Sitting of 28 November 1946

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.
  ARBROATH GAS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, relating to Arbroath Gas, "presented by Mr. Westwood; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 16.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  CHILD CARE (ALLEGATIONS)
  Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has considered the allegations concerning cruelty to children contained in a letter from the Matron, Fernside Cots Nursery, Park Lane, Reigate, which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): Yes, Sir. Most of the general allegations in the letter to which the hon. Member refers are in respect of services recently fully reviewed by the Care of Children Committee whose findings and proposals largely differ from those of the writer. As regards specific allegations, it is not possible to make any inquiry unless the writer is in a position to furnish full particulars.

  PARLIAMENTARY BOUNDARY COMMISSIONS
  Mr. Eric Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he is proposing to introduce the necessary legislation to modify the instructions to the Boundary Commissioners for the redistribution of Parliamentary seats.
  Mr. Ede: At an early date.
  Mr. Peakeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of constituencies in respect of which representations have been made to the Boundary Commissioners for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in accordance with the procedure and within the time limit laid down in paragraph three of Part III of the First Schedule to the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1944.
  Mr. Ede: 311, 23, 14 and 3, respectively, Sir; but the time limit has not yet expired in respect of a few constituencies.
  Mr. Peake: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, as regards those representations, how many are concerned only with the name of the proposed new constituency and how many relate to more substantial matters, such as the area?
  Mr. Ede: Not without notice. If the right hon. Gentleman, with whom I hope to have some conversation on this matter, will give me a list of the details he would like, I will try to meet them, and then, if he will put a Question down, answers can be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. Peakeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of local inquiries ordered to be held by the Boundary Commissoners under Part III of the First Schedule to the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1944; in how many cases have reports been received; and in how many cases are inquiries still proceeding.
  Mr. Ede: Three in England, relating to a total of seven constituencies, and one in Scotland relating to two constituencies. In each case the inquiry has been completed. I understand that a number of other local inquiries would have been ordered had not the Commissions suspended consideration of representations in view of the proposed introduction of amending legislation.
  Mr. Beechman: Will the Home Secretary say that, in cases where there have been inquiries, the representations which have been made are taken into consideration, when changes are made, so that local authorities and others need not make representations all over again?
  Mr. Ede: I am very reluctant to take any steps myself that might appear to be interfering with the work of the Commission, or in giving them directions; but I am quite sure that the point which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned will be borne in mind by the Commissioners when they re-examine the whole of the proposals.

  CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
  Mr. Leslie Haleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether in view of the recommendation of the Select Committee on Capital Punishment that capital punishment should be suspended for a limited experimental period, he is prepared to take the necessary steps to implement this recommendation.
  Mr. Ede: Legislation would be necessary to implement this recommendation and I can hold out no prospect of legislation on this subject in this Session.
  Mr. Hale: While I appreciate that answer, is it possible for the Home Secretary to give some indication of the Government's opinion on this matter in view of the fact that the administration of justice Bill had to be held over, although we understand the reasons for that?
  Mr. Ede: No, Sir, not in answer to a supplementary question.
  Mr. E. P. Smith: Will the Minister assure the House that no decision will be taken on this matter before the House has had a full opportunity to discuss it?
  Mr. Ede: Clearly the law would have to be altered, and that cannot be done except with the consent of the House.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend have this matter reconsidered in the light of the most recent researches and having regard to the needs of today?
  Mr. Ede: This matter is under review in connection with contemplated legislation.
  Sir Ronald Ross: Is the Home Secretary aware that a Select Committee appointed by the Labour Government decided in 1925 not to issue an alternative Report only by the casting vote of the Chairman?
  Mr. Ede: We are bound by a majority.

