

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

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Balfour, A.

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

McLeavy, F.

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Gibbins, J.

MaoMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Barstow, P. G.

Gilzean, A.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Barton, C.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Mallalieu, J. P. W

Battley, J. R.

Gooch, E. G.

Mann, Mrs. J.

Bechervaise, A. E

Goodrich, H. E.

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Benson, G.

Gordon-Walker, P. C.

Mayhew, C. P.

Berry, H.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

Msdland, H. M.

Beswick, F.

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Hoywood)

Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R

Blnns, J.

Grenfell, D. R

Mitehison, Maj. G. R.

Blyton, W. R.

Grey, C. F.

Montague, F.

Boardman, H.

Grierson, E

Moody, A. S

Bottomley, A. G.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Morgan, Dr. H. B

Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

Morlay, R.

Bowen, R.

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

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

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Gunter, Capt. R. J

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

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

Guy, W. H.

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

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

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

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Hale, Leslie

Mort, D. L.

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

Moyle, A.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Hamilton, Licut.-Col. R.

Murray, J. D.

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Nally, W.

Buchanan, G.

Hardy, E. A.

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Burden. T. W.

Harrison, J.

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

Burke, W. A.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

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

Haworth, J.

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

Byers, Lt.-Col. F.

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Noel-Buxton, Lady

Callaghan, James

Harbison, Miss M.

Oldfield, W. H.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Hicks, G.

Orbach, M.

Chamberlain, R. A.

Hobson, C. R

Palmer, A. M. F.

Champion, A. J.

Holman, P.

Parker, J.

Chater, D.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T

Chelwynd, Capt. G. R.

Horabin, T. L.

Peart, Capt. T. F.

Cluse, W. S.

House, G.

Perrins, W.

Cobb, F. A.

Hoy, J.

Piratin, P.

Cocks, F. S.

Hubbard, T.

Popplewell, E.

Coldrick, W.

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

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Collick, P.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Price, M. Philips

Collindridge, F.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Pritt, D. N.

Colman, Miss G. M.

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

Pryde, D. J.

Comyns, Dr. L.

Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

Pursey, Cmdr. H

Cook, T. F.

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Randall, H. E.

Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

Hynd, J. B. (Atlercliffe)

Ranger, J.

Corlett, Dr. J.

Irving, W. J.

Rankin, J

Cove, W. G.

Janner, B.

Reeves, J.

Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A-

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Daggar, G.

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

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

John, W.

Robens, A.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Deer, G.

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Delargy, Captain H. J.

Keenan, W.

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Dodds, N. N.

Kenyan, C.

Rogers, G. H. R.

Driberg. T. E. N.

King, E. M.

Royle, C.

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

Sargood, R.

Dumpleton, C. W.

Kinley, J.

Scollan, T.

Durbin, E. F. M.

Kirby, B. V.

Segal, Dr. S.

Dye, S.

Kirkwood, D.

Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A

Edelman, M.

Lang, G.

Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

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

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Edwards, John (Blackburn)

Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

Simmons, C. J.

Edwards, N, (Caerphilly)

Lever, Fl. Off. N. H.

Skeffington, A. M.

Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Watson, W. M.

Skinnard, F. W.

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

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

Smith, H N. (Nottingham, S.)

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

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

Wilkes, Maj. L.

Snow, Capt. J. W.

Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)

Wilkins, W. A.

Solley, L. J.

Thurtle, E.

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Sorensen, R. W,

Tiffany, S.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

Timmons, J.

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Sparks, J. A

Titterington, M. F.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Stamford, W.

Tolley, L.

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

Steele, T.

Turner-Samuels, M.

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Stephen, C.

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Willis, E.

Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

Viant, S. P.

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

Stokes, R. R.

Walkden, E.

Wise, Major F. J.

Stross, Dr. B.

Walker, G. H

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Stubbs, A. E.

Wallace, G D. (Chislehurst)

Swingier, S.

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Symonds, Maj. A. L.

Warbey, W N.

Mr. Pearson and Mr. Bind.

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Watkins, T. E.

NOES.

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Haughton, S. G.

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

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

Head, Brig. A. H.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Baldwin, A. E.

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

Osborne, C.

Barlow, Sir J.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Pickthorn, K.

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Poole, 0. B. S. (Oswestry)

Bennett, Sir P.

Hogg, Hon. Q.

Prescott. Stanley

Birch, Nigel

Hollis, M. C.

Price-White, Lt.-Col. D

Boothby, R.

Howard, Hon. A.

Raikes, H. V.

Bossom, A. C.

Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

Ramsay, Maj. S

Bower, N.

Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.

Ropner, Col- L.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

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

Sanderson, Sir F.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T

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

Scott, Lord W.

Bullock, Capt. M.

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Butcher, H. W.

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

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

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

Keeling, E. H.

Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

Carson, E.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Smithers, Sir W.

Channon, H.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

Snadden, W. M.

Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

Spearman, A. C. M.

Cole, T. L.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Spence, H. R.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

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

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E-

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.

McCallum, Maj. D.

Sutcliffe, H.

De la Bère R.

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

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Digby, Maj. S. W.

Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R

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

Dodds-Parker, A. D

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Thomson, Sir D. (Aberdeen, S.)

Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W

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

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Draycon, Capt. G. B.

Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

Touche, G. C.

Drewe, C.

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Turton, R. H.

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Vane, W. M. T.

Duthie, W. S.

Marples, A. E.

Walker-Smith, D.

Eccles, D. M.

Marsden, Capt. A.

Ward, Hon G. R.

Eden, Rt. Hon. A

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

Erroll, F. J.

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

Mellor, Sir J.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.

Molson, A. H. E.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl.

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

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

York, C.

Gage, Lt.-Col. G.

Morris-Jones, Sir H.

Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partiok)

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

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

Glossop, C. W. H.

Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

Neven-Spence, Sir B.

Mr. Studholme and Major Conant.

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

Nicholson, G.

Harvey, Air-Comdre A. V.

Nield, B. (Chester)

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), further considered.
  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL

    CLAUSE 22.—(Death grant.)
    4.15 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. Lindgren): I beg to move, in page 23, line 33, to leave out from " any,"To "or,"In line 35, and to insert:
    " body corporate or to any unincorporated association of persons."
    With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would refer also to the next Amendment on the Order Paper, namely, in page 23, line 36, after " such,"Insert, " body or."The two are interdependent. As the Bill reads, the death grant will not be payable to any charitable or other association of persons whether corporate, or unincorporate, or to a local authority. The result of the Amendment will be that the Clause will read:
    " A death grant shall not be payable to any body corporate or to any unincorporated association of persons."
    That, we feel, is a much better form of words than that previously used.
    Mr. Hugh Molson:
    I should like to express my indebtedness, and that of my hon. Friends, to the Minister for having carried out the under taking which he gave us on the Committee stage. I fully understand why it was necessary for there to be certain safeguards which were not included in the Amendment which we moved upstairs and I think, generally speaking; that the Amendment which the Parliamentary Secretary has just moved is entirely satisfactory, both in so far as it covers local authorities and also voluntary bodies of various kinds which, in a charitable way, take aged people into their homes. However, there are two points in connection with this, on which I should like to ask a question—
    Mr. Lindgren: If I may interrupt the hon. Gentleman, I think he is just a little ahead, and that the remarks he is now making will be more appropriate on the Amendment to this Clause which seeks to add the following words to line 36:
    1180
    "(5) The cost, to such amount as may be prescribed, of the burial or cremation of any person by or under the direction of the council of a county or county borough, or by or under the direction of any such other association of persons as may be approved by the Minister may be paid to the council or association out of the National Insurance Fund if—

    (a) the conditions for the payment of a death grant in respect of the said person's death are satisfied so far as relates to paragraph (b) of Subsection (1) and Subsection (3) of this Section; and

    (b) no such death grant has been paid;

    and where any sum is paid under this Subsection in respect of any person's burial or cremation any death grant subsequently paid in respect of his death shall be reduced by the amount of the said sum."
    Mr. Molson: I understood, Mr. Speaker, that we were considering the first three Amendments together.
    Mr. Lindgren: No, the first two.
    Mr. Charles Williams: Then, if we are taking these two Amendments together, may I point out—although I quite realise that the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) is pleased with this Amendment—that the Parliamentary Secretary read it out, but did not tell us precisely why the Government had accepted the change. I understand it is a good change because it is a change which the Opposition wanted, but we are entitled to know what the Amendment does, and how it affects both corporate and unincorporated bodies.
    Mr. Lindgren: If the hon. Gentleman waits until we reach, the third Amendment, he will get the information he now desires. This form of words has been used because of the subsequent Amendment and we feel, from a drafting point of view, it is better phraseology than that which was originally in the Bill. Its effect is exactly the same, but it is a change of words which we feel is better for the purpose of the Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 23, line 36, after "such,"Insert "body or."—[Mr. Lindgren.].
    Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 23, line 36, at the end, to insert:
    "(5) The cost, to such amount as may be prescribed, of the burial or cremation of any person by or under the direction of the council of a county or county borough, or by or under the direction of any such other association of persons as may be approved by the Minister may be paid to the council or asso-

    1181
    ciation out of the National Insurance Fund if—

    (a)the conditions for the payment of a death grant in respect of the said person's death are satisfied so far as relates to paragraph (b) of Subsection (1) and Subsection (3) of this Section; and

    (b) no such death grant has been paid;

    and where any sum is paid under this Subsection in respect of any person's burial or cremation any death grant subsequently paid in respect of his death shall be reduced by the amount of the said sum."
    In Committee, the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterley Jones) placed an Amendment on the Order Paper, which, in its general intention was supported from all sides. On behalf of my right hon. Friend, I gave an undertaking that between the Committee and Report stages we would consider the matter and see whether or not we could give effect to the general desire of the Committee. This Amendment does in fact meet the promise which was made. It is to the effect that where there is the necessity of a burial of a person, either by a local authority or by an approved association, the cost of that funeral up to a prescribed amount shall be met from the death grant and if subsequently someone makes a claim, such sums as have been paid out either to the local authority or the association will be deducted from the death grant which was due. I call attention to the fact that the associations, which will be entitled to receive this, have to be approved by the Minister. I am certain that hon. Members will agree this provision is advisable, and I hope the Amendment will meet with the general approval of the House.
    Mr. Molson: I will not repeat what I said earlier when I thought that this Amendment was being moved, but I will proceed to ask three questions about the drafting. The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that I put down an Amendment to insert the word " cremation "In this Clause. The hon. Gentleman took the view that there was no need for that Amendment as "cremation" was included in "funeral."I observe that in the Amendment he is now moving the word "cremation" appears as an alternative to "burial." He cannot be right in both cases. Either it was not necessary to add the word "cremation"To the Clause as originally drafted—although I think it would have been desirable—or it is undesirable that the word " crema-
    1182
    tion" should be included in this case. Not only would it in that event be redundant, but any learned judge would imagine that Parliament in its wisdom had sought to draw a distinction between the disposal of bodies by ordinary funerals, and cremation by these bodies, corporate or unincorporated. The hon. Gentleman has gone slightly adrift with his drafting. I hope that at a subsequent stage he will include the word "cremation" as I proposed earlier. I believe it would have been better to have included it all along. I also ask whether he is quite satisfied with the propriety of the word "person in the phrase:
    "burial or cremation of any person."
    I should have thought a "person" was only a living person, and that the word should not be used in this sense, unless there is to be burial alive.
    Mr. C. Williams: May I venture to add a word on this rather difficult subject? For all I know this may be the first time the word " cremation " has appeared in a Measure of this kind, and the matter may not have been properly decided so far as the courts are concerned. Nor may it have been decided what the term actually means and how far it carries. It may possibly have a different meaning in Scottish law. An entirely new ruling might be given on the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) cast doubts on the Government's use of the term, and his knowledge of these matters is of an extraordinarily high character. I was rather aghast at the use of the word "person," because it seems to me that as my hon. Friend says it can only refer to a living human being. But the word may appear in other Acts in this way. If so it is time that it was put right. It may be another Government slip which should be dealt with between now and another stage. The Parliamentary Secretary told me just now that he was going to explain all these matters. I shall have extreme pleasure on some occasion in reading out his explanation, to show how really muddled the Government can be when they set their minds to it.
    Mr. Lindgren: I doubt whether I could have given the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) an answer which would have prevented the speech he has jus made. In answer to the hon. Member

    1183
    for The High Peak (Mr. Molson), originally the word "funeral" was used. I am not an expert in English, but I understand that "funeral"Includes the disposal of the body by cremation, but that "burial" does not include disposal of the body by cremation. Therefore, as on this occasion we used the word "burial," we thought it advisable to use the word "cremation" because it is the intention of my right hon. Friend that the disposal of the body either by the normal way of burial, or the more scientific and up-to-date method of cremation, should be included.
    Mr. E. P. Smith: Could the Parliamentary Secretary meet the objection raised by the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) by altering the wording to:
    " burial or cremation of any body "
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 29.—(Disqualification or suspension for absence abroad or imprisonment.)
    Mr. Raikes: I beg to move, in page 30, line 7, to leave out from " servitude,"To the end of line 8, and to insert "Imprisonment."
    As the Clause stands, except where regulations otherwise provide, a person would be disqualified from receiving any benefit if he is undergoing penal servitude, imprisonment, or detention in legal custody. The object of this Amendment is to strike out " detention in legal custody" and merely have the disqualification apply to penal servitude, or imprisonment. It appears to me, and I daresay the Minister would agree, that under the laws of the land if one is undergoing penal servitude, or imprisonment, one has, presumably been found guilty of a grave offence. But the Minister, or I, might be detained in legal custody and yet be as innocent as a babe unborn. It seems to me a pity that no distinction is drawn between detention in legal custody, and penal servitude, or imprisonment. Although I realise that detention in legal custody is not one of the weapons which His Majesty's Government would be using against other people, there might very well come a time when we have a Government which considered under some Defence of the Realm regulation detaining people with-
    1184
    out trial as a valuable way of encouraging them towards the wishes of the Government of the time. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Mack) has been running around to Russia and other places, and when I see him and the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), some very odd ideas come to me at times. We have to look to the future.
    Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member will not be in legal custody—it will be burial.
    Mr. Raikes: If I should be detained in legal custody I should want to have my pension rights safeguarded.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. Sydney Silvermans: I beg to second the Amendment.
    It is a pity that the hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Raikes) should have spoiled a good case by being facetious about it. It is a perfectly good case. There are forms of custody which are perfectly legal, without any penalty having been incurred by the person detained. There is no reason why such a person should be penalised, and I feel sure that my right hon. Friend never intended that he should be. It is only a question of drafting.
    The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): Perhaps I can clear up this point. We had a long discussion about this matter in Committee. The question was raised of the position of a man on remand pending trial. I am advised that it is essential to have in the Bill the words to which objection has been taken, because they cover certain kinds of cases. I will cite only one. I understand that a man who is committed to a criminal lunatic asylum is detained in legal custody. It is possible to meet the case about which hon. Members are worried, I said in Committee that I would look at the point raised about a man on remand pending trial, who is subsequently found not guilty. I can cover that case by regulation, and I will do so.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Does the Minister mean it is simpler to meet the case in the way he suggested, and that the answer he has given is to excuse the taking of administrative action because it is easier to do it that way? My concern is that if we leave the words as

    1185
    they are, instead of making them "or imprisonment", we are leaving to some future Minister, powers which might easily be abused. That is a point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Waver-tree (Mr. Raikes) referred in moving the Amendment. Perhaps the Minister could give a word of explanation.
    Mr. Griffiths: This is a matter in which I must be guided by the advice given to me on the meaning of these phrases in law. I am advised that the proper phrase to describe a man committed to an asylum as a criminal lunatic is that contained in this Clause, and that the words are essential for this purpose. In Committee we had a discussion on whether the words "In legal custody " would define a man remanded for trial and subsequently found not guilty and released, and whether the fact that he was detained in custody would prevent him from getting benefit. I said that we could cover that in regulations, but I am advised that there are no words other than those in the Bill which could suitably be used to cover the point which I have already made. I have met the point which hon. Members in Committee urged me to meet. I can meet it by regulation and I propose to do so.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I take it that my right hon. Friend is referring to the provision in this Clause:
    "Except where regulations otherwise provide,—"
    and that, to carry out his undertaking to cover the case we have in mind, the regulations will make provision accordingly.
    Mr. Hopkin Morris: I appreciate the argument of the Minister, but in this Clause the phrase " detention in legal custody," follows " penal servitude, imprisonment." On the face of Subsection (1) it looks as though detention in legal custody does not merely mean a case such as the Minister has mentioned, but one that belongs to the same class as penal servitude or imprisonment. If it covers what the Minister means, there is no objection to it, but I am not clear that that is so, as the Subsection stands.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 43.—(Determination of claims and questions.)
    Mr. Hopkin Morris: I beg to move—
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member cannot move the next Amendment. That must be done by someone in whose name it stands on the Order Paper.
    Lieut.-Colonel Byers: I beg to move, in page 37, line 43, to leave out " may," and to insert " shall."
    May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether the following Amendment may be considered with this one?
    Mr. Speaker: Yes, I imagine that the two stand together.
    Lieut.-Colonel Byers: They do. Sir. In that case I shall also deal with the Amendment, in page 37, line 46, after " Minister,"To insert:
    " or National Insurance Commissioner or a deputy Commissioner or a tribunal presided over by the National Insurance Commissioner or a deputy Commissioner."
    I do not propose to detain the House for long in dealing with these Amendments. The first is merely to make this Clause mandatory instead of permissive, and I hope that the Minister will accept that Amendment. The second deals with a rather different matter. As the Clause stands, there is only a right of appeal on a question of law from a decision which the Minister himself has made. We are seeking to insert in this Clause a provision that there shall also be a right of appeal to the High Court from a decision made by the National Insurance Commissioner. We are seeking to establish that there should be appeals from the National Insurance Commissioner, or a tribunal presided over by him, to the High Court. This is in keeping with the recommendations of the Commission on Ministers' powers, in which it was laid down that where there was a Ministerial tribunal there should be an appeal from that tribunal to the High Court. In view of the most important decisions which have recently been given in favour of claimants in connection with pensions appeals tribunals, I ask the Minister to accept the inclusion, in this Clause, of the words suggested.
    Mr. Hopkin Morris: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I would like to draw attention to the effect of the first Amendment. Subsection (1) of the Clause gives power to the

    1187
    Minister to make regulations and he can deal with any question arising in connection with this Measure,
    "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."
    So it depends upon the regulations. If the regulations are so framed, the Minister can completely oust any appeal to the High Court. It will depend on the regulations whether there is such an appeal or not. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that the regulations shall be so framed that there must be a right of appeal to the High Court. The second Amendment follows naturally. In Subsection (3), it will be seen that various persons can decide a case— an officer appointed by the Minister, who can then refer it to a tribunal, and the tribunal can refer it to the National Insurance Commissioner or the deputy Commissioner. There is no further appeal from that; because apparently that is not the Minister's decision. As a result, there might be varying decisions by different national insurance commissioners, and varying decisions from various tribunals. It will be difficult to get uniformity if the High Court has been ousted, with the result that the law will be interpreted in different ways in different parts of the country, in accordance with the variations of the tribunals. There is a tendency, which is a bad growing modern practice, on the part of different Ministries, to oust the jurisdiction of the court. All we are seeking to do by this Amendment is to make sure that an appeal will lie.
    Mr. McKie: I hope very much that whoever replies will give sympathetic consideration to the Amendment. I am sorry to say that it is not very often I agree with anything which emanates from the particular section of.the House associated with this Amendment and it is therefore pleasurable to me.to associate myself fully with every word which has been said by the mover and seconder. I was particularly pleased to hear my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. H.Morris)—
    Mr. J. Griffiths: They will withdraw the Amendment in a minute.
    Mr. McKie: I was particularly pleased to hear him point out just the kind of
    1188
    irregularities that might easily arise in the administration of this matter if the permissive instead of the mandatory wording is adhered to. This raises a point of considerable substance. I am sure the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr.S. Silverman) will agree that a tremendous number of disputed cases will be bound to arise from the vast machinery which the Government are setting up under the National Insurance Bill. We wish to be perfectly sure, so far as possible, that anomalies are cleared away and we hope we may have this mandatory provision. As the hon. and learned Member for Carmar then has said, there is no certainty that the answer given to appeals may not vary considerably all over the country. We do not want that. I am thinking particularly of Scotland, and I am sure the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr.Kirk wood) will agree with me—
    Mr. Kirkwood: Why does the hon. Gentleman want to rope me into this?
    Mr. McKie: It is because I want to have the hon. Member's support. I want him to speak on this Amendment and urge his Government to accept this modest but very vital proposal which will ensure that there will be, so far as possible—
    Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Member would direct himself to the Amendment and not to inciting other Members of the House: to make speeches.
    Mr. McKie: I apologise, Sir. Addressing the Minister through you, Sir, may I express the hope that he will be able to tell us, when he comes to reply, that he will accept the mandatory instead of the permissive appeal to the High Court or to the Court of Session in Scotland. That, I understand, is included in Clause 79. If the Minister did that, it would clear away our very reasonable fears and apprehensions with regard to this matter.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I cannot resist the appeal made by the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie). I support this Amendment but I do not think it raises the wide points of principle about which he spoke. The general point of principle is conceded in the Clause. Questions of law ought to be referred to the High Court for decision. There is no dispute

    1189
    about that at all. I understand the argument to be that it ought to be extended so as to make sure that a question of law will be referred to the High Court for decision wherever it arises and not only when it arises on a decision by the Minister. On that narrow point, I have pleasure in responding to the appeal made to me, and I hope the Minister will respond to the appeal made to him.
    Mr. Gallacher: I would like to say a few words in view of the fact that an attempt was made to bring my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) into this discussion. I think it is correct that this matter should be left to the discretion of the Minister. I remember on one occasion standing in the High Court with the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs. The experience that he then had satisfied him that neither he nor anybody else wants to go to the High Court unless it is absolutely inevitable or compulsory. In the case of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs it was compulsory. I suggest to the Minister that he uses his discretion and goes to the High Court as little as possible.
    4.45 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel Byers: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that people should have the right to appeal from a tribunal under this Act?
    Mr. Gallacher: I believe the Minister will use his discretion in such a way as to ensure that he will go to the, High Court when it is necessary.
    Mr. Beechman: I require no incitement to make a few brief observations in support of the Amendment. I believe this is a matter which is fundamental to the purposes of good government in a democratic country, that, in all cases, there should be. available recourse to the courts. Although I think it is of the utmost value that there should be domestic tribunals, those domestic tribunals will function satisfactorily and their decisions will only be accepted by the people of this country if it is realised that behind them, there is the majesty of our law, before which we are all said to be equal.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: I think it is right to say that this matter was thoroughly examined and decided in Committee—
    Lieut.-Colonel Byers: No.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: The whole point was that apart from any questions of law which might have to go to the Minister there should be no right of appeal from the tribunals. The avowed purpose of the new machinery was indeed to cut out the law courts, to put it quite bluntly. That was deliberately decided upstairs. This matter was examined fully and an attempt was made by an Amendment, on the same lines as the one we are now discussing, to introduce other machinery which it was the purpose of this Statute to exclude. I do not want to enter into the merits or demerits of that now, but it was overwhelmingly decided that it was not desirable, under this new form of social legislation which this Measure introduces. It was decided upstairs after full discussion that this ought not to be included and that there should not be a right of appeal. I ask the House to reaffirm what was done in Committee.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) has said, there have been two discussions upon this matter on two separate Bills. First, we had a long discussion upon this problem when we considered the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill upstairs and again on Report stage. Also there was a discussion in the Committee on the National Insurance Bill. On every occasion I have asked the Committee and the House, as I ask the House now, to reject this Amendment
    Lieut.-Colonel Byers: I think the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that one of the reasons why we have brought this forward now is that since we have discussed it upstairs, on both Bills, there have been important decisions from the pensions appeal tribunal, and also the case of Dr. Hennessy and the General Medical Council.
    Mr. Griffiths: I have read the letter in "The Times."I have considered this matter very fully and I believe we are perfectly right in sticking to the machinery provided by the Bill. Whatever may be said about the general machinery of the law, when we were considering the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill and the Social Insurance Bill there was general agreement that some machinery other than the machinery of

    1191
    the law, would be more suitable for this purpose. That is where we begin. Therefore, we have provided machinery for the determination of disputes in regard to claims under this Bill. The applicant, if his claim is turned down, will have the right to go to a tribunal presided over by an independent chairman sitting with two assessors who will be appointed by two panels representative of the people affected by this scheme. There will be an appeal from that tribunal to a Commissioner.
    What we have done, therefore, is to provide our own machinery for the settlement of disputes of this kind. That machinery, we think, is better than the existing machinery. It will be quicker to arrive at a decision, will be less costly, and we are certain that it will give more general satisfaction. We have had this Bill under discussion in the House and in the country for four months now, and I am sure I am speaking for most of the people affected by it when I say that there is general satisfaction that this method of judging and settling disputes is better than the existing method.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I do not think anybody will dispute that or would want to upset the machinery set up under the Bill for settling disputes as such. We are not concerned about that. What this Clause is concerned with is not a method of settling disputes but a matter of settling questions of law, and nobody thinks that they can be settled anywhere else than in the Law Courts.
    Mr. Griffiths: So far. as that is concerned, there are questions of law as well as questions of fact. It is our view that they ought to be decided finally. There will be far more important questions of law on the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill than—
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is it not the case that the chairman of the tribunal will be a judge?
    Mr. Hopkin Morris: How will the Minister discriminate between these questions of law which he is seeking to refer to the High Court and those questions of law which he will not?
    Mr. Griffiths: If hon. Members will listen, I will endeavour to make it clear. First, there are questions which fall to
    1192
    be decided by the tribunal—questions of benefit. The tribunal will make a decision. There is an appeal against the decision of the tribunal to the Commissioner. When appeals go to him, they may be simple, straightforward appeals on which the Commissioner will be able to arrive at a decision. It is true that these appeals which may go to the Com missioner may raise difficult questions of law and also difficult questions of fact. I explained what we propose to do under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill, and said that, when there are difficult questions of law, the Commissioner will be the presiding judge, who has to be a lawyer of eminent standing — the standing of a judge— assisted by two deputy Commissioners, who are also lawyers of eminence in appeals on points of law. Therefore, the decision will be made on difficult points of law, whenever they are raised, by the tribunal presided over by a Commissioner and two deputies, all three being lawyers, and we feel that that is ample provision for arriving at a decision on any points of law.
    There will also be cases in which questions of fact have to be decided, and there again, I think, we have provided an admirable method by which the courts will solve problems of that kind. The Commissioner will sit with two law assessors to advise him upon questions of fact. In regard to that, I am not disposed to allow appeals from that decision to the High Court and thus mix up the new machinery with the old. If we want to do that, we had better scrap this machinery and go back to the old. We have provided this new machinery, and I know, from my own experience, that it is a better way of settling disputes than the existing method and that it will give satisfaction. There are questions which the Minister has to decide—
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: It is a question of going to the Court of Appeal, and, possibly, to the House of Lords as well.
    Mr. Griffiths: I know it means that, but, on these questions to be decided by the tribunal and the Commissioner, we have provided machinery that provides, in our view, a satisfactory way of dealing with them finally. The final decision will be given by the tribunal, presided over by the Commissioner. On other questions on which the Minister has to decide, there is provision in these cases that there can

    1193
    be appeal to the courts on points of law, and there is a question there, but I feel that, on such questions as the payment of death grants, it is better in claims of this kind, where there is more than one claimant to have the question decided by a tribunal rather than in court. We have discussed this matter at great length in connection with both these Bills, and I
    am convinced that the machinery we provide is the best for the purpose. I hope the House will accept that view and reject the Amendment.
    Question put, "That the word ' may ' stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 265: Noes, 146.

    Division No. 187.

    AYES.

    [4.55 p.m.

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

    Logan, D. G.

    Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

    Ewart, R.

    Lyne, A. W.

    Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

    Fairhurst, F.

    McEntee, V. La T

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Farthing, W. J.

    Mack, J. D.

    Alpass, J. H.

    Forman, J. C.

    McKay, J. (Wallsend)

    Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

    Foster, W. (Wigan)

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

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

    McKinlay, A. S

    Attewell, H. C.

    Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

    Maclean, N. (Govan)

    Austin, H. L.

    Gallacher, W.

    McLeavy, F.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Ayles, W. H.

    Gibbins, J.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

    Gibson, C. W

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Balfour, A.

    Gilzean, A.

    Manning, Mrs. L (Epping)

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J

    Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

    Marquand, H. A

    Barstow, P. G.

    Gooch, E. G.

    Martin, J. H.

    Barton, C.

    Goodrich, H. E.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Battley, J. R.

    Gordon-Walker, P. C.

    Medland, H. M.

    Bechervaise, A. E

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

    Middleton, Mrs. L.

    Belcher, J. W.

    Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

    Millington, Wing Comdr. E. R

    Benson, G.

    Granted, D. R

    Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

    Berry, H.

    Grey, C. F.

    Montague, F.

    Beswick, F.

    Grierson, E.

    Moody, A. S.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Boardman, H.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

    Morley, R.

    Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

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

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

    Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

    Gunter, Capt. R. J.

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

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

    Guy, W. H.

    Mart, D. L.

    Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

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

    Moyle, A.

    Brook, D. (Halifax)

    Hale, Leslie

    Murray, J. D.

    Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

    Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

    Nally, W.

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

    Hamilton, Lleut.-Col. R.

    Meal, H. (Claycross)

    Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

    Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

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

    Burden. T. W.

    Hardy, E. A.

    Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

    Burke, W. A.

    Harrison, J.

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

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

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Noel-Buxton, Lady

    Callaghan, James

    Haworth, J.

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

    Oliver, G. H

    Chamberlain, R. A

    Herbison, Miss M

    Orbach, M.

    Champion, A. J.

    Hobson, C. R

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Chater, D.

    Holman, P.

    Parker, J.

    Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.

    Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

    Peart, Capt. T. F

    Clitherow, Dr. R

    House, G.

    Perrins, W

    Cluse, W. S.

    Hoy, J.

    Piratin, P.

    Cobb, F. A.

    Hubbard, T.

    Popplewell, E.

    Cocks F. S.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

    Porter, E. (Warrington)

    Coldrick, W.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Price, M. Philips

    Collick, P.

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

    Pryde, D. J

    Collindridge, F.

    Hutchinson, H. L. (Rushelme)

    Pursey, Cmdr H

    Calman, Miss G. M

    Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

    Randall, H. E.

    Comyns, Dr. L

    Irving, W. J

    Ranger, J

    Cook, T. F.

    Janner, B.

    Rankin, J.

    Cooper, Wins-Comdr. G.

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

    Reeves, J

    Corlett, Dr. J.

    John, W.

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    Cove, W. G.

    Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

    Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

    Daggar, G.

    Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

    Robens, A.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Keenan, W.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    Kenyon, C.

    Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    King, E. M.

    Rogers, G. H. R.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Kinghom, Sqn.-Ldr. E

    Royle, C.

    Deer, G.

    Kinley, J.

    Sargood, R.

    Delargy, Captain H. J.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Scollan, T.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Kirkwood, D

    Scott-Elliot, W

    Driberg T. E. N.

    Lang, G.

    Segal, Dr. S.

    Dumpleton, C. W.

    Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

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

    Dye, S.

    Leonard, W.

    Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

    Edelman, M.

    Lever, Fl. Off. N. H.

    Silverman, J. (Erdington)

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

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

    Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Simmons, C. J.

    Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

    Skinnard, F. W.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

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

    Smith, Capt. C. (Colchestar)

    Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

    Warbey, W. N

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

    Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

    Watkins, T. E.

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

    Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

    Watson, W. M.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

    Snow, Capt. J. W.

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

    Wells, W, T. (Walsall)

    Solley, L. J.

    Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)

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

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Thurtle, E.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

    Tiffany, S.

    Wilkes, Maj. L.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Timmons, J.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Stamford, W.

    Titterington, M. F.

    Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

    Steele, T.

    Tolley, L.

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Stewart, Capt. Michael (Futham, E.)

    Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Stokes, R. R.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

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

    Strachey, J.

    Ungoed-Thomas, L.

    Willis, E.

    Stross, Dr. B.

    Vernon, Maj. W. F.

    Wills, Mrs. E. A.

    Stubbs, A. E.

    Viant, S. P.

    Wise, Major F. J.

    Swingler, S.

    Walkden, E.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Symonds, Maj. A. L.

    Walker, G. H.

    Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

    Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Pearson and Mr. Bing.

    NOES.

    Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

    Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

    Nicholson, G.

    Aitken, Hon. Max

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

    Nield, B. (Chester)

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

    Harvey, Air-Cemdre A. V.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

    Astor, Hon. M.

    Haughton, S. G.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Head, Brig. A. H.

    Osborne, C.

    Barlow, Sir J.

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

    Pickthorn, K.

    Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

    Beechman, N. A.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Prescott. Stanley

    Bennett, Sir P.

    Hogg, Hon. Q.

    Raikes, H. V.

    Birch, Nigel

    Hollis, M. C.

    Ramsay, Maj. S.

    Boothby, R.

    Hope, Lord J.

    Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

    Bossom, A. C.

    Howard, Hon. A.

    Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

    Boyd Carpenter, J. A.

    Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

    Ropner, Col. L.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.

    Sanderson, Sir F.

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

    Hurd, A.

    Savory, Prof. D. L.

    Carson, E.

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

    Scott, Lord W.

    Challen, C.

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

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

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

    Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

    Clarke, Col. R. S.

    Keeling, E. H.

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Snadden, W. M.

    Cole, T. L.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G

    Spearman, A.C. M.

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Langford-Holt, J.

    Spence, H. R.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Corbett, Lieut-Col. U. (Ludlow)

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

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

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

    Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

    Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

    Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.

    Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

    Studholme, H. G.

    Digby, Maj. S. W.

    Low, Brig. A. R. W.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

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

    Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

    Mac Andrew, Col. Sir C.

    Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

    Drayson, Capt. G. B.

    McCallum, Maj. D.

    Thomson, Sir D. (Aberdeen, S)

    Drewe, C.

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

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

    Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Duthie, W. S.

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Touche, G. C.

    Eccles D. M.

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

    Turton, R. H.

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Vane, W. M. T.

    Erroll, F. J.

    Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

    Wakefield, Sir W. W

    Fletcher, W. (Bury)

    Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

    Walker-Smith, D.

    Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.

    Manningham-Buller, R. E.

    Ward, Hon. G. R.

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

    Marples, A. E.

    Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

    Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

    Marsden, Capt. A.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Gage, Lt.-Col. C.

    Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Gates, Maj. E. E.

    Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Mellor, Sir J.

    York, C.

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Molson, A. H. E.

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

    Glyn, Sir R.

    Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

    Morris-Jones, Sir H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES

    Granville, E. (Eye)

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

    Lieut.-Colonel Byers and Mr. Bowen.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Neven-Spence, Sir B.

    CLAUSE 46. —(Administration of benefit.)
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. Raikes: I beg to move, in page 41, line 8, afer " payment,"To insert:
    " and for the payment of sickness * benefit, maternity benefit, widows' allowance, death grant and such further benefits as the Minister
    1196
    may decide to or in respect of a member of an approved society by and through the approved society of which the insured person is a member on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed in the regulations."
    I am moving this Amendment formally. It has already been discussed on the proposed new Clause dealing with friendly

    1197
    societies. This Amendment would include all the approved societies within the Government scheme.
    Mr. Oliver Poole: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House Noes, 264.divided: Ayes, 144; Noes, 264.

    Division No 188].

    AVES

    [5.5 p.m.

    Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

    Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V

    Nield, B. (Chester)

    Aitken, Hon. Max

    Haughton, S. G.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H

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

    Head, Brig. A. H

    Orr-Ewing, I. L

    Astor, Hon. M.

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

    Osborne, C.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O

    Barlow, Sir J.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Pickthorn, K.

    Beamish, Maj. T. V. H

    Hogg, Hon. Q.

    Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

    Beechman, N. A

    Hollis, M. C.

    Prescott. Stanley

    Bennett, Sir P

    Hope, Lord J.

    Raikes, H. V.

    Birch, Nigel

    Howard, Hon. A.

    Ramsay, Maj. S.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Hudson, Rt. Hon, R. S. (Southport)

    Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecolesall)

    Bowen, R.

    Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.

    Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Hurd, A.

    Ropner, Col. L.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

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

    Sanderson, Sir F

    Bullock, Capt. M.

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

    Scott, Lord W.

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

    Jeffreys, General Sir G.

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

    Carson, E.

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

    Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

    Challen, C.

    Keeling, E. H.

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Clarke, Col. R. S.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Snadden, W. M.

    Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G

    Lancaster, Col. C. G

    Spearman, A. C. M

    Cole, T. L.

    Langford-Holt, J.

    Spence, H. R.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

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

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

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

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

    Lipson, D. L.

    Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

    Crowder, Capt. J. F. E

    Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

    Studholme, H. G.

    Digby, Maj. S. W.

    Low, Brig. A. R. W.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

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

    Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

    MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

    Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

    Drayson, Capt. G. B.

    McCallum, Maj. D.

    Thomson, Sir D. (Aberdeen, S)

    Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

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

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

    Duthie, W. S.

    Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Ecclet, D. M.

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Touche, G. C.

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A

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

    Turton, R. H.

    Erroll, F. J.

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Vane, W M. T.

    Fletcher, W. (Bury)

    Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

    Wakefield, Sir W. W

    Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.

    Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

    Walker-Smith, D.

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

    Manningham-Buller, R. E

    Ward, Hon. G. R.

    Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

    Marples, A. E.

    Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

    Gage, Lt.-Col. C.

    Marsden, Capt. A.

    White, Sir D. (Fareham)

    Gates, Maj. E. E.

    Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

    White, J. B. (Canterbury)

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Glyn, Sir R.

    Mellor, Sir J.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Gomme-Dunoan, Col. A. G

    Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lard

    Graham-Little, Sir E.

    Morris-Jones, Sir H.

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

    Grimston, R. V.

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

    Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

    Neven-Spence, Sir B.

    TELLERS FOR THE AVES.

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

    Nicholson, G

    Mr. Drewe and Major Conant.

    NOES.

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

    Boardman, H.

    Coldrick, W.

    Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

    Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

    Colliok, P.

    Allen, A. C. (Besworth)

    Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

    Collindridge, F.

    Allen, Soholefield (Crewe)

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

    Colman, Miss G. M.

    Alpass, J. H.

    Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

    Comyns, Dr. L.

    Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

    Brook, D. (Halifax)

    Cook, T. F.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

    Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G

    Attewell, H. C.

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

    Corlett, Dr. J

    Austin, H. L.

    Burden. T. W.

    Cove, W. G.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Burke, W. A.

    Daggar, G.

    Ayles, W. H.

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

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

    Byers, Lt.-Col. F.

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    Balfour, A.

    Callaghan, James

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Barstow, P. G

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Barton, C.

    Chamberlain, R. A.

    Deer, G.

    Battley, J. R.

    Champion, A. J.

    Delargy, Captain H. J.

    Bechervaise, A. E.

    Chafer, D.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Belcher, J. W.

    Chetwynd, Capt. G. R

    Dumpleton, C. W.

    Benson, G.

    Clitherow, Dr. R.

    Dye, S.

    Berry, H.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Edelman, M.

    Beswick, F.

    Cobb, F. A.

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

    Blyton, W. R.

    Cocks, F. S

    Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

    Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

    Lever, Fl. Off. N. H.

    Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Silverman, J. (Erdington)

    Ewart, R.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

    Fairhurst, F.

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Simmons, C. J.

    Farthing, W. J.

    Logan, D. G.

    Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

    Forman, J. C.

    Lyne, A. W.

    Skinnard, F. W.

    Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)

    Freeman, Maj J. (Watford)

    Mack, J. D.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

    Gallacher, W.

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

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

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

    McKinlay, A. S.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Maclean, N. (Govan)

    Snow, Capt. J. W.

    Gibbins, J.

    McLeavy, F.

    Solley, L. J.

    Gibson, C. W.

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Gilzean, A.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Soskice, Mat Sir F.

    Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Gooch, E. G.

    Mann, Mrs. J.

    Stamford, W.

    Goodrich, H. E.

    Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

    Steele, T

    Gordon-Walker, P. C.

    Martin, J. H.

    Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Granville, E. (Eye)

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Stokes, R. R.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

    Medland, H. M.

    Stross, Dr. B.

    Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

    Millington,. Wing-Contdr. E. R.

    Stubbs, A. E.

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

    Swingler, S.

    Grey, C. F.

    Montague, F.

    Symonds, Maj. A. L.

    Grierson, E.

    Moody, A. S.

    Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

    Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

    Morley, R.

    Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

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

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

    Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

    Gunter, Capt. R. J.

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

    Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

    Guy, W. H.

    Mort, D. L.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Hale, Leslie

    Moyle, A.

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

    Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

    Murray, J. D.

    Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)

    Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

    Nally, W.

    Thurtle, E.

    Hannan, W. (Mary hill)

    Neal, H. (Claycross)

    Tiffany, S.

    Hardy, E. A.

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

    Timmons, J.

    Harrison, J.

    Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

    Titterington, M. F.

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

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

    Toller, L.

    Haworth, J.

    Noel-Buxton, Lady

    Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Ungoed-Thomas, L.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Orbach, M.

    Vernon, Maj. W. F.

    Holman, P.

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Viant, S. P.

    Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

    Parker, J.

    Walkden, E.

    House, G.

    Peart, Capt. T. F.

    Walker, G. H.

    Hoy, J.

    Perrins, W.

    Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

    Hubbard, T.

    Piratin, P.

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

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

    Popplewell, E.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Porter, E. (Warrington)

    Watkins, T. E.

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

    Price, M. Philips

    Watson, W. M.

    Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

    Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

    Irving, W. J.

    Randall, H. E.

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

    Janner, B.

    Hanger, J.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

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

    Rankin, J.

    Wilkes, Maj. L.

    John, W.

    Reeves, J.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

    Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

    Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Keenan, W.

    Robens, A.

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Kenyon, C.

    Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

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

    King, E. M.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Williams, W. R. (Heston)

    Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr, E.

    Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

    Willis, E.

    Kinley, J.

    Rogers, G. H. R.

    Wills, Mrs. E A.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Royle, C.

    Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Sargood, R.

    Wise, Major F. J.

    Lang, G.

    Scollan, T.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Lavers, S.

    Scott-Elliot, W.

    Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

    Segal, Dr. S.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES

    Leonard, W.

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

    Mr. Pearson and Mr. Bine.

    CLAUSE 47.—(Interim payments, arrears and repayments.)
    Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 42, line 30, after "as,"To insert:
    "being a child of the family, or the wife or husband, or an adult dependant, of the first-mentioned person as having been."
    With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will also include in my remarks the next two Amendments on the Order Paper. In Committee, a number of hon.
    1200
    Members, in particular the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown), the hon. and gallant Member for North Dorset (Lieut.-Colonel. Byers), and the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton), expressed the view that the existing wording of Clause 47 was not easy to understand, and, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, I gave an undertaking that the Clause would be looked into in order to

    1201
    ascertain whether it could be made more easily understood. That has been done, and these three Amendments have that effect.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for rendering this Clause intelligible, which he has done with great skill. It corresponds exactly with the request which we put to him, and I am very much obliged.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 42, line 31, after "regulations,"Insert "relating to overlapping benefits."
    In line 33, leave out from " decision,"To " and,"In line 34, and insert:
    "either—

    (i) that the said other person is himself entitled to benefit for that period; or

    (ii) that a third person is entitled to benefit for that period in respect of the said other person in priority to the first mentioned person;"—[Mr. Lindgren.]

    Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 42, line 37, at the end, to insert:
    "(3) Where a person has received sums on account of an allowance under the Family Allowances Act, 1945, to which by virtue of this Act he was not entitled by reason of his being entitled to a guardian's allowance subsequently awarded (whether in respect of the same or a different child), those sums shall be treated as paid on account of the guardian's allowance and the amount thereof shall be repaid to the Treasury out of the National Insurance Fund "
    During the discussions in Committee a request was made, which will be in evidence later on the Order Paper, that family allowance payments should be excluded from account when any adjustments of other benefits were being made. During the course of the consideration of the promise I gave on behalf of my right hon. Friend in that connection, it was found advisable to make an alteration in the wording of Clause 47 because of the difference between payments likely to arise under the Family Allowances Act and the guardian's benefit under this Bill. The additional words made it possible for additional payments to be made as and when there is a variation between a child drawing an allowance under the Family Allowances Act and that child, or another child of the family, becoming entitled to a guardian's allowance under the National Insurance Bill.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: As I understand this matter, it is necessary for the Minister to include words which provide for the necessary moneys to pass between the Exchequer and the Insurance Fund, because the sources of those two payments are different. I want to be satisfied that, in moving this Amendment, the point of which we fully accept, the Parliamentary Secretary is satisfied that the words make it possible for the necessary transfers of money's between the two funds to take place.
    Mr. C. Williams: I understand that as far as family allowances are concerned the position has been entirely met, but it is just possible that there may be some other kind of allowance, such as a pension, for example, and can the Government give any assurance in that regard? I did not have the advantage of hearing either the Parliamentary Secretary or his right hon. Friend upstairs, and I should like to know whether any pension or other allowance paid to the family, apart from the family allowance itself, is ruled out under these conditions. I do not want to find that there is a loophole of any kind, especially in regard to war pensions. It is rather an important matter and I want to be sure about it before we allow the Government to put in the Amendment.
    Mr. Lindgren: This Clause has no reference whatever to any matter other than that of the payment of a guardian's allowance and an additional allowance that might become payable under the National Insurance Bill for a guardian's allowance over and above the family allowance which is now payable. I have tried to make it clear that it only arises where there is an amalgamated family. There may be a family which has only one child in it and it may take in a child of another family, which would then become entitled under the Family Allowances Act to a payment of 5s. a week. Both parents of that child might die and the child become an orphan, and thereby be entitled to a guardian's allowance. The guardian may for the time being carry on taking the family allowance, not appreciating that the guardian's allowance was payable, or there might be inquiries to determine whether the guardian's allowance was payable. All that this Clause does is to make it possible for the additional moneys to be paid in order that

    1203
    the parent or the person receiving the family allowance previously can accept the guardian's allowance and become disqualified from receiving the family allowance. In fact, the family allowance would cease to be payable, the orphan's allowance being excluded from the Family Allowances Act.
    Mr. C. Williams: This point, then, has nothing to do with pensions, which are not concerned in this at all?
    Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir, that question does not arise.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 48.—(Recovery of sums by deduction from benefit.)
    Mr. Nigel Birch: I beg to move, in page 42, line 42, to leave out from the first " under,"To the second "The ".
    In moving this Amendment I propose to deal also with the following consequential Amendment. It seems from what the Parliamentary Secretary said a moment ago that he has gone some way to meet us in this matter, but not, I think, the whole way. The last Clause we discussed lays down that in certain circumstances certain benefits are recoverable from the recipient. Clause 48 provides that such benefits can be recovered from family allowances. The object of these two Amendments is to cut out family allowances so that in no circumstances can overpayments be recoverable from them. When discussing this matter upstairs the Parliamentary Secretary gave a fairly sympathetic answer and we had a good deal of support in all parts of the House, particularly from the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) and the hon. Lady the Member for North Hendon (Mrs. Ayrton Gould). The first point is that family allowances are no part of this insurance scheme and no insurance. qualification is required to draw them. Therefore, as far as I can see, there is no more reason why it should be possible to distrain on them in order to get moneys back under this Bill than there is to distrain upon a war pension. The second, and I think stronger, argument is that family allowances are paid to the mother in trust— that is the point—for the child, and something which is given in trust for one purpose should not be distrained upon
    1204
    for other purposes. I very much hope that the Minister will see his way to accept this Amendment, in which an important moral principle is involved.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: I beg to second the Amendment.
    This seems to be a most unfair provision and I am very surprised that it ever came to be included. I do not quite know how those who compiled the Bill ever let it get in, for great emphasis was laid during the Debates on the Family Allowances Act on the fact that the money was for the use of the child and not for the parents. Under the provision which is now in the Bill one is going to take away what belongs not really to the parents but to the children, which will make it extremely difficult for any mother to allocate her weekly resources. In the expectation of receiving 5s. a week for each child she will already have thought out ways of spending that money week by week, and suddenly she may hear that the next week, or during the following few weeks, the money will not be paid because of some overpayment which may have been made to her. I cannot conceive anything more dreadful and I hope the Minister will be able to see his way to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Lindgren: As was outlined by the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) this subject was discussed in Committee when, in response to many requests from all sides, I undertook on behalf of my right hon. Friend to look at the matter again before the Report stage. We did so, and we put down an Amendment to comply with the promise I made, but an Amendment having been put down by hon. Gentlemen opposite, we thought we would like to make some concession and we refrained from again putting down our own Amendment. I have therefore great pleasure in accepting the Amendment which is now moved, and, as an indication of blessings to come, the subsequent Amendment, if it is moved.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for accepting the Amendment moved from this side of the House, supported, as he says, from various other quarters. I think it improves the Bill. It was an unfair provision that the family allowances should be taken into account. I feel sure that mothers, and parents generally, will

    1205
    be grateful to the Government for meeting us on this point and making their Bill a better one.
    Mr. C. Williams: When a Bill is improved by an Amendment such as this, and when the Conservative Party manages to prevail over the overwhelming weakness which the Government have shown throughout this Bill, should not we rise and thank the hon. Member for having accepted our Amendment? I am glad this Amendment has been accepted, and I think even some hon. Members opposite will be glad that those hon. Members who had the courage to fight this point in the Committee have now prevailed on the Government to give way, because apparently the original Bill was too weak even for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: In these days, when the Conservative Party does not get any major victories, I have no objection to their getting a minor victory like this.
    Mr. C. Williams: The Party opposite will be out soon.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 43, line 10, leave out from " Act,"To " and,"In line 11.—[Mr. Birch.]

    CLAUSE 49.—(Inspectors.)
    5.30 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General (Major Sir Frank Soskice): I beg to move, in page 43, line 32, to leave out " employed," and to insert "Insured."
    In a sense, this Amendment is a drafting Amendment, because the object of it is to bring the language of this Bill into conformity with the analogous Clause of the Industrial Injuries Bill. I have called it a drafting Amendment, but I should inform the House that it does, in point of fact, make a difference in principle, to a certain extent, because it includes among the people whom the inspector, under the terms of this Clause, can examine, persons who are insured, not merely because they are employed persons, but because they are self-employed or non-employed persons. Therefore, at first blush it does rather widen the powers. I would want the House to know that. At the same time, I would remind the House that the analogous Clause in the Industrial Injuries Bill was very fully and anxiously examined when it was being
    1206
    discussed on the Report stage. The present Clause has also been subjected to a very searching examination during the course of the passage of this Bill through the Committee stage. As a result of that examination the powers of the inspectors have been considerably curtailed, in the sense that, as the Clause now stands, with the Amendments which have been introduced into it, inspectors can only examine a person—never mind into what category that person falls—if it can be shown that they have some reasonable ground for examining him. That very salutary safeguard having been introduced into the terms of the Clause, and the inspector's powers having, by that Amendment, been defined, I ask the House to say that there is no harm in widening the term " employed "Into the term "Insured."The only object of it is to bring this Bill into conformity with the Industrial Injuries Bill.
    Mr. Molson: This is entirely in accordance with the general policy of the Bill. It is extending it to include people who were not previously included in the field of insurance. It is absolutely logical and quite right. So far as we on these benches are concerned, we regard it as an improvement.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 43, line 39, after " person,"Insert " and any insured person."—[The Solicitor-General.]
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 43, line 41, at the end, to insert:
    " for the purpose of ascertaining whether contributions are or have been payable, or have been duly paid, by or in respect of any person, or whether benefit is or was payable to or in respect of any person."
    An Amendment in almost identical terms as this was put down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) during the Committee stage of this Bill. The Government then indicated that they were not in a position to accept that Amendment in the form in which it was put down because of a slight defect, with which I will not bother the House now. An undertaking was given that with that defect remedied the Amendment would be put down on the Report stage, and, accordingly, it has been put down. The object of the Amendment is again to limit and define the powers of the inspectors. It is in conformity with the

    1207
    result of the general discussion which took place on the Report stage of the Industrial Injuries Bill and on the Committee stage of this Bill.
    Mr. Osbert Peake: I should like to express my appreciation of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has done on this Clause.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 53.—(General provisions as to prosecutions under Act.)
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 47, line 10, to leave out Subsection (5), and to insert:
    " (5) In any proceedings for an offence under this Act, the wife or husband of the accused shall be competent to give evidence, whether for or against the accused:
    Provided that the wife or husband shall not be compellable either to give evidence or, in giving evidence to disclose any communication made to her or him during the marriage by the accused."
    This Amendment entails a word of explanation, and possibly entails recounting the main burden of the discussions which have taken place on this Clause. Clause 53 (5) was designed to bring it about that the husband or wife of a person accused of an offence against the terms of the Bill should be a competent witness. In order to bring that about, the words which at present appear in Subsection (5) were incorporated into the Bill from the Criminal Evidence Act, 1898. They were anxiously considered by the Committee which sat upon this Bill, and the doubt was expressed that the effect of the Clause might be that the husband or wife might be made, not only a competent witness but a compellable witness. On behalf of the Government I gave an assurance that there could be no danger of that, because the words had been the subject of a decision in another place to the effect that they would not make the husband or wife compellable, although they did make him or her competent to give evidence. Therefore, that doubt was set at rest.
    Then a further point was made—and this is the point we have endeavoured to meet by the present Amendment—that the privilege which was said to exist should be reintroduced into the Bill, namely, the privilege which protects a husband or wife from being under an obligation to disclose, in the course of proceedings, communications made to
    1208
    him or her by his or her husband or wife, as the case may be. It was pointed out that the Subsection did not contain any words which were apt to reaffirm that privilege. That again was pat forward by an hon. Gentleman opposite in a very carefully reasoned argument. An undertaking was given on behalf of the Government that that point would be very carefully considered, and an endeavour made to meet the point. It has been considered and, as the result of considenation, the Government have come to the conclusion that the best way of making certain, not only that the wife was not compellable but only a competent witness, but also of preserving the privilege in respect of marital communications, was to recast the whole Subsection. There were various technical drafting reasons for that decision with which I need not trouble the House. The net result is, we have recast the Subsection with the object of bringing about those two results.
    The first result is, therefore, that the husband or wife is a competent but not compellable witness in proceedings against his or her spouse; and the second result is that the privilege is preserved which enables a husband or wife to decline to disclose a communication to him or her by his or her spouse during marriage. In these circumstances, the desire having been expressed from both sides of the Committee that the privilege should be retained and reaffirmed, and as the recast Clause does that, I ask the House to say that it would be proper for the Bill to be amended in the terms of the Amendment which I have moved.
    Major Digby: As, supported by hon. Friends, it was I who moved the Amendment in Committee, I should like to say how grateful I am to the hon. and learned Gentleman for this Amendment, which seems to me to cover the point I had in mind.
    Major Legge-Bourke: I also welcome the decision of the Government, but may I put one question to the learned Solicitor-General? In Committee the hon. and learned Gentleman felt, I think, that this provision might queer the administration of other Acts if it were put into this Bill. Reference was simply made to the Criminal Evidence Act, 1898. Can we have an assurance that it will not do so?
    Mr. C. Williams: This raises a point of considerable importance, and that is the

    1209
    point that a married man or woman shall not be compelled by law to give evidence against his or her spouse. Now, on this point the Government have given way to what, I believe, is the general opinion of the House and of the community as a whole. In thanking the Government for doing so, I wish to point out to the House two important points. First this had got into the Bill. It was in the Bill as it then stood. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Well, at any rate, if it was not in the Bill, the Clause was drafted in such a way that there was doubt on the matter.
    An Hon. Member: There never was doubt.
    Mr. C. Williams: If it was not in the Bill, and if there was not any doubt whether the husband or wife might be compelled, what is the matter with the Bill? I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for what he has done, and for clearing up the matter and keeping the right of a husband or wife in the way that it should be kept.
    The Solicitor-General: If I have permission to reply to the points made, I should like to say with regard to the first point, that I did refer to technical drafting considerations. We were anxious to ensure that other Acts would not be put into doubt as a result of any wording we used in this Bill, and we are quite satisfied that the wording we have chosen in recasting the Subsection will avoid that possibility. In reply to the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) may I say I think he is under a slight misapprehension. Suppose the Amendment were not made, and the Clause remained as it is now. There would be no doubt at all— it would not be possible to compel a husband or wife to give evidence against his or her spouse. The point that was made, and the point that we are now seeking to remedy in recasting the Clause is this: we want to make sure that the privilege which protects a husband or wife from having to disclose communications made during the course of marriage is preserved, and it is that additional point we have met in recasting the Subsection.
    Mr. C. Williams: I do not wish that there should be any misunderstanding of what I said. I fully accept what the Solicitor-General has said. If I did not put it quite so clearly as he did that
    1210
    is because I have not his command of legal language.
    5.45 P.m.
    The Solicitor-General: I did give way and so perhaps I may continue to speak. There were two separate points. One point was already provided for in the Bill as it stood. That point was this: we wanted to bring it about that a husband or wife, although competent, should not be compelled to go into the witness box and give evidence; and as the Clause stood without the Amendment that was provided for. But then there was this additional point. We wanted to make sure that if a husband or wife did go into the witness box, and elected to give evidence, nevertheless, he or she could claim the privilege in respect of communications made to him or her by his or her spouse. That is the additional point we have provided for in the recast Clause.
    Mr. Peake: I intervene only to thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for what he is doing and to ask, in view of the fact that we are keeping the provisions of this Bill and those of the Industrial Injuries Insurance Bill parallel, whether steps will be taken, before that Bill returns to this House from another place, to include similar alterations in it?
    The Solicitor-General: That is so.
    Mr. Scollan: Did the Solicitor-General mean that the reading of this Bill is that a husband or wife may be called as a witness either for the prosecution or the defence? Does it mean that they will not be compelled to give evidence?
    The Solicitor-General: This is the second time that I have to ask the leave of the House to speak again in order that I may reply to that point.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner):
    The hon. and learned Gentleman in charge does not require leave to speak again on the Report stage of a Bill which has been committed to a Standing Committee.
    The Solicitor-General: The position is this. A husband or wife can now go into the witness box and give evidence, and can, give evidence as to all relevant matters; but if somebody asks a question about what his or her spouse said, in a

    1211
    confidential way in marital communications, the witness can refuse to answer that question.
    Mr. Scollan: Before we leave that, I do want to be clear on this point. The Amendment says:
    "The wife or husband of the accused shall be competent to give evidence, whether for or against the accused:
    Provided that the wife or husband shall not be compellable either to give evidence, or, in giving evidence to disclose any communication. …"
    If it does not mean the husband or wife can be compelled to be a witness of anything but such communications I do not see the point of the Amendment.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: There is a difficulty here. If such a witness were compelled to give evidence on every other matter except that concerning such a communication, that would be a very grave matter. It certainly looks rather like that.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 59.—(Married women.)
    Mrs. Castle: I beg to move, in page 50, line 33, at the end, to insert:
    "(b) for conferring on a woman who, at the time of her marriage, has been in insurable employment for not less than ten years, the right to continue to be insured for a full retirement pension in her own right at sixty years of age by paying the reduced rate of contribution set out in the First Schedule to this Act."
    This question was raised in Committee and was very thoroughly discussed with my right hon. Friend; and as a result of that discussion he agreed that a point of substance had been raised, and that between then and the Report stage he would have a look at the matter to see whether he could meet the point. I am sorry that there is nothing in his name on the Order Paper to meet the point. I can only hope that the reason is the same as that which was given by the Parliamentary Secretary on a previous Amendment, and that it means that my right hon. Friend is waiting his time, to tell us he is accepting our Amendment as being adequate. The purpose of this Amendment is to remove some of the discouragements which exist against married women insuring under this Clause. On more than one occasion some of us have suggested that it is made very hard for married women to continue their insurance under the Bill. They are
    1212
    discouraged from doing it, although my right hon. Friend has denied this and has told us that for the sake of the Fund he is anxious that as many people as possible should insure. We are drawing attention in this Amendment to the disadvantages which face married women who do not continue in employment.
    Most young women—and we are encouraging them to do so—go into insurable occupations under Class I from the time they leave school until they are married, which may be from the age of 16 to 26, or even later. They may have 10 years of contributions under Class I before they marry, when for the time being they give up their jobs. When they are married they can continue to be insured under Class I by paying not only their own contribution, but those which were paid by their employers, or, alternatively, they transfer to Class III as non-employed persons. If they transfer, they have to pay 3s. 8d. per week to continue in insurance, and the only benefit which accrues to them in addition to the benefits they would have had in any case as married women insured by their husbands' contributions, is an old age pension of 26s. a week at 60 years of age. They are merely paying for the difference between 16s. which they would have received by way of the insured rights of their husbands and 26s. a week which they get in their own right at 60 years of age.
    For many of these women it is an important consideration to keep in insurance. After all, affairs are very precarious these days. There is no permanent security in married life. One of a number of things may happen to a husband, but I will deal only with the economic ones. The husband may be out of work. It is not unknown in my area for a woman to be working and the man to be out of work. A woman may desire when she goes back to insurable employment to keep up her full insurance rights, but she can only keep continuity of insurance by paying at the high level of 3s. 8d. when she is out of employment. I suggest that as an insurance proposition no woman would wish to pay 3s. 8d. per week to get the difference of 10s per week at the age of 60 between the pension she would' receive when her husband retires. It is not an insurable proposition worth considering and it is not on any actuarial basis.
    The effect of the Bill at present is to make it not worth while for women to

    1213
    make these contributions. It is out of keeping with the Minister's assurance that he wants married women to be insured, and to be included as much as anyone else in this scheme. There is a psychological aspect as well. At this time when women are being encouraged more and more to go into employment, whether they are married or not, they should feel that they have the backing of this Scheme behind them. The maintenance of insurance rights should be linked with the insurance rights of employment, and women should not have to take a very bad bargain at a certain period to provide for continuity. I ask the Minister to tell us that as a result of his consideration he will accept this Amendment.
    Mrs. Leah Manning: I beg to second the Amendment.
    As it stands this is a bad Clause from the point of view of married women, and it would be considerably improved by the inclusion of this Amendment. When we were discussing in Committee the position of married women generally the attitude of the Minister in the early stages was rather flinty, but towards the end of the proceedings he had become much softer. We thought we would see an Amendment on the Order Paper in his name, and it is a disappointment to us that he has not put one down As the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) has pointed out, a married woman who has been working from the time she left school and has made a number of contributions to the Fund is taken out of Class I when she marries and becomes an appendage to her husband. She has to accept his protection The intention of the Amendment is to put the position straight.
    There is a much more important point than that which was raised by the hon. Member for Blackburn. When a large number of professional and business women marry they give up their employment for a short time. It is their intention to go back to their profession or business, and they do not want to drop out of insurance while they are unemployed. For that reason they wish to have continuity of insurance. The Government are constantly impressing upon married women the importance of going back to their work or profession, but this Clause is a discouragement to them, and I ask the Minister to look at this matter again.
    1214
    It is bad business for a woman to pay 3s. 8d. over a long period of years to gain what is, in fact, only 10s. when she comes to draw her pension. I hope that the Minister will remember all the things which he said upstairs, and that he will remember the promise he more or less gave to reconsider this matter. I hope that he will give us some assurance that a woman who has been in an insurable occupation for ten years before she was married will be regarded as an insured person in her own right, and that she will be able to continue her insurance and obtain her pension at 60 years of age in her own right, instead of having to be a appendage to her husband.
    6.00 p.m.
    Mr. Beechman: Speaking as a bachelor, I am very much in sympathy with what the hon. Ladies opposite have said on behalf of married women. Marriage is a very serious matter, and I do not know why such a serious obligation should be added to in this way, or why a woman should lose these rights. A constituent has suggested to me that all women should get married and no men. Like-many desirable schemes, that is impossible; and, as so many good ladies get married, it seems to me wrong that this benefit should be denied to them. Although it might be unwise to carry this matter to a Division, I think there is real matter of principle involved.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: We had a discussion in Committee about the problem raised by this Amendment, although the proposal then put was not the proposal now embodied in the Amendment. This is not a question of my being hard or flinty or soft. In this Bill we provide for insurance under one of three classes. The position is that everyone will be insured under one or other of those classes, unless it is provided otherwise. The major exception is one which I made myself, at the request of hon. Members on all sides of the House, which is relevant to this matter. We provided in the original Bill that persons whose income was below £75 per annum, 30s. a week, should be allowed to claim exemption from being insured under the scheme under classes 2 and 3, that is, if self-employed or non-employed. I was pressed in Committee to increase the £75 to £104, and I accepted that. The position now is that the income limit below which persons can

    1215
    claim exemption from payment of contributions and from becoming insured persons is £2 a week, and, apart from that, everyone is insurable under Classes I, II, and III.
    A woman who has been in industry and who has, therefore, an insurance record, and who decides to get married and to give up industry, if she wants to preserve her insurance record and her insurance rights may do so by continuing to pay contributions as a non-employed person, and she thus not only has her right to benefit as a dependent of her husband, but also preserves her own independent right of benefit. Therefore, a woman who has done 10 years' work and, on marriage, gives up work, has to make up her mind whether she will continue her insurance in her own right. By paying 3s. 8d. a week, which is the non-employed contribution, she qualifies at 60 for a pension of 26s. a week, whether her husband is then qualified or not. If her husband qualifies for a pension at 65, and she is then 60, they both retire, she will get 16s. as pension. The husband will get 26s. and she will get 16s. If the husband dies, the wife's pension goes up to 26s. automatically.
    The suggestion was made in Committee that when a woman, in the circumstances described in the Amendment, goes out of work, she is certain, if her husband is entitled to a pension, of a pension of 16s.' at 60, and that I should make provision, if possible and practicable, by which, when the woman gave up work and stayed at home, and became a non-employed contributor, I should create another class, for that is what it means; the creation of another class under which she would insure, not for a pension of 26s. in her own right, but for a pension of 10s. I have looked at that and other suggestions which have been put to me. I have had pressure put on me by hon. Members who represent certain parts of Scotland, where there are many crofters, and by hon. Members who represent my own country, in which there are many small farmers, and their suggestions would mean the creation of a little scheme within this major scheme. It would mean providing another scheme with a lower rate of contribution and a lower rate of benefit. Quite frankly, I have decided that I ought not now to accept those proposals.
    1216
    This Amendment is associated with an Amendment which my hon. Friends have put down to the Schedule, and I would point out to them that the amount of the contribution which they put down for insertion in the Schedule is completely inadequate to cover the cost of their proposals. If a woman is to be insured, when she gives up work on marriage after 10 years, for a pension of 26s. in her own right at 60, the cost of the benefit will have to be met in a lesser number of years. But a person may go on being an employed contributor until within five years of pension able age, and in a scheme of this kind you have to average out what it will be. Some will pay for one year, some for five years and some for 10 years. If you permit someone to continue as a non-employed person to insure themselves for a pension of 26s. at 60 years of age in their own right, what is the contribution that must be provided, on the average, knowing that some will come in the non-employed class at 16, some at 20, 30, 40 or 55. I am sorry, therefore, that I cannot accept this Amendment.
    An. essential part of this scheme from the very beginning is that we provide for one rate of benefit. If we depart from that, it is quite clear that we are going to have this scheme, which provides this uniform rate of benefit, and a smaller scheme, which provides a smaller rate of benefit—two schemes with obvious options. I examined it without any prejudice—indeed, why should I have any prejudice against it? My desire is to see as many people as possible covered by this scheme. I examined it—and I hope in this connection that I will not be misunderstood—from the point of view that the married woman's contribution of 3s. 8d. may be paid by her husband. My concern is with people of less than £2 a week. Obviously they cannot pay that contribution. I have had deputations on the subject, and I have met hon. Members who have discussed with me the difficult problem of the crofter and the family farmer on the hillside of Wales. I have tried to find is there any way in which this could be met? My conclusion is that there is no way except the creation of another scheme inside this scheme— to allow someone to contract out of the main scheme into another with smaller benefits and smaller contributions.

    1217
    On the Third Reading I shall have something to say about the considerations which were impressed upon me and some of the conclusions I have come to. There are limitations on what we can do in an insurance Measure. At the moment we have got to let the scheme run as it is for five years. Then we shall review the whole of it, and see how many gaps are left, how many people are unable to keep up the payments and how many people are unemployed. As the Amendment is framed it suggests that the benefit is paid for by the individual's own contributions, but hon. Members must remember that the 3s. 8d. contribution is not fixed on its own. The contributions in general are fixed in relation to the whole of the benefits, and, therefore, if I were to accept an Amendment of this kind I must warn the House that I would have to go back and recast all the contributions. The Amendment refers to married women who after 10 years give up their work. It is implied in the Amendment that such women, when they give up their work, have created a reserve for their own pensions which ought to be used for them. That is not how the scheme is worked, but everyone is contributing towards the reserve, which will be used for the various benefits. During the Committee Stage I promised that I would consider this matter and have done so. I did not commit myself further. I do not think that this can be done and I regret that it cannot be done. If it could be done I would have done it.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I cannot help saying at once, that I found the Minister's reply disappointing. I agree that he did not give in Committee any undertaking that could have been regarded as binding, or as implying that he would put a proposal on the Order Paper in the sense desired. I acquit him of a breach of an undertaking of any kind. However, when I look at the words which were used I think one might have been pardoned for supposing that if, in the end, he felt compelled to reject this idea, he would have given good and compelling reasons for doing so. I should like to read the sentences. I think I was responsible for making the suggestion which led to the Amendment now being discussed by the House. When my right hon. Friend came to reply he said this:
    1218
    "I assure the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne that I will look at what he has suggested, which seems to me to be a new proposition. I am sure he is not expecting me to reply to it straightaway. If I gathered correctly what he said, he asked me to look at the possibility of making provision by which a married woman when leaving an occupation after a period of years can have the opportunity of contributing in order to qualify for the full pension instead of something else.
    Mr. SILVERMAN: To qualify for the difference between the full pension and what she will get.
    Mr. GRIFFITHS: As the wife of an insured contributor?
    Mr. SILVERMAN: Yes.
    Mr. GRIFFITHS: I will look into that. The hon. Member will not expect me to give an undertaking one way or the other this morning. I shall have to look into it and see what the repercussions will be."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee "A, " 2nd April, 1946; c. 458–-9.]
    I hope my right hon. Friend will not think I am in any way unfair if I say that one would have hoped today that he would have told us what the repercussions would be. I expected him to say, "These are the repercussions, and they are so serious that I am compelled to reject the proposal." He has not said anything like that. He has not indicated any serious repercussions, and I should have hoped, therefore, in the absence of any such repercussions that he might have found it possible to accept this.
    Let me state again what he is asked to do and why he was asked to do it. It is an important point and I hope I will not be too long, but I think it ought to be understood'. My right hon. Friend said: " You cannot have options." But you can have options; you must have options and there are options in the Bill. The question is not whether you have options or not, but whether you have right options, fair options and equitable options. Take the case of a girl going into a cotton mill, in Lancashire perhaps, at the age of 14. They used to go in much earlier. One of the Government's principal difficulties in the cotton industry is that they could not get juvenile labor because the positions were so bad. A young girl goes straight from school at the age of 14 into a cotton mill, and she becomes an insured contributor right. away. She pays the full employed person's contribution from the age of 14. Let us suppose she gets married at the age of 26. She has then paid the full

    1219
    employed contributor's contributions for 12 years. My right hon. Friend in his Bill will give her nothing' for that.
    Mr. William Adams: What?
    Mrs. Manning: No, nothing.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Nothing whatever. What does he say to her in this Bill? He says, " When you come out of industry and marry you have two options, the choice of two courses, or rather three."
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to make the position clear. He said emphatically that that girl would get nothing. That might be taken as meaning that that girl would get no benefits. That girl will get benefits from the very first day she enters employment. For the first time in her life and for the first time in the history of this country a single woman will get the same benefit as a single man. Moreover, at the age of 18 she becomes an adult for the first time.
    Mr. Silverman: I think that is quite right, and I was going to say so. I hope I did not say anything to suggest that she was not fully insured during those 12 years. She is fully insured for sickness and for unemployment benefit, and she is fully insured up to 26 for the old-age pension. What I said and what I repeat is that if she comes out of industry at the age of 26 because she is married, she gets no further benefit whatever from the contributions she has made and that is true. The options she has are these: First she can continue, if she likes, as a full contributor, non-employed. She can pay both the employer's and employee's contribution. But I am sure my right hon. Friend would not advise her to do that, because she would be paying far more than she could afford, and would get very little for it. Or, she can say, "I will not give you another penny," and if she says that she gets, in virtue of her husband's insurance, at the age when he becomes entitled to retire, 16s. a week.
    Mr. Lindgren: I am certain my hon. Friend wants to' be fair, but the fact is that the 16s. is not obtained wholly by her husband's contribution. Some of it is met from the actuarial pool formed from the contributions which she makes be-
    1220
    tween the time of her entry into insurance, and the time of her exit from industry, on marriage.
    Mr. Silverman: I concede that at once. All the contributions and benefits are the result of actuarial calculations. But I am comparing one with another to see whether there is a fair result as between one class of person and another. I am not suggesting that there is anything non-actuarial about the matter; I am saying that if this woman pays not another penny she will get 16s. So will the woman who becomes married at any age, who has never been in industry, and who has never paid a penny. That cannot be denied, and I hope nobody will attempt to deny it. The married woman who has paid her contributions in full for a dozen years, and pays nothing in future, will get exactly what a woman would get if she had never been in industry, and had never paid a penny.
    There is a third course. The woman can say, "I will pay you 3s. 8d. a week, and for that I will have all the rights of a self-employed person. That means that I need not depend on my husband's insurance, and that I need not be content with the 16s. I will get my retirement pension of 26s. in my own right at the age of 60, instead of 16s." What is she gaining for that 3s. 8d.? Two things. First, the difference between 16s. and 26s. when she or her husband retires and, second, she gains it in her own right at the age of 60, and does not have to wait until her husband retires. Consider that case with the case of the woman who has never been in industry, and who has never paid a penny piece in contributions. She, too, will get 26s. at the age of 60. Is it not clear that in the one case the woman pays 3s. 8d. a week for 26s. at the age of 60, and that in the other the woman pays 3s. 8d. a week for the difference between 16s. and 26s? That is an anomaly and an inequity, and there is no justification for it of any kind. Indeed, no justification has been attempted. My right hon. Friend says, "That would be creating a special class, paying a different kind of contribution and receiving a different kind of benefit." But if it is fair to do it why not do it? My right hon. Friend knows that when he thinks a thing is fair he does do it. He has just done it for the sake of the self-employed person, in respect of sickness benefit. He

    1221
    has, in that case, created a special class
    of contribution—
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I am not creating a special contribution. All I have done is to put the self-employed on the same basis as everybody else, and increase their contribution.
    Mr. Silverman: My right hon. Friend has created a special contribution in order to put them on the same basis.
    Mr. Griffiths: No.
    Mr. Silverman: An increased contribution must be special
    Mr. Griffiths: No.
    Mr. Silverman: If an increased contribution is not a special contribution, then a reduced contribution is not a special contribution. My right hon. Friend can have it which way he likes. If he accepted the Amendment he would not be creating a special class; in altering the rules he is creating a special class. Either both or neither are special classes. He has made an alteration in benefit by altering the contribution. I think he is quite right—and I supported him—and I see no reason why it should not be done here.
    My right hon. Friend has said repeatedly that this is an insurance scheme, and must be dealt with as such. So be it. In an insurance scheme there must be equal contributions for equal benefits. I have demonstrated that you have here equal contributions for unequal benefits All you can do is either to increase the benefit or reduce the contribution. My right hon. Friend says, " You have not provided enough money." Well, if we have not let him produce his actuarial calculations, and we will accept his figures. But when he says that those figures will be the same figures as now, I cannot accept that. I would like to examine the figures very closely before I did, because it seems impossible mathematically to arrive at a calculation that it will cost exactly the same amount to pay 16s. as 26s. That is what the Minister means when he says that contributions will have to be the same in order to get that made up. I do not think my right hon. Friend has made out his case. This is not a world-shaking matter, and I recognise—and I am not complaining— that in the endeavor to have this Bill on the Statute Book, and in operation quickly, it is inevitable that there will be
    1222
    a number at anomalies that may be corrected at any time. I would rather have a lot of anomalies and get the main scheme than wait until we have cleared all the anomalies, which would mean keeping people waiting in the meantime. I am not complaining, but when a patent anomaly has been discovered before the Bill gets on to the Statute Book why in the world not correct it?
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. Griffiths: If I accepted my hon. Friend's argument I should not have a scheme at all. If I were to decide how much each separate section ought to get on the basis of its own contributions this scheme would be wrecked. I am bringing railwaymen into this scheme. They might say, "The scheme is unsound and unfair because you are compelling us to pay benefit for people who will be unemployed, whereas, by the terms of our contract we have a guaranteed week."They might say that they ought not to pay unemployment contributions because they have a guaranteed week. They have a very strong case, but if I were to accept that case, it would wreck the scheme. This is a universal scheme, into which everybody has to come as a contributor or a dependant, unless excepted by reason of the income limit. The contributions of all the contributors are pooled to provide these benefits. If we started to dig out one section of contributors and see whether they would get back exactly what they contributed, it would kill this scheme. The scheme would not be workable.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) has referred to a wife who will qualify for a 16s. pension, and he wants to give an extra 10s. The Amendment on the Order Paper seeks to give the wife 26s. at 60 in her own right. The figure of 3s. 8d. which we have arrived at is an average. It may be that a young woman starts work at 14 years of age and leaves work at 26 years of age, and then has to pay for the remaining years 3s. 8d. a week in order to get a pension of 26s. On the other hand, someone may go right out of class one at 58 years of age, and still pay only 3s. 8d., and get the 26s. at 60. We have had to make an average. It is true that the contributions are high, but they are high because the benefits are high. They are the contributions that are required to give benefits on this scale It would be possible—I do not say it would

    1223
    [Mr. Griffiths.]
    be impossible, and it might even be practicable—to provide, side by side with this scheme, a scheme which permitted lower contributions because it provided lower benefits.
    Reference has been made to the self-employed. All that I did in their case was to deal with an administrative problem. It was a question of reducing their waiting period and making it the same as that of everybody else. The benefit remains the same, and in order to have that benefit for the extra four weeks, they have to pay 5d. extra contribution. I have examined carefully every proposition that was made in the Committee, with a desire to meet the points that were put to me, but I could not accept this Amendment, which would ruin this scheme.
    Mr. C. Williams: I listened to the speeches of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning), who spoke with great force about the position of women who marry after having paid contributions for 10 years and think that they lose all of them. Obviously, on the surface, there would seem to. be a case for voting in favour of the Amendment. I listened to the remarks of the Minister. Nothing would be easier than for me to say a great deal on the value of uniformity, but I am convinced, by what was said by the Minister and by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who in the last part of his speech completely reversed the arguments used in the first part of it, that if we once began at this stage to go into these details, however important they may be, we should never get the main benefits of the Bill, which I happen to want. I urge upon the hon. Ladies that it would be in the best interests of the scheme that this Amendment, which cannot be practicable at this stage, should be withdrawn.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 69.—(Power to make further consequential and transitional provisions, etc.)
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner):Mr. Birch.
    Mr. O. Poole: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Apparently you do not propose to call the Amendment to Clause
    1224
    67 in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) and a similar Amendment in the names of several hon. Members opposite. In view of the very great importance of those two Amendments, I wonder whether you would indicate the reason you do not propose to call them.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The explanation is that Mr. Speaker has not selected them.
    Mr. Birch: I beg to move, in page 62, line 8, at the end, to insert:
    " Provided that before making any such modifications in or winding up any such scheme" as aforesaid, the appropriate Minister or Department or the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, as the case may be, shall consult with the persons affected by the scheme."
    Under this Clause, the appropriate Minister or the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, as the case may be, is given power to modify all types of existing pensions schemes. The object of this Amendment is to ensure that no scheme shall be modified in this way unless full consultation has taken place with all those affected. A great deal of anxiety has been expressed on the question of the modification of existing pensions schemes. Questions have been raised with regard to teachers, employees of local government, railways, public utilities, and so on. When we were discussing the matter in Standing Committee, the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Essex (Captain Gunter) asked for a categorical assurance that there would be no interference with existing schemes without the agreement of both sides, and the Parliamentary Secretary said that full consideration with both sides might not be always appropriate, because in some cases the management was not joint. I feel, however, that in an unusual case of this sort it is right that both sides, whether the management is joint or not, should be consulted before anything so fundamental as a pension right is modified. In his reply in Committee, the Minister said it was certainly his intention that consultation should take place. If that is his intention, I see no reason why it should not be written into the Bill. There is no reason why he should hide his good intentions under a bushel, and, therefore, I ask him to write this into the Bill and accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: I beg to second the Amendment.

    1225
    This Clause gives very sweeping powers to the Minister to modify or wind up various pensions schemes. We all agree that it may be desirable in some cases to wind up these schemes, because the continuance of them might lead to hardship, and in some cases it might not be possible for those concerned to go on paying the necessary premiums; but I think it is most important to add the words of the Amendment to ensure that the persons affected are consulted. Surely, it would be wrong, if the majority of those affected wished the scheme to continue, to close it, contrary to all their wishes. One would feel that this was being done merely to suit a Government which is very anxious to put everything on paper and make everything look tidy, adjusting everything and everyone to its plans. I would not like to think that would occur under this Clause, and, therefore, I hope the Minister will be able to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Lindgren: As both hon. Members opposite have said in their very fair observations, the matter was discussed very fully in Committee and it was also the subject of discussion during the Second Reading of the Bill. On the latter occasion I said, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, that this National Insurance Bill in no way affects any existing superannuating scheme, pension scheme, insurance policy, or similar arrangement, and that it was the hope of my right hon. Friend that every fund and scheme which now exists will continue to exist in the same shape and form as at present. We realise nevertheless that modification might in fact be necessary in the case of certain schemes, since there is a limit to what a given wage can carry in insurance premiums.
    The schemes concerned are governed by the rules of the scheme or the fund to which the persons belong, and this Bill does not interfere in any way with those rules, but there is power for those who decide by agreement on the modification of a scheme to obtain that modification through the appropriate Government Department, whether it be the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education or, in the case of a private pension fund, the Registrar of Friendly Societies. My right hon. Friend is in entire agreement with the intention of those who moved this Amendment, but the wording is a little too vague. We are advised that as the
    1226
    Amendment stands it would make it possible—even where there had been agreement between employers and employed in an industry—for a dissident few to hold up the adoption of a modified scheme agreed upon by a large majority. There has been consultation and I can say on the authority of both the Treasury and the Registrar of Friendly Societies, that in any modification that is considered or proposed representations which are made will be considered and there will be opportunity for consultation prior to the framing of any regulation. On that assurance of ample opportunity for full consultation for the interests concerned, I hope the hon. Gentleman opposite will withdraw their Amendment. As I have said, we are in full agreement with their intentions and are seeking to obtain the same end.
    Mr. Birch: In view of that assurance I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave. withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 76.—(Regulations and orders to be laid before Parliament.)
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I beg to move, in page 69, line I, after " fifty-nine,"To insert " section sixty-two."
    Mr. Peake: On a point of Order. it was indicated to me unofficially, Mr. Speaker, that the Amendment to Clause 76 of a similar character which stands on the Order Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) was likely to be called, and I am wondering whether you have overlooked it.
    Mr. Speaker: I thought that if I called this Amendment the other could be discussed at the same time. There are, I believe, four Amendments on the Order Paper on the same point.
    Mr. Griffiths: This is the Clause which makes provision by which certain regulations under, this Bill shall be subject to the Affirmative Resolution of the House before coming into operation. Others will be laid and can be prayed against in the normal way. In Committee we had a long discussion on this matter and on an Amendment, partly on the lines, of that which now stands on the Order Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman

    1227
    opposite—the one, Mr. Speaker, which you said we might discuss on this Clause. I listened to that discussion but indicated that I could not accept the Amendment; nor do I propose to accept any of the Amendments which have just been mentioned if they are called.
    I promised to consider whether it was not desirable and essential that the provisions of Clause 62, as it is now—it was Clause 61 in the Committee stage—should not he subject to affirmative resolution. I am now moving to insert Clause 62 as being one containing regulations which will require the affirmative resolution of the House. I do so with one proviso, and as I wish to be frank with the House I make this clear now. Clause 62, if it were brought into operation after the appointed day, would be a Clause made under the new scheme and, therefore, if my Amendment were accepted, the regulations under Clause 62 would be subject to the affirmative resolution of the House.
    It may be, however, that we shall be faced with the necessity of bringing Clause 62 into operation before we are able to bring the main scheme into effect. We should do that in the same way as is envisaged for other provisions. For example, I propose to bring the new rate of retirement pensions into operation in the autumn of this year. I shall do this under the transitional powers provided in Clause 69, and whatever I do of a transitional nature under this Clause is done by regulations which are not subject to affirmative resolution but will be laid in the normal way. While, therefore, I move this Amendment to insert Clause 62 as being one which will require affirmative resolution under the new scheme, I think it is only fair to the House that I should make it known now that, if the Government should feel it desirable to bring the Clause with regard to extended unemployment benefit into operation before the appointed day for the main scheme, they would have to do so under Clause 69, the regulations thus not being subject to affirmative resolution.
    Mr. Peake: The right hon. Gentleman moves to bring the new Clause 62 within the ambit of the Clause which provides for an affirmative resolution before regulations can be approved. We take no exception to that addition to Clause 76.
    1228
    Never has there been a Bill under which so many sets of regulations were to be made. This Bill, as originally designed, would have run to several hundred Clauses, but the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, with their passion for streamlining everything, have cut it down to a much smaller compass. There is an innumerable mass of matters which are to be dealt with by regulation under this Bill, but which, in any precedent hitherto observed, would have been dealt with by substantive enactment.
    Clause 76 provides for affirmative resolution in the following four cases: affirmative resolutions are necessary to approve regulations disqualifying persons from benefit for misconduct; affirmative resolutions are necessary for the regulations applying the Clauses of the Bill to mariners and married women respectively; and an affirmative resolution is necessary for the Clause providing for compensation to displaced officers. There are other matters of very great substance where we say the affirmative resolution procedure should be adopted. The question, for instance, of overlapping benefits, which in fact means disqualifying persons from certain parts of the benefit to which they otherwise would be entitled because they are already drawing benefit under another Clause. When I was a member of the last Government we spent many months trying to work out the circumstances in which benefits could be regarded as overlapping. There are innumerable cases which will occur to hon. Members on all sides of the House. The regulations will be of supreme importance and great complexity.
    I, therefore, wish that the right hon. Gentleman had seen his way to provide that these Regulations should be brought before the House automatically, because they will be of such importance that the House will want, I am sure, to consider them in very great detail. There is the overlapping between industrial injury benefit and unemployment benefit, and between the Serviceman enjoying Service pension and industrial injuries benefit, and sickness benefit under the Bill. There are innumerable cases which will arise in practice. I am sure the House as a whole will want to examine the matter. I have mentioned the main cases. These seem to us to present just as strong a case for the affirmative resolution procedure as the regulations which provide for dis-

    1229
    qualification from benefit for misconduct. I therefore express the wish, while accepting the inclusion of Clause 62, that the right hon. Gentleman has not said the last word on the affirmative Resolution procedure, covering the other cases which I have mentioned.
    Mr. O. Poole: I am very disappointed at the remarks made by the Minister. I would like to remind him of what happened during the Committee stage and to draw his attention to the special report of the Select Committee on Statutory Rules and Orders published in 1944. Many of the proposed regulations under the Bill will go much further than the suggestions in the report. That was the point of the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) when he. moved his Amendment in Committee. Replying to him, the Minister said that this was a very important matter and that there was a fair case for including some of the regulations which have not been done before, for the affirmative resolution procedure. It is particularly disappointing, in view of that fact, and in view of the Report of the Select Committee which the Minister undertook to study, that he has been able to include only Clause 62. I ask him therefore to consider carefully what my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) said. I hope this will not be the Minister's last word upon this very important matter. We do not wish to clutter up the procedure of the House with unnecessary affirmative resolutions, but we hope the Minister will keep an open mind on the subject.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: We have now considered this matter very carefully. The conclusion to which we have come, after full consideration, is the one which I have mentioned. We are taking by regulation very great powers indeed. I am sure hon. Members will appreciate that we have also taken extra special precautions about that matter, because we are setting up an Advisory Committee. All the regulations will go before the Advisory Committee, who will examine the regulations in draft and can invite persons to give evidence before them either orally or in writing. Everybody in the country can get a chance to express his view upon the regulations before they are presented to the House. Although we are taking great powers
    1230
    which would normally be asked for in a Bill, we are setting up the Advisory Committee which will listen to criticisms and comments upon the regulations before they reach Parliament. We need not clutter up the procedure of the House with affirmative resolutions, I agree. I have looked at this matter very carefully indeed and I think it is desirable that we should proceed to include this Clause.
    Lieut. - Commander Joynson - Hicks: From what the Minister has said he recognises the extent of the proposed legislation by regulation and is putting it off to an Advisory Committee. Surely by so doing he is deliberately causing Parliament to delegate to an outside body the powers which are vested in it. The Minister said he proposed to do by regulation, what normally would have been done by Bill, and what he proposes to do by regulation he will do with the approval of the Advisory Committee. Instead of bringing the regulations to Parliament, he will be taking them to the Advisory Committee. In that way, the last word on the matter will be removed from Parliament.
    Mr. Griffiths: Perhaps I did not make my meaning clear. I am sorry if that is so. The Minister who proposes to make regulations with regard to, say, overlapping benefits, will submit them to the Advisory Committee, who will publish them. The proposals will become known. When the regulations are published, persons affected by them can make representations to the Committee either in writing or orally. The Advisory Committee will send the regulations back to me, with a report, which I shall publish. The regulations will be laid on the Table, and can be prayed against in the usual way. The final word in each case is with Parliament.
    Lieut. - Commander Joynson - Hicks: That statement is rather more reassuring than the statement which the Minister made in the first instance. It seems to suggest, however, that a filter has been introduced between the Minister and Parliament. It is an undesirable precedent which I hope the Government will not pursue.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 74, line 12, after " person,"To insert:

    1231
    "for any reference to the council of a county borough there shall be substituted a reference to the town council of a burgh."
    This Amendment is consequential upon one already accepted to Clause 22, in regard to the payment of death grant. It is to cover local authorities in Scotland which correspond to county boroughs in England.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

MEMBERS' EXPENSES
Ordered:
"That the Report from the Select Committee on Members' Expenses be now considered.—[Mr. Whiteley.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient—

(a) that provision should be made, as from the first day of April nineteen hundred and forty-six, for the payment of salaries to Members of this House—

(i) at the rate of one thousand pounds a year, except in the case of a Member who is for the time being in receipt of a salary as a Minister of the Crown, an officer of His Majesty's Household, or an officer of this House or as Leader of the Opposition, or in receipt of a pension as a person who has been Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury;

(ii) at the rate of five hundred pounds a year in the case of a Member who is for the time being in receipt of a salary less than five thousand pounds a year as a Minister of the Crown, or in receipt of a salary as an officer of His Majesty's Household or as Chairman or Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means or as Leader of the Opposition, or in receipt of a pension as a person who has been Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury;

(b) that more convenient arrangements should be made with respect to the facilities for railway travel available to Members of this House;

(c) That Mr. Speaker should be invited to appoint a committee to advise him on the application of the rules and practice governing the payment of traveling expenses of Members of this House and of subsistence allowances payable to them when traveling on the official business of this House;

(d) that provision should be made for enabling Members of the House of Lords to recover out of the sums voted for the expenses of that House the cost of railway fares incurred by them in attending that House for the purposes of their parliamentary duties."—[Mr. Whiteley.]

7.0 p.m.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now arrived. I think it is.regrettable that he was unable to be here before. I stepped into the breach to keep the discussion going pending his arrival; now that he has arrived I shall not detain the House any longer at this stage.
7.1 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): I must apologise to the House if I was beaten in the race by a short head. We are now about to deal with matters relating to our own affairs. I do not think it is necessary for me to make a long speech. I gather that it would be for the general convenience if I were, at this stage, to summarise in one short statement both the proposals in the Motion and the proposals in the Ministerial Salaries Bill, the Second Reading of which is to be taken later. I think that is generally thought to be the most convenient way of proceeding. We would then have a discussion in which any matter might be raised upon either section of these proposals. Following the discussion, we should then hope to get the Second Reading of the Bill formally or with a Division, if desired—but without further Debate. The dates, I would remind—
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am not clear from what the Chancellor has said whether he intends or desires to discuss at this stage the alterations in the Members' salaries and the increases in Ministerial salaries. I rather apprehend that there is a view that it would be desirable to discuss those matters separately.
Mr. Speaker: It would be rather inconvenient to discuss them separately. We are, after all, discussing the Report of the Select Committee, and the Second Reading and the Motion are both covered by it. It would be inconvenient to have to debate subsequently the increase of salaries of junior Ministers when it could have been debated in the first discussion. I think it might be for the convenience of the House to have a general Debate, and I should then propose to call the Amendment. We could then proceed to discuss the Bill. I think it would be for the general convenience of the House if we had a general Debate now and, although it is not usual to discuss a Bill which is coming on, I think I might.

1233
make an exception on this occasion with the general agreement of the House.
Mr. Dalton: I am only anxious not to take up too much time and I thought it would be economical in time to make a short statement covering the whole subject. This question of the salaries of Members of Parliament and other kindred matters was discussed up to a point in the Coalition Government but it was felt that, with a new Parliament shortly to be elected, the matter should be left over until the new Parliament met. The present Government looked at the question again and we felt it would be very much better for a Committee of the Members of the House to look into the question quite frankly, without any direct lead from the Government as to what was desirable. Therefore, on 15th November last a Select Committee was appointed, and it issued its Report on 6th March. On 30th April, with the authority of the Cabinet, I made a statement in the House of the Government's proposals, which in substance and on the great majority of points at issue, follow the recommendations of the Select Committee.
We are very grateful to the Select Committee for their work, and I am glad that the Report of the Select Committee was unanimous. Upon the Select Committee there served some Members of considerable experience of the House, and also some young Members who brought to the discussions the freshness which is appropriate to new arrivals, and between them they agreed on a number of proposals. Substantially the Government accept those proposals, and—I think my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley) will agree with me—the Government are stating their view and propose to offer guidance to the House, but since this is a matter which concerns the House as a whole, and not only one section, it would not be appropriate for Whips to be put on in the ordinary way. It will be open for Members to vote as they think right and proper, and my function is simply that of offering reasons why, in the Government's view, these proposals should be accepted.
I will run over the points in the Motion. We propose in the first place, to follow the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee that the salary of the general body of Members of
1234
the House—I am not speaking of Ministers—should be raised from the present figure of £600 to the figure the Select Committee propose—£1,000 a year. We propose that all these changes in rate of remuneration should date from the beginning of the financial year—1st April— which is most convenient from the point of view of accounting, and notice of our intention to propose that was given when I made my statement on 30th April. The first proposal, therefore, is that what I may call the standard salary paid to Members, should be raised from £600 to £1,000 a year. The Government think, having read the Report of the Select Committee, that the Select Committee have reached a reasonable balance here, that in view of the many claims now made upon Members in respect of incidental expenditure, incidental to performing their duties here, the increasing need for secretarial assistance and the like—it is healthy that it should be so—the increasing claims made by constituents on Members; and having regard to other matters relevant to considering what is a reasonable rate of remuneration, we think the Select Committee have got it right, and we accept their proposals.
In the second place, we propose that in the case of those who are Members of the Government, who are Ministers with salaries less than £5,000 a year or who are in receipt of salary as an officer of His Majesty's Household, or as Chairman or Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means, or as Leader of the Opposition, or in receipt of a pension in respect of past services as Prime Minister, they should not have an increase in their Ministerial or official salary but that they should, being Members of the Commons House, be entitled to draw £500 a year, that is to say, half the new Member's salaries. If one likes to put it this way, in future any Member of this House becoming a Minister at a salary of less than £5,000 a year, will be deemed to retain half his private Members salary, and will be paid that £500, in addition to the existing scale of salaries paid to Ministers as such.
I will now emphasise the one point at substance on which the Government do not recommend the House to accept the proposals of the Select Committee. The Select Committee proposed that, both in the case of the Private Member and in the case of the Ministers affected by these

1235
[Mr. Dalton.]
arrangements they should receive £500 freed automatically from Income Tax. We do not think that would be a good arrangement and we have reached that view not only on the merits as we see them, but also in the light of what we gather to be the general opinion of hon. Members in a number of different parts of the House. Therefore, we propose that in respect of the increased salary of £1,000 a year to Private Members, and in respect of the increment of £500 to Members of this House who are also Ministers, over and above the £ a year which is already deemed to be expenses and free from Income Tax, the existing arrangements should continue exactly as they are now; that is to say, the individual will be required, if he seeks relief from Income Tax over and above-the £100 which is automatically free, to make his case like any other citizen in the ordinary way. I think that is better. I quite appreciate the Select Committee's arguments in favor of the other plan, but the Government think this is definitely a better way of doing it. We hope that the House will, to that extent, agree to a departure from the recommendations of the Select Committee.
These are the two major points. There are one or two other matters which I wish to state to the House. I am dealing now with the matters in the Motion. The Motion proposes that more convenient arrangements should be made with respect to the facilities for railway travel available to hon. Members. This really means the facility of season tickets for Members traveling daily between their homes and this House. Already, in fact, facilities have been granted, and I think the plan is working well, whereby any Member who undertakes that it is his intention to travel between his residence and the House of Commons four times a week at least, should be entitled to obtain a season ticket. His intention may not be exactly carried out, if he is sick or otherwise engaged in business, for instance, and his residence is not defined with great exactitude. We are prepared to leave it to determination by common sense. Clearly, a Member resident in Newcastle would not travel between his residence in Newcastle and the House of Commons four times a week— at least this would be a very unlikely state of affairs. If a Member were so odd in his habits as to wish to
1236
do this, it is not ruled out, but of course it is not a practical case.
Mr. McKie: He could sleep in the train.
Mr. Dalton: If he liked to he could— over the wheels all the time.
Mr. McKie: It would be in Order?
Mr. Dalton: Yes, but it is unlikely that any one would wish to put himself in Order in that way. If anybody were to reside at Brighton, for example, there is a good train service from there to the canter of London and he would be entitled to use season ticket facilities That is what we propose and we propose further, under paragraph (c) of the Motion, that Mr. Speaker should be invited to appoint a Committee of Members of this House who should advise him on the rules and practice governing the payment of traveling expenses of Members of the House and of subsistence allowances payable to them when traveling on the official business of the House. I want to make this clear because, when my announcement was first made, perhaps there was some defect of clarity in it. This relates of course to subsistence allowances, payable only when a Member is actually traveling on the business of the House as a whole or on. some committee of the House as a whole.
The case which I gave when I made my previous announcement was that of the Estimates Committee which may set up a sub-committee to advise on, shall we say, the Air Estimates. In such cases, some hon. Members may travel, in agreement with the Air Ministry, to airfields and other establishments to look at them and talk to those in charge on the spot. In such a case they would be entitled to expenses and subsistence allowances, and from time to time matters may arise which it is convenient for you, Mr. Speaker, as the arbiter of these questions, to have the advice of a small group of Members from whom you would select the advice you need. The Government think that would be a very practical step, and the Treasury are quite agreeable to it. We would not wish the Treasury Ministers—neither my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary nor myself—to sit on the Committee, but we would be quite prepared, for an experienced official of the Treasury to attend to give an opinion or evidence on any matter, and no doubt,

1237
Mr. Speaker, some of your own staff— the authorities of the House as they are commonly called—would also be available for consultation, though the Committee itself would consist of Members of the House. I think such a Committee is not likely to meet at all often, but its existence would provide a useful procedure.
Now I come to Members of another place. This is outside the scope of the Select Committee and it would have been outside their terms of reference to consider it, but representations have been made on behalf of Members of another place that some of them find it difficult in these days to travel constantly, sometimes long distances, from their residences to the other place. Therefore, wishing to be fair to all, we have thought it right— representations having come to us through the usual channels connecting this and the other place—that provision should be made—it will have to be supported later on by an Estimate which can be debated in this House if desired—to enable Members of the House of Lords to recover out of the sums voted for the expenses of that House the cost of railway fares incurred by them in attending that House for the purposes of their Parliamentary duties. The Government accept that proposal. It was not part of our original suggestion, but we think it not unfair and not unreasonable, and I understand that the Members of another place have it in mind to make a regulation. I think we can leave it to them to make a regulation limiting this facility to those who are reasonably regular attendants, and if any debatable matter should arise at any time, it could be raised in this House when the money is voted for the general expenses of another place.
This completes the Motion. Now we must also have a Bill in order to implement the recommendations of the Committee in certain respects, because the Ministers of the Crown Act of 1937 prohibits a Member of the House of Commons from receiving payment, when he is a Minister, in respect of membership of the House of Commons. This must be removed by an amendment of the law, and this we propose to do to enable us legally to give effect to the provision in the Motion which I have already explained, whereby Ministers with less than £5,000 a year shall receive an addi-
1238
tional £500. To pass the Motion is not enough to give effect to that in the case of junior Ministers. The Motion is enough to give effect to the provisions about Private Members' salaries, but the proposal with respect to Junior Ministers can only be put into effect if we amend that Act, as this Bill does. The only other matters dealt with in the Bill are certain proposed changes in one or two ministerial salaries lying between the £5,000 level and £1,500 level—I will enumerate them in a moment—and the raising of two junior ministerial salaries from the £1,200 to the £1,500 level. It is set out with complete clarity in the Bill.
I see that the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has just come in, and I would like to say how very grateful we are to the Select Committee, of which he was a Member, for the work they have done and we are very glad that their Report was unanimous. We are very grateful. It is a very good piece of work, and of great assistance. The Select Committee recommended that we should look into questions relating to some of what I might call intermediate salaries. The Government have done so, and propose certain changes. We propose in the case of the Postmaster-General, who has a very important Department, and a very heavy burden of work and responsibility, that his salary should be raised from £ 3,000 to £5,000 a year, and in the case of the Minister of Pensions, that the salary should be raised to £3,000 a year. We propose that the Assistant Postmaster-General, who now receives £ 1,200 a year—
Earl Winterton: As the right hon. Gentleman has referred to me, I am sure he will not mind me interrupting. He is quite correct in his statement of what the Select Committee suggested should be looked into, and if I catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I shall have certain points to make on the Bill when we come to it.
Mr. Dalton: I was endeavouring to explain that in making these recommendations, the. Select Committee are not committed to the details of the change and that in carrying out the inquiry, we were doing what the Select Committee wished, namely, inquiring into these salaries and making recommendations. Of course, the recommendations may not necessarily be those which any member

1239
of the Select Committee may himself have thought correct.
We propose that the Assistant Postmaster-General should have £ 1,500, instead of £ 1,200, which brings him to the general level paid to the great majority of junior Ministers. We propose that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster shall, likewise, receive a payment of £ 3,000 and that the increment should be taken, not from the Duchy funds, but from voted money of Parliament. I do not know whether the House would wish me to go into detail on the various recommendations, or think it better that we should wait until we get to the Bill. I think that that might save the time of the House, but I merely draw the attention of hon. Members to other particular detailed proposals in the Bill, including one which I think has some importance. We do not now have any intermediate salary scale between the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury, who is the Chief Whip, and the general body of Whips. It seems that there is a case for having a Deputy Chief Whip with a salary slightly higher than is generally paid, who could act in the absence of the Patronage Secretary. We propose that there should be power to designate at any time one of the Whips other than the Chief Whip, and allot to him £ 1,200 a year, and he will be known as the Deputy Chief Whip.
I do not wish to prolong my initial statement, but I hope the House will think that the Government in making these proposals have not only kept close to the recommendations of the Select Committee, but have also made proposals which are in themselves reasonable. This is a matter affecting us, a matter of some potential delicacy, and I think I have presented it in such a way as not to offend any susceptibilities. I merely present what we think at this stage is a reasonable body of proposals and for which we are much indebted to their originators.
7.24 p.m.
Mr. Osbert Peake: The right hon. Gentleman has taken, with your assent, Mr. Speaker, the course which is unusual in this House of moving a Motion and the Second Reading of a Bill in the same speech.
Mr. Dalton: I have not technically moved the Second Reading of the Bill.
Mr. Peake: The right hon. Gentleman has made the speech he would have made when he comes to move the Second Reading of the Ministerial Salaries Bill. That course is not wholly convenient to hon. Members, for this reason. It is true that the House agreed on 15th November, without a Division, to appoint a Select Committee to consider the expenses, remuneration and conditions of work of Members of Parliament, including junior Ministers. On that occasion I expressed some views on the general question which, although I was speaking only for myself, were, I think, acceptable to a considerable number of my hon. Friends on these benches. In particular, I asked for an assurance that when proposals came to be formulated, they should be left, in this matter of Members' salaries, to a free vote of the House, and the right hon. Gentleman gave me some hope at that time that that course would be taken. As far as we on this side of the House are concerned, no pressure, no appeal to party loyalties, will be made. I want to make it quite clear that I speak this evening entirely for myself. I hope that on the Motion relating to Members' salaries and expenses hon. Members on the Government side of the House will be similarly free to vote in accordance with their feelings.
Mr. Dalton: I said so.
Mr. Peake: The right hon. Gentleman said so. I am very much obliged to him for that reassurance, but it is obvious in regard to the Ministerial Salaries Bill that hon. Members opposite cannot accept the same freedom. It is a Government Measure, and it would surprise me very much if the right hon. Gentleman. were prepared to divest himself of the assistance which the Whips give him when, and if, the matter comes to a Division. For that reason, I say it is a little inconvenient to be taking a general discussion on one matter where the Whips will be off, in conjunction with another matter on which, I take it, the Whips will be on. For that reason, I hope we shall be permitted at any rate a short discussion when we come to the Bill.
Mr. Speaker: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? He was not here when I made a statement and said that I thought it would be more convenient to have a general discussion now and a discussion on the Bill would naturally come

1241
subsequently. I did not suggest that in order to prevent, discussion on the Bill but in the hope that it might help and shorten debate on it.
Mr. Peake: I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for that Ruling. To turn to the substance of the matter, I think one must first express the sense of indebtedness we all feel to the ron. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) and the other Members of the Select Committee for the careful and thorough investigation which they made into this matter. With one exception, which the Chancellor mentioned, I am in agreement with their recommendations. I am particularly glad that in accordance with the views expressed on 15th November they have not recommended any extension of the system of payments in kind. Payments in kind, as I then said, are liable to abuse, unless hedged around with safeguards of a type which are very vexatious to hon. Members. In the second place, they are open to the charge, or at any rate the suspicion, that we are receiving substantial emoluments in a concealed form. It is, of course, very much easier to defend a reasonable salary payment if there are real liabilities arising from our Parliamentary duties to be set against the Parliamentary salary. I differed from the recommendation of the Select Committee as also has the right hon. Gentleman, in regard to the question of the amount of the tax free payments for expenses. I found that very abhorrent to my constituents. They took the view, and I think they were right, that it would be all wrong for hon. Members to come under what in practice would be a different Income Tax law from the ordinary citizen. I am, therefore, very pleased that the Government have taken the view that the salary should be a clear, fixed sum, and that-the recipient of it should be in the same position, as regards claiming expenses, as any other professional man or citizen who earns a salary.
Before dealing with the question of the amount of the salary, which is a little controversial, I should like to ask one or two questions about the details of the Motion. The right hon. Gentleman made it clear that there would have to be a Supplementary Estimate covering all the heads of expenditure in the Motion.
Mr. Dalton Mr. Dalton indicated assent.
Mr. Peake: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I should like to
1242
ask why this Motion is retrospective. Why are the increased salaries to be made payable from 1st April last? That is surely an unusual course to take. I should have thought that 1st April was a particularly unfortunate day to choose —[Laughter]— not only for the reason which, obviously, is in the minds of hon. Members, but also from the point of view of the Income Tax law For Income Tax purposes the year ends at midnight. 5th April, and by making this salary payable as from 1st April last, 640 Income Tax expenses claims, which have already been settled, will obviously have to be reopened. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look again at the question of the date from which the increase is to commence.
I should like to express a view on the question of why junior Ministers receiving less than £ 5,000 a year, and officers of the House, that is, the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, are not to be given the full benefit of the Parliamentary salary. It is really quite illogical to give these people one half of a Member's salary. They are full Members of Parliament. On the face of it, therefore, it really seems a little absurd to give them only half of a Member of Parliament's salary. I suppose that the explanation is that Ministers receiving £ 5,000 a year are to receive no Parliamentary salary, and that it is thought convenient to place these junior Ministers, Whips and officers of the House in a kind of halfway house, and to say that, as the £ 5,000 a year Ministers are to receive nothing, and as the ordinary Back Bench Member is to receive the salary in full, these people in an intermediate position shall receive half the Parliamentary salary.
I am not quite satisfied with that. I have great sympathy with Whips and junior Ministers. They have been hardly treated hitherto. They give up the best years of their life, from the point of view of a private or professional career, and I have never been satisfied that they were sufficiently well remunerated. I served as Under-Secretary under a number of Ministers, and with one solitary exception — the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir T Anderson)— I always felt that I was worth at least half the salary my chief was getting.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: What does the right hon. Gentleman think of the exception?
Mr. Peake: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was worth the salary of at least two Ministers receiving £ 5,000 a year. The job of an Under-Secretary is no longer, as it used to be a generation ago, a sinecure, and hon. Members who take on the junior Ministerial jobs very often do so at heavy personal sacrifice. For my part, I should have liked to see them being given the full Parliamentary salary as Members of Parliament.
I turn for a moment to the question of the amount of remuneration. The right hon. Gentleman, following the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee, proposes £ 1,000 a year. This goes rather beyond what I had in mind when I spoke on 15th November last. I thought, at that time, that an addition of £ 200, or something of that order, would have increased the Parliamentary salary in line with the increase with the cost of living. That would have been a modest and an easily defensible proposal. It would have represented an increase much smaller than increases which have taken place outside this House in many spheres of activities since before the war. But, on reconsideration, I am not disposed to quarrel with the conclusion that £ 1,000 a year should now be paid.
My reasons for coming to that conclusion are, first of all, as I have already mentioned, that this is the unanimous opinion of the Select Committee, which has gone very carefully into the matter. In the second place, £ 1,000 today is worth—it is a curious reflection—no more than the££400 which was originally granted as the Parliamentary salary in the year 1911. Thirdly— and to me this is the most cogent argument of all— fixing the salary rather higher than it was on a cost of living basis before the war, opens the doors of Parliament to a wider sphere of aspirants for Parliamentary office. It was said after the war of 1918, I forget whether it was by Lord Baldwin or Lord Keynes, that Parliament was made. up of hard-faced men who looked as though they had done well out of the war. What the verdict of history will be upon the first postwar Parliament after the 1939–45 war, I should hesitate to guess. At any rate, I think we all recognise the importance of
1244
opening the doors of Parliament to aspirants of every class and walk of life. For that reason, I have become convinced that £ 1,000 is a reasonable salary. We must not forget that we are engaged in a precarious occupation, an occupation liable to prolonged and unpredictable periods of interruption of employment. Therefore, it is reasonable to prescribe a rate of remuneration which will attract people who are prepared, in mid-career, either to be translated upwards, translated downwards, or moved horizontally into another place. In passing, I may say that it is very necessary to prescribe a rate of remuneration which will not leave hon. Members open to the temptation of supplementing their incomes in an undesirable fashion.
There are two Amendments on the Order Paper to the Motion regarding Members' salaries. One suggests that the increase should be granted only in those cases where an hon. Member can satisfy a specially appointed Committee of Members, in confidential session, that such increase is essential to enable him to carry out his Parliamentary duties satisfactorily— [An HON. MEMBER: "That is a means test."] I do not intend to waste very much time upon that Amendment. I do not believe any body of hon. Members could be found who would be prepared to form a committee to discharge such a distasteful task.
Mr. Gallacher: Why was it imposed on the old folk?
Mr. Peake: It would involve an examination not only of hon. Members' sources of income but also of their budgets of expenditure. I am quite sure that the Amendment is impracticable for the simple reason that we should never find hon. Members to discharge such a task.
Mr. Gallacher: It would be an indignity.
Mr. Peake: The other Amendment is one with which one can have some little sympathy. It is in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member to- St. Maryle-bone (Sir W. Wakefield), who proposes that the increases in the various sections of the Resolution should apply not from 1st April last, but from the first sitting day of the next Parliament'. That is to say that he thinks that the increases are good and satisfactory but that they

1245
should come into operation after a certain unpredictable lapse of time. I could understand opposition to the increase in salaries. I could understand any body voting against the Motion. I could also understand an Amendment in favour of a smaller increase than that proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but it does seem very odd to say, "I think the increases are all right but they should not be taken at the present time." Any hon. Member who holds that view has got a very simple way out of his difficulties. He is under no obligation to accept an increase in his salary. That was a course taken by a number of Members of Parliament when the last increase was made in 1937. An hon. Gentleman says " Not very many."I dare say there were not very many. I myself—I take no credit at all for this —was one of them. Quite frankly, I was a little afraid of what some of my constituents might say, but on that occasion I voted for the increase, and that is the course which I suggest my hon. Friend sought to take if they feel a certain reasonable queamishness about an increase in salary at the present time. I suggest that they should support the increase but should themselves decline to take it—
Mr. Kirkwood: The right hon. Gentleman is making some of them look very serious.
Mr. Peake: It would be one way out of the difficulty in which they find themselves. I think they are taking a great deal upon themselves if they are prepared to say, " Not only am I prepared to forgo any increase at the present time but I am also prepared to try and enforce such a prohibition upon every other hon. Member of this House." For those reasons, if this matter goes to a Division, I shall support the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
7.45 p.m.
Mr. Braddock: As there is a free vote on this matter, I intend to vote for this increase in salaries. I also intend to take the salary, but that does not mean that I am altogether satisfied with the Report which has been brought forward. In my opinion, we shall find as the result of experience that this can be regarded only' as a temporary matter. The Committee was asked to consider remuneration and conditions of work. Broadly speaking, as far as I can see,
1246
only the' question of remuneration has been dealt with. That is probably necessary and unavoidable. Those of us who are new Members of Parliament took on this job with no thought of the remuneration. I do not consider that the financial side of this matter is of any great importance. If the proposal was to double the salary to £ 2,000 a year or to wipe out the salary altogether, I do not think either condition would make very much difference to the membership of this House.
Most hon. Members on this side of the House were sent here as a result of very great sacrifice on the part of many thousands of people. If it was necessary to find additional money to hold us here I am perfectly confident that those people would provide it. Present conditions of work do not enable ordinary Members of Parliament to carry out their duties in the most efficient way, no matter how much salary is paid. One cannot obtain the best service simply by paying out money. Attention must be given very soon to the conditions of work.
That will involve consideration of the use that is made of the Palace of West Minster and of the opportunities given for ordinary Members to carry out their duties. The simple action of increasing the salary to £1,000 year will not enable Members of Parliament to secure the necessary office accommodation or to use secretarial assistance properly and effectively. Therefore, I consider these proposals are a compromise and that the matter will have to be considered in the light of future circumstances. It will have to be considered as soon as the Government, or some authority, can get down to the job of replanning the Palace of Westminster so that proper use can he made of the accommodation. I do not refer simply to the rebuilding of the Chamber. I think it is very unfortunate that it is being rebuilt in the way that it is, but that is not the major problem. The major problem is to make the best possible use—
Earl Winterton: I was Chairman of the Select Committee which considered that matter. I think, in justice to the Select Committee, I should tell the hon. Member that their recommendations were accepted unanimously by the House.
Mr. Braddock: They were not accepted by the present House of Commons. If this matter could be brought up again

1247
I suggest that the decision would be reversed. However, perhaps I ought no! to have mentioned that point. In discussing conditions of work, I am entitled to say something about the whole of the building. I am perfectly certain that this building could be altered and remodelled in order to provide the necessary accommodation and to enable every Member of Parliament to have good conditions of work.
I am very glad that the Government have rejected one of the proposals of the Committee. I refer to the proposal with regard to Income Tax. In view of the fact that they have done that, it puzzles me that payment of railway fares from the homes of hon. Members who live in London to the Palace of Westminster should be allowed. I take it that we did not accept the Report with regard to Income Tax because we did not want to differentiate between Members of Parliament and the public generally. The same reason should apply to railway fares between the House of Commons and the homes in which we live in and around London. If we are paying railway fares for Members of Parliament in these circumstances, we are treating them very differently from the ordinary members of the public, who cannot even get an allowance off their Income Tax for the money they spend on railway fares. The position of many people in London today under these conditions is very difficult. People have been bombed in London and have had to go out into the suburbs to live, and, in order to get to work, have to pay fairly heavy railway expenses. It does seem to me that the Government have made a mistake and that the House will make a mistake in accepting this position.
There is only one other matter on which I want to comment, and that is the proposal to pay railway fares of people in another place. This is a completely new idea. I can quite understand the argument, and it is a right and just one, that the democracy of this country, having, after deliberation, selected certain people to represent them in the House of Commons and engage in the work of Government, should make satisfactory financial arrangements, but the people of this country have never selected the people who sit in another place and have never invited them to legislate on their behalf. I think it is introducing a very dangerous
1248
precedent to pay the railway fares of people sitting in another place, and, if an opportunity can be given, under the arrangements being conducted tonight, for me to vote against that proposal, I shall most certainly do so. Of course, if there is no opportunity, I shall have to let it go through, but I shall only do so under protest.
7.52 p.m.
Mr. Henry Strauss (Combined English Universities): I find myself reluctantly compelled to oppose this Motion. Like those hon. Members who have already spoken, I should like to express at once the deep respect that I feel for the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Tom Smith) and his colleagues on both sides of the House, and to say that I differ from the conclusions of their Report most reluctantly, because there is some part of their proposals, and part of this Motion, with which I am in agreement, though I cannot agree to the main proposition that we should increase our salaries to the sum of £ 1,000.
I will put my points very briefly. The first point is that no one has suggested, as far as I know, and the Select Committee certainly did not, that this increase in salary is really made necessary by anything that has happened between the General Election and the present time. Nobody asserts that. Nobody has been elected to this House with any grounds at all for believing that he was going to get more than £ 600 a year. That is the expectation with which every one of us has been elected. Indeed, had the matter been otherwise, and had there been a case at the time of the General Election for raising the salaries, there is no reason at all why that matter should not have been part of the programme and announced to the country in advance. I do not dwell on that point except to say that, quite clearly, there is no one who came to this House with any right to expect any increase of salary. That, I agree, does not take me far on the merits of the proposal, but it is important.
I come to what seems to me to be the very important point of substance. I regard it as improper that this particular House should vote itself an increase of salary. I believe there are few duties of a Government— there are some, but they are comparatively few—that come above the duty of trying to see that the value

1249
of money does not rapidly change. The duties of defence and certain other things come above it, but there is a general duty on Parliament and on the Government to see that the value of money does not rapidly change. I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whom I apologise for having missed the first few minutes of his speech, is aware that the avoidance of inflation is important. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman says so in answer to Questions almost daily. I should obviously be out of Order to go deeply into the matter, but, in my genuine belief, inflation is not only with us, but, by the cowardice and inaction of the Government, is tending greatly to increase. [HON. MEMBERS: " Order."I I know this is controversial, but I believe it to be true, and I say that, by the inaction and cowardice of the Government, it is tending to increase, and that the Government are enjoying the uncomplaining support of the majority of the House. [An HON. MEMBER: " Ridiculous."]
If that inflation proceeds, as I believe it will, and prices rise, every person in the community with a fixed income will suffer grievously. So far from thinking that hon. Members of this House should be immune from that suffering, which will come about largely by their own dereliction of duty, I believe that hon. Members of this House ought to be the first to suffer. Only today, at Question time, an increase in railway fares was announced. As a result of that, we, in this House are already better off than the rest of the community, for the simple reason that we get certain railway travel paid out of public funds. There will, similarly, be an increase of prices in many other things, and every one of our constituents with a fixed income is going to suffer. If I felt that this House was determined and was showing sufficient vigilance to compel the Government to take courageous and wise action to stop inflation, my attitude to this Motion might be different. [Laughter.] I do not know why hon. Members opposite think it is funny.
Mr. Gallacher: The hon. and learned Member cannot see himself as others see him.
Mr. Strauss: I do not believe that there is any ground whatever why, if inflation takes place, hon. Members of this House,
1250
and they alone, should have protected themselves from the suffering caused by the inevitable rise in prices.
I have dealt with the first two reasons. Thirdly, there is this one. There is a general belief, I should have thought, in every quarter of the House, that the private Member should, as far as possible, show his independence, and not be, or be thought to be, subservient to the executive Government of the day. I know that that may be thought to be an argument in favour of an increase in salary of private Members on proper occasions. I agree it might, but I do not think it is so when we raise the salary to such a figure that there will be many hon. Members of this House who can earn that salary while they are Members, but who would have no reasonable prospect of earning it in occupations outside. That is an important consideration, and for the three reasons which I have given I find it impossible to support this Motion. If, as I hope, there is a Division, I shall record my vote against it. I would say at once to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peeke), with whom on many subjects I agree, that I am afraid he was quite illogical when he said we shall have the remedy in our own hands. That I believe to be a wholly fallacious argument. I shall not vote against this Motion on the ground that I think there is something peculiarly improper— if it is accepted and becomes the law—in my taking the salary increase. [HON. MEMBERS: " Oh."] — Hon. Members opposite can make use of any point which they think is there. I say there is no point. [An HON. MEMBER: " Give it back to the Treasury."] I may, or may not, but it in no way affects the grounds on which I am opposing this Motion.
The reason which I am certain is of the greatest public importance is the reason of inflation. I think it was the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock) who said that this would not be the last increase. If the cost of living is used as an argument, and if inflation proceeds as I fear it will, there will be a case for a similar increase at a later date.
Mr. Gallacher: Cheer up.
Mr. Strauss: Hon. Members opposite may think it very clever to say "Cheer up," but I would assure the House— and the Communist Party in particular—

1251
that it will not be thought by the country to be particularly funny if a year hence prices have gone up in the same way as railway fares are going up according to this afternoon's announcement, and the only people whose salaries have been increased by 66⅔ per cent. are Members of the House of Commons who voted the increase themselves.
8.4 p.m.
Mr. Quintin Hogg: I must say that I do not altogether agree with the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) to which we have just listened, and I would like to give the House my reasons for disagreeing with him. This is a delicate subject to discuss. We are discussing our own salaries and I, no less than other hon. Members, am financially interested in the result. But perhaps, in one way, I have a special qualification to speak. In the first place, long before I was a Member of this House, I made the subject a special study and endeavoured to put into a memorandum the views which I happened to hold about it and; in the second place, I am in a rather different position from most hon. Members inasmuch as my own political life is bound to be a short one. Owing to the constitution of the country I shall certainly, if I live my natural course, be spirited away from this House, whether or not I forfeit the confidence of my constituents. To that extent, at any rate, I can honestly say that perhaps it matters less to me what the result of today's Debate may be than it does to most hon. Members.
I will try to approach this matter from an impartial point of view and to tell the House the objects I have in mind. In the first place, this is not, in any sense, a party matter—it is a House of Commons matter. Nevertheless, I venture to say to my hon. Friends that if there are any Members of my own party who suppose that we shall not be the gainers from paying Members properly, that they are very much mistaken. There is no party in the country which stands to gain more from the proper remuneration of Members than the Conservative Party. The great criticism of our party has been that we have provided nothing for a person of humble origin and limited means to enable him to take a full part in public
1252
life. We represent 9,000,000 voters, but we have not the great organisation which the party opposite have to make it possible for those 9,000,000 voters to be fully represented in this House, and for their point of view to be put forward. I hope that one of the things that will happen as the result of this Motion being carried will be that a sense of shame will be removed from my party on this matter. I am not frightened by the suggestion that it will not be the final figure, and I propose to say a word or two about that later.
The first question, therefore, we have to decide is not a party question; it is, How are we to get the best representation of the people in this House of Commons? I turn to the findings of a very careful research worker in this matter. It is a matter of discredit to our public institutions that, in order to become a Member of Parliament, a person has to belong to one of two or three favored professions. Every other person who was elected to Parliament in the years between the wars was either a member of my own profession, the law, a company director, or a trade union official. That means that practically the entire population of the country is economically prevented from membership of Parliament. That is not a matter which I can look upon with any sense of satisfaction especially as, if one took those of the half which remained, one would find that a great proportion of them were following one of two or three other favoured professions, like journalism, which it is possible to combine with the duties of a Member of Parliament, or that they had ample personal means of their own.
In point of fact, if we do not face this problem, far from dealing with this matter on proper public lines, we shall really be excluding the great bulk of the people from representation in this House in favour of a privileged minority, which exists in all parties, although the nature of the privilege differs from side to side.
The second motive which underlay the consideration of this subject was—I find it difficult to say this tactfully, but, none the less, it has to be said—that we in this country have a very broad tradition of honour in our public life. That is not confined to any class or any party. The standards of our public life are pure and we all desire that they should remain pure. They have become pure only in the last.150 years, at the very most.

1253
We, as British people, are not immune from the ordinary temptations of human nature. What has made public life pure in this country is the insistence, on the one hand, of a very high standard of personal honour among those who take part in it, but, on the other, a state of law which makes it incumbent upon us and possible for us to observe those pure principles. I regard it as a matter of absolute certainty that if there ever comes a time when a great number of Members of this House are elected to it by their constituents and have not, in fact, the means to live in dignity, there will be those who will yield to temptation. I say that deliberately. I am certain that the way to keep public life pure in this country is to see that Members of Parliament are properly remunerated, and there is no other method. It is true that public services used to be given free for a number of centuries, but they were given free because they were performed by a class of person who had the means to perform those duties, and who performed those duties as a public service precisely because they enjoyed the privilege of wealth derived from the land.
Moreover, originally we used to pay Members of Parliament. That was the tradition from the time when Edward I instituted Parliament until late in the 17th century. I think the last Member of Parliament to be paid under the old regime was the poet Marvell, who represented King's Lynn about 1685. The practice of being paid fell into desuetude as a part of the general development of corruption in our public life, whereby seats in Parliament came to be bought, sold and paid for by those who had the means to do it. That is the historical fact. The next stage was for the Parliament of 1730 to insist upon the possession of £ 600 derived from land as the condition for any Member of Parliament holding his seat, which led to many disreputable evasions and which, none the less, remained a peculiar law of our country until 1858. That being the history of the matter, I feel convinced that we have been right to return to the remuneration of Members of Parliament in 1911, and I can only feel that the time has come to examine anew, in the light of the changed circumstances, whether the figure of remuneration is right or wrong.
I will say a word about that in a moment, but in the meantime let me
1254
state the third of the great principles which I think we ought to apply in this Debate. Assume that it be true that we are not, by reason of economic circumstances, getting all the people in Parliament that we ought to get, and assume that we are running the risk of lowering our public standards by not remunerating Members of Parliament at the proper figure, surely it is the duty of every Member of this House to take the responsibility of saying so and of supporting this Motion, and in no circumstances whatever to seek to obtain political capital by exploiting what are, undoubtedly, the obvious, cheap, superficial but utterly misguided criticisms which are seen from time to time in the Press or reflected in the correspondence which we receive from various parts of the country. We must maintain the prestige of the House in this matter. We must make it clear that we are not doing this thing out of a desire for personal advantage, but that we are doing it from the very deepest sense of public duty. If that were not so, I would be the first to vote against this Motion. But the case for doing it is, to my mind, overwhelming.
I shall not go over again the vast bulk of evidence which was accumulated by the Committee, because I assume that even if the public have not read this Report Members of this House will have done so, but I only venture to reply in a word or so to what has fallen from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities. He seemed to suggest that should this Motion be passed, we would be the only persons whose salaries had been increased. But, of course, that is not so.
Mr. Henry Strauss: I said that if the Motion were passed I thought we would be the only people who would have increased our salaries to the extent of 66⅔ per cent., to meet the cost of living
Mr. Hogg: I do not think my hon. and learned Friend can have studied the evidence given before the Committee, because since I have been a Member of Parliament, which is only seven or eight years— nearer-eight than seven—the cost of any conscientious Member's work has increased by a very great deal more than 50 per cent. Take only the question of a secretary's salary. When I was first elected to Parliament—I say it with shame — eight years ago, it was possible to

1255
engage a fairly good secretary for under £3 a week. We cannot get one for under five guineas now, and I do not think we should try. As a matter of fact, a great many secretaries now cost between £ 6 and £8 a week. That sort of thing coming out of a salary of £ 600 makes it absurd to suggest that a substantial increase is not urgently required, on the assumption that the great bulk of Members of Parliament today are men and women who not only have to pay for secretaries, but have to find some means of livelihood for themselves and their families, and have to incur many other expenses.
In addition to that, it is obviously true that even since I have been a Member, and abundantly more so since salaries were first introduced in 1911, the task of a Member of Parliament has been very much more exacting in point of time. It is possible to over-estimate the burden of constituency work. It is very much more important that we should not cause another war than that we should get our constituents the right amount of pensions, but, none the less, merely as a matter of time, the actual burden upon a Member of Parliament, who may be seeking other sources of income, undertaken by conscientiously attending to the 101 details of administration which his work involves, obviously disqualifies him far more than it ever did before from being able to earn his living in some other sphere.
I, therefore, say with confidence that the only right test to apply to this question of salaries is to pay such a figure as will enable a Member of Parliament at a sacrifice — and I emphasise the words " at a sacrifice "— to be able to do that, and nothing else. I myself do not subscribe to the view that Members of Parliament should be debarred from seeking other sources of emolument. On the contrary, I think the most valuable part of our public life has been the fact that this House of Commons has been able to command the services both of the whole-time politician like my right hon. Friend the Member for Wood ford (Mr. Churchill), and of the part-timer who judges the merits and value of the policies which the whole-time leaders inevitably propose from superior experience and study. It would be a disaster to our country if we were all to become whole-time politicians. Nonetheless, I maintain
1256
that the only test for a salary should be a figure which would enable a man at a sacrifice to give himself completely to the service of his country.
I have one word to add on the question of amount, and it is this. I am convinced that the figure of £ 1,000 is too small. I do not suggest that it should now be raised to a higher figure, but I am certain that in the course of years it will be increased and I think we should face that fact. I said so in my evidence and, therefore, I cannot be accused of inconsistency in this respect. It is not likely to be increased during my lifetime as a Member of this House, but the fact of the matter is this:
Even the figure of £ 1,000 is quite disproportionate to what other Legislatures, in other democratic countries, have found it necessary to pay their members in order to get the best service, and I am absolutely certain that the time will come when the remuneration here will increase also. After all, if it be true— as it certainly is in my case— that membership of this House of Commons involves a net outlay of £ 750, it is absurd to pretend that the great bulk of people who enter the service of this House will be able to raise a family, and to keep a wife, on what remains afterwards, after deduction of Income Tax. It simply is not so, and it is naive to pretend that it will be so for the very great majority. I think it is my duty to say so because really I do not care very much, from my own point of view, what happens to this Motion tonight.
There is one argument I should like to counter as regards the Amendment on the Paper. The obvious implication of the Amendment is that we ought not to proceed in this matter without some sort of new mandate from the people. It is said that we should not do it now, but should wait until the first day of the next Parliament. I am bound to say that I reject that argument. It seems to me that a great deal of nonsense is talked about mandates in modern politics. The real truth about the mandate is this: at a General Election a very large number of public issues are under discussion, and the electorate has to give an impressionist view as to which of two or three sets of men it wishes to preponderate in the House of Commons during the period of years which follows. To suggest that minute details of policy ought to be intro-

1257
duced into an election programme is just as silly as the suggestion, which sometimes emanates from the benches opposite, that if they are introduced into the election programmes they ought to be passed through without discussion. The real truth of this matter is that the House of Commons must be the judge of departures in policy if the Government does not care to take the responsibility of announcing it itself. The time-honored constitutional procedure for this follows one of two methods. One is the Select Committee procedure, and the other is the Royal Commission procedure. Following precedents, we have taken the Select Committee procedure in this case. Evidence has been presented, the Select Committee has reported, we have considered the evidence and the Report, and I feel abundantly sure that we ought to proceed now to a decision, to do that which is right if we think it is right.
I will end with this observation. We are doing a difficult thing, but we do owe it to this House of Commons to make it plain to our constituents— from all parts of the House— why we are doing it. There is always a danger in democracy that the two parties abuse each other so much that the general public believes that which is evil which is spoken by both of them, and comes in the end to disregard and despise its democratic institutions. The service of this House of Commons is what matters most in this Debate today, and it is precisely for that reason that I have ventured to say what was in my mind as to why, whatever comes, I shall support this Motion tonight and shall oppose any Amendment which may be pressed— as I hope it will not be— to a Division.
8.24 p.m.
Mr. Tom Smith: I am sure that Members of the Select Committee will agree with me when I say that we are extremely grateful for all the nice things that have been said about our work. Personally, to have been chairman of a Select Committee like this was a very happy experience. This Report represents a compromise. The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) came before the Committee and put forward proposals similar to what he has just outlined. We had evidence from others who wanted less than £ 1,000, but the Report represents a unanimous decision and, on balance, we think that
1258
£ 1,000 is a fair figure. I remember representations which were made in this House before the payment of Members was first introduced in 1911, and I also remember the £ 400, and the very precarious position in which many Members of this House, of all parties, who fell by the wayside in 1921, found themselves because they had not been able to save anything out of their Parliamentary salaries. I think that when the House appointed this Select Committee it knew that £ 600 a year was not sufficient for the work that a Member of Parliament has to do.
There is one thing which needs a little comment. The Committee came out with the suggestion that £ 500 of the £ 1,000 should be free of Income Tax. We discussed this for a very long time. We could have used different language in that Report which would have meant the same thing, but we decided to present the country with what we believed to be the right thing. Looking through the whole of the Press cuttings, from every daily newspaper in this country, with the exception of about two, the comments. have been extremely favourable and extremely gratifying to those who sat on the Committee. The argument that to make £ 500 of a Member's salary free of Income Tax is giving treatment different from that accorded to the ordinary business man is not true. The ordinary man receiving a salary does not pay his own typist, he does not pay his postal bill, he does not pay his hotel bills when he is away doing business for his firm out of his salary. All that is in addition to his salary. But take the position of a Member of Parliament on £ 600 a year. The postal bill alone of a new Member after the General Election was colossal. Living in London was dearer than some people imagined. When I first came to this House in 1922 we could get accommodation at a decent hotel at about half of what we have to pay today. Our expenses generally were far less than they are now. I say without the slightest hesitation that the Select Committee came to the view that £ 1,000 was the right thing. With regard to the Dominion Parliaments. we set out in the Report a summary of what exists in the different Dominion Parliaments. We do not set out what exists in foreign Parliaments, because we thought we would confine ourselves to the British Commonwealth of Nations, but we did take some evidence from those who