  LIVING ANIMALS (EXPERIMENTS)
  Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a licence is required where experiments on living animals are claimed to be used for veterinary purposes; whether he is aware of the unsatisfactory condition of many horses and other animals used for the preparation of sera for such conditions; whether such institutions are visited by his officers or the police; and whether he has any record of the number of such institutions.
  Mr. Ede: I am advised that a licence under the Act of 1876 is required for experiments made to discover or test sera to be used for veterinary purposes, but not for procedures undertaken merely for the production of such sera. Places used solely for this purpose are neither visited by my inspectors nor registered by my Department. The police do not visit them as a matter of routine.
  Mr. Freeman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, because these institutions require no licences and are not inspected officially, appalling and often revolting conditions result, and will he take some further steps to see what can be done to protect these animals against the conditions obtaining now?
  Mr. Ede: If the conditions are as my hon. Friend describes them—and I have no evidence on the point—it is open to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or other people who may be aware of the facts, to take the necessary proceedings.
  Mr. Freeman: If I provide my right hon. Friend with particulars of specific cases will he have inquiries made in respect of these premises?
  Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I have no power myself to inspect the premises. The law of the country decides the way in which, they shall be dealt with.

  POLICE

    Recruits and Resignations
    Mr. John E. Haireasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of recruits and resignations, respectively, in the Metropolitan and Home Counties police forces, and in the country generally, during the past six months.
    Mr. Ede: As the answer involves a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Haire: Would my right hon. Friend consider improving the position of these forces as a means of improving the intake? Would he, for example, consider the fact that police constables are asked even to buy their own typewriters, and that this requirement might be abolished?
    Mr. Ede: I have, as I told the House three weeks ago, appointed a committee of the Police Council to advise me generally on a revision of the conditions of the police forces. When I receive that report I will take it into immediate consideration.
    Following is the answer:
    During the six months ended 31st October, 1946, the following recruits joined the police forces of England and Wales:

    Metropolitan police

    1,056

    City of London police

    39

    County and borough forces in the Home Counties

    316

    Other county and borough forces

    3,101

    Total

    4,512

    During the same period there were the following resignations from the Metropolitan police force on other than medical grounds:

    Recruits

    114

    Others with less than 25 years' service

    284

    Members with 25 to 30 years' service (on pension)

    523

    Total

    921

    Comparable figures for the county, city and borough forces for this period are not available.

    Uniform
    Mr. Spenceasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the supply of a lighter uniform to the police force for use in summer.
    Mr. Ede: In many forces there is already a difference between the weights of the uniforms worn in summer and winter. This question, among others, will be examined by the Committee of the Police Council which I propose to set up to consider the general question of police uniforms.

  ALIENS

    Identity Certificates
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that by the description and nationality of origin on certificates of identity, those born in the U.S.S.R. before the revolution as well as certain others are given an unexisting nationality; and if he will consider recording such people as stateless or accept the descriptions desired by the person concerned when the actual nationality of his parents is unknown.
    Mr. Ede: I do not understand my hon. Friend's difficulty. The insertion of a nationality of origin in one of these documents does not imply that the holder still possesses that nationality. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the negative.

    Naturalisation (Ex-Servicemen)
    Mr. Rees-Williamsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applicants there are for naturalisation who are alien ex-Service-men, formerly serving in the British or Allied forces; and what priority is given to the applications of such men.
    Mr. Ede: As I announced last November when naturalisation was resumed, priority is being given to those who are serving or who during the war served as members of His Majesty's Forces. The number of those who have applied for naturalisation is about 7,000, about 4,600 of whom have by now been released from the Forces.

  NATURALISED SUBJECTS (IDENTITY CARDS)
  Mr. John E. Haireasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will no longer require naturalised persons, now British subjects, to state their former nationality on official documents.
  Mr. Ede: The requirement that the former alien status of a naturalised British subject should be entered on his National Registration identity card lapsed with the revocation in May, 1945, of Defence Regulation 20AA. I do not know to what other requirement my hon. Friend is referring. If he has in mind certain requirements under the Companies Act, 1929, and the Registration of Business Names Act, these are not matters for me but for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  GREYHOUNDS (PROSECUTIONS)
  Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of cases of infringement of the Regulations governing the use of dogs in connection with dog-racing tracks which have been reported to him during 1944, 1945 and the first six months of 1946; how many of such cases were of doping dogs; and how many in connection with their general care and treatment.
  Mr. Ede: In the Metropolitan police district there were two prosecutions during the period in question, one in 1944 and one in 1946, for conspiracy to defraud by administering drugs to greyhounds, but I have no complete particulars of similar proceedings elsewhere. I have not heard of any prosecutions under the Protection of Animals Acts for failure to take care of the dogs at greyhound racing tracks, but such cases would not necessarily be reported to me.