1259
have had experience in Parliaments other than of the British Commonwealth, and it was on balance that we came to that figure, and I hope the House will accept it.. I think the Government have done exceptionally well in this Motion.
Some hon. Members who gave evidence and who sat on the Select Committee, in addition to being Members of Parliament, have been Parliamentary Secretaries. The Parliamentary Secretary or Under-Secretary, the moment he accepts office, has to put off all outside earnings. He has not a penny piece allowed to him in any shape or form for expenses. There is no 12 months' carry-over of his Income Tax, it is taken off at the end of the month, and when one comes to reckon what is left he is not much better off than he was when he was an ordinary Member of Parliament. On balance we thought it was wise to say that the Parliamentary Secretaries should have something. Although my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) spoke about giving Under - Secretaries and Parliamentary Secretaries half the Parliamentary salary, I am rather inclined to the view that there would have been some criticism if the Select Committee had suggested that they should have an increase of £ 1,000 instead of £ 500. On balance, we thought this would work out fairly. With regard to conditions of work, which were mentioned by my hon. Friend who sits beside me, we discussed, and took evidence upon, what could be grouped under the term " conditions of work." Suggestions were put forward to us for free postage, free typists, free Empire travel. We disagreed with them all, because we knew that in practice it would be open to abuse. The pooling of secretaries would not work out fairly; I believe that a secretary should be individual to the person for whom she works if it is desired to get the best work. I think that on balance we did the right thing in that regard.
With regard to another place, it is suggested in this Motion that the Noble Lords should be paid traveling expenses. The Select Committee had that matter brought to their attention, but were advised that it was outside their terms of reference; therefore, they could not touch it. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock) said he would vote against that. I would point out that
1260
in these modern times, with changes of Government, we have no right to expect Noble Lords, some of whom are not rich, to pay £8, £10 and £15 a week to come to London to do Government work. The Members of another place have been extremely modest in asking for only railway fares. Moreover, they have tried to limit the matter in such a way as to give the benefit only to those who attend to do the work. I think the Select Committee can leave it to the House to decide what they believe to be the best thing. We did not specify any figure in the recommendation that the Government should look into Ministerial salaries of under £ 5,000 a year. We thought it better to advise the Government to look into it. It has been brought forward in such a way as to remove anomalies in two cases. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and the Assistant Postmaster-General were each getting £ 1,200 a year as against the £ 1,500 a year of the other Parliamentary Secretaries. That anomaly has been removed, and we think rightly so. Other increases have been given, and I think the Select Committee can now leave it to the judgment of the House.
8.32 p.m.
Sir Ian Fraser: It is a very proper practice in this House to disclose an interest in any matter which is being debated. Clearly, all of us have an interest in this matter. While I agree with the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) that we should approach this entirely objectively, quite obviously we have an interest. For my part, the interest is a small one, because Income Tax and Surtax make it so. While I do not urge this view upon anyone else, I cannot but express it myself as sincerely felt. That very fact makes me feel that I must vote for this figure of £ 1,000, because it means so much more to others, than it does to me. I should think it wrong not to have regard to the situation in which I am quite certain many hon. Members in this House find themselves. I can feel that with all the more sincerity, because when I entered this House over 20 years ago and had to try to maintain life in those days on £ 400 a year, I found it extraordinarily difficult. Entry to this House was almost barred to me, and to many scores of thousands who served, as I did, in the first of our world wars. One had to be either a wealthy

1261
man who could secure nomination to a Conservative constituency, or else a trade union official who, in middle life, was given a reward for having done good work. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but I do not think this is a matter for humour. I think it was the cause of a great deal of the bad work done by Parliaments between the wars.
I affirm that the best Parliamentarians are those who enter Parliament young. Hitherto we have been unable to get a real cross-section of our community entering Parliament at a young age; only a few have been able to enter, mainly on this side of the House. It has been mainly from this side of the House that the greatest contributions to our politics have been made. I affirm that this is true. This is no party point. It is a historical fact. [Interruption.] I hope hon. Members will believe me when I say it is not a party point. Because there has been privilege, because there- has been leisure, we have seen the great statesmen who, in the past 100 years, have brought us our freedom, entering this House and, at a young age, learning its work. It is of no use to this House to recruit the great bulk of its membership from successful businessmen in middle life or from successful trade unionists in middle life. If we want a good House of Commons, which does represent a cross-section of the will and thought of our people, we must make it possible for young men to come into this House.
Should the salary be that of a whole-time job? That is the question to which I now address myself. I think the salary should be such a salary as would enable a young man, who has not yet acquired great experience, to come into this House with the certainty that he can at any rate maintain himself for a time, and get on in the world. I should not like to see salaries so high that they would induce people to make Parliamentary life a whole-time job. My view is not that our constituents are not entitled to the very best we can give them; but because I think the best we can give them is a. wider experience than that of a civil servant I say that men should continue to act in the field of trade union activity, that men should continue in their professions, that men who have directorships, men who go into county council work, or farmers should continue their work. All these men can bring a rich variety of talent and
1262
experience to this House. If this House ceased to be a cross-section of active people, and to have Members with roots in many and various aspects of our life, then we should lose much.
I agree profoundly with the hon. Member for Oxford that it is more important that we should be a cross section of the community, and that we should think wisely and sensibly about great issues, than that we should become a Civil Service machine serving the particular interests of every individual constituent who cares to write to us. Not that we must neglect our individual constituents. Part of our office is to represent the individual; but the most important aspect of our office is to represent the great streams of thought which we try to canalise and direct for the good of our country and of all the people in it.
An Amendment is on the Paper— I hope sincerely it will not be moved—in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield). His argument, it seems to me, is one which is found in so many realms of our public and private affairs — that it is a good thing that there should be some check upon the fixing of salaries, that other people should fix our salaries rather than ourselves; and that, therefore, we ought not to fix these salaries for ourselves but should refer them to the people. I imagine that that is his argument. Well, it is not a practicable proposition. I would call to the minds of hon. Members of the House the many discussions some of us have had in our Smoke Room for the last 20 years and more, as' to what should be the Prime Minister's salary. Everybody knew that £ 5,000 a year was an inadequate salary for the Prime Minister. Everybody knew that some Prime Ministers found it very difficult to manage on that salary, and that it was an embarrassment to them. Every thoughtful person knew that the salary should be raised, but no Prime Minister dared raise his own salary. No Prime Minister dare ask his Chancellor of the Exchequer to raise his salary. Why? Because, human nature being as low as it is, it was morally certain that someone on the other side of the House would take advantage of him at the following Election. So, for many years, we went on knowing perfectly well that this great office of State was underpaid, but unwilling to do what was right in this House, until it So

1263
happened that a particular Prime Minister took the responsibility of raising it because he was not going to enjoy it himself after the Election whatever happened. We had to wait for an accident like that before we got a change which could have been made years before and which was necessary for the well-being of the State.
It is exactly the same with Members' salaries. If you leave this until the next Election, who among us is going to be strong enough to put it in his Election address? It becomes an absurdity. And so we have to take responsibility to ourselves—not voting this to ourselves for ourselves, but voting it to ourselves and to whoever may follow us for the good of our country. I do not want to go over the arguments made so capably by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Oxford, although I affirm my agreement with a great many of them. I will comment however on one, the party argument, which was put by the hon. Member for Oxford. I am as convinced as he is that if there is any party advantage on this matter, which I doubt and which I would deplore—but if there is, it lies with the Conservative Party. They have suffered, they are suffering now, and they will suffer so long as they draw their Members of Parliament from a limited class in the community. Let them therefore take good cheer from the prospect rather than be fearful about it, for it will increase and multiply the prospects of a greater variety of new talent coming to strengthen them in the next Election. I have no other comment to make, except that I most earnestly hope, for the sake of the dignity of this House and the well-being of our Parliament, which I think is of fundamental importance to the happiness and welfare of our people, that my hon. Friends on any side of the House will not challenge this Motion, but, so far as is possible, will give it their unanimous support.
8.43 p.m.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: I think it is true to say that there is no substantial opposition anywhere in the House to the Bill designed to increase Ministerial salaries. Least of all would there be opposition from this Bench, because my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Sir S. Holmes) has more than
1264
once in the past drawn attention to the peculiarly unhappy position of junior Ministers.
Earl Winterton: I do not think that the hon. Member was in the House when Mr. Speaker gave a Ruling. The hon. Member must not assume that the Debate on the Ministerial Salaries Bill is taking place now, because Mr. Speaker made it clear that it would take place at a later stage.
Mr. Stewart: The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to this matter at some length in his speech, and I think I am entitled to make response in a few words. I was endeavouring to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich had more than once initiated Debates in this House drawing attention to the peculiar difficulties of junior Ministers, and we are very happy, therefore, that a change in the right direction should now be made.
As regards our own position as Members, this, as has been said, is a subject of considerable delicacy upon which each one of us must search his own conscience and make up his own mind. It ought not to be a party question, and if I judge the feeling of the House rightly, opinion on this matter varies within almost every group. Nor is that surprising, for we are concerned here not only with the impact of certain facts upon ourselves, but also with the impact of any decision we may take upon the conscience and the sense of fair play of the people. We are concerned with the reactions which our decision may have on the country. We are here not only as elected representatives of the people, but as trustees of the people, particularly as the trustees of the public purse; and, therefore, we are bound to consider whether our action is going to be regarded well by those for whom we act as trustees. The power that resides in this House to determine our own salaries, imposes upon us a responsibility, quite out of keeping with the actual sum of money involved It is a very heavy responsibility. At all costs— and I think that the whole House feels this— we must guard against any suggestion that Members of Parliament are taking advantage of their peculiarly privileged position to feather their own nests.
In reflecting upon the reactions of the public to what we do tonight, there are

1265
one or two points which we have to consider. The first is that, in proposing this increase, we are not doing anything that was in the Election address of any party at the last General Election. No party, in any part of the House, had any mandate for this particular increase. It is not even in the little book which we have so often seen in the hands of hon. Members gesticulating on the other side. At the last Election every candidate who stood— and there were nearly 2,000— knew that the salary here was £ 600 a year, and he offered his services on those terms. That being so, I find it a little difficult to justify this sudden and very substantial proposed increase. I have found it difficult to satisfy public meetings that this increase is justified. We are concerned here, let it be noted, not with full-time salaries. I think that the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) was getting somewhere near to the suggestion that we should pay Members of Parliament such a salary as to make them very nearly self-supporting. That is not the issue tonight. We are concerned here with two things only: Meeting Members' expenses and providing for what the Committee call " maintenance."That is very different from trying to provide full-time salaries.
I think there is a case for some increase. The cost of living has risen since the £ 600 a year figure was first fixed. It has risen, indeed, since the time of the last Election. There is no doubt that since then—I speak from my own experience— there has been a very substantial increase in the cost of the various services which Members have to use— stamps, telegrams, telephones. All these things have added to our expenses very considerably since then. There has also been a considerable increase in Income Tax since the £ 600 a year figure was first introduced. But I confess that I see nothing in the Report here or in the evidence attached to the Report, and I have heard nothing from the Chancellor of the Exchequer today, to justify such a substantial increase as is now suggested. I do not know whether other hon. Members have found that evidence. Personally, I have not found it. Still less have I seen any evidence anywhere of justification for the Committee's proposal that £ 500 a year should be exempt from Income Tax. That was at all times an impossible proposal, which I should certainly have
1266
opposed in the House, and I am glad to find that the Government did not persist in it. As I say, I am not satisfied that a case has been made out for an increase of the size now proposed, bearing in mind the concessions which have recently been made. There is this season ticket with which I have been presented— no doubt other Members have received one too. It enables me to travel from my home to the House here every day, free of cost. That is a concession which is not allowed to any other class of worker.
Major Bruce: Did the hon. Member apply for this ticket, or was it given to him?
Mr. Stewart: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman permit me to continue?
Major Bruce: Did he apply for it?
Mr. Stewart: The hon. and gallant Member is trying to make a stupid party point, if I may say so. I am trying to take an unprejudiced view of this matter. [Laughter.] It is all right for hon. Members opposite to laugh. If they think that this has no significance for the public outside, that is their business. I am concerned with what the public outside think about the matter, and I have to justify my action to the constituents whom I represent. Perhaps I am doing nothing more than thinking aloud, but I fancy that I am thinking in terms common to a great many hon. Members on all sides of the House. I am concerned to justify to myself, and to the public, what we are doing, and I say that the new concessions we have recently obtained, such as the new season tickets, which are offered to no other class of worker, makes it still harder for me to justify this increase of 66 per cent.
Mr. Paget: Has it occurred to the hon. Member that whether he accepts this increase or not is entirely optional?
Mr. Messer: He has accepted the season ticket.
Mr. Stewart: We are here considering a Government Motion. If we are to approach this problem with dignity we have to treat this as a matter of principle. What any individual Member does is a matter for him to decide. If the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is a much more wealthy man than I am,

1267
and so does not need to accept his salary, that is his business. But it does not alter by one scrap the question we are now considering. What I say, bearing in mind the facts that I have just been mentioning, is that I would almost be persuaded to vote against this Motion, but for the feeling I have that there may be even today some— not, I think, many— hon. Members, colleagues of mine in this House, who, because of the present standard of £ 600 a year, are suffering serious hardship. If that is so, I am not prepared to oppose the Motion. I remember very well—I see the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) on the other side of the House and he, I am sure, remembers it, too— when Mr. Baldwin, as he then was, went into this matter about 1935. He told the House what he had done. He examined the budgets of certain hon. Members, and he satisfied himself on the evidence produced that there were hon. Members of this House who were simply not able to live decently on the salaries they were getting. For that reason he proposed an increase, and I supported him then.
Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Member at one time speaks for the Motion and at another time is against it. Let him tell us, for goodness' sake, what he intends to do.
Mr. Stewart: I was hoping that the hon. Member was doing me the courtesy of following my argument.
Mr. Messer: Even he cannot perform miracles.
Mr. Stewart: I think every Member will agree that I have proceeded logically from one stage to another. Mr. Baldwin, as he was at that time, satisfied the House that an increase was desirable. The Select Committee say:
" Your Committee are in no doubt that the expenses incurred by Members in the course of their Parliamentary duties, both at Westminster and in their constituencies, are at present very high, and that in consequence many Members are finding themselves in a position in which they cannot perform their duties without financial anxiety."
If that is true, and the Government, after their own investigation, have come to the same conclusion, it is not for me, or any other Member, to stand in the way of hon. Members receiving the minimum facilities necessary for living, and doing
1268
their job. For that reason, neither I, nor my hon. Friends, would wish to oppose this particular recommendation.
But I regret very much that opportunity has not been taken to go a good deal further than the Report recommends. If the Chancellor has a certain amount of money to give away, in order to improve our services here, I would have preferred that some part of the extra £ 400 should be used in a different way. For instance, could not Members of this House be provided with proper sleeping accommodation on nights when it is desirable? There were two or three late Sittings recently, when hon. Members were obliged, because they had nowhere else to go, to sleep in most miserable beds in Committee Rooms. That sort of thing is entirely beneath the dignity of this House. I think it is disgraceful that Members should be obliged to do that sort of thing. Reference is made in the Report to the herding of Members into something of the nature of a hostel. What an absurd suggestion. Nobody wants to do that, but I think it should be within the capacity of this House to have some sort of club, or rooms, or Institution— [Laughter.]— I do not know why Members should laugh—to which Members could go after late Sittings. My last train is 10.30 p.m. If I miss that I have nowhere to go unless to an hotel, and I suppose every hotel is probably closed at midnight.
Again, if we are to do our job properly there is no question whatever that we ought to have the facility, like legislators in other lands, of free travel throughout the length and breadth of this country. There is no doubt that we would benefit ourselves and this House by seeing things that many are at present unable to afford to go to see. In saying that I do not exclude Members' visits to the Dominions. These are the kind of extensions I would prefer to this unjustified, wrong and substantial increase about which we had no previous knowledge. The Government, however, have made this proposal on the basis of the recommendations of the Select Committee, and I find myself unable to oppose it.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. Leslie: As a Member of the Select Committee, I was pleased to hear the speech of the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), and I hope that hon. Members sitting behind him will take his advice. Those who are opposed

1269
to any increase need not take it, but they ought not to prevent those who really need an increase from having it. The hon, and learned Gentleman the Junior Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) was a veritable Jeremiah. He was moaning all the time. He seemed to think that no increase should be given unless it was brought before the country at a General Election, but apparently he was unaware of the fact that when the £ 400 was originally given, and when subsequently the £ 600 was given, neither of those increases came before the electorate. They were given by a simple Resolution of the House. The speech of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) was a pleasing contrast. The Select Committee certainly received from the hon. Member evidence that was exceedingly valuable, and showed that he had given much thought to the whole subject.
It has to be borne in mind that the Select Committee was representative of all parties in the House, and gave long and careful consideration to the evidence that was submitted. The Report was unanimous. To obtain unanimity in any Committee composed of representatives of different parties calls for compromise. The evidence showed that some witnesses wanted to give much more than the Select Committee finally decided to recommend. Let us take, for instance, one case. One individual, whose name appears at the head of one of the Amendments on the Order Paper, in giving his evidence, declared that a Member of Parliament ought not to be paid less than a town clerk, and he reckoned that the average salary of a town clerk was £ 1,500. He stated also that a town clerk had a car provided by the council. It is strange that the hon. Member's name appears at the head of one of the Amendments. It was suggested by others that £ 500 or £ 600 should be regarded as an expense allowance, to cover postage, and so forth. As the Chairman of the Select Committee pointed out, that suggestion was based upon what is common practice with commercial firms. In view of all the objections that have been made, I think it is perhaps as well that that idea should have been dropped. There was only one witness who considered that the present salary was enough, but he wanted Members of Parliament to take jobs outside. When it was suggested that a miner who was a Member of Parliament could hardly be
1270
expected, after doing five days here, to go down the pit at the weekend, the witness agreed that that was true, but that others ought to take jobs outside. I feel that if a Member takes his work seriously, takes his fair share of Committee work, and attends regularly all the Sittings, he has no time left for outside work. A director of a company may be fortunate enough to receive a salary, but how many directors have we in this House who are in that happy position?
The only other hostile witness was frank enough to say— and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Junior Member for the English Universities also said the same— that every hon. Member should have known what he was coming to. That may have been perfectly true, but his attitude apparently was that if the Member came to this House and found he could not make ends meet he ought to resign. We think otherwise; we think that, if an hon. Member comes to this House and finds it is difficult to make ends meet, it is up to us to find a way to help him out of his difficulty. One thing that impressed me was the position of hon. Members on both sides who represent county constituencies. I think they will bear me out when I say that it is. impossible to do justice to such constituencies on the present salary. Transport facilities are difficult in many counties, and when a constituency embraces a number of villages this means car hire in order to visit those villages, which are very often most insistent that a Member should visit them.
The suggestion that a Member should I submit him self to an inquisition, as is proposed in the Amendment, and should humble himself to submit every detail of his expenses to a special tribunal, certainly savours of the worst form of means test.
Mr. E. P. Smith: There is absolutely no suggestion of that in the Amendment to which I have attached my name.
Hon. Members: There is.
Mr. Leslie: If a Member has to appear before a committee representing hon. Members of this House and, as it says here, " shall satisfy "Them, how can he satisfy that specially appointed committee if he does not divulge every item of his income? Is the evidence submitted to the Select Committee to be considered of

1271
no value? Surely, we had plenty of evidence to show that there was need for an increase in salary. Is it honestly believed that hon. Members of this House are guilty of faking the returns they send to the Income Tax people? It seems that there must be an implication of something like that or they would not be asked to appear before a committee. I hope that those who have put down the Amendment will think it wise to withdraw it, and that the House will unanimously pass the Motion and agree to the subsequent Measure.
9.8 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North): As a Member of the Select Committee I should like to say that I am in full accord with the Motion before us this evening. I was rather amazed by the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Stewart) — who I notice has gone away— that it would be better to provide him with improved sleeping accommodation than to provide hon. Members with a sufficient amount of money to make it possible for them to remain Members of this House. We also had to turn" down another suggestion which he mentioned that we should provide money at public expense to enable hon. Members to travel all over England. I am certain that we in the Committee were right in putting down any idea of perquisites. It is far better to be perfectly straight and honest and to say that we do not think the salary which Members of Parliament receive at the present time is sufficient for a great number of them to maintain a proper and decent living so long as they are Members of this House.
No one who listened to the evidence could possibly have come to any other conclusion than we did. I know that I could never have come into this House if there had not been a salary attached to the position. It was not a very large one in those days but it just made the difference. Now, it is apparently the opinion of the public at large that anyone can become a Member of this House as soon as he reaches the age of 21, presuming that he is of sound mind, is not a bankrupt and is not a Peer of the Realm. Many people think it is a very good idea. It is clear that a good many of such people could not possibly be in
1272
a position to support themselves, and their families, if they had them, without having a salary of some kind.
The hon. Member for East Fife suggested that the proposal was far too large an addition. Really, is it? When we take Income Tax off, over and above the expenses, the actual addition to the salary will be very moderate. I rather share. the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) that sooner or later it will probably be necessary still further to increase the salaries of Members of Parliament, if Members are to give as much time to their labours in this House as they do at present. The addition which the Government are now proposing to the salaries is not large, but it will just make the difference between Members being able to do the work and not being able to do it, as is often the case now.
I hope that my hon. Friends will not press their Amendment. I quite appreciate the motive which has led them to suggest that the addition to the salary should be left to the next Parliament. They say that it is not for us to increase our own salaries; who else is to increase them if we do not? That is the only possible means of increasing them. The necessity for the increase has been established by the Report of the evidence that was laid before the Select Committee. I do not see that that is any serious reason why we should postpone this increase until the next Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) said that we could not very well put it into our election addresses that one of our main planks was that we would increase our own salaries.
Sir Stanley Reed: Why not?
Sir C. Headlam: When the salary was first given to Members of Parliament, it was given by the Parliament which was then sitting. When the increase was given, the same thing happened. Therefore, we arc not acting otherwise than by precedent and I see no reason whatsoever why that Amendment should be put before the House. As for the other Amendment in the name of two of my hon. Friends, I have nothing to say about it except that it is a most intolerable suggestion and one which I hope no one will be willing to accept. We should be

1273
well advised to accept the Government's proposals and to have done with this matter, for the time being, at any rate. There will be criticism— there always is on anything of this kind— but I would be prepared to stand on any platform in the country in support of this Motion.
9.15 p.m.
Mr. Kenneth Lindsay (Combined English Universities): I always hesitate to address the House when I am in complete agreement with almost every previous speaker because it is a complete waste of time, but the speech from the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) has provoked me to say these words. I should hate to think that the only speech coming from a Member of one of the privileged University seats was a speech which expressed the views which have passed from his lips this afternoon. I represent, as does he, 40,000 graduates, 75 per cent. of whom have come from primary schools and poor homes. It has been, to my mind, ever since I have been in this House, a matter of some concern that the origins of Members of Parliament have been so obviously unequal as between the two sides. In fact, I have thought more and more that it was a sad day that the book written by Mr. Ross could ever have been written. It describes pretty faithfully how the great majority of Conservative Members come from a very small group of schools; how the very great majority of Liberal Members come from another class of school; and how the overwhelming majority in the last Parliament on the other side had come from a completely different origin, so far as education is concerned. [Interruption.] I know it is very easy to make a few points about some Members of the present Government but the broad fact remains completely true whatever my hon. Friends may say.
Earl Winterton Earl Winterton rose—
Mr. Lindsay: It is not what the Noble Lord says but the constant titter from this corner of the House. Another reason that tempts me to say a few words is that, for my sins, I have stood for one or two different constituencies in my time — three of the most hopeless seats for the Labour Party— and on each occasion was defeated by a large and enthusiastic majority. Since then I have been in a previous Government of a combination
1274
of parties. I am perfectly certain from private information that there are many hon. Members— a previous Prime Minister, Earl Baldwin, knew that perfectly well and many a time said so, especially when he was responsible for getting a pension system introduced in the House — living with very great difficulty. All these points have been made so conclusively that there is no point in adding anything further, but I should not like it to be thought that the only voice speaking for the Combined English Universities spoke against this Motion.
9.19 p.m.
Mr. Wilson Harris: Like the Senior Member for the English Universities (Mr. Lindsay), I am impelled to intervene briefly in this Debate by the speech of the Junior Member for the English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss), but before I come to that, may I. express my wholehearted agreement with the last words in the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford City (Mr. Hogg) when he dwelt on the utter inappropriateness and undesirability of submitting a matter of this kind to the test of a General Election? It is easy to marshal plausible arguments based on alleged democratic principles for such a course, but if there is any issue which ought not to be submitted to a General Election, it is an issue like this. There are three reasons for that. One was given by the hon. Member for Oxford, that the business of the electors at a General Election is to pronounce on broad principles and not to concern themselves with minor details. The second reason is that no average constituent is in a position, or could be in a position, to judge what is a right salary for a Member of Parliament, because he could not know the circumstances with which a Member of Parliament has to cope. The third, and perhaps most cogent reason, is the obvious difficulties which such a course would create. Imagine a well to do Member standing against a comparatively indigent Member, as frequently happens. How easy it would be for one to make capital by opposing any idea of an increase in Members' salaries and attempt to gain votes by that unworthy method.
I desire now to say a few words about the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the English Universities who, I am glad to see, has returned to

1275
this House. I thought he was making pretty heavy weather over what is essentially a very simple matter, and his speech, if I may venture to say so, was none the better for starting from a premise that is completely false. The hon. and learned Member, if I remember aright, said that candidates submitted themselves at the General Election knowing that the salary was £ 600 and that nothing had happened since the General Election to change the general outlook. My hon. and learned Friend, through circumstances over which he had no complete control, was detained from the service of this House for the first few months of this Session, and therefore, perhaps, did not completely appreciate the situation which existed. The situation was this: that a great many Members on both sides of the House, though possibly more on one side of the House than the other, who had thrown themselves with some impetuousity into the electoral contest, had in many cases found themselves, to their great astonishment, Members of Parliament, had arrived at Westminster without having fully counted the cost, and had found the cost when they got here something which they could not meet. There is no discredit to anyone for that. It may have been said that they ought to have discovered beforehand what the cost would be. I venture to suggest that that would have been very difficult, if not impossible. It may be said that they could have consulted, as I tried to consult, some Member of a previous Parliament but, in fact circumstances in previous Parliaments— as I understand it, not having been a Member of one— were completely different in many respects from the circumstances that prevail today. [An HON. MEMBER: " Absolutely."] What previous Parliament had to cope with a flood of letters from constituents about demobilisation,' about Class B releases, about Essential Works Orders, about conscientious objectors, which throw on the average Member today a mass of work which I do not believe the ordinary Member of any previous Parliament had to face?
In face of that situation, what course was taken? A Select Committee was appointed, a Committee representative of all parties in this House; a Committee, if I may say so without any disrespect to them— and I am sure the Noble Lord will
1276
not feel I am guilty of any disrespect to him—of very ordinary Members typical of the general run of Members of this House—
Earl Winterton: I would only observe that as the Committee, in the hon. Gentleman's patronising terms, was composed of very ordinary Members, it is a pity that he was not a Member of it.
Mr. Harris: I have no desire to dissent from that proposition, and if the Noble Lord desires it, I will amend my description and say that it consisted of nine ordinary Members and of one extraordinary Member. The Committee produced an admirable Report, a unanimous Report, and nothing struck me more forcibly than a point which has been made already by the hon. Member for Nor-manton (Mr. Smith), and that was the surprisingly favorable reception which this Report met with in the country. It is my business to read more daily papers I suppose, than most hon. Members, and I agreed entirely with the hon. Member for Normanton when he said that with very few exceptions the Press of the country— representing, I imagine, our constituents very largely— was in full accord with the proposals of this Committee. In accordance with those of the Committee, the Government have brought in this Motion, and, although I should be the last to suggest any curtailment of the Debate, it seems to me that we have come to a point where everything has been said that could with advantage be said on this subject, and the best thing would be to get the Motion disposed of and pass on to the next Business.
9.26 p.m.
Mr. Stanley Prescott: I do not propose to detain the House long, but it is a little unfortunate for the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris), after he has made his observations, to say that all has been said that can be said, and that we should pass on to other Business, for there are several hon. Members in all parts of the House who wish to exercise their rights.
I am very glad that this Debate has not been approached in any part of the House in a party atmosphere. I feel very deeply that this matter we are discussing is a House of Commons matter which concerns hon. Members in all quarters of the House. Having said that, I hope that hon. Mem-

1277
bers opposite will not think I am introducing a party political atmosphere if I say that when the Government made their announcement to set up this Select Committee to consider the remuneration of hon. Members, I felt some bitterness. I would like to tell the House why. I was a Member of the last Parliament, and just before the Election a pamphlet was produced which had a wide circulation in Lancashire in my constituency, and in adjacent constituencies. That pamphlet was not an official publication of the Labour Party, but it had a strong bias, to say the least, in favour of the policies of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Not long before the General Election, there appeared in it a paragraph, or article— call it what you will— the effect and purport. of which, quite shortly, was as follows: "Your Tory M.P. has been getting £12 a week, old age pensioners get ten bob. Vote Labour."
Mr. Nally rose—
Mr. Prescott: May I just finish this part of my speech and then I will gladly give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes?
Mr. Nally: We must have the name at the pamphlet.
Mr. Prescott: I have already stated that it was not a publication of the Labor Party. I equally add that my opponent in. the Election made no reference of that kind. Nevertheless, that pamphlet did follow the policy of hon. Members opposite and it was extremely unfortunate and unnecessary and. its views were quoted quite widely. In the previous Election I got in with a majority of 70, and had not much to play with. We did a lot better this time, and had a majority of nearly 3,000. But it was a very unfortunate observation, and it was repeated quite often in and around Lancashire. Therefore, I think the House will understand why I say tonight that I felt some bitterness that this Select Committee was set up to increase the salaries of hon. Members. That bitterness, which has almost entirely evaporated now, does not detract from the fact that tonight we have to decide what is the right and proper thing to do and that is the real issue before us.
I should say there are two questions for consideration. I do not think anyone would deny in the first place that hon.
1278
Members should be repaid the expenses, the reasonable expenses, which they incur as a result of carrying out their duties here. Indeed, the £ 400 a year was originally introduced to cover expenses, and not by way of salary. If it be accepted that hon. Members of this House should be reimbursed their expenses, the second question arises whether they should be paid a salary, a living wage, on which they can live if they have no outside means. In answer to that second question, I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Oxford City (Mr. Hogg).
If one is to call this country a democracy, as it is, and if it is to be an effective democracy, not only must any man be enabled to come to the House of Commons, but if he gets here, and if he has no others means, he must be provided with something on which to live. I take that view definitely and sincerely. I do not think Members should be provided with a high standard of living, but that they should be given a reasonable standard— [Interruption.] I am trying to make a non-party speech and to deal with the matter objectively If hon. Members wish to make unfriendly interventions I can quite quickly and quite spontaneously make a quite different kind of speech. [An HON. MEMBER: " Make it."] The hon. Member says " Make it. ' I prefer not to do so, but I will make one observation which I think I am entitled to make. There is an Amendment on the Order Paper—I do not agree with it— which suggests that any Member who cannot manage on the present salary shall be entitled to go before a committee, and if he has not sufficient money oil which to live, upon inquiry he can get a further grant of money. [HON. MEMBERS: " Means test."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite, when that was mentioned, shouted " Means test."I quite agree that it is a means test, and I have always inveighed in and out of this House against a means test. But when hon. Gentlemen so glibly say " means test " and " shame," let them realise that old age pensioners still undergo a means test, and will do so under the Bill we have been considering today. Let us also realise that parents whose sons were killed in the war and who want a pension also have— [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is getting too far from the Motion.
Mr. Prescott: I do not want to trespass on your good will, Mr. Speaker, or on the kindness of the House. I was drawn into that observation by interventions from the opposite benches.
In my submission to the House, we have now arrived at a point when we are agreed that there must be paid to hon. Members remuneration such as to enable them to have a reasonable standard of life. The question, therefore, arises, and it seems that it is the only question at issue tonight, whether the £ 600 we now receive is adequate under the present circumstances. Personally, I do not think it is adequate if a Member has no other means. I know that I spend practically the whole, sometimes more— it varies— of my Parliamentary salary on secretarial and postal facilities, telegrams and other matters of that kind. Therefore, if an hon. Member is to carry out his duties effectively, that £ 600 should be increased, in order to provide the wherewithal on which he may live. I do not know, and I do not think any hon. Member knows, how many have no other means apart from their Parliamentary salaries. I am not introducing any party point, I have no wish to be difficult, but if is a fact that wealth is not confined to this side of the House. There are hon. Members opposite who have ample means. Company directors have been mentioned. There are many company directors who sit on the opposite benches. There are many hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies opposite who are enabled to make quite a nice livelihood by the legitimate duties they perform outside this House— all honour to them. I do not know what is the number of hon. Members who have no means apart from their Parliamentary salaries. One of the things which is not disclosed in the Report we are considering is that vital fact.
I am prepared to accept it as a fact that there are a number, perhaps a substantial number, of hon. Members who cannot exist on their Parliamentary salary, which is all they have available to them. That being so, we must obviously make better and further provision for them. It would be invidious if one salary was paid to one section of hon. Members and another salary to another. There must be a lump sum for us all. I say quite frankly that I think that the recommendations of this Report are right, and I shall go into the Lobby, if there be a Division, in support of them. An hon.
1280
Member referred to the question of inflation. What troubles me is that, apart from inflation, I think the country is going to be faced in the fairly near future with considerable demands for increases in wages. Many of those demands will have to be resisted. It is going to be slightly difficult for this House of Commons to resist some of them when we have very substantially increased our own salaries. That is one criticism I would make about this Motion being introduced now.
There is another criticism which I would make. I hope I shall not be out of Order in mentioning this. It is within the recollection of hon. Members—I am not patting myself on the back— that like many other hon. Members in this House, notably those on the opposite benches, I have always championed the cause of old age pensioners. I find it rather difficult, in present circumstances, to increase my own salary when there are certain sections of the community to whom I have made undertakings and to whom hon. Gentle men opposite—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member should not go into details about everybody who might otherwise get increases of salary. There must be a limitation.
Mr. Prescott: I do not wish to trespass upon your kindness, Sir, or upon that of the House. I hope I have treated this matter quite fairly. I think I am entitled to say that if the position had been reversed at the last Election and we had been in the great majority and had then made these proposals, I do not think hon. Gentlemen opposite would have been quite so kind to us in the Debate as we have been tonight. I conclude, therefore, by saying that I myself agree that the present salary must be increased. I think it right and I shall vote for it if this matter goes to a division. I regret that it should have been thought necessary to introduce this Resolution as this time. There is one point on which I disagree fundamentally with the hon. Member for Oxford City, and that is that I hope by and large hon. Members of this House will not become purely and solely professional politicians.
9.37 p.m.
Mr. Nally: I would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Darwen (Mr. Prescott) who, with great dialectical skill, kept himself as reason-

1281
ably in touch as he could with the general trend of thought in the House but at the same time has given himself a magnificent alibi in order to speak to the electors of Darwen on this question. It was a completely non-party speech of the curious kind that the hon. Member is perfectly entitled to make. We can rely upon him to use it with his usual skill to the best advantage in his division. We may anticipate that he will do that and just how he will do it. I want to say one or two words about the real meaning of what we are discussing. We are agreed on all sides that this is a new Parliament, consisting of a new kind of people. That refers not only to this side of the House. The change is coming on the opposite side as well. I have some knowledge of what the Conservative divisional associations are doing. One has contacts as a journalist with what is happening. It is quite clear that the Conservative Party have learned a lesson from the events of the last General Election. One of the lessons which they have learned is that younger able candidates, very often without much money, are essential for the salvation of their party— if there is to be any salvation for it— which I very much doubt.
It is true that the tendency of all parties is towards younger candidates, tested by the divisional associations on grounds of ability and irrespective of whether they have any cash behind them or not. The real problem is that of endeavouring to see that an hon.s Member shall come into this House on account of ability and irrespective of means. The complexion and outlook of this side of the House has changed very greatly. Today, there are a minority of what are called trade union Members. The majority of hon. Members —I speak subject to correction on this— are very much younger. I think the average age of hon. Members of this Party at the moment is between 43 and 45. It is also true that we have, in the Party on this side, among back benchers supporting the Government, a large group of what can be called middle-class people, but with this important difference —and it is essential to remember it in discussing this Motion—that these hon. Members who are now described as middle-class are not, in the majority of cases, the middle-class which is generally conceived as being middle-class by some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
1282
They are, in fact, the first generation of working-class parents with secondary and university education. The result is that, although they come into this House, by nominal standards, as middle class, so far as background, savings, parenthood and amount of capital are concerned, they are not middle class at all.
Major Guy Lloyd: On a point of Order. What has middle class got to do with this Motion?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to develop his argument in his own way.
Mr. Nally: I apologise to the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite for not making the point clear to him. The point I am trying to make is that, although by normal, conventional standards, hon. Members on this side would be regarded as middle class, they have in many cases no resources whatsoever behind them and therefore do not fit into the term " middle class " as it is normally used. Let us face the facts plainly. I have other sources of income apart from my House of Commons salary, but I want to put forward some specific cases of others who have not.
First, I put Case A. For the first six weeks in London, an hon. Member of this House lived in a curious place in Euston Road at a cost of 5s. 6d. a night because he could not afford to pay more than that. I want to give Case B, that of an hon. and gallant Member of this House, with a record of distinguished service, who came into this House direct from the Forces, and who was proceeding, in November of last year, to sell the house that he and his wife had bought in order to meet the expenses of continuing to be a Member of Parliament. Take a third case, that of an hon. and gallant Member of this House, with an equally distinguished war record, in this case, in the R.A.F., who was taking steps, on his savings running out, to borrow money from his father in order to continue his work in this House. That is an incredible situation, and we really cannot have it. I am very grateful, on behalf of these hon. Members, for the speeches of the hon. (Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) and the Senior Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Lindsay). They were both thoughtful speeches worthy of the issue we are discussing.

1283
I conclude on this note. It is a delicate matter that we are debating—this raising of our own salaries. I have talked in my own constituency about it, and have stated, plainly and frankly, what the position is. The House of Commons is no longer a kind of convalescent home for trade union leaders as was sometimes said. It is equally, I hope, no longer a place to which wealthy company directors can come because of their ability to buy up the divisional Tory associations in the country. In short, the character of the House has changed as the country has changed. I believe that the Motion before it will give an opportunity to young men, irrespective of political opinion, of coming into the House and serving it faithfully, well and efficiently. That is the most important thing which has hitherto not been provided, and, therefore, I trust the House will give unanimous support to the Motion now before it.
9.46 p.m.
Sir Wavell Wakefield: I beg to move, in line 3, to leave out " day of April nineteen hundred and forty-six," and to insert:
" Sitting Day of the next Parliament."
This Amendment is not the kind of Amendment which one often gets on the Second Reading of a Bill to the effect that "The Bill be read a Second time upon this day six months."That is not its purpose; its purpose is to postpone from this Parliament to the next the implementing of the Report of the Select Committee or, rather, of the Motion now before the House. We agree that it is desirable that emoluments of hon. Members should be increased to £ 1,000, or some such similar substantial sum, in order that they may carry on their work in an efficient manner. The hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) was incorrect in assuming that this Amendment meant that the decision which will be made today was to be left until after the next General Election. He was wrong to assume that it is our intention that this should be put before the people at the next Election. We agree that the Motion should be passed now, but not implemented until the next Parliament.
Certain hon Members have come to me and said, "This Amendment which you are moving is a very unpopular thing. Why are you doing it?"The
1284
fact that a thing happens to be unpopular is not a leason for not moving it. Other hon. Members have come to me and said, " Why are you doing this? It will neither help you nor lose you any votes at the next Election because, by that time, all this will have been forgotten "—as, indeed, it will. Again, I say, surely we can take action in this House without always thinking whether or not we are to gain or lose votes. I am moving this Amendment tonight because I agree so much with what the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) said.
I believe that the dignity and esteem in which Parliament is held are worthy of the utmost support of this House. I know that some hon. Members agree with me on this point and that some differ, but I believe that the dignity and esteem of Parliament, and its prestige, will be lowered, if it is said of us that one of the first things we did when we were returned to Parliament was to increase our own salaries.
Mr. Kirkwood: The first thing we did was to nationalise the Bank of England.
Sir W. Wakefield: Very well, then, one of the first things we did before the first year of Parliament was out was to increase our own salaries. I know that hon. Members have made the point that it is only Members of this House who can increase their own salaries. Of course it is. But do not let us increase our salaries. Let us talk about an increase for the next Parliament in which we do not know whether we will be sitting. If we do that we will maintain the honour, prestige and dignity of Parliament in a way which we are not now doing. Would an increase in our salaries be consistent with some of the things which are happening today, such as were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Pres-cott) who referred to the fact that officers' and widows' pensions, etc., have not been increased? There is feeling in the country about this. I have two sons-in-law, both in the Services. One is in the Royal Navy and the other is in the Army. As a result of recent so-called increases, which to them, because of their ranks, were not increases, they said to me, " We see you are greatly to increase your pay while ours has been decreased."These are important points which we in this House should not overlook.

1285
The Chancellor has said how important it is to maintain the standard of living and to avoid inflation. One of the ways of creating inflation is for wages and salaries to continue to increase. Is it not right that we should give a lead in this matter? How can we give a lead when we increase our own salaries? It will be within the recollection of many hon. Members that in the financial crisis of 1931 this House reduced Members emoluments to £ 360. That ought not to be forgotten, and I suggest that rather than increase our emoluments, we ought to consider reducing them as a lead to the rest of the country. I know that hardship exists among certain Members, and because I am not affected in the same degree, it is difficult and embarrassing for me to move this Amendment. It is not a happy or a pleasant task, but because it is not happy or pleasant we should not shirk doing it. I do not know whether it is possible during this Parliament for some scheme to be arranged whereby hon. Members who are in difficulties can be helped from the Pension Fund which, I understand, is in very great funds. With increased salaries in the next Parliament we could always contribute more if need be. I throw out that suggestion as one way in which that difficulty might be overcome.
I understand there are certain objections to this Amendment. The first is that we cannot commit the next Parliament. If that is a technical objection my Amendment can easily be altered to apply to the last day of this Parliament. I do not think that is a valid objection. Another objection is that unless salaries are increased, new candidates of the required caliber will not be able to come forward. Surely, that is not so, because new candidates will know that in the new Parliament they will receive £ 1,000 a year. Another objection is that expenses are now very much greater than they were. I do not think that that is so since the General Election. We all entered as candidates at the last Election knowing what our emoluments were to be and being, as Members of Parliament, responsible individuals, also knowing what our liabilities were likely to be. Surely it will not be suggested that anybody will lightheartedly take up the responsibilities and duties of a Member of Parliament without, first of all, considering what he or she is to get and what the expenses may be? There has been no considerable increase in ex-
1286
penses during the last 12 months, and so I cannot see the validity of that objection.
Again, there has been the objection that hon. Members cannot do their duties efficiently at the present rate of emoluments. Well, coal miners, dockyard workers and many other people also think that they cannot do their duties efficiently, and want an increase in wages. So I do not see that there is any validity in that objection. It has also been suggested, that if we vote for this Amendment we are in duty bound not to take any increased salary. Well, suppose some of us in this House disagreed with the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Suppose the Chancellor decided that he was going to reduce the tax on beer and some of us, while delighted from a personal point of view, nevertheless, from the national point of view thought his decision was wrong. Should we take advantage of the reduction in the tax on beer? Of course, we should.
Mr. Dalton: Have an extra pint, and why not?
Sir W. Wakefield: So I do not think there is any validity in that objection. This is a democracy; we make our protests, we then accept the ruling of the majority. I conclude by saying that I have moved this Amendment because I believe that it is desirable that this House should not, as a matter of principle, vote within its lifetime an increase in its own salary. Let us vote the increase, but let it be for our successors and not for ourselves.
9.58 p.m.
Mr. Hollis: I beg to second the Amendment.
As the Chancellor and other hon. Members have said, this is a somewhat delicate question, and nothing could be more embarrassing for me, or I am sure for other hon. Members, than that I should speak at length on my own personal affairs, so I will dismiss that aspect of the matter in a couple of sentences. In the first place, I should like to say that I am by no means a rich man; I am not a payer of Surtax, nor am I the recipient of any inherited wealth, and therefore the emoluments I receive are by no means a matter of indifference to me. As for the second and purely personal point, I had not the intention to refer to it, but as the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W.