  BORSTAL (NEW. INSTITUTIONS)
  Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in the provision of additional Borstal accommodation for boys and young men; and
  1756
  if he is yet in a position to announce the date from which the use of Dartmoor as a Borstal institution will be discontinued.
  Mr. Ede: During 1946, five additional Borstal institutions for youths have been provided, three of which are in new premises taken over by the Prison Commission. It is hoped to open a sixth institution next month. An additional Borstal reception centre has also been opened. I hope it may prove possible to discontinue the use of Dartmoor as a Borstal institution next April.
  Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister in a position to say whether, in the alternative and additional accommodation referred to, there will be modern facilities to assist these young men?
  Mr. Ede: Our additional accommodation enables us better to classify the young people who come within our care, and to provide courses of training more suitable to them than might otherwise be the case. I am particularly grateful to local education authorities for the way in which they are cooperating in assisting me to provide suitable courses.

  MINES CLEARANCE (ESSEX COAST)
  Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that his eastern regional officials have refused the request of the Essex Rivers Catchment Board that certain coastal areas should be reswept for mines, although it is admitted officially that mines originally laid in these areas are still not accounted for; and if, in view of the urgent necessity that the board's employees should have safe access to such areas to carry out repairs to sea defence works, etc., after several years of enforced neglect, he will cause this matter to be reconsidered.
  Mr. Ede: My eastern regional office gave the clerk to the Essex Rivers Catchment Board, on 21st August, particulars of the clearance certificates issued by the military authorities in respect of the areas about which they had inquired, showing that in all these cases it had been stated that the areas might be considered safe except for the possibility of mines being washed up from other fields. All the areas were carefully swept with detectors before clearance certificates were issued,

  1757
  but if the Board wish for further reassurance I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War would be glad to arrange for their representatives to discuss the matter with the appropriate military authorities.

  N.F.S. (JOINT COUNCILS)
  Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the Fire Brigades Union is not represented on the National Joint Council for Officers of the N.F.S.
  Mr. Ede: There are two National Joint Councils, one for officers and one for the junior ranks, and the Fire Brigades Union is represented on the Council for the junior ranks.
  Mr. Davies: Is the Minister aware that a large number of firemen officers, who are members of the Fire Brigades Union, are not represented on the joint councils for officers? Would it not be better if there were only one joint council to cover the two sections, officers and other ranks?
  Mr. Ede: I have to arrange these joint councils in connection not merely with representatives of the men but with representatives of the future employing authorities, and I have not been able to get agreement that only one council should be constituted.

  JEWISH TERRORIST THREATS (PUBLICITY)
  Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement regarding recent security measures taken against threats of terrorists.
  Mr. Ede: It would not be in the public interest to disclose the nature of the precautions which have been taken against attempts to commit outrages in this country.
  Mr. Janner: Would my right hon. Friend say whether he does not deprecate the very serious and sensational publicity that was given to this matter generally; and will he also say whether he is satisfied that Jewish communities condemn terrorism entirely?
  Mr. Ede: In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, I think that a very great deal of unnecessary and false sensationalism was introduced into this matter by very wide sections of the Press. I am quite convinced that the overwhelming majority of Jews throughout the world deprecate the action that a very limited number have taken.
  Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister tell the House who is responsible for starting this highly sensational and utterly unfounded story?
  Mr. Ede: No, Sir. If I could, I should be in the nature of a Secret Service agent more efficient than any who has ever existed.
  Major Legge-Bourke: Will the Minister bear in mind the possibility of the cause of this publicity being the fact that His Majesty's Government will not give any information about what they are doing?
  Mr. Ede: A member of the Press came to see me and asked whether I would tell him in confidence what I intended to do. It is quite clear that if I take anyone into my confidence about this matter I shall defeat the object of such precautionary measures as I am able to take.
  Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the petition forwarded to him by the hon. Member for Mile End, signed by workers in a factory in his constituency, asking that the Government should investigate cases of national newspapers spreading false and irresponsible stories about alleged activities of Stern Gang terrorists in this country; and what action he proposes to take to stop this anti-Semitic propaganda.
  Mr. Ede: I have read the petition and the newspaper stories in question. My impression is that the object of these stories was the creation of a sensation rather than political propaganda; and there is no action for me to take beyond expressing condemnation of the publication of sensational stories calculated to create unnecessary alarm and to give an unbalanced view of the situation.
  Mr. Piratin: While thanking the Home Secretary for that statement, which will undoubtedly alleviate in some measure what has already been done, may I ask why his Department or one of his public