1287
Wakefield) and the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) did refer to it, I will say simply for myself, and passing no judgment on any other hon. Member whose personal circumstance may differ from mine, that I have already given a public pledge that, in the event of this extra money being voted, I shall not myself take it.
Having got that out of the way, may I turn to the more general issue? I am the more emboldened to speak a few words because what seems to me to be the all-important point, with all due respect to the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris), has not been much emphasised. The point that strikes me as all-important is that of timeliness. There is nothing sacrosanct in the figure of £ 600 a year, and I have no objection, in principle, to the sum being raised to £ 1,000. The only question present to my mind is whether this is a timely moment for doing it.
This increase has been defended broadly upon two grounds, slightly different from one another. On the one hand some hon. Members say it is justified in order to keep pace with the rising cost of living. My answer to that is that made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) in the Budget Debate when he pointed out that the official figure for the rise in the cost of living was 31 per cent. But we are not asking for ourselves for an increase of 31 per cent., but for an increase of 66 per cent. I am perfectly agreeable to accept the argument used by many hon. Members that the rise in the cost of living has been very much greater than 31 per cent. But it is extremely dangerous to Parliamentary prestige that while an increase of 31 per cent. is quoted for the general public the figure of 66 per cent. should be used for our own purposes. The other ground upon which this is defended is that the salary is. in any case, inadequate. There again I do not quarrel with hon. Members who maintain that argument as a general proposition. I am simply arguing the timeliness. Is this the time, when every day we are preaching about the dangers of inflation, when every day we are appealing to workers not to press for wage increases until the country has got back on its feet, to put ourselves at the front of the queue for increases? I will read a passage that puts this point as well as I have ever seen it put:
1288
"Before the war, when there was general unemployment, all wage increases that could be extracted by the Trade Unions from unwilling employers were not only to the advantage of the workers concerned but also to the advantage of every one else as well What, then, is the effect of an increase in wages at the present time? The truth is that while extreme shortage lasts wage increases for one section of industry are liable to raise costs of production and be passed on in higher prices to the consumers, so that the original increase is at the expense of workers in other sections of industry as well as at the expense of citizens as a whole. And once prices begin going up there may be a general demand for wage increases to meet the increased cost of living, the further wage increases raise the cost of living again, and the vicious spiral is at work. In such circumstances wage increases may even be positively harmful to the community. That is why, from the point of view of the nation, restraint should be exercised about pressing for indiscriminate wage increases."
That pamphlet was issued by Transport House to the trade unionists of this country. It is entitled "Fair Shares of Scarce Goods."
Mr. Gallacher: Is the hon. Member reading that passage in order to prove that, if we are to get an increase in salary, the price of HANSARD will go up?
Mr. Hollis: That was not my purpose. If the hon. Member will wait he will see what I was seeking to prove. My purpose was, surely, a very much clearer one. If we give increases to ourselves at a time when we might be under the necessity of refusing increases to other people we are putting ourselves in an extremly difficult position. My point is whether this is a timely moment for such a policy. The only strong argument on the other side —and it is a very strong argument indeed —is that there are certain hon. Members in this House who find real difficulty in carrying on their work in the present circumstances. That is an argument with which we must all be entirely sympathetic. I would like to put it in a slightly different form from that in which some hon. Members have put it. Sometimes people say— it seems to be a rather strange way of putting it—that whether it be a good thing or a bad thing that Parliament should be a fulltime occupation, at any rate, we have to face the fact that it has become so.
It seems to me that the fact is exactly the opposite; that is to say, whether it be a good thing or a bad thing that it should be a full-time occupation, it ob-

1289
viously is not, as a matter of fact, a full-time occupation, because there is a large number of Members in all quarters of the House who do carry on other occupations. Anyone would be very bold who argued that the contributions of those Members to the life of Parliament were less valuable and less effective than those of the average hon. Member, In fact I should be inclined to think anybody who has sufficient ability to serve his country in this House, can find some way or another of slightly adding to his remuneration but I am more concerned with another and more important class of person—the person who prefers not to receive remuneration because he fears to compromise his integrity.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman put the point of the Amendment admirably at the beginning of his speech but he is now departing from it. The point of this Amendment is timing. It is the timing only that we can discuss. We cannot go into the subject generally.
Mr. Hollis: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I was going to refer to the very valuable evidence given before the Committee by the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. A. Edward Davies). I have not the pleasure of his acquaintance, and so I do not know whether he is in his place or not; but he was the only person who gave evidence before the Committee who was in the position of being entirely dependent upon his salary, and one reason for which I am supporting the Amendment may be found in the words he spoke in his evidence before the Committee. Having described the difficulties of the position, he said:
"I do not say some amendment in out monetary payment ought not to become operative during this Parliament, but I should think there is much to be said for the provision which says that it shall operate at a subsequent date, perhaps in the next Parliament."
That the hon. Member should be willing to consider postponement seemed to me a very strong argument for postponement.
There is another point. Some hon. Members have said there is nothing improper in our effecting a change now because there is the precedent of 1937. I do not want to offend by developing that point, but my answer to it is that many people believe today—I happen to be one of them—that it is not invariably valuable to balance the Budget, and that sometimes, when there is unem-
1290
ployment and under-production for instance, it is desirable to put out new money. But there are other times when conditions are the opposite. The period of 1937 was one in which to put out new money, a period in which it might not be a great harm to put out some of it to Members of Parliament. But the position is exactly the opposite now. Therefore, in seconding my hon. Friend's Amendment, all I am insisting upon is the element of time.
In a few years' time, when we are all more prosperous, when every class in the community is more prosperous, there is no reason in the world why the salary of Members of this House should not be advanced, in the same way as the salaries of others and in accordance with the general standard of living of the country. We should be the last persons, so it seems to me, now to increase our salaries, and we should in courtesy see that we deliver the goods of this new world we are here to create to the rest of the community, before we take them ourselves. We should take a lowly rather than a high place in the queue.
10.10 p.m.
Mr. Baldwin: I rise to support the Amendment. It has caused me some difficulty to reach this decision. At this time we should not take steps to raise our own salaries. After all, we took on a contract 12 months ago, and we should put up with its conditions for some further time. If this proposal had been suggested in two years' time, it would have been quite a different thing. My decision to support the Amendment was principally reached because I am convinced that at some time someone will be standing at that Box to deal with the question of inflation. Someone will be saying that wages must not rise further. The Government are allowing wages to increase day by day, and this proposal is, in fact, a proposal to raise our own wages. When the time comes, we shall have to tell the wage earners of this country, that for their own salvation their wages must be " pegged " and I think that we shall put ourselves in a very poor light by supporting this proposal at this stage. Sooner or later this rise in wages has to be stopped, or else the £ will be in the same position as the Mark was in Germany after the last war. We are in an inflationary period. It may be said that it can and

1291
will be controlled, but it will not be controlled if we continue to raise the cost of wages.
Mr. Speaker: This is hardly relevant to the Amendment, which deals with timing and nothing else.
Mr. Baldwin: I was endeavouring to support the Amendment, which provides that no immediate rise should be made in the salaries of hon. Members of this House. I feel sure that if we want to show an example to the people of this country, the right thing to do is not to increase our salaries at this stage. That is why I suggest it should be put off until some further time has elapsed.
10.14 p.m.
Mr. E. L. Gandar Dower: I will detain the House for only a very short time, because this matter has been under discussion now for nearly three hours, but I wish to give my reasons for supporting the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield). I believe that the duties of a Member in this House cannot be genuinely performed under £ 1,000 per annum, but at the same time—I must stress time in my remarks—I do not believe this is the time to raise our salaries.
I would emphasise that at this time there are many pensioners left with incomes of £300 to £400 a year who find it very difficult to live as they used to do a few years ago When at this time there are so many rises in wages, we cannot support a rise in our own. It will be timely to consider a rise at the next Election. People will then have had time to consider whether a rise in our salaries is or is not justified. I would remind the House that, as so many clubs have been bombed, this is one of the few remaining clubs to which it is a privilege to belong, where we have valuable contacts with people of all views, and we should be prepared to make sacrifices to belong to it.
10.16 p.m.
Mr. Gallacher: I was much touched by the argument advanced on behalf of this Amendment that the proposed increase is untimely, and that somehow or other it would have an inflationary effect. Nothing could show a greater
1292
lack of understanding of this important question of inflation. Inflation can be caused by a very large increase of spending. But increasing Members' salaries does not mean widespread increase of spending. Inflation can also be caused by the vicious spiral, and that, as I indicated very clearly in a question to the seconder of the Amendment, does not work in relation to this particular matter. Our salaries could be increased right now, and our products would not go up in price. The question we should be asking is not whether the increase is to be today, tomorrow, next year, or next Parliament, but whether the Members are worth the money. I am reminded of an elderly gentleman, not unknown to Members of this House, Mr. George Bernard Shaw, who, at Bow Street, when standing bail for a certain gentleman was asked by the magistrate: "Are you worth £200? " Mr. Shaw said, "I would not like to say that, but I have got £ 200."The question we have to ask is: " Are hon. Members worth it? " My last sentence, and it is an important one, is that when I look at the Members on this side of the House, I am satisfied that they are worth it; but when I look at the Members on the other side, I am very doubtful.
The Speaker: We have had over three hours' discussion on this matter. It is, after all, a free vote, and we surely do not need to have unlimited speeches.
10.19 p.m.
Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: May I submit, Mr. Speaker, that as speeches in favour of the Amendment have been made from this side of the House and as I happen to be opposed to the Amendment, I should have an opportunity to express very briefly my reasons for being unable to give a silent vote on this issue? If I find myself on the same ground as the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) I hasten to assure the hon. Member that that is not because I am making any application for affiliation to the Communist Party. As a Member of the Select Committee, which owed so much to the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Tom Smith), and which sat for many days considering these matters, may I say with the greatest good temper to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) and the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) that they and those who think like them missed

1293
not.one bus but two. The first opportunity they had for putting their view arose when the Motion for setting up the Select Committee was before the House. That was the first bus. The second bus was the opportunity of appearing before the Select Committee, an invitation having been sent to every hon. Member of this House, of which a great number availed themselves. The evidence of those hon. Members was considered with great patience for many days, and the arguments put forward were carefully investigated.
Sir W. Wakefield: I replied to the invitation to give evidence before the Committee, and I sat waiting to be called.
Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I am quite sure the hon. Member did, but how can one call on a vacuum? The hon. Member submitted no memorandum. We heard— and the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) can endorse this— the views of individual Members like the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) and others who had something to submit to the Committee. It is rather late in the day now to put forward this point of view.
Sir W. Wakefield: Why have a Debate at all?
Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: If the hon. Member puts down an Amendment and moves it, the reason for having a Debate is to give an opportunity to others to refuse it. What is the point of having a Select Committee? I hope the hon. Gentleman is not going to lapse into irrelevancies. To my mind the reason for the urgency of this matter, and the reason why we should reject this Amendment to postpone the increase in Members' salaries, rests upon two main pillars. First, I refute the argument that we knew what we were letting ourselves in for when we stood for election or re-election at the General Election. It is said that the new Members who came here knew the conditions. This happens to be my third Parliament. I did not know what I was letting myself in for at the General Election.
Sir W. Wakefield: A complete vacuum.
Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: And I will give the reasons. This Parliament is not like previous Parliaments. We are not engaged in Party arguments tonight,
1294
but I certainly did not realise we were to be driven 14 hours a day by the Leader of the House. I did not realise that Standing Committees were going to sit with the intensity with which they are sitting with three or four main Bills going through concurrently. May I add that I had not the slightest conception that there was to be the increase which has been taken place in my post bag? It has been argued that this is transitory, and that the same thing happened in 1919 and 1920 when demobilisation was going on. That may be, but I was not here then. But whether that be so or not, I suggest that that argument falls to the ground, for this reason: Whatever may be the merit or demerits of nationalisation or State control, this can be admitted—that the wider the field of State control, the greater becomes a Member's correspondence. However efficiently our industries may be run by the State, a great many people will have complaints to make, and cases to submit to us. That is something I did not anticipate. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for St. Maryle-bone anticipated that, but I did not. I believed that our side would win the Election; perhaps he anticipated the awful thing that did happen.
I am particularly anxious to put two points before this vote is taken. Whatever my hon. Friends who support the Amendment may do, I hope there is one reason which will not weigh with them. I have looked at the Order Paper, and I think it would be a pity if a number of Members who have the good fortune to reside in what may be described as the upper Surtax levels, and for whom this increase will mean just " chicken feed ' —or, as the right hon. Gentleman has now re-entered the Chamber perhaps I should say, " Chancellor feed "—took up the attitude which is known, in Service parlance, as " Damn you, Jack, I'm all right."I hope nobody will vote tonight on those grounds. Something has been said about what our constituents will think. I know what my constituents would think if I endeavoured to get the best of both worlds tonight, by voting for a postponement of salary increase, and then going with outstretched hands to the Fees Office. I think the proper course is that suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) at the beginning of this Debate. The tax on a pint of beer is a tax which is in-

1295
curred when you drink the beer. There has never been any obligation on Members to draw a single penny of their salary. I believe the Chancellor, who has been here longer than I have been, will recall cases of Members who, on what may be described as conscientious grounds, returned their salaries to the Treasury —
Mr. Dalton: Yes, some have done that.
Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I believe there were some who, on the last occasion when there was an increase, drew £400 a year, and did not take the extra £200. That is the honourable course for those who object to it. There is no compulsion. If they feel that this is wrong, and if they are so fortunate as to be able to get on without it, surely their remedy is clear. I do not propose to do that. I believe this increase is overdue, and I will tell the House, briefly, why I think so, and why it is urgent. Sometimes I walk through the Library late at night, and I see Members, not confined to any one party, writing letters in longhand at 11 o'clock, and taking copies. That tells me immediately, without having any interest in their correspondence, that they are being debarred from spending the necessary time in the Chamber listening to Debates, from a proper study of the OFFICIAL REPORT and White Papers, from proper Parliamentary reading, and from keeping up to date with political opinion by reading various journals which we ought to study, particularly those published by our political opponents. One often gets a theme for a speech in this way. But this cannot be done under present conditions.
Then, a Member should have an efficient secretary. A good secretary is worth
all of £250 a year, and cheap at the price. Postage has risen to an enormous extent, and I must ally myself with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds on this matter. My right hon. Friend—if I may still call him so despite this temporary difference of opinion—said he was making a difficult speech. So am I. It is always rather embarrassing for a Member to find applause for his remarks coming from the opposite benches, while there is silence or implied disapproval among his own friends. [HON. MEMBERS: " Not all."] It is a difficult situation; I am sure the Foreign Secretary knows that if nobody else does. As one who was on the Select Committee may I say finally that I believe the Report presents an honourable solution of an extremely difficult problem. It was a unanimous Report of men of differing views and temperaments—it would be difficult to select a wider range of opinions in the House than was represented on the Committee. Its recommendations are such as will enable us to perform our duties with dignity but without luxury. I therefore propose to go into the Lobby in support of this immediate increase, and to defend it in my constituency, and I believe my people will understand it. I believe they will understand that I am doing something to defend this Parliamentary system which has survived so many storms. Hitler tried to pull us down, and so did many others. But there is only one thing that could smash the British House of Commons and that is for us to bang, bolt and bar our doors against men of ability, just because they are without financial resources.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 345; Noes, 26.

Division No. 189.]

AYES.

[10.32 p.m.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Balfour, A.

Boothby. R

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith. South)

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Bottomley, A. G.

Agnew, Cmdr. P, G.

Barstow, P. G

Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W

Aitkan, Hon. Max

Bartlett, V.

Bowen, R.

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Barton, C.

Bower, N

Allan, Scholefield (Crewe)

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

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

Bechervaise, A. E.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Allighan, Garry

Bennett, Sir P.

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

Alpass, J. H.

Benson, G.

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Berry, H.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Andersen, F (Whitehaven)

Bing, G. H. C.

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Attor, Hon. M.

Binns, J.

Brown, George (Belper)

Attewell, H. C.

Blackburn, A. R.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Aweary, S. S.

Blenkinsop, Capt. A.

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Ayles, W. H.

Blyton, W. R.

Burden, T. W.

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

Boardman, H.

Burke, W. A.

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

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

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

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Byers, Lt.-Col. F.

Hardman, D. R.

Morley, R.

Callaghan, James

Hardy, E. A.

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

Carson, E.

Harris, H. Wilson

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Harrison, J.

Mort, D. L.

Champion, A. J.

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

Moyle, A.

Chater, D.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Murray, J, D.

Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.

Haworlh, J.

Nally, W.

Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G

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

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Cluse, W. S.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

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

Cobb, F. A.

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Cocks, F. S.

Herbison, Miss M.

Nicholson, G.

Coldrick, W

Hewitson, Capt. M

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Collick, P.

Hicks, G.

Noel Buxton, Lady

Collindridge, F.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

O'Brien, T.

Collins, V. J.

Hobson, C. R

Oldfield, W. H.

Colman, Miss G, M

Hogg, Hon. Q.

Oliver, G. H

Comyns, Dr. L.

Holman, P.

Orbach, M.

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Orr-Ewing, I, L

Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

Horabin, T. L,

Paget, R. T.

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

House, G.

Palmer, A. M. F,

Corbett, Lieut-Col. U. (Ludlow)

Hoy, J.

Pargiler, G. A.

Coded, Dr. J.

Hubbard, T.

Parker, J.

Corvedale, Viscount

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

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Cove, W. G.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Pearson, A.

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

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

Peart, Capt. T. F

Crossman, R. H S.

Hurd, A

Perrins, W.

Crosthwaite-Eyre. Col. O. E

Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

Plaits-Mills, J. F. F.

Daggar, G.

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Popplewell, E.

Daines, P.

Irving, W. J.

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A

Prescott. Stanley

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Janner, B.

Price-White, Lt.-Col D

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Pritt, D. N.

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

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

Pryde, D. J.

Davies, S. O. (Msrthyr)

Jennings, R.

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Dmr, G.

John, W.

Raikes, H. V.

Delargy, Captain H. J.

Janes, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Randall, H E.

Dobbie, W.

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitehin)

Ranger, J.

Dodds, N. N.

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

Rankin, J.

Dribers T. E. h.

Keenan, W.

Reeves, J.

Dumpleton, C. W.

Kenyon, C.

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Durbin, E. F M.

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Dye, S.

Kinley, J.

Robens, A.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Kirby, B. V.

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

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

Kirkwood, D.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Edwards, John (Blackburn)

Lancaster, Col. C. G

Rogers, G. H. R.

Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

Lang, G.

Royle, C.

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Lavers, S

Sargood, R.

Evans, E, (Lowestoft)

Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

Scollan, T.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

Segal, Dr. S

Fairhurst, F.

Leslie, J. R,

Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

Farthing, W. J.

Levy, B. W.

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

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

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)

Follick, M.

Lindgren, G, S.

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Foot, M. M.

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

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Forman, J. C.

Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

Simmons, C. J.

Foster, W. (Wigan)

Lipson, D. L.

Skeffington, A. M.

Fraser, Sir 1. (Lonsdale)

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Skeffington-Lodge, T. C

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Logan, D. G.

Skinnard, F. W.

Freeman, Maj. J (Watford)

Low, Brig. A. R W

Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)

Gage, Lt.-Col. C

Lyno, A. W.

Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

Gaitskell, H. T. N

McEntee, V. La T

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

Gallacher, W.

Mack, J. D.

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

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Smith, T. (Normanton)

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

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

Snow, Capt. J. W.

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Sorensen, R. W.

Gibbtns, J.

MoLeavy, F.

Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

Gibson, C. W

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Steele, T.

Gilzean, A.

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Stakes, R. R.

Gooch, E. G.

Mann, Mrs. J.

Stross, Dr. B.

Gordon-Walker, P. C.

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Sutcliffe, H.

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Haywood)

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Swingler, S.

Grenfell, D. R.

Marples, A. E.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Grey, C. F.

Marshall, F. (Brightside)

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

Grierson, E.

Maude, J. C.

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Mayhew, C. P.

Taylor, R. J (Morpeth)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J, (Llanelly)

Medland, H. M.

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

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

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Gunter, Capt. R. J

Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

Thomas, John R. (Dover)

Guy, W. H.

Molson, A. H. E

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Hale, Leslie

Montague, F.

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

Hall, W. G. (Coins Valley)

Moody, A. S.

Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

1298

1299

Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)

Warbey, W N

Williams Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

Tiffany, S.

Watkins, T. E

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Timmons, J.

Weitzntan D.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Titterington, M. F.

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

Tolley, L.

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

Wheatley, Colonel M. J

Wise, Major F. J.

Turner-Samuels, M.

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

Woodburn, A.

Ungoed-Thomas, L

White, J. B. (Canterbury)

Yates, V F.

Usborne, Henry

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

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

Vornon, Mai W. F.

Wilkes, Maj. L.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Viant, S. P.

Wilkins, W. A.

Zilliacus, K.

Walkden, E.

Willey, F. T (Sunderland)

Walker, G. H

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Mr. McKinlay and Lieut.- Commander Gurney Bratthwaite.

Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow, E.)

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

NOES.

Baldwin, A. E.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Studholme, H. G

Clarke, Col. R. S.

McCallum, Maj. D

Thomson, Sir D, (Aberdeen, s.)

Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

Medlicott, F.

Touche, G. C.

Drewe, C

Mellor, Sir J.

Vane, W. M. T.

Duthie, W. S.

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

White, Sir D. (Fareham)

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Gomme-Duncan, Col A. G.

Shepherd, W. S. (Bueklow)

Henderson, John (Cathoart)

Snadden, W. M.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

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

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Sir Wavell Wakefield and Mr. Hollis.

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

Strauss, H. G (English Universities)

Resolution agreed to.

Resolved:
That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient,—

(a) that provision should be made, as from the first day of April nineteen hundred and forty-six, for the payment of salaries to Members of this House—

(i) at the rate of one thousand pounds a year, except in the case of a Member who is for the time being in receipt of a salary as a Minister of the Crown, an officer of His Majesty's Household, or an officer of this House or as Leader of the Opposition, or in receipt of a pension as a person who has been Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury;

(ii) at the rate of five hundred pounds a year in the case of a Member who is for the time being in receipt of a salary less than five thousand pounds a year as a Minister of the Crown, or in receipt of a salary as an officer of His Majesty's Household or as Chairman or Deputy Chairman of Ways and 'Means or as Leader of the Opposition, or in receipt of a pension as a person who has been Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury:

(b) that more convenient arrangements should be made with respect to the facilities for railway travel available to Members of this House;

(c) That Mr. Speaker should be invited to appoint a committee to advise him on the application of the rules and practice governing the payment of travelling expenses of Members of this House and of subsistence allowances payable to them when travelling on the official business of this House;

(d) that provision should be made for enabling Members of the House of Lords to recover out of the sums voted for the expenses of that House the cost of railway fares incurred by them in attending that House for the purposes of their parliamentary duties."

MINISTERIAL SALARIES BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time. —[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]
10.45 p.m.
Captain Crookshank: I will not detain the House long, but I would say on this Bill that we have been dealing so far this evening, with what one might call the rank and file. We are now come to those who are alternatively called the second eleven, or the non-commissioned officers, and, however you look upon them, there are some of us, at any rate on this side of the House, who have long thought that they were highly deserving people.
It is very necessary, in the view of all my hon. Friends, that something should be done to assist the junior Ministers. It has been a matter of discussion for a very considerable time, and—I do not know if it is a matter of general knowledge, but anyhow hon. Gentlemen can take it from some of us who know about these things— there have been, in the course of years, a number of occasions when lion. Members of this House have been proposed by their leaders for office in junior ranks, and found themselves unable to accept because they were either professionally engaged or engaged in business, and at the time were perhaps paying for the education of their children, or looking after somebody, or had some family responsibilities. Because of the fact that they would have to take

1301
office at £1,500 a year or, as it is in two cases—until this Bill is passed—£1,200 a year, and, in the case of Whips, even less, and give up all other sources of income, they were unable to contemplate the change. I have no doubt there are many instances in which public service, or administration in the public sphere, has lost as a result of the treatment that has been afforded junior Ministers. It is therefore very timely that this House, having dealt with the generality of Members, should now pass on to this similar, but really very important, section of the community.
The suggestion to raise the salaries of the Postmaster General and the Minister of Pensions has our approval. I am not so sure that the proposal of raising that of the Chancellor of the Duchy is quite such a neat arrangement because, of course, he is not paid out of public funds, but the result of this proposal is that the deficit will come on the Votes. So, for the first time, his salary will be questionable in the House. Of course I see the advantage from our point of view so long as he holds office in conjunction with responsibilities in Germany, but I still think that as a matter of pure administration, it would have been neater if he had been given one of the other sinecures, and the Chancellor of the Duchy had been allowed to remain in its historic position. The Chancellor looks worried, but I think I am right in saying there has been no political appointment to the office of Paymaster General and therefore an office could have been found, without raising his salary for the Chancellor of the Duchy.
The proposal for the appointment of a Deputy Chief Whip seems only common sense. We all know there are bound to be grades of importance and of responsibility in the Whips' office, and it is for the convenience of both sides of the House that one should know definitely who is the deputy to the Patronage Secretary. To all that we have no objection, but I would like to ask the Chancellor to say something about this question of raising, by £ 500 year all round, the allowance of junior Ministers. We have agreed just now to raise to £ 1,000 the salary or allowance or whatever you like to call it of Members of this House, but junior Ministers' salaries are to be increased by £500, and those of Cabinet Ministers by nothing at all. They are
1302
the orphans of the storm. I want to put to the Chancellor something which it would be a little awkward for him to put to the House himself. It is this. The purpose of the extra £500 to the junior Ministers is, to some extent, to enable them to have the " office " of a Member of Parliament by which they can charge their expenses against Income Tax. That, in theory, is the only thing against which expenses " wholly, exclusively and necessarily "Incurred in the course of an office can be charged. As, therefore, they have not been holding office as Members of Parliament, there is nothing in Income Tax law against which they can charge their expenses. I do not know why it has been put at £500, and why not at the more logical figure of the full thousand. When one looks at the return given to the Select Committee, one finds on the level of £550 to £600, that 47 per cent. of those who claimed, paid that amount in expenses, and between £500 and £550, 10 per cent. That means that 57 per cent, of those claiming are above the £500. It would seem that many junior Ministers might be in the same category. But I do put it to the Chancellor that he would get no great measure of complaint from us on this side of the House if he looked at Cabinet Ministers from that angle. Surely Cabinet Ministers are, from experience, " wholly, exclusively and necessarily " concerned with their duties connected with this House, and while it may be said that £5,000 is a sufficient salary for a Cabinet Minister, if they have the same expenses as we Private Members have, they should be able to charge that against their Income Tax assessment as junior Ministers will do up to £500 a year
It is very awkward, I know, for Cabinet Ministers to put that point, and I should like to hear what the Chancellor says can be done about it. If Ministers feel they should not raise their maximum from £5,000 could not a Clause be inserted enabling them to sub-divide their £5,000 into £4,000 for the " office " of the Cabinet Minister, and £1,000 for the " office " of Member of Parliament? If that were so, they would be on the same basis as the rest of us. They could then split up the Under-Secretaries in the same way, and if their expenses should run over the £500 we are going to give them, they would have something against which they could claim.

1303
It is, I think, important to consider these matters even though it is a late hour, just as it has been important to establish that hon. Members— as the House has just agreed— should not be put into the position of not being able to keep the reasonable dignity which one couples with this House. If that is true of the generality, I do not see why it should not be true of those who have the good fortune to serve His Majesty as Ministers on that Bench. Therefore, if it is possible to do it in this Bill by some redrafting, I should be very happy to see it done. If that is not possible, I should be very happy if the Chancellor would consider it and not be too backward in coming forward with some such proposal in order to put junior and senior Ministers on exactly the same level as other hon. Members of this House. After all, in the long run we are all Members of Parliament even if some of us hold more distinguished posts than others. I should add that we on this side do not, of course, propose to divide on this Bill.
10.56 p.m.
Earl Winterton: I was a Member of the Select Committee and, of course, it would be grossly out of Order for any Member of that Committee to say what influenced the Committee in coming to its decision. There is, however, I think, nothing out of Order in saying what was present in the mind of the Member who is speaking—if I may put it in that roundabout way. The need for a rise in junior Ministers' salaries was very much present in my mind, and possibly it had some impact on my hon. colleagues in the Committee, that this should be done. I want to raise two points which are of a rather delicate character. I hope I shall deal with them in a way which will offend nobody. If I do not, then I shall have failed in my task. I think they are matters which should be brought out. Since the Committee reported, information has reached me—I do not know whether it is accurate or not— that Members of the Government, including the junior Ministers who are affected by this Bill, are in possession of advantages. I think the word " advantages "Is the most mild and inoffensive word I can use. They are advantages which were not in the possession of the Cabinet or of junior Ministers before the war, but which were in the possession of most Ministers during the war. I refer,
1304
for example, to lodging in Government offices. I understand some Ministers enjoy lodging in Government offices—
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr.Dalton): Junior Ministers?
Earl Winterton: Well, I am asking for the information. It would, I think, be out of Order to deal with those who receive £5,000, but I should like to say for the benefit of those hon. Members who are not acquainted with the fact, that, of course, before the war there was no such thing as I have indicated. The only Ministers provided with official residences were the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord of the Admiralty. I can speak from personal experience. Before the war there were not more than three or four official motor cars at the disposal of Members of the Government. I am not sure that there were even so many—
Captain Crookshank: Two.
Earl Winterton: My right hon. and gallant Friend says there were two. I wish it to be clearly understood that I am making no complaint. I am merely raising the matter and asking for information upon it. I understand that a great number of Ministers are in possession of official cars. I have no personal experience of this. I have been told, and I see no great harm in it, that they are in the habit of allowing other hon. Members to use those cars. In fact, a cynic told me the other day that if one: gave* a half-crown to the driver, one could always get a lift home in an official car. We should know whether these things are so or not. I think here I have the whole House with me in that. I am certainly making no party point when I say it is most undesirable that there should be anything in the nature of what I might call a hidden subsidy or perquisite.
Here I would illustrate what I am saying— and of course I am not suggesting there is any resemblance between the two cases. In the course of a long official experience, I happen to have been Paymaster General. A permanent official at the Paymaster General's office once said to me: "In the days of one of your predecessors, 120 years ago, he, like you, received no salary, but he actually had emoluments of £70,000 a year, and these emoluments were recognised as quite

1305
reasonable for his office." He obtained the emoluments, I understand, by means which had something to do with the contracts which he placed. We certainly do not want to go back, in even a minor degree, to the days when Cabinet or other Ministers were in possession of perquisites not known to the public. I thank the hon. Gentlemen opposite for the courteous manner in which they have received my remarks. I assure them I am making no party point, but I do put these two specific questions to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor. How many Ministers who are affected by this Bill have lodgings at the expense of the State, that is to say, free lodgings in any Government office? How many Ministers are provided with motor cars?
I pass to a slightly more controversial point by referring to something said by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crook-shank). It is controversial in the sense that, in the Debate on 27th November, 1945, when the Chancellor, in reply to a question put by my right hon. and gallant Friend, said that Ministers of Cabinet rank were provided with motor cars, my right hon. and gallant Friend made a computation— into which I do not propose to go at length— which showed that free use of a motor car meant a considerable increment to anyone's salary in these days. I think my right hon. and gallant Friend put the figure at least £1,000 a year. There is another matter to which I meant to refer earlier. The other day I heard —and I must say it was disturbing to me—that even when not on official duty, that is to say, when not travelling to perform the functions of their office, it was possible for Ministers, junior and senior, to obtain what I would call free lifts in R.A.F. machines.
Mr. Dalton: R.A.F. machines?
Earl Winterton: Well, in R.A.F. aeroplanes. I hope that is not so, because certainly this House has never sanctioned any hon. Member, or for that matter any Minister who is not a Defence Minister, travelling anywhere in an R.A.F. machine unless on highly, important official duty. Once again, I thank the House for listening to these observations of mine on a rather delicate subject. I believe I have the whole House with me in saying that if there are any hidden perquisites, of the
1306
kind to which I have made reference, they should be disclosed at once, and hon. Members should have an opportunity of making up their minds whether they want them to remain or not. My advice, most humbly given, is that rather than have any hidden perquisites there should be a further rise in Ministers' salaries.
11.3 p.m.
Mr. Charles Williams: The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) will excuse me if I do not follow him on this particular matter. I have never been on the Front Bench on either side of the House, but I have had the honour of occupying the Chair, and I would like to put this suggestion from that point of view. I think the only way of dealing with this matter is to give the clear £1,000 a year to a Member of Parliament, whether he be an officer of the House or a Member of the Government or not. Let us all, as Members of the House of Commons, rank equally as far as that £1,000 is concerned. I think that should be the basic figure, as my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) said. I would then add to that the sum which we consider necessary—I am not arguing that—for the payment of Ministers; say, £4,000 a year instead of the present £5,000, or whatever it may be. I would emphasise that, in the best interests of the House, I think it absolutely essential that all hon. Members, as Members of Parliament, should be paid precisely the same salary, and officers of the House and Cabinet Ministers should be paid an additional sum to cover the work they have to perform beyond their work as Members of Parliament.
11.5 p.m.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): It is refreshing to have a Measure commended to the House upon its merits, and not merely on the ground that it is a necessary promulgation of the terms of " Let Us Face The Future," as if this House existed for the automatic ratification of that document—with certain exceptions such as, of course, the friendly societies—and was not entitled to discuss matters on their merits. The Bill before the House, in its somewhat genial if confused benevolence, embraces the Postmaster-General. I am perfectly certain that I shall have hon. Members opposite with me when I say that I have

1307
always believed in the policy of the wage for the job. What is the job? Last week the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House that he did not know whether the Postmaster-General was or was not to have responsibility for the telecommunications of the Empire. How can this House possibly assess the proper remuneration of the Postmaster-General unless it knows what his job is going to be? I would respectfully suggest that if the Postmaster-General is to have this enormous additional responsibility of running the telecommunications of the Empire, the proposals contained in this Bill are ludicrously inadequate. If, on the other hand, he is not to have this responsibility, and is to continue merely to run a not frightfully well conducted Department, then other considerations apply.
One other consideration is that that Department is already charging extraordinarily high prices for the services it runs with the 2½d. post. On that point I am sure that the House would be assisted by the quotation of one sentence from no less a person than the Minister of Supply, who in another Debate, which will be fresh in the recollection of the House, said:
"If, under a monopoly, prices and profits rise simultaneously, it is clear that the public is not getting a square deal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th May,1946; Vol. 423, c. 846.]
Prices, we know, have risen in the Postmaster-General's Department, and it appears that profits are also to rise. It seems a little inconsistent with the high principle enunciated by the Minister of Supply the other day, for his colleague to come forward with another view to ensure that profits follow high prices in an upward spiral. There is another point of some interest. It is that within the broad and generous arms of this Bill is also embraced the Minister of Pensions. Hon. Members are aware of the deep dissatisfaction which exists among ex-Servicemen on the subject of the right hon. Gentleman's Department. Hon. Members are aware of the fact that there is a Motion on the Order Paper, in the names of some 70 Members, asking for a Select Committee on War Pensions. We are told that there is no time for that, but there is apparently time to raise the salary of the Minister of Pensions. Although charity proverbially begins at home, I feel that a certain number
1308
of those miserably remunerated and wounded ex-Servicemen will not view with any great enthusiasm the fact that the only increase in pension expenditure is in favour of the Minister himself.
11.9 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr.Dalton): I do not wish to delay any longer the reply to the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) and the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). Perhaps it would be convenient if at this stage I told the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) that the questions he raised on the salaries of the Postmaster-General and the Minister of Pensions are quite appropriate Committee points. I will not say more now, except to add that when the Committee stage is reached, I shall be very happy to reply to the hon. Member's arguments, if he will put down an Amendment. I think that that would be the most appropriate stage for a discussion on this question.
The noble Lord asked me two questions. He considered them rather delicate, but he put them quite courteously. I have no difficulty in replying to his questions, and I think that the answers which I shall give will reassure him, and demonstrate, once more, that " rumour is a lying jade." His two questions concerned Ministers whose total emoluments would be affected by the terms of the Bill. He asked me how many of them have free lodgings in Government offices. The answer is " None."It would be quite improper, and it is not in any single case the practice. The second question was: " How many of the Ministers, similarly affected, have official cars for their own use?"The answer is the same as the answer to the first question—" None."There has been no concealment. I have already given answers in this House on the question of the use of official motorcars. I again state what is the position. An official car is available for the use of every Minister of Cabinet rank, that is to say, Ministers now receiving £5,000 per annum, and two who are affected by the proposed increases, namely, the Postmaster General and the Minister of Pensions. But no junior Minister, and no Minister who is to get this additional £500 allowance under this scheme, with the exception of the two whom I have mentioned—one of whom, the Postmaster-

1309
General, is not a Member of this House— none of these have official cars. In the days of the Coalition, certain junior Ministers, in addition to Ministers of Cabinet rank, had the use of official cars. [An HON. MEMBER: "During the war."] During the war. When this Government arrived, the matter was reviewed, and the rule which I have now stated, and which I have already given to the House in reply to a Parliamentary Question, is that every Minister of Cabinet rank has the use of an official car.
Earl Winterton: In other words, the cars are for the exclusive use of Cabinet Ministers. Might not a Minister of a Service Department say, " We have not got an official car, but we are going to use an Admiralty, an R.A.F. or an Army car?"I want to know whether junior Ministers have the use of official cars, over and above the situation described by the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Dalton: I am anxious to make this question so clear that there shall be no misunderstanding on the matter. At the same time, this is not in the Bill, and I do not think it right to go on talking too long about it. But I wish to. answer the noble Lord. An official car—I will put it in slightly different language to make it clear—is assigned to the use of each Minister of Cabinet rank and no Minister not of Cabinet rank has the use of an official car assigned to him. It may well be—and it would be quite legitimate in my view—for a junior Minister in a Service Department, who was proceeding with other persons, possibly high officers —Air Marshals, Generals or Admirals, as the case may be—on some official duty connected with the Service of which he was junior Minister, to travel in an official car. Who is going to say, "This man has to walk on his flat feet or hire a taxicab "? What about the dignity of the Services? Certainly not. It would be perfectly proper to travel in an official car on such an occasion. What I have said is that they do not have assigned to them for their use, whenever they require it, an official car.
Mr. Keeling rose—
Mr. Dalton: We are getting very far from the Bill.
Mr. Keeling: I only want to say that I do not think that the reply which the
1310
right hon. Gentleman has given is the same as the reply which was given in this House not so very long ago, when it was stated that an Air Ministry car called at the New Palace Yard for the purpose of picking up the Under-Secretary of State for Air after he had finished his Parliamentary duties. [An HON. MEMBER: " Why not? "] I am not asking, " Why not? "I am merely saying that the Chancellor's statement is inconsistent with that.
Mr. Dalton: I should like to get back to the Bill. I was anxious to answer the noble Lard the Member for Horsham who was a Member of the Select Committee, and who has done such good work in connection with this matter. [Interruption.] If hon. Members are going to have a hunt round, for something to turn upside down and exaggerate, there is no use dealing with them.
Mr. Keeling: I only wanted to say that the statement of the Chancellor was not correct.
Mr. Dalton: My statement was correct, and if the hon. Gentleman will do me the honour of paying attention to me I shall try once more—but only once more—to make it clear. There is no inconsistency between what I have said, and the fact that on a particular occasion, but not for general and exclusive use, a motor car picked up some particular Minister, who had been kept late at work. I say this is an efficient Government and as an efficient Government it is going to take jolly good care that it will not have a Minister stranded here late at night, be cause certain Members prolong the proceedings unreasonably. It will see that a Minister so placed can get home. Having said that, I repeat with the utmost clarity of which I am capable, that cars are assigned for the exclusive use only of Ministers of Cabinet rank, Other Ministers will, from time to time, and quite legitimately, too, travel in a motor car owned by the State. They will do so on specific purposes when the public interest is an issue. They will not necessarily always travel in the same car nor will they always travel in a car with other people. I hope the hon. Gentleman has now got the position clear. If he has not, I despair of him and refer him to the Noble Lord, who, if I may say so, seems to have a more acute perception. With regard to other motor cars—
Captain Crookshank: £5,000 a year rank?
Mr. Dalton: Certainly. I think it is most convenient to carry on in peace time, within the limits I have described, the practice whereby a Minister of Cabinet rank has the use of an official car. That advantage is a point raised against giving these Ministers any addition by way of salary. I think it is better to leave that as an advantage. The Government did not place the question of the Minister with £5,000 a year within the ambit of the inquiry of the Select Committee, nor do we at this stage think that it should be considered further. We have not come here proposing that the position of Ministers receiving £5,000 a year should be improved or altered in any way. We have been concerned with the two other grades, namely, what are called junior Ministers and the private Members of Parliament. With regard to the so-called junior Ministers defined in the Bill, they are to get the advantage of the proposals that we make.
Earl Winterton: What about the question of aeroplanes?
Mr. Dalton: In reply to the noble Lord, may I say I have never heard that suggestion before. If some evidence could be produced, of course we would look into it to see if anything irregular has happened. I do not believe anything irregular has happened, and I think this question has arisen through some jealousy or some little tittle-tattle by some person. There is really nothing in it. Certainly it would be quite wrong for R.A.F. aircraft to be used for joy riding. On the other hand— [Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members will let me finish.
Earl Winterton: The Chancellor's own supporters were shouting at him.
Mr. Dalton: The sooner I am allowed to finish, the sooner shall we all get home. What I was saying in regard to the point mentioned by the noble Lord in regard to aircraft was that I think it was due to jealousy. It is an idea propagated by somebody who would like to be in a position to get a joy ride himself, or who is not in the position and heard of someone who was and so was jealous. I believe there is nothing in it, but if any evidence of that kind of thing is produced I can assure the House that it will be looked into.
Mr. Boothby: Is it not a fact that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is entitled to use an aeroplane to go to Scotland on official business? Is he not entitled to go between Scotland and London in a plane under those conditions, and why should the right hon. Gentleman object to that? The Minister should be able to fly to Scotland in an aeroplane on official business, if that.is the most convenient way.
Mr. Dalton: That was not the question I was asked. I was asked about Private Members—
Mr. Boothby: No.
Mr. Dalton: We are making heavy weather of things that are not in the Bill. There is nothing about aircraft in the Bill at all. The noble Lord asked me a number of questions, and I have been seeking to answer them, but I cannot go on indefinitely answering questions which have nothing to do with the Bill. If anybody has any evidence to produce about irregularities I will look into it, but, so far, none has been produced. Travelling on official business is a different thing. It is laid down in the provisions already accepted by the House, that air travel is to be just as free as rail travel, not merely for Ministers but for all Members of the House, just as fast as we can create and multiply civil air lines. Let us stop suspecting people of doing things which they ought not to do, and of which as I say no evidence has been produced so far.
I return to the major points which have been raised. Private Members will get a net increment—although it will not be net after tax deduction—of plus £400. They will go up from £600 to £1,000. A junior Minister will get plus £500. It is a plus of 500 to be compared with a plus of £400, rather than a total of £1,000 of the Private Member to be put against the proposal for a plus of £1,000 for the junior Minister. I think it "would be excessive for a junior Minister, at this stage, to get a plus of £1,000 when the ordinary Member was getting plus £400, and a Cabinet Minister was getting a plus of zero. I think we are meeting the case reasonably by giving the junior Minister a plus of £500 and enabling him to do what he will do, namely, claim against that for Income Tax relief. Here, we are closely following the proposal of the

1313
Select Committee, which was an automatic tax free increment of £500. That, we think, is not a good thing. But we think it is reasonable to give the junior Minister a plus of £ 500. In order to make it tax relievable you have to put it as part of his salary as a Member of the House, and not as part of his salary as a Minister.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gains borough has been at the Treasury, and he will know that it is a principle of Income Tax law—and, in my view, a sound one—that if a person has a composite income composed of two elements, he must not claim expenses, arising by reason of some functions, against the element of income that comes in from some other source. In the case where he is not getting a composite income, but his income is coming from one source, and no income is coming from another source to which Income Tax liabilities attach, it would lead to all sorts of awkward consequences if he were allowed to claim against Income Tax for drawing X expenses arising from doing Y. It would open up possibilities of great fraud and evasion over the whole field of the business world if people claimed extravagantly for expenses which they were setting against income arising from something quite different. Therefore, the Select Committee in my submission were quite right in their proposals with regard to the junior Minister and that it would be bad luck for him that he could not claim for his stationery, secretarial assistance and postages, and therefore that he ought to be allowed something— subject of course to having proved his case, as everyone else has to do. I think we have got the relativities right, in giving the private Member plus £ 400, the junior Ministers plus £ 500 and the Cabinet Ministers plus nothing. That may not be the opinion of others, but that is what we think. That is as good justice, we think as they can get in this world. All these matters can of course be debated further in Committee, although it will not, as the Bill is now drafted, be proper to propose increases on the charge. There are, however, matters that can and will be given further consideration, and I will undertake to give consideration to the points that have been raised.
One other question was asked, with regard to the Paymaster-General. There is
1314
no Paymaster General at present, but it is just possible that it may be convenient, at some later date, to fill that post with some person who may have; a particular job to do. It might be called a sinecure Ministry, but it does net mean that the holder of the office does just nothing. However, as I say, there is at present no such Minister. [An HON. MEMBER: " What about the work? "] Well, it gets done. With regard to the Chancellor of the Duchy, I do not think the difference is really serious. It would not be right to put the extra £ 1,000 a year against the Duchy revenues. On the other hand, he happens now to be performing an important function, and I think if we are accepting £ 3,000 a year as the intermediate salary scale between the £ 5,000 for the senior Ministers and the £ 1,500 for the junior Ministers— in the sense of Under-Secretaries'— it is right that we should pay the Chancellor of the Duchy as we propose to pay the Minister of Pensions at the rate at which the Minister of State now stands. I think that this £ 3,000 is a reasonable intermediate stage. There is no great inconvenience in his income being from two sources, and there is an additional advantage that Members can now, for the first time, move to reduce the salary of the Chancellor of the Duchy, which might be a very convenient peg on which to hang a Debate, say, on the question of what we are paying the Germans.
I was asked why this increase was dated back to 1st April. It was not done in order to make Ministers look foolish. It was done because salaries are paid monthly. I made the statement on 30th April, and it seemed reasonable that we should date the proposal back to the beginning of the month in which the statement was made I know that 5th April is the date for the change in the Income Tax year, but the best plan, in view of the monthly salaries, seemed to be to date the increase from 1st April. It might be the case that some people might claim for Income Tax remission for four days in the year, but I think the Income Tax authorities are clever enough to meet any difficulties like that. Something has been said about delay. We received the report sometime in March, and if there was any delay in dealing with it, that was not the fault of the Members of this House, or of the Select Committee. The fault if any lay with the Cabinet.