  1759
  relations officers—I assume he has one— has not taken steps to refute the statement made in the national Press on the question I have asked him? Would he now consider issuing such a statement, not disclosing what steps the Home Secretary is taking in the matter, but saying precisely what the situation is with regard to these terrorists, so that the world may know the position?
  Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I think the questions and answers in this House today will give sufficient publicity to the view that His Majesty's Government take on the matter.

  PRISON ESCAPES
  Mr. Alpassasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the concern occasioned by the recent escapes of convicts from Tortworth Court, he will see that the necessary steps are taken to prevent a recurrence and thus relieve the anxiety of the residents of this district.
  Mr. Ede: I appreciate that such escapes may cause concern and anxiety among local residents. Some risk of escape is inevitable where prisoners either live or are employed under open conditions, but considerable experience of these methods before and during the war has shown that the number of escapes is so inconsiderable that it is justifiable to accept this risk, in view of the great value of these methods in the training and rehabilitation of prisoners. Steps are being taken to review the security arrangements at this prison, which has only recently been established, and I hope that when it has settled into its regular routine, escapes will be infrequent.

  CURTIS COMMITTEE (REPORT)
  Mr. Wilson Harrisasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what day the Report of the Curtis Committee on the Care of Children was received by the Ministers to whom it was addressed.
  Mr. Ede: Advance copies of the report in proof form were sent, by the courtesy of the chairman, to the three Ministers concerned on 13th September.
  Mr. Wilson Harris: The right hon. Gentleman is better at these calculations
  1760
  than I am. He could not very well be worse. Would he agree that it is misleading to suggest that this report was not in the hands of the Government until less than a month before the King's Speech, on 12th November?
  Mr. Ede: I do not think it would be. If the hon. Gentleman will read my answer carefully he will see that the advance copies were sent to three Members of the Government on the date I have mentioned.
  Mr. Keeling: Two months before the King's Speech.

  HOTEL REGISTERS
  Mr. Henry Usborneasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why it is still necessary for British subjects to fill in Registration Form AR-E when they stay in hotels, inns or lodging-houses. &c.
  Mr. Ede: The requirement ceased to apply to British subjects nearly a year ago. A British subject need only enter his name, nationality and date of arrival in the hotel register.
  Mr. Usborne: Will the Home Secretary take pains to see that lodging-house keepers know this because a great many of them expect their residents to fill in this form?
  Mr. Ede: Hotel keepers have tried to get me to fill in the form and I have refused to do it. I advise other people who are asked to fill in the form to do the same thing.

  HOUSING

    Aluminium Houses
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Health the cost of erection on site of the aluminium houses; the total number ordered; and the total loss, and the loss per house, to the taxpayer.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) on 24th and 31st October.
    Sir W. Smithers: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has been a loss on these houses or not?
    Mr. Bevan: If the hon. Member will examine the replies, he will find the information there.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is it not information which could be given openly here before the House of Commons?
    Mr. Bevan: The information was given openly in the replies.

    Wages Costs
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Health if he will give an estimate of the increase in the present cost of a £1,200 house if the demand for 3s. an hour for all craftsmen in building trades, made by the General Council of the National Federation of Building Trades Operatives, was granted.
    Mr. Bevan: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) on 17th October.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is this not typical of the Government's evasiveness and refusal to give information?
    Mr. Bevan: It is typical of the repetitiveness of the hon. Member.

    Rural Houses (Subsidies)
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to state how many applications have been made by local authorities for the higher rate of subsidy in respect of the number of new houses allocated to the agricultural population.
    Mr. Bevan: Applications received so far cover 207 houses, but I understand that most local authorities prefer to delay their applications until a claim for subsidy can be made which is based on the number of houses actually completed and occupied.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: Does the Minister realise that his failure to produce any adequate subsidy for rural housing in place of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act is the greatest obstacle that agriculture in this country has to overcome today?
    Mr. Bevan: I have not heard from a single local authority any complaint that the subsidy is inadequate. On the contrary, all regard it as generous.

    Allocation
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that his London Regional office took seven weeks
    1762
    to inform an applicant that the responsibility for allocating houses did not rest with him, but with the Heston and Isleworth Urban District Council; and if he is satisfied that the regional office still performs a useful function.
    Mr. Bevan: I regret that the reply was delayed owing to pressure of work. The hon. Member will be aware that action was taken meanwhile by the regional office to ensure that in the particular case the applicant was registered by the appropriate local authority.
    Mr. Keeling: Yes, but what can be the use of a regional office which does not know—and apparently the Minister does not know either—that this urban district council in its area ceased to exist over 14 years ago?
    Mr. Bevan: It could quite easily happen at that time when the regional office was overburdened, because this was at a moment when considerable disturbances took place. I understand from local authorities that they are exceedingly grateful for the assistance given by the regional officers.

    Flooring Materials
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, as a result of the timber shortage, local authorities are being instucted to use cement finishes in place of timber for kitchen floors in all new houses now under construction; and whether, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of cement for such floors, he will arrange that so long as timber continues in short supply, pitch mastic, mastic asphalt, quarry tiles or other more agreeable surfacing materials are used for kitchens, as in the case of ground-floor living-rooms.
    Mr. Bevan: I have advised local authorities to use a granolithic or cement finish for kitchen floors in the immediate future in order to conserve the supply of pitch mastic, mastic asphalt and quarry tiles for the living rooms. I hope that there will soon be a wider range of materials to choose from both for kitchens and living rooms.

    Rent Tribunals (Local Authority References)
    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Health in how many cases local authorities have submitted references to the furnished

    1763
    houses rent control tribunals; and in what circumstances such references should be made.
    Mr. Bevan: Up to the end of October one reference only had been made to a tribunal by a local authority. It is for the local authority to determine in the light of the circumstances of individual cases when they should exercise their power to submit references to tribunals.
    Mr. Sparks: Is the Minister aware that many tenants refrain from making references to the rent tribunals owing to their fear of subsequent eviction? Would my right hon. Friend say that these would be appropriate cases in which the local authority might act on their own initiative?
    Mr. Bevan: I do not want to inspire the local authorities to make references to the tribunals at the moment because the number of ordinary references which are being made are quite enough to occupy the tribunals.
    Mr. Janner: May I ask the Minister whether he will not reconsider his view in that regard? Does not the fact that many successful applications that are now being made to rent tribunals indicate that local authorities should take a hand in the matter?
    Mr. Bevan: Not necessarily. It would merely mean further delay.

    County Council Contributions
    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Health which county councils are making annual contributions under Section 8 of the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946; what are the separate amounts contributed and in respect of how many houses.
    Mr. Bevan: I regret that I am unable to supply the names of the county councils or the number of houses, since the local housing authority will not normally inform me when a county council commences to make a contribution which it is liable to make under Section 8 (1) of the Act of 1946. The amount of the contribution is £1 10s. per house annually for 60 years. No application has been made for my consent to the payment of a contribution under Section 8 (2) of the Act.