1315
I do not admit there was any delay, but if there was delay, it was as I say the fault of the Cabinet rather than of any of those who would be benefiting from the arrangement. Therefore, it seemed to be a fair starting point to take it from 1st April. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is still not satisfied, the point can be raised in Committee, and he might move to alter it in Committee, but I hope he will not think it necessary to go to that trouble. The House has already passed the same date for private Members. I hope that with these observations, the House will now give the Bill a Second Reading.
11.30 p.m.
Mr. Martin Lindsay: I wish to put a question to the Chancellor concerning Clause 2, line 10, in which there is reference to the new pay code for the Captain of the Gentlemen at Arms and the Captain of the Yeoman of the Guard. I want to ask the Chancellor whether he has examined the position and is about to bring forward proposals for a similar increase in the pay of the actual yeomen who form the ranks of these honourable corps.
Mr. Dalton: That would not come under this Bill, but it is the sort of thing we would be ready to examine with an open mind.
Mr. Lindsay: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not leave us with the impression that the purpose of the Bill is to increase the salary of the Socialist captains, without increasing that of the Tory yeomen.
Mr. Dalton: To give a serious answer to a very amusing question-—I am not sure how one can be certain that the yeomen are all Tories— the point is that the gentlemen who hold these picturesque titles are, in fact, performing in the House of Lords duties which combine those performed in this House by Whips and by junior Ministers. They have fairly onerous jobs. They have to guide Bills through their Lordships' House and to see that sufficient Socialists are present to resist attempts to modify the Bills.
11.33 p.m.
Mr. Boothby: The proposition before the House is quite an important one, and I
1316
do not know why there is such a desperate hurry to finish the Business. I am not in any great hurry to get home, and I wish to make a few observations. With regard to the Chancellor's remarks, although he made a very plausible case, as always, I do not think there is very much reason or logic behind the Government's proposal. It is a purely arbitrary proposal. They say that they think that, on the whole, it is a good idea to deal with this difficult situation, but the Chancellor put forward no logical reason for the proposal. I submit in all sincerity that I think it is right to raise the salary of every Member of the House to £ 1,000 a year and to make that basic, and then to adjust the Ministerial salaries on top of that. One may legitimately reduce the salaries of Cabinet Ministers by £ 1,000, but it is only fair to give every Member of Parliament a basic salary against which he can make deductions in respect of expenses in connection with his position. That should apply throughout the whole field, including Junior Ministers and Cabinet Ministers.
We are now planning for a long future. I do not think the question will arise again for a long time, because hon. Members hate to discuss their own salaries. I am afraid that we shall rush this Measure through, and that nobody will make adequate or exhaustive criticisms, that the Government will be rather shy of stating their view, and that we may be stuck with a fundamentally irrational system for the next fifty or sixty years. It would be better to make a good job of it now. I beg the Chancellor to consider the thing, not from the point of view of increasing the total charge, but from the point of view of whether it would not be logical and right to pay every Member of the House, including Cabinet Ministers, a basic salary of £1000 against which expenses could be charged in connection with his duties as a Member of Parliament, and then on top of that to pay Ministers whatever is thought appropriate by the House and by the Government of the day; and in those circumstances the salaries of Junior Ministers and Cabinet Ministers might require to be reduced to a certain extent.
There is only one other point I would like to make to the Chancellor. He got rather hot and bothered about the question of transport, motor cars, and so forth.

1317
Speaking for myself, I would only like to point out that we have had a long and exhausting war, but are still a fairly powerful country; we are one of the Big Three, and I honestly think that if the Government of this country cannot afford to provide for Ministers of the Crown adequate transport, it is a sorry position. The right hon. Gentleman ought not to have to apologise for a Minister having a car to take him home or even an aeroplane in which to travel to Scotland if he so desires. We are hard pressed, but we are not as hard pressed as all that. I am in favour of giving all Ministers of the Crown every possible facility in the form of transport at the Government's expense, by car and by air, in order to ease their task. But I think the Chancellor ought to be frank with the House, and say that that is the intention of the Government. I am all for it. I thought it was almost humiliating to this country, that the Chancellor should have to deny that Under-Secretaries of State have motor cars to take them about on official business. Of course they should have motor cars. Ministers have an awful time, but junior Ministers have a worse time than Cabinet Ministers. All should have motor cars to help them in discharging their official duties. I once more urge the Chancellor to consider whether it would not be better, in the long run, to establish a basic salary of £ 1,000 a year for all Members of Parliament, and relate the salaries of Ministers to that basic salary.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

MINISTERIAL SALARIES [MONEY]
Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.
[Major MILNER in the Chair]
Resolved:
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision as to the salaries of certain Ministers of the Crown
1318
and other persons, and as to the payment of salaries or allowances as Members of Parliament to persons in receipt of salaries or pensions under the Ministers of the Crown Act, 1937 (hereinafter referred to as the " Act of1937 "). it is expedient to authorise, as from the first day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-six:

A. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(i) of any increase in the sums payable under the Act of 1937 out of moneys so provided which is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session increasing the maximum amount of the annual salary of the Postmaster-General to five thousand pounds, of the Minister of Pensions to three thousand pounds, and of the Assistant Postmaster-General to fifteen hundred pounds;

(ii) of a salary to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in respect of his office of any amount by which his salary in respect thereof paid otherwise than out of moneys so provided is less than three thousand pounds a year;

(iii) of any increase not exceeding two hundred pounds in the annual salary of one of the Junior Lords of the Treasury which is attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session relating to the salaries of the Treasurer, the Comptroller, and the Vice-Chamberlain of His Majesty's Household and the said junior Lords of the Treasury;

(iv) of salaries to the Captain of the Honorable Corps of Gentlemen at Arms and the Captain of the King's Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard of an amount not exceeding twelve hundred pounds a year, and to such number of Lords in Waiting not exceeding three as the Treasury may determine of an amount not exceeding one thousand pounds a year;

(v) of any increase in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament which is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session enabling a Member of the House of Commons to receive payments by way of salary or allowance in respect of his membership not exceeding five hundred pounds a year notwithstanding the receipt of a salary or pension under the Act of 1937.

B. The payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase in the sums payable out of that Fund which is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session enabling a pension to be paid under the Act of 1937 notwithstanding the receipt of a salary or allowance in respect of membership of the House of Commons, so long as the salary or allowance does not exceed five hundred pounds a year."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

CABLE AND WIRELESS [MONEY]
Resolution reported:
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to bring the share capital of Cable and Wireless Limited (in this Resolution referred to as "the operating company") into public ownership, to provide for the cost of making certain payments to the operating company in connection with reductions in its charges and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the charging on the Consolidated Fund, in connection with the provision of compensation to the companies specified in the said Act as the holders of the shares thereby transferredߞ

(i) of the principal of and interest on Government stock to be issued to them under the said Act, any expenses incurred in, connection with its issue or repayment and any remuneration payable in respect of its management; and

(ii) of sums payable to them under the said Act by way of interest, at such rate or rates as the Treasury may determine, on such compensation for the period beginning with the date of transfer of the shares and ending immediately before the date of issue of the said stock;

the total value (as determined by the Treasury) of the said stock at the date of issue, and the amount on which such interest is payable, to be (in default of agreement) equal to the total value of the shares transferred at the date of transfer, and the value of the shares to be assessed as a proportion of the price which the operating company's undertaking would realise on sale on the basis of its net maintainable revenue and the number of years' purchase to be applied thereto, but without regard to the effect on that revenue of the said Act or of the Bermuda agreement therein mentioned;

(b) the raising by the Treasury, in any manner in which they are authorised to raise
1320
money under the National Loans Act, 1939, of money for the purpose of providing any sums required by them in order to redeem the said stock;

(c)the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(i) of the remuneration and expenses of any tribunal set up under the said Act to assess (as mentioned in paragraph (a) of this Resolution) the total value of the shares transferred by the said Act; and

(ii) any sums required for the purpose of any undertaking given by the Treasury, in consideration of the operating company's reducing its charges, as to the making of payments to the operating company in respect of net loss of revenue consequent on the reductions;

(d)the payment into the Exchequer of any dividends on the shares transferred by the said Act paid by the operating company after their transfer, the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of sums so paid into the Exchequer and the application of sums so issued in payment of interest otherwise pay able out of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt."

ESTIMATES
Mr. Corlett added to the Select Committee. —[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

ADJOURNMENT
Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one minutes to Twelve o'clock.

ROYAL NAVY
  W. R.N. S. (Releases)
  W. R.N. S. (Releases)
  Warrant Rank Element
  Warrant Rank Element
  Australian Wives (Priority Passages)
  Australian Wives (Priority Passages)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Training Station, Madley (Marching Exercise)
  Training Station, Madley (Marching Exercise)
  Castle Hill House, Huntingdon
  Castle Hill House, Huntingdon
  Demobilisation
  Demobilisation
  Airfield, Ramsbury
  Airfield, Ramsbury
CIVIL AVIATION
  Heathrow Airport (Temporary Passenger Facilities)
  Heathrow Airport (Temporary Passenger Facilities)
  Statutory Orders (Authority to Sign)
  Statutory Orders (Authority to Sign)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Food Regulations (Enforcement Activities)
  Food Regulations (Enforcement Activities)
  Lettuces
  Lettuces
  Strawberries (Growers' Prices)
  Strawberries (Growers' Prices)
  Agricultural Produce (Containers)
  Agricultural Produce (Containers)
  Dutch anti French Produce (Importation)
  Dutch anti French Produce (Importation)
  Beer
  Beer
  Subsidies (Per Capita Cost)
  Subsidies (Per Capita Cost)
  Wheat
  Wheat
  Bread
  Bread
  Imported Vegetables and Salads
  Imported Vegetables and Salads
  Special Cheese Ration
  Special Cheese Ration
  Individual Gift Parcels (Foreign Countries)
  Individual Gift Parcels (Foreign Countries)
  West Indian Sugar
  West Indian Sugar
  Soft Fruits, Scotland
  Soft Fruits, Scotland
  Milk (Delivery)
  Milk (Delivery)
  SEYCHELLES (SECONDARY EDUCATION)
  SEYCHELLES (SECONDARY EDUCATION)
  PALESTINE (DANCING ESTABLISHMENT)
  PALESTINE (DANCING ESTABLISHMENT)
  TRINIDAD (SOCIAL INSURANCE)
  TRINIDAD (SOCIAL INSURANCE)
AFRICAN COLONIES
  Nigeria (Leopard Society Murders)
  Nigeria (Leopard Society Murders)
  Land Tenure (Nyasaland)
  Land Tenure (Nyasaland)
  Nyasaland Railways (Wages)
  Nyasaland Railways (Wages)
MALAYA
  Food Production
  Food Production
  C.D. Services (Payments)
  C.D. Services (Payments)
  Public Service (Asiatic Staff)
  Public Service (Asiatic Staff)
  PALESTINE (TERRORIST INCIDENTS)
  PALESTINE (TERRORIST INCIDENTS)
  SOUTH-WEST PACIFIC (REGIONAL COMMISSION)
  SOUTH-WEST PACIFIC (REGIONAL COMMISSION)
  COLONIAL SERVICE (TRAINING SCHEMES)
  COLONIAL SERVICE (TRAINING SCHEMES)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Suit Linings
  Suit Linings
  Spinning Experiments, Wye Mill
  Spinning Experiments, Wye Mill
  Government Factories (Allocation)
  Government Factories (Allocation)
  Overcharges (Repayment)
  Overcharges (Repayment)
  Animal Foodstuffs (Exports and Imports)
  Animal Foodstuffs (Exports and Imports)
  West African Timber
  West African Timber
  BRITISH COUNCIL
  BRITISH COUNCIL
GERMANY
  Occupation Duties (Holland and Belgium)
  Occupation Duties (Holland and Belgium)
  Prison Camps (Conditions)
  Prison Camps (Conditions)
  ATOMIC BOMB TESTS
  ATOMIC BOMB TESTS
  POLAND (RUSSIAN TROOPS)
  POLAND (RUSSIAN TROOPS)
  VICTORY MARCH (ALLIED FORCES' REPRESENTATIVES)
  VICTORY MARCH (ALLIED FORCES' REPRESENTATIVES)
  YALTA CONFERENCE
  YALTA CONFERENCE
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Surplus Aircraft
  Surplus Aircraft
  R.A.F. Dump, Standlake
  R.A.F. Dump, Standlake
  Wire Netting
  Wire Netting
  FILTON AERODROME (TRADE DISTURBANCE)
  FILTON AERODROME (TRADE DISTURBANCE)
BRITISH ARMY
  Defence Medal (Welsh Unit)
  Defence Medal (Welsh Unit)
  Military Hospital, Wheatley
  Military Hospital, Wheatley
  STRAWBERRY PRICES
  STRAWBERRY PRICES
  WAR GRAVES, HOLLAND (VISITS)
  WAR GRAVES, HOLLAND (VISITS)
  ROAD VEHICLES (LICENCES)
  ROAD VEHICLES (LICENCES)

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

CABINET MISSION TO INDIA.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, a question of which I have given him private notice. The question is as follows: To ask His Majesty's Government whether in view of the report from India that the Cabinet Mission's answers to recent inquiries as to the Mission's proposals have been published, these answers, together with such inquiries so far as documentary, will at once be made available to Parliament in a White Paper.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, the Statement issued by the Cabinet Delegation on May 25 was made with reference to a statement dated May 22 by the President of the Muslim League and a resolution dated May 24 of the Congress Working Committee. These latter are at present only partially available through Press channels but as soon as the authentic text has been received from India they will be published along with the Delegation's Statement in a supplementary White Paper.
I may perhaps add that the correspondence to which the noble Viscount referred in his question on Wednesday last will, I hope, be available as a White Paper to-morrow (Thursday).
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Viscount. I do not desire to ask anything more at
554
the moment, but I am sure he will have observed that it is also stated in The Times and elsewhere that there has been a memorandum presented to the Chamber of Princes with regard to the question of paramountcy and matters of that sort. I am sure he will consider how soon he can let us have that also.

ASTLEY AINSLIE HOSPITAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Considered on Report (according to Order).
LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Considered on Report (according to Order).

CIVIL SERVICE SCIENTISTS' PAY.
LORD BARNBY: I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to assurances given in this House on April 3 to the effect that the relevant organization representing scientists in the Civil Service were satisfied with the new rates of pay; whereas in fact the Institution of Professional Civil Servants, which is the main organization representing the scientists in the Civil Service, has not agreed the salary scales, but is still negotiating on complements and grading, in the light of the new rates which have been imposed without agreement by administrative action; and whether a statement can be made setting out the precise position with regard to this matter.]
2.35 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, it is quite true that the new and higher rates of pay for scientists in the Civil Service have been introduced without the Government being able to secure the agreement of their representative body, but the Government are continuing negotiations with a view to finding agreement to proposals which should by and large secure the declared purpose of the Government, and provide scientists in the Civil Service with a career equal to all those in other

555
sections of the Service. If an earlier answer of mine, elicited from me in the course of a debate on April 3, and hedged about with a certain number of qualifications, gave a false impression then to any-body in the House, or subsequently, I must ask the House to accept my sincere apologies.

BORROWING (CONTROL AND GUARANTEES) BILL.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendment read.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Pakenham.)
2.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, on that Motion may I make a statement with regard to the Amendment that was carried in this House the other day. I have consulted the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and of course we quite recognize that in this House it would not be possible to take any further action with regard to that Amendment. But I have to say that the Government have carefully considered it, and are firmly of the opinion that it is contrary to the main scheme of the Bill, and they will not be able to accept it.
2.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, it seems to me that the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, has taken a very unusual course with regard to this. No doubt he is entitled at some stage to say what is the view of the Government. But I should have thought that it would have been more in accordance with the well-known precedent that neither House is seised of the proceedings of the other until they have taken place if the statement of the Government's intention or the Government's view awaited the later consideration of the Bill, which has not passed this House, or even had its Report or Third Reading. It has then to go to the House of Commons, and will have to be considered there when it gets there. Frankly I should have thought that would have been more in order. The Government are not even making a counter proposition, as I understand, on any Amendment that is down on the
556
Paper. I should have thought the proper procedure would be to discuss this matter when the ordinary constitutional course has taken place, when the Bill has passed through this House and any Amendments which have been made here have been considered in another place. That surely is more in accordance with precedent.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I thought myself that it would be convenient if a statement of the view of the Government with regard to the Amendment were made at this stage. I am sorry if the noble Viscount thinks it is inconvenient, and I promise him I will reserve my observations for a future occasion when the point may arise. I should have thought myself it would have been convenient.
2.39 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I need not say that the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, has replied to my noble friend with his usual courtesy, which we always expect from him, but at the same time I would like to call your Lordships' attention to the very extraordinary character of the precedent which the noble Viscount is setting. We are under the impression that what your Lordships have done in this House may have great weight on what happens in the discussions in another place. We should have been very much better pleased if it had been considered. The noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, says he knows what the House of Commons are going to do, and what he himself and his friends will do in consequence. I am quite sure it will be agreed that that is a precedent which ought not to be followed.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Amendment reported accordingly.
Schedule:

PROVISIONS AS TO ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES.
1. Any person who contravenes any provision of any order made under this Act shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for not more than three months or to a fine not exceeding whichever is the highest of the following amounts—

(a) one hundred pounds; or

(b) the amount of any money borrowed or raised by the transaction in question; or

(c) the nominal or market value, whichever is the greater, of any securities to the issue, sale or other disposal of which

557
(whether actual or projected) the transaction in question relates,

or to both such imprisonment and such fine.
3.—(1) No proceedings for an offence under this Act shall be instituted in England except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
(5) Where a person has been sentenced in England on summary conviction for an offence under this Act to a fine which exceeds five hundred pounds, any moneys recovered in respect of the sum adjudged to be paid by the conviction shall be applied as follows:

(a) first in payment to the person entitled thereto of any costs adjudged to be paid by the conviction the amount of which is ascertained by the conviction;

(b) if the balance remaining after payment of the said costs does not exceed five hundred pounds, it shall be applied in accordance with the provisions of section five of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914;

(c) if the balance so remaining exceeds five hundred pounds, so much thereof as is equal to five hundred pounds shall be applied in accordance with the provisions of the said section five and the remainder shall be paid into the Exchequer,

and so much of the sum adjudged to be paid as falls, when recovered, to be paid into the Exchequer, shall, if not otherwise recovered, be recoverable as a debt due to the Crown.
In this sub-paragraph, the expression "the sum adjudged to be paid by the conviction" includes any costs adjudged to be paid by the conviction, of which the amount is ascertained by the conviction.
2.40 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM moved, in paragraph 1, alter "three months" to insert
"or to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds or to both such imprisonment and such fine; or
(ii) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment fur not more than two years "
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move this Amendment to the Schedule and I hope that the House will permit me to explain now the three Amendments on the Paper because they in fact go closely together and are all intended to meet the point that was raised with a good deal of force by various noble Lords on a previous occasion. I refer, for instance, to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, the noble Earl, Lord Munster and the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. I hope that those noble Lords and all other noble Lords will be satisfied that this is a genuine and successful attempt on the part of the
558
Government to set at rest the not unreasonable anxiety that was expressed at an earlier stage.
The Schedule, your Lordships will recall, was strongly criticized at the Committee stage on the ground that it placed it in the power of magistrates, possibly without great knowledge and in the absence of a jury, to inflict penalties which might run into many thousands of pounds on those who might be held to have offended against the Act. We recognize that there is a good deal of force in those contentions and we are grateful to the noble Lords for giving us this opportunity of seeing what can be done. At the same time, in fairness to those who bore the heat and burden of the defence of this Schedule in another place, I must point out that the Schedule was drafted in the form in which it was presented to your Lordships in what was felt to be the interest of the defendant. It was thought he would have an easier time if proved guilty, and a softer penalty, in front of the magistrates than he would have on indictment. But we have considered the matter a good deal, and we now come forward with three reasoned Amendments that go together.
These Amendments provide that offenders under the Bill can be prosecuted either before a court of summary jurisdiction or by indictment—that would be, I understand, at Assizes or at the Central Criminal Court. If I may, I will just show your Lordships how in practice the proposed penalties would work out, hoping, of course, that the need will never arise for them to be inflicted on anybody. Let me take first of all summary jurisdiction. There the maximum term of imprisonment—of course much smaller terms might be imposed—will remain as before at three months, and the maximum fine will be £500 as compared with the present unlimited power to impose a fine up to the full amount involved in the contravening transaction, which of course might mean a sum of many thousands of pounds. That is the position, if these Amendments are carried, on summary conviction. On indictment, the maximum term of imprisonment under the Amendments will be two years. This is the same as that which can be imposed for offences against the existing Capital Issues Control under the Defence Regulations. The maximum fine under the Amendments will be either £500 or the amount

559
involved in the transaction. I think that sets out the purpose of the Amendments as clearly as I am capable of setting it out, and I very much hope that the House will feel that we have met the criticisms that were urged on the last occasion.
Amendment moved:
Page 6, line 5, after ("three months") insert the said new words.—[Lord Pakenham.]
2.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, so far as my noble friend the Earl of Munster and I are concerned, and I think on behalf of the House generally, I may say that we are grateful for the proposal now made by the Government and we should be disposed to accept it. The House may remember that on the Committee stage our point was that offences under this Borrowing (Control and Guarantees) Bill were likely to differ very greatly in gravity, and I would remind your Lordships of the words I then used, when I said
"Those who have the responsibility of prosecuting will have a pretty shrewd idea how grave is the case they have. If it is a case which ought to be prosecuted, but which is a comparatively small matter, it would seem quite right to me that magistrates, the ordinary courts of summary jurisdiction, should deal with it.…"
But I went on to argue—and I am grateful to the noble Lord for the consideration that has been given to the argument—that it would be really unheard of if a court of summary jurisdiction, which might consist of two Justices of the Peace, were able even theoretically to impose quite enormous fines. I said also that I myself could imagine graver offences under this Act than would appear to be proportionately measured by a maximum of three months' imprisonment. I am perfectly content, with the changes now made, that for the grave case the maximum punishment should be increased. It seems to me, therefore, that the House would be well advised to accept this revised proposal.
I might point out—I do not think it has been mentioned hitherto in the discussions on this subject—that even if the offender is brought before the court of magistrates for what we may presume is a minor offence, the offender will still have the right, after the magistrates have dealt with him, if they convict him, of
560
claiming to appeal to what used to be called the Court of Quarter Sessions, but which is now called, I think, the Appeal Committee of Quarter Sessions. That is a claim to have the case tried over again by members of Quarter Sessions.
The section to which the noble Lord has had his attention called is Section 37 of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914. The section provides that
"Any person aggrieved by any conviction of a court of summary jurisdiction in respect of any offence, who did not plead guilty or admit the truth of the information, may appeal from the conviction in manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts to a court of quarter sessions"—
now it is, I think, to the Appeal Committee. I would have thought, therefore, that this arrangement was a reasonable one.
I never see any good in quarrelling with a concession if one is going to accept it, but I venture to add this one thing. I cannot regard the argument as a very persuasive one, whether it was used (as it was) first of all in another place or used now by the noble Lord, that the provision that these offences should be dealt with by magistrates was really made out of consideration for the victim; that he would not want too much publicity, and all that sort of thing. People may be summoned for an offence who are under the impression that they are not guilty or who at any rate think that the Government have treated them very hardly. In those cases it may very well be that the person summoned will get no comfort at all by being told: "After all, the desire is to treat this as a hole and corner business." He may say, "On the contrary, bring it into the light of day. Let it get into the newspapers, so that I may show what is the nature of this prosecution." Therefore I would most humbly submit that in defending, as the noble Lord does with so much ingenuity and courtesy, any and every proposal he feels it his duty to espouse, he should not in future use the argument that when a man is charged with a serious crime it is really a great contribution in the nature of a provision for mercy if the Government enact that he can be tried only before a court of summary jurisdiction.
2.50 p.m.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, am I not right in saying that there is no time limit

561
for proceeding by way of indictment, whereas when proceedings are taken under the Summary jurisdiction Act there is a time limit of six months? If so, what the Government have given with one hand they have taken away with another. If a man is liable to be proceeded against under this Act on indictment it means there is no time limit within which proceedings may be taken. I would respectfully submit that the noble Lord might consider that question between now and the time before the Bill finally becomes law.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, in connexion with this paragraph in the Schedule, may I put a question which is rather exercising my mind? There is no provision in the Bill with reference to publicity being given to Orders which may be made by the Treasury. In some Acts of this sort there is a provision for publication in the Gazette, in which case a mere statutory statement that the Order is to be found in the Gazette is sufficient. I am not quite sure that that is intended. I think it would be bad in principle and unsatisfactory to those who have the working of this Act in their minds that people should either be summoned or have proceedings taken against them on indictment who are perfectly ignorant of the existence of a particular Treasury Regulation. I ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill (who, I may say, I have always found accessible to argument), whether it would not be better in the Schedule to provide for the publication in the Gazette of these Orders. As I have said, that would not mean a very extensive publication in the Gazette. There is an Act in point, called, I think, the Rules Publication Act, of a date that I cannot for the moment remember. That, I think, would be some guarantee that perfectly innocent people would not find themselves liable to be proceeded against on indictment.
LORD PAKENHAM: I will certainly promise to look into the questions that have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, before the next stage.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am sorry to interrupt again—I do not think I am entitled to do so—but may I suggest in connexion with the promise the noble Lord has made to my noble friend Lord Meston that he might look at paragraph 3 (2) of
562
The Schedule, which shows that the Government's intention was that there should be no prosecution except within twelve months of the offence or within three months of the time the Treasury had gathered sufficient material? It seems to me that it might well be considered whether that subsection should not be slightly recast so as to cover both summary proceedings and proceedings on indictment.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am grateful to the noble Viscount.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PAKENHAM: I beg to move the second Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 7, leave out ("one") and insert ("five").—(Lord Pakenham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I beg to move the last Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 3, leave out (sub-paragraph 5).—(Lord Pakenham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

COAL INDUSTRY NATIONALISATION BILL.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion for the Second Reading moved yesterday by the Lord Chancellor.
2.45 p.m.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, in the course of the very interesting debate yesterday, initiated by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said:
"On one thing we are all agreed, and that is as to the vital importance of this Bill, because upon it and upon its operation depends the failure or success of the most important industry in this country."
Later he said:
"But, accepting the structure of this Bill—and that is what your Lordships, I am sure, are prepared to do—within that framework it is our duty to do our best to secure those objectives and to make this Bill the best instrument for its purpose, just as we shall all seek together to make it work when once it is through."
The debate that followed on that amply bore out the lead given by the noble Viscount.

563
In the course of giving effect to his wishes in that respect he put a number of questions, as did other noble Lords, and I will endeavour to answer them before going on to deal with more general points. The first question that I think he put referred to Clause 30, which deals with the Board's accounts. If I remember rightly the question which the noble Viscount put was whether accounts would be published and, if so, would they be up to the best commercial standards. I am happy to inform him that accounts will be kept in a form which will conform to the best commercial standards. As to detail to be published and the presentation of information, the Minister expects to give to Parliament and the public at least as much information as is customarily given to shareholders by the most progressive commercial undertakings, such as Powell Duffryn, I.C.I. or the Imperial Tobacco Company. The noble Viscount asked a further question with regard to the reserves and surpluses which are mentioned in Clauses 28 and 29. These are to be applied to the purposes of the Board. The Minister has no other power of disposal. Price limitation must clearly be an important object of the policy of the Board and of the Minister, but it may well be that the Board and the Minister may both wish to plough back a proportion of any surpluses which may become available. Whatever is done, regard must be had to the general investment policy of His Majesty's Government.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: May I clarify that, because it is a tremendously important point. I quite agree about ploughing back into the business, but the specific point I put was whether any surpluses which existed after proper ploughing back had been done and a proper reserve had been created would be passed over to the Exchequer as a dividend or would be applied in reduction of price.
LORD AMMON: It will be open both to the Board and the Minister in co-operation to consider which course they wish to take, or both if necessary. They will deal with that question in just the same way as any company would deal with its surpluses and decide whether they would pass them over to the Exchequer or whether they would use them mainly for reduction of price. The
564
noble Viscount must bear in mind that it is set out in the Bill that it is proposed in every respect to have regard to the public interest. That is the dominant and over-riding factor. Of course the interests of the consumers would be paramount in all those cases.
LORD SWINTON: I do not want to conduct a cross-examination, but it is important to get this clear. The noble Lord said it would be open to the Board or the Minister, or to the Board and the Minister. That, of course, is not Clause 29. Under Clause 29 the Board have nothing whatever to say as to the disposal of surplus revenues. Clause 29 says:
"Any excess of the Board's Revenue for any financial year over their outgoings … shall be applied for such of the purposes of the Board as the Minister, with the approval of the Treasury, may direct."
LORD AMMON: I cannot see any difficulty. The Minister must consult with his Board. That might be for a variety of reasons, wages and so forth. I do not think the noble Viscount need be under any upset with regard to that. Assuming that the noble Viscount is satisfied on that, the next question was: Who will have the direction of the industry? The answer is, the Board. The Minister does not wish to intervene except on the rarest occasions, and on the broadest matters of national interest. Wages, hours and prices would all be the primary responsibility of the Board. That is not to say that the Minister would not in any circumstances seek to assist in the settlement of such matters. As regards re-organization and development, these must be matters for the Board, but where schemes involving substantial capital value are conceived, it is desirable that the Minister should have some measure of financial, not technical, control, so as to dovetail the investments with the Government's investment policy.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for having gone into this matter.
LORD AMMON: The next question the noble Viscount asked was: What happens if the Board and Minister disagree? The answer is, of course, that a wise Board and a wise Minister will not disagree, but if there were a conflict between them, the Minister's view must prevail. There would be nothing to prevent the Board referring to such conflict in their annual

565
report, which of course would bring it under public notice.
Then came the question: Will the Mineworkers Union deal with the Minister or the Board? The answer, dearly, is with the Board and that I think the noble Viscount will find is set out in Clause 43. Now I come to the matter of discrimination. The noble Viscount asked why no provision is made against discrimination. The answer is that it is not necessary. It will be clearly contrary to Clause 1 (1) (c) which refers to "public interest," to practise improper discrimination. Another word for "discrimination," incidentally, is "priority." On occasions discrimination is right.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask the noble Lord before he passes from the question—
LORD AMMON: I am still on the same point.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I mean on the conflict between the Minister and the Board. It is an important point, if I may say so. The noble Lord has just told your Lordships that in the case of a conflict between the Board and the Minister it can be referred to by the Board in the annual report. What would happen in the case of a serious difference of opinion between the Board and the Minister? Would they have to wait until the annual report comes before Parliament, because that might be a year, or a year and a half. What is the good of discussing a question after the conflict of opinion has occurred, and the Minister may have ordered a decision which was contrary to the Board's view?
LORD AMMON: In that case the Minister is the final authority. He must accept his responsibility as the Minister, and will have to answer for it as and when any question arises later I will deal with the question of discrimination in a little further detail because I think everybody admits it is of some importance. I venture to say that no private or public concern could have taken mores care to protect the consumers' interests than is set out in this Bill. The vast majority of consumers' complaints will be dealt with directly in friendly discussion between them and the. Board, or if there be a dispute about the repealment of a particular contract, it will be settled by the Courts or by arbitration. There may be a residue of complaints in regard to
566
matters of broad policy such as whether the consumer should accept the weight of coal supplied as shown on the colliery invoice, or should pay for the weight determined by himself, or by some third party. That is a case where the Consumers' Council should provide a valuable safety-valve, but they would, of course, have to approach their problem in no partisan spirit, and only after careful consideration of all sides of the question.
Then there is the power of Parliament to bring pressure upon the Minister in regard to consumers' interests and to secure an opportunity of debating matters in respect of which consumers' interests may be prejudiced. There is nothing in the Bill which will prevent a Member of Parliament raising any matter which he thinks fit. I would add that discrimination is almost impossible to define. The variations in qualities, quantities, terms of sale, distance from supplying colliery and so on. All these things prevent an exact comparison of a kind which may be possible in the case of electricity or gas. I hope I have given, if not a wholly satisfactory reply, a reply which does merit the noble Viscount's consideration.
Unless it be held that the Board are going to be actuated by purely arbitrary motives, or that the Minister intends to arrogate to himself the power of wholesale interference in the affairs of the Board and that the Board will aid and abet him in his activities, the protection for the consumer provided in the Bill is complete. Another question was: what do the Government intend in relation to ancillary undertakings? The answer is, of course, that they need not divert attention from coal. The object is to work and build up together these ancillary undertakings which experience in the past showed it to be advantageous to work together. I have attempted to answer all the questions which the noble Viscount put to me yesterday, and I will now turn to questions raised by other noble Lords. The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, like the noble Viscount, gave general support to the Bill, and indicated that he, like a good many others, was prepared to judge cases for nationalization on their merits. Coming from the Liberal Benches, that is quite sound, because I am sure the noble Marquess would not mind me reminding him that, after all, the lead for public ownership did come from his Party a good many years ago. Then he referred

567
to the Reid Report, and the difficulty in dealing with details of expenditure in a Bill of this nature. That point has been raised again and again and it is complained that there is a lack of instruction on it. There are things which are not proper for a Bill. This really is an enabling Bill, giving to a certain authority powers to carry forward and control and direct a certain industry. The more detail which is put in the less free are they going to be to exercise their own judgment and their own initiative with regard to many subjects.
If I were asked which is the strongest case which has ever been put up during latter years for nationalization, I would say it is in the Reid Report, because from cover to cover that Report points out the absolute failure of those responsible for the conduct of the industry over a long period of years, in whatever branch we like to turn to, whether it be research, mechanization, or a thousand and one other things. They have failed properly to carry forward and develop the industry, and owing to their failure we have been brought to the position in which we find ourselves, compelled—for that is what it amounts to—to bring in this Bill for nationalization. The story, as the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, said yesterday, is one of centuries of wrong. Incidentally, I was dismayed when I heard him use one of the illustrations which I had dug out after a good deal of research and proposed to use myself. He quoted from Professor Trevelyan's Social History of England a passage dealing with the condition of the miners in the seventeenth century. Well, the story has continued up to the present time. I will have a word or two to say about it a little later.
The noble Viscount, Lord Long, raised points about divided responsibility, monopoly, and consumers' interests which he suggested were not adequately represented. There is no divided responsibility. The Board are strictly responsible for the conduct and management of the industry qua industry. The Minister, ultimately, is the final authority. It is a monopoly, it is true, but to say that the consumers' interests are not represented surely is not in accordance with the facts, because every care is taken to ensure that there is adequate representation on the Board, on the Consumers' Councils, on
568
the Industrial Councils and on the Domestic Councils.
Mention of Councils reminds me that the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, yesterday suggested the setting up of an Export Council. There is power in the Board to do that themselves. That is set out in Clause 4 (3) (a). Under that subsection the Board have power to do that for themselves. The noble Viscount, Lord Stone-haven, raised a question about dealing with silicosis. If he will read Clause 1 (4) (a) he will see it is set out that one of the first considerations of the Board is
"the advancement of the safety of persons in their employment and the promotion of their health and welfare."
That, of course, includes dealing with that terrible scourge, silicosis. That will be regarded as a most urgent matter, and indeed it is one of the primary objectives aimed at in setting up this scheme.
A comment was made, I think by the noble Viscount, Lord Long, to the effect that the Bill had been hurriedly drafted and hurriedly prepared. I think he could not have followed with any attention the debates and discussions which took place in another place. Eighteen days were devoted to this Bill in Committee, three days were occupied by the Report stage, and then there was the Third Reading. In the course of those discussions nearly 400 Amendments and new clauses were moved, and some very important Amendments were made. The Bill which comes before your Lordships' House, therefore, is not the same Bill that was first introduced. It was freely acknowledged by the Parliamentary Secretary that assistance had been received from the other side of the House in bringing forward some important Amendments. That applies also I think to what is being done in this House. There is here, as there, I am sure, a desire to make the Bill work, and a wish on all sides to co-operate to that end.
Turning to the more general aspects of the measure, I wish to repeat what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said in his opening speech yesterday. He declared that if noble Lords who sit opposite occupied benches on this side of the House they could do no other than we are now doing, if they had any real intention of reorganizing the industry in a way that would mark an endeavour to bring some measure of contentment and

569
improvement into the industry. It is not claimed—no one would be so foolish as to make such a claim—that everything will be set right immediately this Bill is passed. In dealing with it we must have some regard to the history that lies behind it. Over a period of upwards of 400 years there runs a continuing story of disaffection, of bad treatment, of hardship, of outrage, one might almost say, inflicted on the workers in this industry. Further to the passage which was read by the noble Marquess yesterday I quote another extract from Professor Trevelyan's work:
"Coal created a new gulf between classes. The mediæval peasants and artisans were not segregated from their neighbours to anything like the same extent as were the coal miners of the seventeenth century in most colliery districts.
"Within the coalmining industry itself, there was now a complete barrier between the capitalist employer and the manual worker."
To show how little variation there has been from that position, I will refer your Lordships to a work by Mr. Bernard Newman, a writer of repute who was employed by the Ministry of Information to give a long series of lectures in every part of England and Scotland and Northern Ireland. His book which was recently published is entitled British Journey. In the course of it Mr. Newman writes that the only body of workers who were found to be discontented and disinclined to believe that things "would ever come right" were the coal miners. Wherever he talked to them and listened to them talking to each other the burden of their complaint was the same. "We've never had a square deal and we can't believe we're going to get it now," they said in Wales. "Whatever agreement is made we always get the worst of it" he was told in Northumbria, "the most overcrowded region of England and Wales, where 35 per cent. of miners' families live in two-roomed cottages." There was no doubt whether the men serving in the Forces would go back to the pits. "Once you've tried other trades, you never do—that's what happened after the last war," a Durham pitman declared.
That bears out what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said yesterday about the meeting at which only one man held up his hand to indicate that his son was going to work in the industry. To
570
bring the matter up to date I quote this from the Reid Report. It says:
"In Britain there is, with certain exceptions, lack of co-operation between the mine owners and the employees."
That is a story of disaffection and disagreement, of failure to meet the ordinary, elementary economic needs of an industry so far as the workers are concerned. The same story is continued, so far as the operation of the industry itself is concerned, in the Reid Report. There is instance after instance of opportunities missed, of the failure of the coal-owners to agree among themselves about amalgamation or other schemes of improvement of the industry and to introduce the necessary plant and the machinery. In fact, I felt yesterday that the strongest case for that was made out by the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry. He gave the impression, like the Prophet Job, of a man, rightfully conscious of his own integrity and his own goodness, who was puzzled and worried to know how these troubles had come upon him. The troubles were not all confined to the Marquess of Londonderry. He told us that he himself had approached his fellow coal-owners as far back as twenty years ago with the suggestion that they should cooperate in schemes of amalgamation, but that he was cold-shouldered and lost heart. He and his friends had to give up their proposed scheme and were unable to carry it forward. That is the reason, I venture to say, why no other Government would be able to take any better step to give a fair chance of getting the industry on the right lines than the step which has been taken. While nationalization will not give any final assurance on the matter, and there is no good will for establishing good relations (as the Reid Report says) between human beings, whether individually or collectively, it is the duty of Parliament to make every attempt which they can to overcome those difficulties.
It is for that purpose that this Bill is introduced. I will not concern myself with the fact that for many years nationalization has been part of the policy of the Party now in Government. I am not concerned very much whether it was on the programme at the Election or not. One can speak aside from those facts, and face the problem as it has to be faced at the present time, particularly having regard to this vital necessity to the life of this country. We must at least

571
take the risk—if it is a risk—of trying this one step. It has not been tried, it is the one for which the men themselves have been clamouring, and the one which I venture to say the industry itself could not take because of the great expense involved and because the resources at their command are not sufficient for it.
Next to winning the war, the question of maintaining power, light and heat for the rising generation is Britain's greatest problem. It is a question of Britain's survival as a great industrial power. How vital this is is borne out in a speech which I came across the other day made by the late Forster Brown in his presidential address to the Institution of Mining Engineers. He urged strongly that Britain should be trained to become coal-minded and should realize that coal-mining is the basis of the industrial and financial structure of this country. According to his statement the workable coal in seams at present being worked would reach exhaustion in about forty years while other seams of workable coal, less economically, might last for seventy years or less before reaching exhaustion.
That brings us to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay of Birker, and illustrated by the example which he cited from Scotland. There, before very long, some seams will be outworn and coal-mining will have to take place in another part of the country. That will entail tremendous expense, both in the removal and housing of the workers, and in the sinking of the necessary shafts and the finding and using of the coal. The more one examines all these problems the more one can see that in the long run they are bound to fall back on the nation itself for solution. That is particularly true of a nation like ours. I will go even farther. I venture to say that one has no right to estimate the value of this industry or its success by what one would call a mere cash service. You cannot estimate it that way. Its need is so great to this country that we should be bound, if our 48,000,000 population are to survive, to subsidize the industry if necessary to see that it was carried on. In that event the cost would have to be carried to other parts of our national expenditure, in order that we might survive in something like our present state.
So, in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill, I venture to ask your Lordships
572
that we should do so not in any spirit of partisanship but, as has already been said, recognizing that in broad principle something along these lines has got to be done. It is true, as the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, said yesterday, that in this we have the right to call upon the workers in the industry to play their part, but we shall not do that by lecturing them. What we have a fair right to say is: "Now you have achieved what you have been trying for for a long period of years, it is up to you to show that it is worth while to cooperate to the utmost with the Government to make the greatest success of this new step, in order that this country may once more be restored to her full measure of commercial and industrial activity. The nation is in very difficult and straitened circumstances, and the product of your industry is vital to the country to enable it to hold its place in the world."
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, made the comment yesterday that he has seen no signs of moral rearmament or any better spirit among the workers since the question of nationalization had arisen. Is that quite reasonable? That criticism can be applied to very large numbers of the population, other than miners, in this country and in fact all over the world. What we are up against is the condition of the miners and of other industries—a general collapse of moral standards, as well as industrial and commercial standards, which show how very near this nation was to the abyss. You have also to bear in mind the great strain that was thrown upon our moral and our industrial resources. When the reaction and the tension pass it will take some time before we are able to recover our poise and our physical and moral standards. There are, therefore, bound to be difficulties during the period of convalescence. I hope none of us will do anything to exacerbate them by accusing any other section of the community of being less patriotic and less desirous of reinstating the nation to full and healthful conditions. It is in the hope that this Bill will go a long way towards that, that I have confidence in recommending it to your Lordships.
3.30 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down has told us a great deal of the past and something of the future, but he has not told us very

573
much about how this Bill is going to work. We have also listened to a great number of Committee points and so on. There is no doubt at all that this Bill is one of the most important Bills which have come before your Lordships' House. It is a measure which is going to affect the whole lives of the people of this country for better or for worse. I should have preferred to have seen rationalization rather than nationalization. In spite of what has been said by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I cannot feel that this Bill will improve the conditions of the industry, the welfare of the miners, or, what is more important, produce more coal.
Experience has shown that a company or group of companies can become too large for efficient management. Yet in this Bill we have a proposal to combine together into one unit of control 850 undertakings and ancillaries. I cannot help feeling that this vast experiment is doomed to failure, because these immense amalgamations into one unit of control will become unwieldy, and the necessary intimate direction, which is so necessary in industry, will become lost in a jungle of controls and directions. It has been said that because the employer is to be changed, it will make all the difference to the miner. I thought that one of the arguments against private enterprise in the coalfields was that the owners were so remote and out of touch with the human element in the mines. But this Bill will produce an employer far more remote and, in the nature of things, more impersonal.
It has been said that the Conservative Party have had no definite policy for the coal industry, and that in their attitude towards this Bill they are batting on a bad wicket. The Reid Report came long before the present Government came into office, and the recommendations of that Report certainly do not require this Bill. With your Lordships' permission I propose to refer for a moment to the Reid Report. I would like to read to you the terms of reference:
"To examine the present technique of coal production from coal face to wagon, and to advise what technical changes are necessary in order to bring the industry to a state of full technical efficiency."
There is nothing there to suggest that they should decide or recommend whether nationalization was necessary or not. It
574
was purely a technical report which they were to produce.
Supposing we look a little further on to the end of the Report. We find it said under the heading "The Conditions of Success":
"In these circumstances it is evident to us that it is not possible to provide for the soundest and most efficient development and working of an area unless the conflicting interests of the individual colliery companies working the area are merged together into one compact and unified command of manageable size, with full responsibility, financial and otherwise, for the development of the area."
That hardly points to nationalization.
The Conservative plan that was put forward and was known as the Four Years Plan for Britain, was a policy of compulsory amalgamation into units of workable size, and the financing and re-equipment of the industry through money provided by the State if it became necessary. I say if necessary because one of the commodities which is easily obtained now and is not in short supply, is money. I have no doubt that the industry could have found the money for all the necessary reorganization as set out in the Reid Report. Further plans of the Conservative Party included a charter for the miner, and a safeguard for the consumer through competition between amalgamated and reorganized units. I think competition is very necessary. This plan would have been carried out without all the grave dangers that certainly are inherent in this Bill.
Surely the test of this Bill is, will it bring an increase in production, keep prices down to a reasonable level, and produce a successful and contented industry? I wish I could feel that this Bill was going to do all those things. In 1938 we had a Bill to nationalize coal, and we were told that when the coal was bought by the State, the royalties would come down and coal would be cheaper—the royalties which the mining companies have to pay in order to work the coal. What has happened? Royalties in 1943 are actually higher than they were in 1938. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in his speech yesterday told us that few amalgamations had taken place in the industry, and in any case not on any great scale. I am going to give your Lordships a few figures. In 1923, 334 undertakings produced 84 per cent. of the total output

575
of coal in the industry. On the other hand, 84 per cent. of the output of coal to-day is produced by only 135 undertakings. It is quite obvious that amalgamation has been going on in a progressive manner.
May I ask your Lordships to consider the question of price for a few moments, because it is vitally important in this coal industry? British industrial development has been based on plentiful supplies of cheap coal. Since August, 1939, the average pithead price of coal has risen 22S. per ton, an increase of 120 per cent. over the 1939 figure. During the same period, wholesale prices as measured by the Board of Trade index figure have risen only about 75 per cent., which I think goes to indicate a very abnormal rise in coal prices.
The Reid Report indicated that it might be possible to raise the output per man shift in this country to that of Holland, where natural conditions, I believe, are very similar to those in this country. In Holland I believe the output is approximately 1.7 tons per man shift, as against one ton in this country. It would seem, therefore, that an increase of approximately 70 per cent. in output per man shift may be possible after the recommendations of the Reid Report have been carried out, together with mechanizations. The point to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention is that this increase in output per man shift will only show a saving of about 5s. a ton in the production costs of coal after allowing for the new capital expenditure necessary. This means that the average pithead price would still be 90 per cent. over the price of coal in 1939 after all the intensive mechanization and reorganization had been carried out. I can see very little chance of this Bill producing any price-saving at all. In fact, I think it will have the reverse effect. Bureaucratic control is bound to increase the expenses of management, and here and there losses will creep in which it will be difficult to locate and control in such a vast organization as is sponsored by this Bill.
Nationalization is bound to increase costs of production with its large administrative organization and local Boards all drawing money out of the industry. Unless the cost of production of coal can be kept down, our exports will suffer, and
576
when competition again appears in the world's markets we shall be unable to compete. I would suggest that the only method to secure lower coal prices may be a smaller labour force, even smaller than that which to-day is considered insufficient, coupled with a highly mechanized industry. This labour force should receive high wages, because men deserve it in a difficult and dangerous industry. I am sure that is the only way out, because it must be remembered that wages account for two-thirds of the production costs. I maintain that this result could have been achieved by the Conservative plan of regional amalgamation which would permit of detailed control and direction and the scrapping of uneconomical pits. The scrapping of uneconomical pits is a matter which must give rise to very grave difficulty, and I cannot help feeling that it will be far more difficult under nationalization. Social consequences are bound to follow, with their attendant difficulties, and under nationalization, political consideration will become the determining factor.
It is true that there has been much bitterness in the industry over many years, and many Royal Commissions have examined its conditions and made proposals for its future welfare, but none have really recommended nationalization as a panacea for all its troubles and difficulties. The Party to which noble Lords opposite belong have, in the past, and I believe quite recently, persisted in saying that the Sankey Commission recommended nationalization. That is not entirely true, if they will forgive my saying so. The thirteen members were equally divided on the question of nationalization, and it was only the casting vote of the Chairman that turned the Commission in favour; and later the seven members of the Commission constituting the majority were unable to agree on any scheme for its practical application.
What do we find when we examine the Report of the Royal Commission headed by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel (who I regret is unable to be here to-day), some years later in 1926? The Commission reported that it was against nationalization and I will read a passage from the text of the Report. The Report says:
"We are not dealing here with a simple, uniform, self-contained industry. On the contrary, mining is remarkable both in its

577
diversity and for its close interconnexion with other industries. … No industry presents such varied characteristics, if agriculture be excepted. We think that this assertion is true. … But these are features which make the mining industry particularly unsuitable for conduct by the State. Standardization to any marked extent is impossible. Mining is less uniform even than other producing industries. … Its results are uncertain and indeed speculative. A willingness to experiment and a readiness to take risks are essential. … We are clearly of opinion that the variety and freedom of private enterprise are more likely to conduce to the progressive development of this particular industry than control by the State."
May I remind your Lordships that this is not by any means the first Bill for the nationalization of coal which has been presented to Parliament. In 1924 a Bill was introduced in another place and was supported by the present Minister of Fuel and Power. It was put to a free vote and was thoroughly defeated. That Bill was to give the miners a very large control in the industry, but in the Bill before your Lordships' House to-day the miner has very little say in the conduct of the industry. I think he has been side-tracked. I am not going to argue whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, but I do say that the Bill will not be welcomed by the miners or the industry. The miners will dislike it because it does not go far enough along the road to Socialism, and they are beginning to think and to realize that State control and direction of labour may be a worse thing than private enterprise. Those who have been directing the industry feel that the country would be put to a very dangerous experiment. It would be far better if the experiment of nationalization were carried out on a much smaller scale by the old method of trial and error, as has occurred in other countries.
Australia has for a number of years maintained, side by side, public enterprise and private enterprise. During the war all the privately-owned mines were brought under the control of the Government, but it was very unsatisfactory, and now that the war is over the mines in Australia are all being handed back to the private owner.
The Bill which is now before your Lordships' House has undoubtedly been improved in many ways by the exertions of the Opposition in another place, but there are still many glaring deficiencies in the Bill and I propose to touch on one or two which have already been mentioned by a
578
number of your Lordships. No provision has been made for the export of coal. In fact, I do not think the word "export" is mentioned anywhere in the Bill. At the present time our export trade has gravely diminished because there is hardly enough production to supply the home market. Does the Government visualize that these conditions will continue, and that even nationalization will not produce more coal? Failure to improve our export of coal, apart from loss to the country, will have a very grave meaning for South Wales. It will mean the wholesale transfer of miners from their homes to other areas. Perhaps that is why export is not mentioned anywhere in the Bill.
There is also no clause in this Bill to prevent discrimination in price-fixing, and Parliament in the past has always been very careful to insert protective clauses in Bills dealing with monopolies. We have the Railways Clauses Act, the Docks and Harbours Act and also the Coal Mines Act of 1930, which was introduced by a Socialist Government, all of which have clauses to prevent discrimination. The consumers of coal do not appear to be fully protected in other ways. Industrial Councils and Consumers' Councils are to be established, but the members are to be selected by the Minister, their procedure is to be ordered by the Minister, and there is no obligation for the Minister to lay a report of the proceedings before Parliament. Unless these Councils are independent of the influence of the Minister, I cannot help feeling that no one will have any confidence in them.
It is true that the country has given a mandate for nationalization of the mines, but let it be remembered that the mandate is always a permissive one and not a compulsory one. I believe that the Bill will fail in its purpose for the reasons I have endeavoured to make clear. It will not further the public interest or that of the industry, and the industry will be slowly strangled by bureaucratic control.
3.48 p.m.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, I do not intend to go over the ground covered by the noble Marquess yesterday from these Benches, if only because I find myself in agreement with everything he said. The only point I might add to what he said is this. Let us accept the fact that this Bill, in some such form as it now stands, is going through, and

579
let us discuss the past rather less and look forward to the future. The past is unfortunately always with us and it does not require any more emphasis than has already been given to it. I want to touch briefly on the financial clauses in the Bill and certain consequences which I think arise out of them. In the first place, I think it very satisfactory that two principles have been established in this Bill. The first is that the compensation value payable is payable on the enterprise of the colliery as a running concern. I leave out of account the various minor or secondary financial provisions for interim income, compensation in respect of severance, and all the other smaller aspects. But by and large, the compensation is payable, and it is payable on the concern as a running enterprise.
The wording of the Bill, to a layman like myself, is, to say the least of it, obscure, and I should indeed be much happier in addressing your Lordships on this subject if I was entirely satisfied that I understood what the clauses said. There are in the Bill certain gems of obscurity which are worthy of any scrap-book which your Lordships may compile of curious language and jargon. I have one myself and I certainly propose to cut out and paste in that scrap-book the clause which will be found at the top of page 16 of the Bill dealing with the valuation of properties. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to read to you Clause 11 (5) (b) because it is such a gem of English literature that it should not pass unnoticed:
"the value of a transferred interest attributable to usefulness for any activity shall be treated as value attributable to usefulness for activities relevant as aforesaid in so far as figures relating to that activity would have been brought into computation under the practice aforesaid, so however that the value of a transferred interest attributable to usefulness for an activity such as was treated as excluded from the coal industry under the practice aforesaid shall not be treated as attributable to usefulness for activities relevant as aforesaid notwithstanding that under that practice figures relating to that kind of activity were brought into computation at a fair transfer price or similar charge."
The valuation of the undertakings will be entirely clear to your Lordships from that! Perhaps I may recall the remark which the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, made about the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I believe even he would find it difficult to suggest that that was a
580
model of clarity. He might perhaps even have some difficulty in explaining—to me at any rate—what exactly it means. So when I comment, as I wish to do, on some of these clauses, it is with the proviso that I am very doubtful whether I really have understood what they say.
As far as I can make out compensation is payable for collieries on their value as running undertakings. That is one point. The second point is that compensation is payable in compensation stock, which is a charge on the Consolidation Fund. The implication of that to my mind, is very important, not only in the context of this Bill but possibly hereafter. It is that the compensation is to be paid in a stock which has no bearing on what the profit or the value of the undertaking may be after it has been taken over; in other words the proprietors are clear of any further interest in the profits or otherwise of the enterprise. It is not, of course, clear from the Bill (which is in this sense an enabling Bill) what the precise value of the compensation will be; that can only be determined after a long period, probably a minimum of two years at any rate, so that no undertaking will know for some time to come how much it is to receive. I propose to return to that in a minute.
What, however, is clear is that an undertaking when it gets whatever is coming to it, gets that in final settlement and the future of the undertaking is no concern of its proprietors. They will have, as their compensation, stock which is a charge on the Consolidated Fund and which therefore has an income and a capital value dependent on the credit of His Majesty's Government. It follows from that that the amount of stock and the credit of His Majesty's Government are deeply and intimately involved in the whole of this Bill. That is an aspect which, I venture to suggest, has not been sufficiently dealt with in the course of the debates which took place in another place and one which, I hope, will not escape the attention of your Lordships here both in connexion with this Bill and in connexion with other projects of the same sort which may come before your Lordships' House.
While I am on the question of valuation, may I say that I do not see that the point I am now going to make is covered in the Bill, but, for the reasons I have stated, it may well be covered but somewhat concealed. It concerns the

581
basis on which certain aspects of the valuation are going to be settled. It has been the fashion in your Lordships' House and elsewhere in the country to attribute the obsolescence of equipment and the out-of-dateness of colliery enterprises to their management, and, in certain quarters—not in your Lordships' House—also to the payment of excess dividends. If that is true at all, I believe it to be only a very partial truth. In my view, the main reason for the out-of-dateness, the antiquity, of the equipment of colliery enterprises in this country, and indeed of industrial enterprises in general, with certain obvious exceptions, is not at all due to that cause but largely due to the policy which has been followed for the last twenty-five years, accompanied by high rates of Income Tax, in various Finance Acts in relation to depreciation and obsolescence allowances. That is a point which has not been made sufficiently, and the fact that it has not been made sufficiently reflects very unfairly on the quality of the managers in the criticism which has been made of them.
This has a particular relevance to this Bill, because in the valuation of a colliery undertaking the amount which has been written off in respect of depreciation and obsolescence is a factor which will, I trust, be taken into full account in determining the value of that undertaking as a running concern. Perhaps it has escaped me, but I do not see enough in this Bill to safeguard those undertakings which have written off large sums of money annually in depreciation beyond the allowances to which they were allowed under the various Finance Acts. I hope they will not be placed in the same category as undertakings which have done the minimum in that respect. I make that point with some emphasis and, I hope, not with irrelevance in this context, because it is bound to come up in your Lordships' House in the very near future in connexion with other industries. It is only fair to say that that is an aspect of the problem for which the present Government are clearly in no way responsible. It is attributable to the policies followed by successive Chancellors of the Exchequer in the past twenty odd years, counselled, as no doubt they have been, by their technical advisers in the Treasury, who in this respect to my mind, bear a very considerable share of the responsibility for the out-of-lateness of our industrial
582
equipment in this country. I would conclude that part of my remarks by expressing the hope that the policy which has been followed by companies in the matter of depreciation and in the matter of writing off their assets and putting themselves into a position to modernize themselves will be taken into full account when the valuations prescribed in the Bill are made. I hope they will be given the benefit of the prudent and patriotic policies they have followed and that they will not be penalized by being placed in the same class as those few concerns which have written off as little as possible and which have lived on a wasting asset.
My second point concerns the method of making the compensation, which is one of considerable complexity and which has occasioned a great many criticisms, and even suggestions of a sinister plot on the part of the Government. I do not feel myself that the explanations which were given by the Under-Secretary for Mines in another place on the 20th of May last are either particularly adequate or particularly enlightening. I believe that a little more time and space should have been devoted in the summing-up to clarify the position to the public in general and to the uninitiated and, above all, to those who like myself do not understand exactly what is intended by some of the clauses of this Bill. As I understand the position it is this. The compensation for an undertaking will be paid in what is known as compensation stock which is non-transferable but under the provisions of Clause 21 (4) the non-transferable stock may, with the leave of the Treasury, be converted into transferable stock in certain circumstances which are described in the clause. Therefore, when compensation is at first paid it is paid in a form which cannot be negotiated. It can then be converted into a form which is negotiable.
Certain explanations have been made of the circumstances in which that transfer can be effected. It is legitimate, I venture to suggest, to ask His Majesty's Government, and the noble Lord who is going to close the debate, the reasons for this decision. They were given briefly by Mr. Gaitskell in another place as a desire to protect Government stocks against voluminous sales. I wonder whether that is in fact the whole reason. It is the ostensible reason, but I think there is something underlying that that is pos

583
sibly of greater importance than has been realised hitherto. I venture to suggest that the explanation is something like this. I would like to say that if it is, I find myself in a difficulty in that I do not think it is a decision which it is easy to criticize, though whether the conclusions reached are entirely appropriate is a matter which I will touch upon later.
Your Lordships will perhaps forgive me if I appear to wander slightly from the point of the compensation stock clauses on to an economic subject. It is well known that we may be, or are, facing an inflationary period in this country. How far it has gone I do not know—it is difficult to say at this stage. Where there is inflation, or the risk of inflation, there are three classical remedies. One is to increase the supply of goods which can be purchased with a given volume of money or credit. That is not germane to this discussion. What is being done is probably all that can be done and the supply of goods is being increased within a measure of what is possible in a period of reconversion. We all know the difficulties in which we are to buy anything: our household goods are unobtainable and until they are obtainable this volume of credit cannot be improved.
The second classical remedy is to reduce the volume of credit, which His Majesty's Government have declared is not part of their policy. It certainly would be an extremely difficult programme to follow, especially this year with the consequences of demobilization, the payment of gratuities, the re-financing of industry and resettlement generally. Here again it is neither appropriate nor is it possible to offer a great deal of criticism until we see which way things develop.
The third classical remedy where these dangers are before one, is to reduce the velocity of circulation of currency and credit. I believe that is the underlying motive which led His Majesty's Government to place restriction on the transfer of compensation stock. If that is the explanation, and it is agreed that there are dangers of inflation at the present moment, then a remedy of that sort is clearly strictly legitimate, but if that is the underlying motive then I think it would be proper for the appropriate spokesman in His Majesty's Government to say so and not to conceal it by throw-
584
ing Government stock on the market and depreciating the price and so on. If that is the explanation it is only a partial one. The other is so vastly more important and may be so crucial in our present affairs, that it would be difficult to level criticism at anybody for saying that it is the real reason. It would make passage of those clauses as amended in another place perhaps a good deal easier.
To return to the actual import of the clauses, I would like to inquire whether the noble Lord who is going to reply feels that the explanation which I made for myself in the first place is correct, and if he thinks it really will achieve the objects before his Majesty's Government to which I have referred in this slowing down of the velocity of transfer of credit and currency. Where an undertaking gets a compensation stock which is not transferable, that stock may be transferred or negotiated in certain circumstances. Let us take a steel company which owns a colliery undertaking and receives compensation stock for that colliery undertaking. It will, I understand, be open, and permission will be granted, for that steel company to negotiate that stock in order to finance its developments in its own industry. That I think is accepted. That is covered so far as I understand it by Clause 23.
There is the second case of a concern which is a colliery company pure and simple which has no other undertakings than that of mining coal and manufacturing fuel. The compensation payable in compensation stock for that company will not be transferable because that company has no other activities than those of mining coal and therefore does not require funds for developing its enterprises. At that point that concern, that shell of what was a colliery company, may do either one of two things. It may continue its existence and distribute to its proprietors and debtors the compensation received from the compensation stock and continue in indefinite but idle existence. In such a case the stock remains not transferable. But where that company decides to liquidate—and that appears to be an example of the lack of consumer goods—that company may distribute in kind to the stockholders of the company, or even the debtors, the compensation stock received and at that moment that stock received by the ultimate owners of the

585
company becomes negotiable. I think I am right in these assumptions.
It follows from that that at the moment of liquidation of that company the individual stockholders are permitted to sell the stock, and precisely the event to which Mr. Gaitskell referred will take place. A large volume of Government stock will be shot on to the market. It is not a matter, I think, of any deep mystery of finance, nor probably outside the experience of many of your Lordships, that the ragged selling of stock in large quantities by a large number of holders produces the worst possible effect on the class of stock in which it takes place. It is the one method which is best calculated to depreciate it to the maximum extent in a manner which it is least possible to control.
Is that what it is desired to achieve, if the reasons underlying this drafting of these clauses are those which I exposed to your Lordships earlier on in my speech? Is not the alternative that of making the stock immediately negotiable, so that it can be sold by negotiation in larger blocks very often to institutional buyers or even to the many Government funds that exist, a far safer method of dealing with it, than to run the risk to which I have referred? I would invite the attention of those of His Majesty's Government who are concerned with these matters to that particular point which, no doubt, will be dealt with when the Bill goes into Committee in your Lordships' House.
This particular point, I think, is perhaps of rather wider import than the mere wording of these clauses. I accept that this Bill is not only inevitable but that it is going through. And I agree with my noble friend the Marquess of Reading that it is good that it should go through. It is, at any rate, the best hope for reorganizing and putting new life and spirit into this industry. But what it carries in its train as one of the consequences is the creation of a very large quantity of Government stock on the credit of His Majesty's Government, of which we all, in your Lordships' House, on whatever Benches we may sit, are very jealous. It will be one of the inevitable consequences of this Bill—it is an inevitable consequence—and so I accept it. I do not think there is any alternative, but what I do say is that what is inevitable in this case of the coal industry must not be regarded as any
586
precedent when it comes to dealing with other industries also. What may be necessary in one case may be avoidable in another by not following the same policy of nationalizing that industry.
4.14 p.m.
LORD DARWEN: My Lords, I have listened with very great interest to this debate and I am sure we must all have been very much impressed by the very large measure of agreement that manifestly exists amongst us. I think we are all agreed that the coal industry is in a desperate condition, and that our friends opposite—or, perhaps, I ought to say noble Lords opposite—are, therefore, willing to accept, in a very large measure at any rate, this desperate remedy, as they regard it, of nationalization. I am beginning to hope that it is generally recognized now that private enterprise is on its trial; not that public enterprise is on its trial, but that private enterprise is on its trial, and that every industry in this country will have to justify itself on two main conditions. The first condition is that it is really serving the national interest. The second condition is that it is providing a good life for the workers engaged in it.
I do not think that the coal industry can claim that it has satisfied either of those two conditions. It is a peculiar industry in that it is exploiting a wasting asset, and it has exploited that national, asset in an exceedingly wasteful manner, wasteful both of the asset itself and of human life. It has, all through its history, shamefully treated those engaged in it. We have been asked several times during this debate what benefit is going to be given by this Bill. Well, I believe that, at least, we can say this: that because of the unification of the industry it will be so possible to plan the sinking of new shafts, the driving of new roads and the installation of drainage schemes as to save much of the coal that has hitherto been wasted through divided management. There has been quite a considerable amount of coal wasted, even within individual mines, owing to planning which has been based on the desire for quick return. I have in mind, at the moment, one particular mine which is closed to-day but where there is a very considerable amount of coal. The working of that mine could have been continued for many years if originally it had been wisely planned.

587
There is no doubt that this great national asset of coal has not only been wastefully used—as we know it has—but that it has been wastefully exploited by the coal-mining industry, and it is only by the unification of the industry that it is possible to save that waste. We have had Commission after Commission, inquiry after inquiry, and they have all recommended some form of unification. But it has been proved quite impossible to achieve unification apart from nationalization. I think, therefore, that we may say that the first great gain under this Bill will be that we shall get unification of the industry which will contribute very materially to the efficient exploitation of the national asset. Secondly, I believe that this Bill will contribute a very great deal to bringing a new morale into the industry. I consider that employers have only one justification for their position, that is that they are good team managers, that they are able to get the workpeople to do their job well for the nation, and I do not think that the coal owners can claim that they have been good team managers in the past. The noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, yesterday used the phrase "a man's life." It is a good phrase. It is a man's life.
I think, by the way, that A Man's Life is the title which the present Secretary of State for War gave to the autobiography of his years as a miner. There are plenty of men in this country quite prepared to accept the dangers and the hardships of the miner's life, providing that they are compensated with a proper status in society, and that the people of this country really recognize the great service which coal-mining renders to them. They also want to be assured that that status is also recognized in the hours, the holidays and the wages, and in the conditions provided in the mines and in the homes of the miners. There has hitherto been no decent status for the miner in this country. I felt ashamed, during those inter-war years, of the way in which the miners were being treated, after the appeals that had been made to them during the first world war, and remembering the way in which they had risen to those appeals. I was ashamed of the way in which they were allowed to sink into the most dire poverty and distress during the years which followed. In 1928 there were nearly 200,000 miners
588
unemployed. Many of them had exhausted their unemployment benefit. In Northumberland those who were working were lucky if they were earning 30s. a week. The rate was only a little higher in Durham and South Wales. In the Forest of Dean the wages of many miners were down to the minimum of 6s. 1½d. per shift, and they were only getting three or even two shifts per week.
May I read just a line or two from a letter that I received during that period from a lady who was living amongst those miners in the Forest of Dean, shortly after the end of the strike? She wrote:
"However much one may love one's country one cannot help feeling ashamed of it when one sees the way that the toilers have to live, because it is they who make the wealth, in face of danger day and night The first miner I met to speak to I shall never forget. He was returning from working a section the day after the strike ended. I asked him if he was glad to be back. He said, 'Ah, I be, but good Lord what we have got to suffer.' It was then 3 o'clock in the afternoon. He had left his cottage at 4 o'clock in the morning and had walked through heavy snow, two and a half miles over hill and dale, and then crawled two miles under the ground before his day's payment began. He had eaten nothing but dry bread since the day before. He had five children and a sick, disheartened wife. There would be no money coming in until he had done a second week's work. They were in debt everywhere—even to the Guardians."
That is a side light on the tragic background to this Bill—the great suffering of the mining community on the one hand, and the apparent indifference of the owners on the other. I believe that the unification of the mining industry will make a difference even in this question of morale.
The great differences in the accessibility of the coal, and in the thickness of the seams, as well as the character of the coal itself, make for great differences in the cost of production. The possibility, therefore, of providing a good life for the miners also varies from place to place. The tendency has always been to govern the miner's wage by what the poorest mine could pay. In every mine there are three periods—the period of the sinking of the shaft, the period of maximum efficiency and the period of deteriorating returns. The miner's wage has largely been governed by what the poorest seams can pay in the period of decreasing returns. National ownership will make it

589
possible to level out the whole productiveness of the industry so that a proper wage can be paid to the miners throughout the industry. It will sweep away—gradually, perhaps—much of the antagonism, much of the sense of injustice, that is in the hearts of the men. I believe that in this way we shall get the necessary support from the men and the necessary output for our industrial development in this country. I believe that when this Bill becomes an Act it will achieve a very great deal that we have suggested it would achieve.
4.28 p.m.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: My Lords, I would like to introduce my remarks by pointing out that I am interested in coal through the Fife Coal Company, and I speak as an interested man. The Fife Coal Company produced Sir Charles Reid. He was with us all his life in the mines, and was our chief engineer. All who are interested in coal have read the Reid Report. His son Dr. Reid is now our chief engineer and he has just finished a tour of the mines of the Ruhr. His report—a most interesting report—will shortly be available, and no doubt the Minister of Fuel and Power, Mr. Shinwell, has read it. The Minister has gone over to the Ruhr to see for himself what the conditions are there. All I can say is this, that we owners recognize that the country has given a mandate for this kind of Bill. We think the system proposed is a bad system. We think it is a bad Bill, but we have done everything we can to help the Ministry in its preparation. I believe the Minister himself would say that he has had the cooperation of those in charge of mining in this country, although they did not agree with his policy on nationalization.
What is the origin of the Bill? Is it the Reid report? Sir Charles Reid never for a moment suggested nationalization. Is the Bill produced on the plea of efficiency, that under nationalization you would get greater efficiency than now? I admit that in the coal industry to-day all over the country you have efficient mines and inefficient mines. But do you think you will get more efficiency by a policy of nationalization? I venture to say, if you really believe the suggestion that the mines are not efficient, what you ought to have done was to have divided the mines into efficient and well-run mines and those
590
which fell into another category. You should allow private enterprise to carry on the efficient mines—because after all the probability is that you will not make them more efficient—and run the others against it. That has been done in other countries. It is done Holland; it is done in Australia and in France. I think it would be a good thing to have the two systems. Then you would have competition as to which would be able to produce the best results, the best conditions for the miners and everything else, and you could compare one with the other. I do regret that that policy was not adopted. I think perhaps in time we may drift back to such a policy.
I listened with very great pleasure to the speech of my noble friend the Marquess of Londonderry, who speaks with such knowledge, and has had such long association with the coal trade and with the miners. I also listened with very great pleasure to the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. I must say that I thought both were admirable speeches, and I entirely agree with them. Perhaps I may have to repeat some of the remarks that those noble Lords made, owing to the fact that I had ready my speech. I will, however, try to avoid as much repetition as I possibly can, although if one has a good argument, it bears repetition.
I wonder really whether the pressure of political propaganda and the need for votes have not prompted this measure more than anything else. I wonder whether those votes will still be as available to the Socialist Party after the realization of nationalization as they have been in the anticipation of nationalization. Perhaps miners will find that they have gone out of the frying pan into the fire. In the old days, with the present boards and owners, at least they knew where they were. They could get to them, and in many cases they found that those boards and owners had hearts and souls. When one is dealing with a Government organization the heart and soul disappear, and perhaps some day miners will discover that. At any rate, I hope that whatever happens this Bill will produce what the Labour Party thinks it will produce. I hope that it will be a success, because coal is the foundation of this country, and if this Bill breaks down in operation, it will be a bad day indeed for industry in this country.

591
I do not intend to go through all the clauses of this Bill, but I would like to refer to one or two. Of course, being very interested, I do not want to say much about the clauses dealing with compensation. However, there is one remark I would make in relation to those clauses. It has been pointed out in another place that when the compensation scrip comes along, it can be liquidated if and when it gets into the possession of the individual shareholder. All that a coal company has got to do is to liquidate. Under the Companies' Acts you cannot liquidate unless you get the permission of the shareholders. I think that before you can go into liquidation you require something like 75 per cent. of the owners of the shares to agree. I believe that most pure coal companies will go into liquidation, and I think that something ought to have been put into the Bill to deal with that position. At least, I think that that is a point which is worth looking at.
I now come to the Coal Board. I refer to Clauses 1, 2 and 3. When the Coal Board has been formed it will be another board of directors, but far away from the actual mines. The one thing that is necessary for success is to give this Board a free hand. The more you control that Board the more you will interfere with its working. If you are going to have a board of directors, far goodness sake give them a free hand to carry out what they want to do, because immediately you get interference from the Minister, interference from other sources and political pressure, then you ruin the whole outline and plan of what they want to do throughout the whole coal country.
Another important point with regard to this Board is that it will not be anything like near enough, and it cannot be near enough, to the individual pits. You should have local boards right up against the groups of pits. You must have boards within immediate reach of those pits, and those local boards must have certain powers at their disposal, because unless quick decisions can be taken in dealing with the various operations of coal mining, it is the worse for those pits. Quick decision has to be taken in practically every case, and I think that the setting up of local boards and directors right up against the coalfields is one of the most important things to be done in the organization of this industry when it is nationalized.
592
That leads me to the question of finance. We are going to have the Minister (you have got it laid down in the Bill) interfering with the allocation of money for new sinkings and all the rest of it. Then it is provided in Clause 28 that you have to collect reserves. I hope you may be able to. But when you do get those reserves, you cannot use them without the consent of the Minister and the Treasury. I am sure that anyone who has had any dealings with the Treasury will find that the answer is always "No," until you can justify your demand by repeated requests. If you are going to bring the Treasury into the question of how the reserves of money are to be spent, then I say, "God help the coal industry."
There is a point in respect of this matter which was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, yesterday. I think it is a very vital point. He asked what is the policy of the Government with regard to money extracted from coal through this Nationalization Board? Supposing you do collect reserves, what are you going to do with those reserves? Plough them back into the industry, and sink new pits in the new fields? Of course, you ought to. Or are you going to reduce the price of coal to the consumer? You ought to. I hope that what will happen will not be similar to what has happened before with regard to the Post Office and the Road Fund. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has come along and taken his whack—£12,000,000 out of the Post Office, and God knows what was taken out of the Road Fund.
LORD LATHAM: Conservative Chancellors.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: Exactly. It was taken out instead of being put back to be used in making our roads what they ought to be to-day. There is a danger immediately the Treasury gets its hand in the pool. That thing will happen again in the coalfields. Of course, this Bill will create a monopoly, and while all monopolies have many great advantages in many ways, they also have great disadvantages. If you are going to have a monopoly with no competition, then you are up against this question: Are you going to get more coal with a monopoly? What are you going to do with the miners? Are you going to say to them: "Come on. You have got to work so many hours,

593
so many shifts. Your holidays are to be so many days." And are you going to regiment the miners? Believe me, they are not going to stand that. What you will have done by nationalization is to make the miners the masters. The miners are going to call the tune. They are going to say to the Government: "Unless you give us this or give us that, we are done, we are finished. What are you going to do? "Of course, pressure like that will be given way to, and the result: is that the miners may go to the Board—because they have got to work with the Board (the Board not the Minister)—and they can dictate the terms they want. It seems to me that that may have a most injurious effect, not only on the whole economic position, but on the output of coal generally.
A lot has been said about absenteeism, under-production and all the rest of it in the coalfields. I venture to say that what is required is well-managed pits which are well-lighted. That is very important. All the underground should be well lighted. There should be concrete roads to the main faces; they should be safe, dry, with good haulage and good accessories generally. Anyone can go to our pits at Comrie and Fife and see ideal pits. In such pits as those you will get output and the men will produce.
There is another factor to be considered. The younger men say: "What is the good of earning money? What are we going to do with it?" They have nothing to spend it on. Many of these young men, some of them just about to be married and some who have started married life, cannot buy furniture or clothes for themselves, their wives, or their girls. In fact, there are no goods in the shops. All this effort for the export trade without fostering a larger home trade is having its repercussions on production in the various factories. You should provide many more goods for the home market. You talk about inflation. You cannot stop inflation. Inflation is with us to-day and is going steadily ahead. What you can do is control inflation, but inflation is there. In order to get the results of labour, you have to give those who labour something on which to spend their money. Unless you dc that you will not get the good results you expect.
Now I would ask, what is going to be the position when you have one owner—
594
the Board under the State? Are the men, if they are not satisfied with the conditions, going to be allowed to strike? Have they the right to strike as they have to-day? It is a very serious question. The Post Office workers cannot strike. Are the coal miners going to be put in a position where the Government says: "You cannot strike; you are State employees. It is treason," and all the rest of it. Do you think the miners will care twopence for that? Of course they will strike if they do not get the conditions they want. But it is going to be a very serious thing if the State has to deal with the million men who are working in the mines. It is a point worth thinking about. It will lead, I hope, to very carefully drawn contracts between the men and the Board. The one thing we have to stop if we can is these illegal strikes—strikes against the contracts drawn. If we can stop those, we shall do away with a great deal of trouble in the mines. It has been the cause of loss of output of coal in many areas all over the country.
Now I want to turn for a moment to the question of mining generally. There are many pits in West Lanarkshire and other places (I am talking now of the areas I know in Scotland) which are worn out. They are not economic. They have been carried on during; the war years at a dead loss per ton and have been paid for by the good mines—the mines in Durham, Fife and elsewhere—which have contributed out of their profits on production to those mines that have been showing a loss. Those mines, it is perfectly clear, ought to be closed. But you cannot close those mines. You would have a social question at once. Until you have houses into which the miners can move from the west to the east you cannot do anything.
In Fife we have three pits proved, all the blue prints ready to start sinking at any moment when the Government say "Go"—beautiful fields of coal. If you are going to move the miners from the west to that area in the east and to Fife you have to start building your colliers' villages—not houses round the pits but villages—now. That means the closest co-operation with the local authority. The local authority has to get direction from the Government as to priorities, and there is no greater priority, in the country to-day than creating those new villages

595
for the coalfields that are coming. Sinking those pits will take some five years. You should build the houses now, and then you may be able slowly to move communities from the west to the east. It is bound to happen. It is the only big field in Scotland that is undeveloped. There are large areas, chiefly to the north of the Forth though some are to the south, in which there are large basins of coal that have never been touched and will, in the future, be a great source of supply of coal for this country.
The next question on which I want to touch is that of export coal. How are we going to get back our export coal trade, because it is vital to our country? It is the best export we have. It is the finest from the shipping point of view because the shipping then gets the round turn; it takes coal out and comes back with raw materials and food-stuffs. Until you get that export trade back you will be in a difficult and inferior position as regards other export trade. That is the point to which the energies of this Board should be directed—not only to giving us the coal we need at home but to supplying the export coal so badly needed all over the world and which brings in the necessary exchange for our various essential imports.
And what about the importing of coal from abroad? Has any notice been taken of that? Of course, under the present controls, you will say, it cannot be done except by Government order. Looking ahead, however, unless you deal with import coal you will get competition such as you had after the last war, Polish and Silesian coal coming in to compete with our coal and knocking the bottom out of prices. This import coal is a very serious question and I commend the Ministry to look into it very closely.
There is a small point in Clause 19 which lays down provisions about the vesting date. There is a suggestion that the Government will be very glad if the various coal companies, when they receive the script, would hand over the script to individuals, and gradually wind up. That is going to take anything from three to four years, and you need offices to do it. Therefore the liquidating authority will no doubt be the existing boards of many companies. There are redundant offices in the various coalfields, and perhaps the Minister will therefore give some
596
sort of direction to the Board that if offices which are redundant to the requirements of those who are now going to run the coal industry do exist, they should be offered, on rent of course, to the boards who are liquidating the companies which have been handed over. It is a small point but it is one which will, I think, facilitate a great many of the arrangements which are to be made.
The next point is, I think, really serious. Clause 43 is a new clause. It is a clause which was brought in on the Report stage in another place and which deals with the negotiations between the men's various unions and federations and the Coal Board on wages, hours of work and everything connected with their employment. It is very important indeed that that position should be clarified and that the unions should be encouraged to come to the Board to make contracts. I see that the noble Lord, the Minister for Civil Aviation, shakes his head. I think it is very important that that should be done, because unless you get the unions and federations with you they will be against you.
THE MINISTER FOR CIVIL AVIATION (LORD WINSTER): Perhaps my noble friend will allow me to interrupt and to say that I was nodding my head to something which was said to me by my noble friend sitting beside me.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: It is a point of substance and one which will give you a lot of trouble if it is not properly dealt with. Many of us on this side of the House do not like this Bill. Personally I hate it. It is a great wrench to have one's interests taken away from one—interests which were not only one's own interests but one's father's. That is much more so in the case of the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, than in my own case. It is a great wrench to be taken away from all that and away from the men you have known all your life. However, I wish you well and I hope that the scheme will be a success. May I say that if we owners can help you by consultation or in any other way we are at your beck and call whenever you want us?
4.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, I would not wish to agree that this Bill now before your Lordships' House represents

597
the inevitable solution of the problems of the coal industry. It is, however, one solution which is in the act of being adopted, and I think we should, therefore, accept the principle of this Bill. Having said that, may I say that what I think is of far more importance than the question of the public ownership or otherwise of the assets which are referred to in this Bill is the method by which they are to be administered when they come under public control? The Bill itself says very little about the functions of the Coal Board except in so far as it defines, not very Clearly, the relationship between it and the Minister of Fuel and Power. I agree that in certain circumstances it may be very wise not to lay down too definitely and in too much detail what are to be the functions of the management authority and what are to be its relations with the Minister, but I think that those who have experience of industrial matters will agree with me that the Board must be allowed to function freely and properly in looking after the affairs of the industry. I think it is important that, in the first place, the Coal Board should be free to operate in the way it thinks is best for the benefit of the industry and that, in the second place, it should be free to decentralize into some kind of local or regional system of administration. I look upon the chain of responsibility proposed tinder the Bill as deriving from the Minister in Parliament to the National Coat Board, and then devolving on some kind of local, area, or regional administration, whatever it may be called. It is true there is nothing in the Bill to say that such systems of local administration are not to be instituted, and indeed I expect that they will in fact be instituted under the Bill as at present drafted, but there are, I think, certain safeguards which it might be as well to put into the Bill itself. I feel that these local administrations must derive their responsibility and receive their overall guiding instructions from the Board, and not in any way from the Minister in Parliament. There must be clearly shown the chain of responsibility, and they must have a very considerable amount of freedom of action if they are to operate efficiently.
It seems to me that simply to say it is in the public interest for the State to own the colliery industry and for it to be run
598
by a National Coal Board is not enough. I think the assumption that because administration or direction—whether it be in the form of control or ownership—is exercised in the name of the Government and the State, it must, therefore, be more efficient than private enterprise, or any other form of enterprise, is not justified, according to our experience to date at any rate. There is no reason in theory why management on behalf of the country should not be as efficient as management by individuals on their own account, but the incentives are different. This is a new technique of responsibility and management, and it is one that we have not yet satisfactorily solved in this country. I think it is of the greatest importance that it should be solved, not only for the sake of this industry but for the sake of many other branches of our national life. In particular, when the State takes control of an industry such as this, the solution of the difficulty of finding a really efficient system of control becomes of the very greatest importance.
The coal industry has certain characteristics which make it rather different from other industries. In the past and recently—and indeed during your Lordships' debate this afternoon—a great deal of stress has been laid on the need for amalgamation and larger units. The various Reports which have been quoted have shown the need for the reduction of boundaries in some cases, the standardization of stores of various kinds, improved methods of haulage and, in general, the operation of colliery concerns in larger units. On the other hand, I think it is a feature of individual collieries that the actual direction and management is far more effectively done than in the larger units. Therefore the principle which, I think, emerges is that ownership and financial responsibility should be on the basis of having units together on a larger scale in order to get the best production and the best spirit, but that actual administration, responsibility and leadership should be vested in smaller units. That is not, of course, inconsistent with what is proposed in this Bill, but I think it is one of the things that must be watched very carefully when the system gets to work. Men in a pit work in small numbers—they work in isolation, in small groups, as to a large number of them—and the discipline that is required is the discipline of leadership and personal example, with

599
good relations between everybody. That, I believe, can be maintained far better in the smaller units than in the larger ones. In every industry there is a certain size beyond which the numbers of men employed make it very difficult to run the industry efficiently.
I think the coal industry might well say that that number is very large, but it does carry with it a proportionately higher need for smaller units in the actual handling of the problems of the job. I do not believe that the Coal Board will get the really best men in the management of the industry—because there are some first-class men, as many of your Lordships will know—unless they feel they are to operate a system which really can be made to work, in which they can see results and in which they have some hope of increasing production efficiency. It may be that the political considerations attaching to this Bill will make a large difference in the mental approach of the majority of the pit men to the whole question of working in the mines. That has always been said. Many of us are not convinced it will happen, but let us hope it will. Following on that, it is necessary to get the enthusiasm and the confidence of the men who are employed in management. Those are the two prerequisites, I believe, which are required for a change in the fortunes of the coal industry. Those two things are possible under this Bill, as indeed it may well be argued they are possible without it, but we see nothing in the Bill as it is to point to the running of the business in that direction. I would like to see various amendments in certain places defining what is the general attitude in that direction.
There is one very difficult question which I think should be referred to, and that concerns the necessity from time to time for the closing of some pits and the moving of production into other coal regions which are being opened up. In the past that has happened just by the process of time. Pits have closed purely and simply for economic reasons; it has not paid to work them any more, and as a result of that the then owners of the colliery who have taken the responsibility of closing the pits have been held responsible for the subsequent poverty of the men who work there and the abandonment of the area. In the future that process
600
must continue, but it is clear that it will not be allowed to continue in the form of closing the collieries and just leaving the men with nowhere to work and no means of earning a livelihood. However carefully a process of this sort is conducted, however carefully the local authorities are helped and encouraged to build houses, and however much trouble is taken about providing forms of employment in whatever may be thought to be the most suitable places, it is bound to lead to a great deal of dissatisfaction and unhappiness. Someone must take the responsibility for fathering this policy, for carrying it out, some public authority, whether it be the Government in the form of the Minister, or whether it be the actual Board as his agents. They must accept the responsibility, must make it publicly clear what they are doing and why, and must maintain this policy in so far as it is necessary for the health of the industry. That is a very much wider question, perhaps, than comes within a Bill of this kind, but I think I would feel a little bit safer about it if there was some reference to it in the Bill, so that there should be some guidance to the Board, and so that the miners should know what was going to be the general policy in this respect in the future.
This Bill has got a lot of difficulties about it, and I do not propose to touch on the complications of compensation. Those are really matters which will no doubt come up for discussion in Committee. I do feel that in general it is a Bill which, in one way or another, mostly due to past history, has become inevitable. I think it is going to be very difficult to make it work efficiently; I think it extremely important that it should be made as effective an instrument as possible, and I have no doubt that your Lordships would support it for that reason.
5.5 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, yesterday the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor was kind enough to refer to myself, and of course, the word "gloom" came into it again, which is what I always expect. There seems to be behind what the noble and learned Lord said a sort of appeal to me to produce some constructive or helpful ideas. I was wondering whether, perhaps, that might be some subtle suggestion that I should join the Government, because if so I am afraid I

601
could not give up my present occupations for such a short term of office as I would anticipate.
I speak as an old miner. Some of your Lordships may not be aware that during the early part of my life I worked for some eight years, first as a miner and then in a higher capacity in the various mining departments. I do not suppose any of your Lordships would realize the anxiety one has in some mining experiences. I have been pulled up a shaft of anything from 100 to 200 feet by two natives. As you near the surface you hear them puffing and blowing, and you know that many men have lost their lives because when the rescuers get really exhausted they run away and leave you to it. I am aware from personal experience of the dangers of mining, and I have always had, since those days when I was an actual practical miner, a great feeling of affection for all those who work underground.
I am going to make my suggestion in regard to this matter from the point of view of the whole of this Bill, and the legislation proposed, as it affects the miner himself. There was one part of the noble and learned Lord's speech yesterday in moving the Second Reading which did disappoint me a great deal, and I am bound to say it has disappointed me to-day, as also have many of the speeches which have fallen from the Government side. I would have liked to hear some really good reasons why the Government think this Bill and this nationalization policy is going to be a success. There are pious hopes about it, but I can find nothing in the noble Lord's speech which says that for the following reasons this Bill is going to increase the amount of coal, make it cheaper, and make the general situation better in the coal industry. I could find nothing of that sort, and I do hope that the noble Lord who is replying to this debate will give us some really good reasons why this particular policy, in the eyes of the Government, is likely to accomplish what has not been achieved in the past. I do not want to go back to the reference which was made to my speech on May 15, but I notice with pleasure that I am going to listen in reply to the noble Lord who replied to that debate. I can see no reason why one should expect this policy of nationalization to be a success. It has not been a
602
success when it has been tried elsewhere. I notice that the noble Lord who replied to that former debate said: "Oh, but you must not forget the G.P.O. and the B.B.C." Really, there you have got instances which are quite foreign to this question, or any other question of nationalization of industry. Then again there seems to be no reason to suppose that the labour relations at the moment show any sign of getting very much better.
Now I would like to justify the anxiety which I, and, I am sure, a great many others, have felt in regard to this policy. Your Lordships may remember that the Minister concerned, my right honourable friend Mr. Shinwell, on January 29, to show the dangers of this policy, said this:
"A bad Government, a bad Minister, or a had Board, could go far to wreck the whole economic structure of this industry and thereby of the country as well."
The next day, January 30, Mr. Herbert Morrison said:
"It would be a shocking illusion to think that merely because you pass this Bill, and pass the coal mining industry into the hands of a public corporation, you need not worry any more. If the management and the miners do not rise to the occasion, I admit this experiment will go smash."
Those are very serious statements made by responsible Ministers and they are bound, I think, to give cause for reflection to all of us who have the welfare of our country and of the industries of our country at heart. It was mentioned to-day, I believe by my noble friend Lord Rennell, that in Australia, where they nationalized certain coalmines and other industries during the war, they have now decided to return them to those proprietors who owned them before the war.
Let us examine this in regard to this Bill. Suppose the possible failure, which is undoubtedly in the minds of the Ministers whose words I have just quoted, occurs. Suppose what they anticipate might happen does happen. There will be no escape, because it appears from the debate to-day that the whole organization which is conducting this industry now will be broken up and will cease to exist. That is brought about really by the system of payment of compensation. If things. turned out in accordance with this supposition, it would mean that if we here in this country wished to do what the Australians have done, we could not do it because the whole organization of the