    Exchequer Grants
    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Health if he will state to the nearest convenient date the amounts advanced to local authorities by way of annual Exchequer grants, for the purposes of Section 1 (1) of the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946, showing separately the general and special standard amounts and the amounts advanced under Parts II and III of the First Schedule to the Act, and in respect of how many completed houses and flats, in each category.
    Mr. Bevan: Only 20 of the authorities which had completed houses under the 1946 Act by 30th September had submitted applications for subsidy up to the 18th November, 1946. £3,584 has been advanced to eight local authorities in respect of 224 dwellings qualifying for the general standard amount and £184 to three of those local authorities in respect of eight dwellings qualifying for the special standard amount. Advances will be made to the remaining 12 authorities in time to enable them to meet loan charges. No applications have yet been received in respect of flats qualifying for the contributions set out in Part II and Part III of the First Schedule to the Act.

    Baths
    Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Health if he will arrange for completed permanent houses in rural areas, to have the same priority with regard to allocation of baths as temporary prefabricated houses.
    Mr. Bevan: Special priority is already being given to all permanent houses which were up to or beyond eaves level at 31st August, 1946. Baths are being supplied for temporary houses under direct Government orders, but I understand that deliveries against these orders are nearly complete, and that there are now sufficient baths available to meet all urgent demands for permanent houses.

    Building Licences (Refusals)
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of Health to what extent his refusal to grant additional building licences is a result of the reduction of the stock in hand and monthly overall figure of bricks available; or what other reason caused him to make these refusals.
    Mr. Bevan: None, Sir. The reasons for the restriction of building licences were given in the statement 1 made in the course of the Debate on 21st October.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the stock in hand of bricks since July, 1945, has fallen by 911,787,000 and does he consider that the stock in hand of bricks is adequate to cover the promise which he gave on 21st October, when he said that the output would be 17,081 houses per month?
    Mr. Bevan: As I have already said in my reply, the issue of licences has no relationship to the existence of the bricks, so that brick figures are irrelevant to the Question.

    Municipal Committees (Membership)
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Minister of Health whether he will introduce legislation to debar persons who are professionally interested in the buying, selling or letting of houses from serving on municipal housing committees, in view of the inevitable conflict between their private interests and their public duty.
    Mr. Bevan: I think that the safeguard already provided by Section 76 of the Local Government Act, 1933, is an adequate one.
    Mr. Hynd: But is the Minister aware that these committees now have new and additional responsibilities in regard to requisitioning and the issue of building licences, and that the chairman of the housing committee of the council of which I happen to be a member is an estate agent?
    Mr. Bevan: It often happens that that is the case, but I think local authorities generally are careful to see that no improper use is made of their statutory powers in this regard, and I do not think it would be desirable to lay further penalties on councillors.

    Shoreditch
    Mr. Thurtleasked the Minister of Health if he has considered the many representations of the Shoreditch Borough Council to his Department regarding the shortage of essential materials for the completion of a block of houses known as the Stonebridge Estate; if he is aware that
    1766
    work on these houses has been held up for several months owing to the absence of these materials; and if he can now hold out any hope of an early delivery of these supplies.
    Mr. Bevan: Since 8th October, when I received full details of the materials required, 37 of the 79 different goods listed have been delivered. Delivery before the end of the month has been promised for all but one of the remaining items.
    Mr. Thurtle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I was in touch with the borough engineer an hour ago and learned from him that work on these houses is still held up? Is he also aware that Shoreditch has very blitzed and crowded areas, and that the need for houses there is desperate? Is he further aware that my friends in Shoreditch, who formerly thought I was too critical of my right hon. Friend, now think I am not critical enough?
    Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member probably will take an early opportunity of reindulging in this form of avocation, and I shall be interested to reply.
    Mr. Marples: In view of the maldistribution of building materials all over the country, as well as in Shoreditch, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the committee he appointed in June, 1946, after the representations from this side made in December, 1945, will report on the matter?
    Mr. Bevan: Of course the shortage of building materials at the present time—
    Mr. Marples: Maldistribution.
    Mr. Bevan: The shortage of supplies is an expression of the fact that a far larger number of houses are under construction than hon. Members opposite ever expected.