603
proprietors would have ceased to exist owing to this system that is adopted in paying compensation in frozen stock in certain cases to be subsequently dispersed among a great many people, shareholders and others. Therefore the question of denationalization, as it has happened elsewhere, is off the picture here, so far as I can make out.
Then I find that as recently as May 19 the Minister of Fuel and Power was reported in the Observer as having done something which again must bring anxiety to all of us. It is stated in the newspaper that he "issued a more or less confidential document to the Mine-workers' Union emphasizing that if the present trend of coal production is not remedied, a volume of unemployment will be created in other industries which will amount to between 1,200,000 and 1,300,000." One cannot get away from these very serious statements by responsible Ministers. I hope that the noble Lord who is going to reply will tell us if there is any reason to suppose that this anxiety on the part of these Ministers is not justified and that there are really very good reasons for supposing that this experiment—as it is called by some Ministers—will be a success.
Now I come to what is really the crux of the whole thing as I see it. Other matters which I had proposed to raise in my speech have already been dealt with and I do not propose to detain your Lordships by repeating what has already been said. The crux of the matter as I see it is that this Bill is certain to pass and so we must do everything we can to try to improve it. And the key, to my idea, of the whole Bill, is in one word—"miner" I will give my reasons for so thinking, and I am coming to what the noble and learned Lord said yesterday about "the beetle and the bat." What I am going to say is bound up with Clause 43 which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Hutchison of Montrose. The Russians have a system of dealing with the workers in their country which gives a great incentive to them to work and to produce as much as ever they can. Noble Lords may be aware of this system, and I commend this for the serious consideration of the Government.
There is in Russia a basic line of production for each miner, or for any other worker in any other industry, for that
604
matter, and each man who produces up to that basic line gets a certain wage. The line is set at a reasonable standard and it it is one which can be attained by the worker. But if there are many instances of men who do not work up to that basic line then in Russia disciplinary action is taken. I would suggest that we should not go as far as that here, but I think it might be a good thing, if we found that this basic line was not worked up to by the miners, that an inquiry by the union should be made. Then if it was proved that a man was not putting what he could into his work, it should be left to the men's union to deal with the matter. What else do the Russians do? They have so arranged that anyone working above the basic line is rewarded very handsomely. That again is a suggestion that I put forward for consideration in dealing with the miners here. I believe that you have to give them an inducement to produce more coal. You have to give them the inducement that the more they produce the better they will be paid and the better will be their condition. Further, I believe it would be a magnificent thing if you gave them an interest in the pits in which they are working.
Co-partnership has worked extra-ordinarily well, as your Lordships know, in many industries in this country. I cannot see why that should not be adopted in the mining industry. The miners must be helped first of all to earn a just and sufficient wage, and they must be given a real inducement, in their very hard life, to improve their condition. They should have a direct incentive to produce more coal. As to the miners' own point of view. I say frankly that if I were a miner working here I would not touch this Bill with a barge pole. If I were a miner I would not like to have to deal with only one "Boss"—and that the State. That is what this Bill means. To-day, if a miner is not satisfied with what is going on in his pit he can move to another.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Where?
LORD TEVIOT: Well, perhaps not now; but freedom will come back to the miners, I hope. If we are to go on regimenting them they will not remain in the pits for long. They may stick it for a time, but if I were a miner I should not. If you have a management in one mine which is all right, well and good: The miner,

605
through his unions, if things are not right in the mines, has power now to take action which I do not think he will be able to take under this Bill. The Government, I know, are committed to this Bill. There is a lot in it that is novel, and it contains several completely new ideas. The position is so grave that it is vital that it should be a success, and I am sure, as has been said in nearly every speech to-day, that whether we are against the Bill or not we are all determined to do everything we can to help make it a success. It is vital to the interests of our country, and I believe that if the lines I have suggested—and I believe that to be the only way—are followed there will be a different spirit. There will be a tremendous inducement to miners; it will mean cheaper coal in the end. It will mean the production of more coal, and if miners are given an interest in the pits in which they work it will go a long way towards making a success of the Bill.
5.23 p.m.
LORD MOUNTEVANS: My Lords, because I come from mining stock in the Rhondda—not very profitable—and later have been connected with Lancashire, I have always taken a live interest in the miner. I am proud to count among my friends Will Lawther, who has just presented the Miners' Charter, Jack Lawson, Ebby Edwards, the late Herbert Smith of Barnsley, Arthur Horner and Joe Hall. It sounds almost like "Uncle Tom Cobley and all." These men have always been frank in their statements and have not as a rule "over-egged the pudding." I use that expression, because I got it from one of the really good mine-owners, one whom the miners are proud to call friend, because he has always devoted himself to giving a fair deal to the miners and getting a fair deal from them.
About the Coal Industry Nationalization Bill, most of your Lordships have, and will hold, your own opinions. In my humble opinion if a good mine-owner—I will say every mine-owner and every important mine official—had taken the trouble to go round the good mines, to see how well they were managed and the steps taken for miners' welfare, they would have learned a great deal. If they had gone round the bad mines, and seen how terribly mismanaged they were, and how scandalously the miner has been treated in the past, and had then gone back for consultations,
606
I believe—like the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay who spoke yesterday—that we should never have come to the state that we are in to-day.
When the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack referred to Sir Ernest Gowers, Chairman of the Coal Commission, my mind went back to May, 1941. I was his fellow Regional Commissioner for London, and Sir Ernest asked me to go round the mines to meet the miners in England and Wales and Scotland. I went by air and train and car, and called for a "Pit and shovel blitzkrieg." I was furnished with a message from the late Prime Minister, Mr. Winston Churchill. That message was that an immediate increase in coal production was vital to the armed forces of the Crown, and to the industries which were providing them with weapons. It is no exaggeration to say that victory quite largely depended upon the coal output of those four months, June, July, August and September, 1941. I told the miners then what they must already have known, that Britain was fighting with her back to the wall and was facing the gravest hour in her history; that it was really a race against time. I remember likening their dangerous work to that of the Merchant Service, particularly the firemen, and I asked them to sink their differences with managements and with their unions for the sake of democratic freedom. I told them that it did not matter whether they were Communists or Conservatives, adding that I was neither. What I said in the course of my many addresses was that one day soldiers and sailors and airmen would be able to tell the miners that their help had saved the nation. That, my Lords, is the truth.
On one occasion in South Wales I had the privilege of addressing two hundred mine managers as representatives of the executive side of the industry. I told them that the object of the "Pick and shovel blitzkrieg" was to build up the nation's stocks and, when that was done, to help safeguard our export trade for the post-war period. I learned a great deal through the production "blitz" in the mines. I brought to the notice of the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, then Minister of Food, the fact that the pit workers should have adequate food supplies when at work. I pointed out that the munitions industries had unfair advantages over the

607
mineworkers, in being better paid and better fed—the latter advantage due perhaps to canteens. But I also pointed out to him that bureaucracy had been partly responsible for delays in coal distribution, for miners know, as well as I do, how bureaucracy has thwarted them.
As recently as February this year members of the Women's Royal Naval Service in this country were getting better meat and sugar rations than the miners, and only ten or eleven days ago the miners must have read, as I read, that a theatrical manager in New York had reduced his breakfast ration from twenty-two eggs to merely nineteen. That is just "one out of the bag." As the noble Lord, Lord Darwen, said, it cannot be wondered that the miners are dissatisfied over the inadequacy of their rations when they read that hundreds and thousands of Germans are possessed of a double set of ration cards, through having registered at two different places in the same city. To turn the searchlight on to unproductive workers one has only to quote from The Times of May 18 the report of the conference of the Society of Civil Servants—calling for increased annual increments for officers of the executive grade, giving unanimous approval to motions pressing for a five day week, passing resolutions calling for as much as 48 days annual leave—to realize the justice of the majority of the claims of the miners. Your Lordships must realize the conditions under which most miners live and the greatness of their efforts in peace as well as in war, compared with the conditions of service of the vast numbers of civil servants.
Very recently, the President of the National Union of Mineworkers, Will Lawther, summarized the reasons why coal miners to-day are reluctant to allow their sons to follow in their footsteps. He pointed out the dire necessity of facing up immediately to the disparity between the conditions of miners and those of other workers, whether in factory or in office. He quoted very properly the school-teachers in comparing the relative holidays, and he said, inter alia, that miners are sick of pep talk about their industry. He had in fact a great deal to say without "over-egging the pudding." What is more, he promised that miners would co-operate in getting new entrants for their industry if the suggestions put forward
608
in the Miners' Charter were adopted—new safety laws, prevention of the spread of industrial diseases, payment of compensation rates for injury or occupational disease, compensation that would guarantee victims from financial loss and so on, and above all, the introduction of the forty hour week for surface workers and the establishment of the five-day week without loss of pay.
As to leave, he put forward fourteen consecutive days' holiday and six statutory holiday-days in each year, and finally a plea for better food. No man can hew coal and produce up to the figures quoted by the Lord Chancellor on to-day's rations, in our capricious British climate. I will not touch on the matter of clothing, but any miner's wife will tell you that there has been insufficient clothing during the six years of war, and the period since peace has been established. I notice that no reference has been made to the Porter award in your Lordships' House during this debate. The miners, I heard, called it a "landmark in the history of the miners' progress towards a better standard of life," but very soon I found out that they were not at all pleased. In most respects that was a grand award, but I discussed with my fellow Commissioner, Sir Ernest Gowers the way in which it was put over, and he agreed, especially with the miners who said, "Someone who does not understand mining is mucking about with our industry." That is an example of Civil Service administration.
I need not go into details, but the last big scattered coal strikes were precipitated by a Government mistake—not this Government's mistake, but the late Government's mistake, one of the most ghastly mistakes ever made. After owners and miners had agreed that certain allowances, particularly those for men working up to their knees in water in very dirty parts of the mine, should be paid over and above the minimum allowance, the Mines Department told the miners' leaders that this could not be allowed. It appeared to the miners, I quote the Observer, that a man working up to his knees in water would get a six shillings smaller daily increase than a man working in a dry place—he would, in fact, come on to exactly the same wage. All this is remembered by the miners, as well as all

609
the sarcasm, and the calling of the miners "traitors" when they went on strike. We should remember what we owe to the miners.
Coal industry nationalization has come as a shock to the really good colliery owners. We have some sitting in this House; I see one at present. There are mine owners who own mines like Norton and Biddulph, which includes Brereton, and which have produced with others in the same group during the six war years over a million tons more than in the six previous years. Bolsover and Bageridge are similar kinds of collieries. Why? Because the owners have always taken a live interest in the working of the mines, in the miners' welfare, and in the homes of the miners. Another example taken off the heap is the East Hetton Colliery, acquired at the end of 1935, when on the point of closing down. I have read that the East Hetton Colliery produced nearly 4,000,000 tons of coal during the six war years; and what is more, none of the concerns with which the owners that I quote were connected, lost a single day through labour troubles.
Owners and men in concerns like these must feel it a staggering blow to be dismissed from the service of the coal-mining industry, and much as I admire the constitution of the Coal Board, I feel that it would do well to keep in touch with the best of the mine-owners and make use of their organizing, administrative and technical ability. Since nationalization of the mines is at least a very big adventure, the Board should, and I hope will, make use of these men's spirit of adventure, that has so successfully converted apparently poor-producing mines into a state of flourishing success.
Nationalization, perhaps, has come to stay, and provided that State control initiates enterprise and keeps the common touch with the miner, the mining engineer and the people who know, and beyond this exhibits true and not bureaucratic unity, the coal industry of this country will be placed on its feet again. In spite of the gloomy outlook, a good deal of which we have listened to in this debate, I believe that if we draw a veil over the cruel and unhappy past and if the mining industry, and especially the mine workers, take their "coats off for the future," that industry will again become the foremost in the country.
5.39.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I always feel some sympathy for those who speak towards the end of a two-days' debate. I immediately extend that sympathy to the noble Lord who is going to succeed me, because I feel it myself. So many of the things that one had intended to say have already been said far better during the course of the debate by others who have preceded one. Therefore I do not intend to detain your Lordships very long this afternoon. I would first like to say just this, that I fully agree with what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said yesterday, that he welcomed the proposition that every question of nationalization must be considered and must be justified upon its own merits. I looked through and read with great care to-day the whole of the noble Lord's speech, and I listened with great care to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, who spoke from the Government Front Bench this afternoon. I must say that I find in neither of those speeches any attempt to justify this measure upon its merits. We are still waiting for that.
We are all agreed that in the past, and the recent past, a lot of the relationships in the mining industry have been most regrettable. The first great mistake that was made—and everybody realizes it now—was that after the last war reparations in coal were allowed to be taken by a large number of countries, and so our coal industry at that time lost many of its markets and never really recovered from it. A great thing at the moment is that it is agreed in all quarters that that cannot be allowed to occur again. Therefore everybody in the industry—all those, shall I say, who will be left in the industry when it is nationalized—especially the mineworkers themselves, can have no doubt that there will be no unemployment in the industry and that as much coal as can be produced will be welcomed on all sides.
The position which led to disturbances just after the last war is not at all likely to recur, but is indeed almost impossible in the present circumstances. It should be some encouragement to them to know, at the back of their minds, that if they work hard they will not be cutting other people's throats and putting other people out of work. I believe that a great part

611
of the difficulties that have arisen in the mining industry over the last few years has come largely from the absentee owner. The cases quoted by the noble Lord who has just sat down were not those of absentee owners. They were of mine owners who took an interest, who went down to their pits, who knew their men, looked after their welfare, and tried to improve their conditions and get to know and understand them.
I am not going to talk any more about the past but I want to look at what we are doing to-day for the future. We are setting up a Board. I believe that that Board is too remote to afford satisfaction in the mining industry. It will bring about again what has made for discontent in the industry—the man who "has the say" being too far from the man who is working at the bottom of the pit. If, as I believe is right, a lot of the disaffection in the mines was caused by the mine owners not being in the collieries and knowing their men, we shall make that permanent by the establishment of this Board, and we are making it permanent not only where it existed before but where the mine owners were on the spot and were with their men and knew them.
This Board, I think, will have far too unwieldy a task. It is a generalization, but it is true of every Government Department in which I have been, that it takes too long to get to the person who can make the decision. I believe that that will happen in regard to this Board. There is another point which arises with any matter for which a Minister is responsible, and which is inherent in our Parliamentary system. There are a number of questions put to a Minister in another place and there is a remote possibility that one may get one here from a member of your Lordships' House. At any rate, in order to make sure that an answer will be ready on any of those matters within twenty-four or forty-eight hours, most complicated records have to be kept of every single decision taken during the course of administration. It is necessary to be able to turn up the file and see what the arguments were, for and against, and why the decision was taken. That makes the whole thing cumbrous. And if this Board knows, as it is bound to know that all or any of its actions may be questioned in Parliament, I believe that there will be hesitation where there
612
should be action and there will be delay where prompt decision is required.
Obviously one of the first things this Board will have to do is to start, if I may use the expression, to pup—to have a litter of lesser Boards. And a pretty big litter it will have to be, because you will get this one central Board which quite obviously will not be able to administer from London the affairs of every region in the country. Now if there is not set up a Board in Scotland (even if you do not call it a lesser Board)—and I do not see myself why the same should not apply to South Wales—there will probably be great difficulties in the area. But that means that the lesser Board would have to be responsible to the main Board, who would be responsible to the Minister, and so things would become even more remote. I am certain you will get what the noble Lord who has just spoken mentioned: somebody who does not know anything about mines "mucking about" with the industry. I believe there will be delay, because in an industry for which a Minister has responsibility it is impossible to get away from the requirement of having to be ready to answer to another place or to this House for everything done. That all leads to indecision, to the passing of the buck until it comes to somebody who can take the decision, perhaps, indeed, to the Minister himself.
The noble Lord, Lord Ammon, to whom we are all much obliged for taking the trouble he did to answer adequately, if not all the questions, some of the questions put yesterday, told us that wages, hours and conditions of labour would be matters for the Board. I have no doubt that that is the idea now. But there will be a large number of Members of Parliament sitting for mining constituencies in another place and everybody will know that the State is the owner and that if it comes to a question of shortening of hours or raising of wages or any matter that costs money in improving the conditions of the industry, the Treasury will have just a word to say. Everybody knows that these decisions are not, in fact, going to be the decisions of the Board at all.
Decisions will have to be decisions of the Minister. At one time during my Ministerial career I presided over the Admiralty Industrial Council, on which there were some extremely able and good trade union representatives, as the noble

613
Lord, who was at the Admiralty himself, will know. When they raised a subject and I had, from the centre of the official side, to say that I would adjourn it until the next meeting so that I might consider it more fully, they were all perfectly well aware that they had raised a matter which needed Treasury sanction and on which, before I could make any promise at all, I had to go to the Treasury official concerned, or, if necessary, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
That obviously will have to happen; it is inevitable in the construction of the machinery that is being set up under this Bill. In the case of the Admiralty Industrial Council, we could always, in the matter of wages and so on, make comparisons with similar industries, because the Admiralty controlled in this country only certain industrial labour at Portsmouth, Devonport, Chatham, Rosyth—there was not much there at that time—and in a few other places such as the torpedo works and the cordite works. A comparison could always be made with the ship-building industry and although we aimed to be in the forefront of good employers we obviously made that comparison. But this Board, with all the coal-mines in the hands of the State itself, will have nothing with which to make a comparison Not only will there be no kind of standard with which to make a comparison, but there is in the House of Commons a pressure group just as strong as some of those about which I began to learn when I was studying the workings of Congress in the United States. There is this pressure group of miners there; they are returned by miners' votes and, naturally wanting to help their constituents, and perhaps themselves in the matter of re-election, they will obviously apply pressure.
All these matters will, therefore, in fact get into the hands of the Minister and will be largely dealt with in the House of Commons under political pressure rather than in the old industrial way to which we are accustomed in this country. I think it will be found by the miners after a while that it is really rather an extravagance to pay some of these trade union leaders for doing what is really being done in another way at the present time. Great difficulties will face the Minister when this Bill becomes law, as indeed it will. If there is a profit—let us assume that for a moment—made
614
out of the industry, after the Treasury has taken what it is entitled to take as interest on the monies that it has advanced or paid in compensation, the remaining profits, after paying upkeep, wages and everything else may, I gather, be dealt with in four ways; they may be used to pay higher wages, or to lower the cost of coal, or they may be ploughed back into the industry, or be taken by the Treasury as a rake-off, as is done with the profits of the Post Office. The Government and the Minister—this will have to be a matter of policy for him—will have to decide which of those alternatives to choose. I doubt if the decision will be made on a good commercial basis; I fancy that political considerations will come very strongly into the picture, and I do not blame any Minister for having to give way to them. At any rate, that will be inherent in the difficult position which arises when you publish your accounts and everybody puts on pressure to get more wages because the accounts show a profit. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, say that if coal could not be produced at a reasonable price the Government might even have to subsidize it so that our industries could get it at a price which would enable them to compete with foreign competition, and so, I suppose, that we could also sell coal abroad at a competitive price.
LORD AMMON: If the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt, what I said was said on my own initiative. It was that coal is of such vital importance that the position could possibly arise that, in order to keep our industry going, it would pay us as a nation to subsidize something which it would be uneconomic to do under private enterprise. It is not quite the same thing. If the noble Lord remembers, Lord Lindsay yesterday made a reference to some mines in Scotland which would soon be worn out but which the coal position necessitated being still worked. It would not pay private enterprise to do it because of the tremendous cost involved, but we might find it worth while.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I understand now. It was to keep a mine in production that might otherwise go out of production because of the necessity for coal. I thought it had gone even wider than that. I hope it will not be necessary to

615
start subsidizing the products of this industry, but if the political pressure is such that any profits have always to be put back into increased wages—do not let anyone think I am not one who wants the miner to get a full reward for his work because I do—we shall perhaps get into the position where we have subsidized the price of our coal so as to keep other industries going. If we subsidize it, perhaps in some roundabout way, so as to keep our export trade in coal, and as a result, completely knock the bottom out of agreements such as Bretton Woods and things of that sort, we shall then do in my opinion, a much worse thing than if we impose the moderate tariff which I still want to see kept on in this country to protect industry that would otherwise be cut from abroad.
Of course, you may get into this great difficulty, and we must all face it. In the old days, if you had discontent in the mining industry which had come to such a pass that the miners felt it incumbent upon themselves to cease work and to strike, that was a strike in which the Government could stand aside, set up an impartial tribunal, and could go into the matter and deal with it as a kind of umpire at a match, but in future if there is that degree of discontent in the coal fields the Government will itself be a direct party to the strike, and it cannot help being so. If in the period during which it appeared that a strike was likely to take place the Government had put its views to the House of Commons and had had them endorsed by that House, if the miners then disagreed and went on strike then we should get deadlock, because that would be a strike aimed at compelling the Government to do something—the kind of strike which we were discussing when the Trade Disputes Bill was before this House, and which all of us deplored. That is the danger you run into when you have a Minister of the Crown whose decisions are the decisions of the Government, and who is directly responsible, as I believe the Minister of Fuel and Power will be, for conditions of work and wages and hours of labour in the pits. That is a serious aspect of the problem. It is almost an inestimable difficulty when you come to nationalize the whole of the industry, and when you still have your responsibility of the Minister as part of the Government.
616
I want to touch, if I may, on the question of discrimination. The noble Lord, Lord Ammon, was good enough to give us an explanation upon that, and he said that this was dealt with, as I understood him, by Clause 1 (I) (c). That Clause lays it down that it is part of the duty of the National Coal Board to make supplies of coal available, of such qualities and sizes, in such quantities and at such prices, as may seem to them best calculated to further the public interest. That is really like the pious preamble to a contract. Everybody knows that nobody could sue the Board for failing to carry out their duties. Nobody is given any remedy, and even if they try to do so you will find the very nice little words creeping in, "as may seem to them best calculated." That was a very old device, certainly at the Ministry of Food, that if it seemed to the Minister that it was all right nobody could do very much about it in a court of law, because the Minister merely had to say that it did seem to him to be best and that would be certainly conclusive in the matter, just as this will be quite conclusive if anybody tries to get any kind of remedy from the Board. I believe that there ought to be some kind of remedy, particularly for those who need a particular class of coal and cannot get it. There ought to be some kind of remedy that they can apply without going to a Member of Parliament to raise the matter in the House of Commons, because that, I think, is their only remedy so far. I see no reason why we should not put in some words so that discrimination should in terms be prohibited. We are creating a monopoly, and a monopoly in an absolutely vital commodity. Wherever Parliament has created a monopoly in the past it has always put in some words which give the traders a right—as in the Railway and Canal Acts, and things of that sort—to go to some impartial tribunal to hear their case.
I see no reason why that would not be a real improvement to this Bill. It does not go to the whole structure of it, but it gives a man who has a grievance a right. It has another effect. Today we are really getting too many little dictators in this country, little men who have quite small jobs, but who can go to a man and say, "Oh, but I represent the Minister of Fuel and Power. This is the coal you are offered. You can take this, or you

617
can leave it, and I am"—puffing out his little chest—"the Minister of Fuel and Power in person." It would be just as well to have some kind of body to which you could go so that those people may know that their action may be brought up before that body, because there is not one of us in this House who wants those little men to be puffing out their chests unduly in matters of that sort.
I believe that the success of this measure depends largely on the attitude of the men in the mines to this new Board. I think it probably has been a sad grief to many members of the Government—I only fancy this, because I have no real information—that for the only comparable quarter so far, when this great new improvement, the thing the miners have been wanting for years, was announced, the actual production of coal was 4,000,000 tons down on the similar quarter in 1944. It has not had the psychological effect that was expected of it at the start, and although I do sincerely hope that it will, I am afraid it will not. There are three tests to apply to this measure. Will it enable more coal to be produced? Will we be able to get somewhere near the production where domestic consumers in this country can have the amount of coal that they need for their grates and to give them a reasonable number of baths a week? Can we have enough coal to be able to recapture a great part of our export trade in coal, and pay for the food that we need from South America, and help to make it cheaper by paying the price of the one-way voyage on the export of the coal? Will it be produced at such a price as to enable it to be sold abroad in competition with other people, and will it be sold to industrialists here at such a price that it enables their industries to compete in their own products with those that are available from countries abroad, in neutral markets? Those are the tests, and that will only be done if, after this measure is accepted, we get that real enthusiasm in the minefields which the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor referred to in his speech yesterday. I hope that we shall get it, but I am not one who has great confidence that this kind of measure will get it. I believe that the way to have got it was by closer association of those managing the mines with those working in them. I believe that this measure is going to give more remote control, and
618
that it will not bring more satisfaction—indeed rather less.
At any rate, there we are. This measure has been introduced, and do not think there can be very much complaint from the Government Benches as to the way it has been treated from this side of the House. But, we are committed to it, and it is so important a factor in the whole of the prosperity of this country, that although we do not like it, we wish it well.
6.11 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD WINSTER): My Lords, the Government will certainly have no complaint to make about the manner in which this measure has been treated by noble Lords opposite in the course of this debate. Indeed, I think the Government may really find the general run of the debate satisfactory. This is, after all, a Second Reading debate, part of the process of passing through your Lordships' House proposals to nationalize the coal industry. I think I am right in saying that no noble Lords who have spoken have proposed that the measure should be rejected. Speakers from all quarters of the House have expressed a qualified dislike of the Bill, but all have very generously wished it well, and the leaders of the two political Parties who have spoken on behalf of their Parties have accepted the principle of the Bill. I note that the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, said that he accepted the principle and accepted nationalization, but that he did so without exuberance, and he concluded his speech with words of admonition to the miners. I do not think we have ever associated exuberance with the Liberal Party. As regards the admonition to the miners, let me remind the noble Marquess of the old saying that: "The Lord loveth a cheerful giver," and if we are giving something—and we believe that we are giving something—to the miners in this Bill, let us give it cheerfully and in a good spirit. Much of the unfortunate mentality which has existed in the minefields has grown up because when the miners ever have been given anything they have been given it with such a bad grace after a long and bitter struggle to get what is fairly theirs. Let us be cheerful givers and give with a good heart and without reservations.

619
If the debate has gone well, as I think it has, for the Government, I would say that that springs from one fact, and that is the question put by the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack. He asked: "What would you do? If you say you would not have this Bill, what would you do?" And to that question there has been no answer in the course of this debate.
LORD TEYNHAM: If I might interrupt for a moment, I would suggest to the noble Lord that there has been something put forward in this connexion. I cannot help feeling that it might be possible to nationalize only part of the industry, as we have been told has been done in Australia, so that you could see how it worked by the process of trial and error.
LORD WINSTER: I did not notice that that proposal received very much support from other noble Lords. But I do say that listening to the debate and reading the report of what was said yesterday, gives one a measure of the revolution in thought upon social subjects which has been effected during the few past years. Ideas that my Party has fought for—and when we put our ideas forward we were accused of uttering false coin—have now become political currency in the country. I remember that in going about the country I have sometimes seen a public house with the rather peculiar sign: "The Case Is Altered." My Lords, the case is altered and that sign is now going up all over the country.
Now, if I may, I will deal very briefly with some of the questions which have been put. I think that those put by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and by Lord Balfour of Inchrye have been answered very fully indeed by my noble friend, Lord Ammon, so I will not refer again to them. But many questions have been asked this afternoon about the matter of surplus revenues. Surplus revenues must be devoted to the purposes of the Board—that is to the activities of the Board.
A NOBLE LORD: None can go to the Treasury?
LORD WINSTER: There will be expenses to be met, and capital advances to be made by the Board, and surplus revenues—that is, profits—will not be
620
paid to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the relief of taxation. They will be used for the benefit of the industry and of the consumer. I am anxious to make that point very clear. Questions upon this have been asked several times, and I hope that what I have just said answers them.
May I refer to the speech which was made yesterday by the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry. I think that all who heard it felt that it was a generous and sincere speech. And I think it is not difficult to appreciate the feelings which must animate the noble Marquess when he speaks on this subject. I am sure we can quite appreciate the pride which he must feel in many of the efforts which he has made in his own pits. I can only say that I am sorry that he was not able to carry many other mine-owners with him in what he did. But, unfortunately, one swallow does not make a summer, and one good mine owner did not save the industry from falling into the state of disrepair which we have been discussing. If the noble Marquess says to me that those who have carried on Socialist propaganda have always preached disloyalty to the owners, I say this—that you cannot go to men and preach disloyalty to good owners, because they will not listen to you. If the owners for whom they work are good owners, they will not listen; it is only when the owners are bad owners that you can make any effect upon the men. But, as I say, the noble Marquess speaks as a good owner, and he has suffered—for I am quite sure that he would feel that he has suffered very much—from what has been done by bad owners.
Now, if I may, I will come to the speeches made to-day, and first of all I would mention the speech of my noble friend Lord Teynham. It was a forcible and cogent speech. Nationalization is a necessary preliminary to the rationalization which I gather the noble Lord would have preferred to see. The Reid Report recommended compulsory amalgamations as a preliminary, although the Conservative Party, quite specifically, proposed to keep compulsion in reserve. The noble Lord, the Lord Chancellor, pointed out yesterday how very little had been effected by the policy of compulsory amalgamations pursued since 1930. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, quoted from the Samuel Report. But, you know, Queen

621
Anne is dead! The Samuel Report was issued quite twenty years ago, and a great deal of water has gone over the darn since then. Conditions are very different to-day. But what I find extremely interesting is that although the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, issued that Report, both he and another distinguished Liberal, Sir William Beveridge—the two leading members of the Samuel Commission—now both support nationalization. I do not think that the noble Lord helped his case very much by the quotations which he read from the Samuel Report. As regards the Australian State Mines, the mines of New South Wales produce 87 per cent. of the Australian output. There is one mine producing 3 per cent. of the output of New South Wales; and that is a State mine. No one, so far as is known, proposes to hand it back to private enterprise. State mines in Holland, Germany, New Zealand and elsewhere have been quite successful, but none of those, I agree, is much of an argument in relation to Great Britain. The noble Lord referred to the fact that the 1945 price of coal was 120 per cent. up on the 1939 figure, as against a 70 per cent. rise in Board of Trade figures for commodities generally. The coal increase followed precisely the increases in wages which were granted during the war. I do not think that any of your Lordships would dispute that increases in the wages of miners were long overdue. Before the war the industry was one of the lowest paid of the major industries of this country. Wages were increased, and they correspond almost precisely with this increase in figures for commodities.
The noble Lord, Lord Rennell, made a characteristically broad and attractive speech. I was interested in what he said about the scrap-book which he keeps. I only trust, if he ever comes to re-read any of his former speeches, that he will not decide that he had better cut out extracts from them and put them in this Chamber of Horrors that he keeps. He referred to Clause 11 (5) (b), and pretended to find some difficulty about it, although of course the clause is perfectly clear. The noble Lord then proceeded to destroy the whole effect which he had created by making a speech of such intelligence and ability that it was perfectly clear he could not have had the least possible difficulty in understanding Clause 11 (5) (b). The noble Lord's speech merits close
622
attention, and will receive it, but will he forgive me if I say that it was a speech for the Committee stage of the Bill, rather than for the Second Reading. I have no doubt whatever that the points which he raised will be brought up in the form of Amendments, or that the points will be made in the discussion on other Amendments during the Committee stage. But it was a speech so patently detailed, and dealing with such very complicated matters that I hope he will not mind my making this comment.
LORD RENNELL: Could the noble Lord say whether the conclusions which I reached about the interpretation of certain clauses are correct or not? That is not a detailed matter.
LORD WINSTER: That is precisely the sort of point which is better argued out in the Committee stage. I turn to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchison of Montrose, who asked if the Government are nationalizing the mines because they believe that nationalization will make the mines more efficient. I am not making a debating point, but the noble Lord, the Lord Chancellor, did point out yesterday that what the Government are perfectly certain about is that this Bill is a pre-requisite in the task of making the industry more efficient. I will not be prophetic to-day and say whether we are going to make the industry more efficient or not. What I do say is that we have no earthly chance of making this industry more efficient unless we have this Bill. The noble Lord rather enjoys his gloomy anticipations that the miners will not like this Bill. I know something that the miners would not like, and that is any Bill which the Conservative Party might bring in by way of substitute for this Bill. I would say to the noble Lord what Charles II said to the Duke of York: "They will never kill me to make you king." The miners will never throw this Bill out in order to get a Conservative measure in its place.
Then the noble Lord, Lord Hutchison, asked whether the men will be allowed to strike. That point has been raised by many noble Lords opposite, and I am really extremely interested to find them so solicitous about the right of men to strike. That is something which I never expected to hear. I am very glad to be able to assure them that the men will

623
have the right to strike, but I believe that the happier conditions which will prevail after this Bill has become law will reduce the tendency to strike. The right to strike, however, remains, and trade union machinery will operate as before. Nationalization will not diminish the responsibility of the trade unions. On the contrary, it will probably stimulate it.
I noticed another curious inconsistency in the noble Lord's speech. He began his remarks by saying that what we most needed was to reduce our solicitude for the export trade in order to stimulate home trade and to produce more consumer goods. Yet at the end of his speech he made a most eloquent appeal for expanding the export of coal. In matters in which he is interested he says "expand export trade" but in other matters he says "contract export trade in order to stimulate the workers to greater efforts." I detected a certain inconsistency there. But may I, in concluding my remarks on the noble Lord's speech, refer to his comment that he hates this Bill. He said: "I may not always agree but that does not mean I cannot appreciate the feelings of other people." He said that although he hated the Bill he wished us well with it, and promised that the owners would help if they could. I think that that showed a very good spirit.
My reply to some of the noble Lord's remarks, is that no Government could defend the policy of taking over the ownership and responsibility of the bad units alone of an industry. In Holland the State developed its own mines from the very start. It did not have to take over some dilapidated and broken-down dumps left on its hands by private enterprise. I did not entirely follow the point about liquidation of companies and the consent of the shareholders, but I think that is a point which can be raised in Committee. The noble Lord said that quick decisions and financial resources should be available locally. I entirely agree. I am quite sure that the Board will appreciate that point.
As regards import of coal, I am not afraid of the Board being unable to compete successfully with the competition of coal from any other source. It remains to be seen, but that is my belief. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, asked: "Why will nationalization improve things?"
624
That is the question with which I have just dealt. What we are saying is that this Bill is a prerequisite to any possibility of improvement, and I ask the noble Lord to accept that that is the basis of the Government argument in support of this Bill. The noble Lord quoted the case of Australia. It has not been suggested that the State-owned mines should go back to private enterprise. I have made inquiries. It is not even a party political question in Australia.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Am I not right in saying that at one time a number that had been nationalized were handed back to private enterprise?
LORD WINSTER: My information is that one small mine did revert to private ownership. It was a mine of almost negligible importance, and was only brought in for the war. That is my information, which I have taken care to obtain in reply to questions. I hope that Lord Teviot will allow me to congratulate him upon one thing. He is certainly moving with the times, because he commended to us very forcibly and eloquently the Russian system obtaining in the coal mines. Just as I was delighted to hear noble Lords opposite defending the right to strike, so was I delighted to hear the noble Lord opposite commending to the attention of the Government the Russian system of working. Things are certainly looking up. There are other points with which I should have liked to deal, but I will pass now to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. He said that we had made no attempt to justify the measure on its merits. I think that when the noble Lord reads Hansard he will find that that is not a completely accurate statement of the case.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I will wait till the end of the debate. I read all yesterday's proceedings.
LORD WINSTER: Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to point out on Committee stage if I am wrong. I must repeat what I have already said twice, that we do regard this Bill as a prerequisite, and I think its merits will emerge more clearly on Committee stage than perhaps they have in the course of this long Second Reading debate. The noble Lord says that difficulties have come from the absentee mine-owner. Again I think that is a very frank and

625
interesting admission. I am very glad that the noble Lord has called attention to the fact that absenteeism is not solely confined to the miners, as some people seem to think. He raised an objection because members of the Board would live too far away from the pits. The noble Lord said that the Board would "pup." Without at the moment arguing that point, may I suggest that "proliferate" is rather a pleasanter word than "pup"? Let us examine the past for a moment with regard to this matter. How many owners were in close touch with the miners? How many owners have ever been down a pit? Most of the directors of mining companies live far from the mines. It may be true to some extent that the Board will be remote, but, as all its members are required to give their whole time to their work, not merely part-time, they will have full opportunity to see for themselves the working of the pits.
LORD LLEWELLIN: That was not quite the way I put it. I said that, whereas some mine owners were absentee, others were present at their pits, and took an interest in them, and that is generally true. But now there will be a Board, with a tremendous number of mines—850. To say that the members of that Board can ever be in close touch with the workers in any one of them is really fantastic.
LORD WINSTER: Well, as I said, they will be employed full time on this job, and they will have full opportunities of going to see the pits, and the whole managerial sytem of course remains. The noble Lord said that it will take too long to get questions to the men who make the decisions and that there will be delay in consequence. That is speculation, and I think very gloomy speculation. If the administration is bad, those things will happen, but if the administration is good, they will not happen. I believe that the administration will be good. The noble Lord referred to delays in Government Departments. But there are Departments which have good Ministers, and there those long delays do not occur. Someone said to-day that the Treasury always say "No." As a matter of fact, nobody knows better than the noble Lord that that is not the case.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I did not say it.
LORD WINSTER: No, I did not say you. I said, "Nobody knows better
626
than the noble Lord." I said another noble Lord said that.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I beg your pardon.
LORD WINSTER: Of course, it is not the case that the Treasury always say "No." There is Treasury control with regard to the payment of compensation and stock issues, and there is Government control exercised through the Minister in certain other directions, but a very full measure of autonomy is given to the Board in order that they may carry on their business of coal production in a thoroughly businesslike way. I have dealt with the question of profit after paying expenses. The Treasury cannot get a rake off, as the surplus is to be applied to such other purposes of the Board as the Minister with the approval of the Treasury may decide. I think I have made that point quite clear.
I noticed what the noble Lord said about pressure groups in the House of Commons. Perhaps he takes rather a cynical view of human nature. My experience has been that, on the whole, the House of Commons knows pretty well how to deal with its pressure groups. On that point, to save time, I would ask the noble Lord to look at Clause 43 of the Bill. I think he will find that that answers many of the points which he raised. May I add that the London Passenger Transport Board in fact has its own machinery for handling these matters. They do not come to Parliament. I think I might fairly ask the noble Lord to look at the reply of my noble friend Lord Ammon on the subject of discrimination. I think he will find that that deals with his point.
The noble Lord said that we would have too many dictators in this country. That is a very convenient phrase, because a dictator is what we call an official, and officials are always hordes. You have prides of lions, gaggles of geese, murmurations of starlings and always hordes of officials. What you call a little dictator is really another name for an official, who really in my experience is usually a man quite honestly doing his best to be helpful and considerate. We must not call all our officials dictators in this way.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I did not call them all dictators. I said there were too many.
LORD WINSTER: Proliferation again. May I, having endeavoured rather hurriedly to answer the main questions put to me, refer very briefly to a matter to which I personally attribute a great deal of the inefficiency into which so many parts of the industry have fallen. As evidence of that inefficiency I would call your Lordships' attention to these figures which relate to the reversal of trade in fuels. In 1913 we exported nearly 73,500,000 tons of coal, worth very nearly £51,000,000—I am giving round figures for the sake of time. In the same year we imported 487,000,000 gallons of liquid fuel to the value of about £11,000,000. I invite your Lordships' attention to the extraordinary reversal which had taken place by 1938. In that year we exported only about 36,000,000 tons of coal to the value of some £37,500,000, but our imports of liquid fuel had gone up to 2,640,000,000 gallons to the value of very nearly £41,000,000. They are most astonishing reversal figures.
During the closing years of the war I was concerned with an investigation which was being made into certain problems of the coal mining industry. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, was interested in this also. We were going into the question of the application of science and research where the coal industry is concerned. We came across some very startling figures indeed. This inquiry was made in 1943, and the figures I am quoting were those applying to the date of our investigation. We found that if we took the whole scientific man-power of the country, less than one per cent. of it was employed on coal research in this vital industry. Speaker after speaker has told us during this debate of the vital importance of this industry to our country. Less than one per cent. of the scientific man-power of the country was employed on coal research. No wonder there were some very inefficient results. In 1913 only 15 per cent. of the potential energy in coal was being turned to use. By 1938 that figure had gone up to 30 per cent.— it had doubled in the interval. But at that time, in 1938, some industries were getting as much as 60 per cent. utilization out of their coal, so that, roughly speaking, industry was lagging behind in the proportion of 30 per cent. as against 60 per cent. The efficient utilization of coal resulted in 60 per cent. of the potential energy being used,
628
but the figure over the whole of the country was only 30 per cent. The domestic fire, smoke nuisance, coal cleaning, its separation into market compounds—all those things were being neglected.
In 1943 the coal industry was prepared to spend £1,000,000 over five years of research by the British Coal Utilization Research Association. They were going to spend £200,000 a year. Private firms were prepared to spend another £200,000, and the iron and steel industry £25,000 on a certain form of coal research. I am trying to add every pound I can. The Government were spending about £100,000 a year, but that was mainly on the survey of our coal resources. Those were the amounts being spent on coal research in 1943. The electrical industry was spending £1,000,000 a year, exclusive of radio and telecommunications, and the gas industry was spending about £400,000. So that even judging by what other industries were spending on research, coal does not come very well out of it.
Let us turn to the American petroleum industry and see what they were doing about research. In 1920 the American petroleum industry was employing 145 research workers and spending £200,000 a year. By 1938 they had 5,033 research workers and were spending the equivalent of £6,000,000 per annum, and as a result of that research, all sorts of industries were being founded on the by-products of the petroleum industry. Petroleum was becoming the basis, the raw material, of a whole range of industries. I invite your Lordships to reflect upon those figures. There we have one very potent cause of the inefficient state into which the industry had fallen.
I apologize to your Lordships for detaining you so long. We are now concluding another stage of the passage of this Bill to the Statute Book. If I may say a personal thing it is a great satisfaction to me to be winding up this debate, because I once represented a mining constituency. I think the only pledge I ever gave in my political career was a pledge to the miners in that constituency that I would always, in every way, do everything I possibly could to assist the passing of a measure of nationalization to the Statute Book; and it is a pleasure to reply on behalf of a Government which has brought that pledge to fruition.
Indeed there are evil legacies in this industry. I always thought of the miners

629
with the farm workers and the merchant seamen as three groups of what I call forgotten men. In war time they are told "It all depends on you—everything." Every sort of promise is made and every encouragement given; and then, after the war, too often they are the forgotten men. The miners had all those things said to them during the first world war. I went down to South Wales and saw them at the height of their misery. They were indeed forgotten men. I have never seen such misery as I saw during those years in South Wales. I remember in the last Parliament bringing in a Motion on the subject of the safety of boys in pits, and some very uncomfortable facts indeed one had to bring to light. I have never forgotten seeing Members pouring into the House from dinner to vote down that Motion, when they had not heard one single word of the debate. Those spectres of the past have to be exorcised, and if I may say so, with great respect, I think your Lordships' House, by not dividing, by accepting the principle of it, and by agreeing that this Bill must go through, will make its contribution, and a great contribution, towards exorcising those spectres.
I never join with those who one sometimes hears twitting the Party opposite
630
for not dividing. If I may say so with great respect, I think it is an act of great statesmanship. Let us go on to the Committee stage in the spirit of recognizing, not only that the Government have a mandate for what they are doing, but that it is essential in the national interest for it to be done. Old King Cole has not been a merry old soul for long, long years; he has been a very miserable old soul, but this Bill gives us a chance to bring contentment and prosperity to this sorely tried industry.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WEST YORKSHIRE GAS DISTRIBUTION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Standing Orders Committee, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for the Bill ought to be dispensed with and leave given to introduce the Bill; Read and agreed to.
Bill presented pursuant to leave given this day.
House adjourned at nine minutes before seven o'clock.