    Tender Limits (Rural Areas)
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Minister of Health what are the top limits on the construction price of houses in rural areas for local authorities and the private builder, respectively.
    Mr. Bevan: The tenders received for contracts for rural district councils are considered on their merits having regard to the general level of accepted tenders.

    1767
    The £1,200 limit, which applies to private builders' houses in both rural and urban areas, relates to the selling price, including land.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: Does the Minister appreciate that his reply will confirm the widespread belief in this country that he would rather not see houses built than have them built by private enterprise?
    Mr. Bevan: Perhaps at some time or another it will percolate through to hon. Members opposite that almost all the houses are being built by private enterprise.
    Mr. Marples: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to state the difference between the tender price and the final account when rendered and paid?
    Mr. Bevan: If the hon. Member will put down that question, I will try to get the information for him.

    War Damaged Houses (Tenancies and Sale)
    Mrs. Middletonasked the Minister of Health (1) whether he will take steps to see that houses being rebuilt or repaired under the War Damage Act, which the owners do not themselves intend to occupy, shall be made available in the first instance to the former tenants of such houses and shall not in any case be sold at inflated prices, but if not required cither by the owner or the former tenant shall be open to requisition by the local authority;
    (2) what steps he proposes to take in order to prevent the sale to a third party, at inflated prices, of cost-of-works agreements between the War Damage Commission and the owners of war damaged property, in view of the effect such transactions are having upon the already high costs of house property.
    Mr. Bevan: The legal right of a tenant to return to a house which has been demolished as a result of enemy action and later rebuilt, is governed by the Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) Acts and the Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Acts. I cannot express an opinion regarding their interpretation in individual cases. I do not think it would be equitable to differentiate in regard to sale or requisitioning between owners of war destroyed houses and owners of other houses.
    Mrs. Middleton: It is difficult to hear, but I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the tenants of houses which are being repaired after bomb damage are often under very considerable hardship owing to the fact that these houses, instead of being offered to the former tenant, are being sold at very highly inflated prices over their heads?
    Mr. Bevan: Yes, I daresay, but it would seem to me to be inequitable under the law to differentiate between two owners—one owner who has had a house destroyed and rebuilt and another owner who has not had any destruction at all. It would be a double burden on the owner who has already received injury from enemy action, and I cannot make that differentiation under the law.

    Rural Houses (Reconditioning)
    Brigadier Raynerasked the Minister of Health if it is his intention to introduce legislation to assist the reconditioning of rural cottages.
    Mr. Bevan: The report recently submitted by the Rural Housing Sub-Committee of my Central Housing Advisory Committee on this subject is receiving consideration but it has not yet been published, and I cannot make any statement at present.
    Brigadier Rayner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the pleasure which that answer will give to the rural critics of his housing schemes, who see so little going on actually on the ground?
    Mr. Bevan: The answer is that the rural authorities are doing a. very good job. The hon. and gallant Gentleman should spend a little more time in his own area, and find out what is happening.

    Window Frames
    Mr. Spenceasked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied with the supply of window frames for immediate housing needs.
    Mr. Bevan: I am hopeful, despite difficulties, that sufficient numbers of window frames will be secured to meet immediate needs.

    Tenancy Premiums
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that large premiums are being requested as a consideration for the granting or transfer of

    1769
    leases and other tenancies of some houses and flats; and whether he will take steps to deal with this position in respect of those cases where the Rent Acts do not afford protection against such demands.
    Mr. Bevan: The reply to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir." As regards the second part, the matter is one which will be considered in connection with the proposed review of the Rent Restrictions Acts, but I can hold out no prospect of early legislation.
    Mr. Janner: In view of the serious position created by the large premiums which are being demanded and in view of the fact that the objects of the rent control Acts are thus being frustrated, cannot my right hon. Friend see about introducing a short Measure to remedy this particular position?
    Mr. Bevan: The possibility of Parliamentary time being made available for legislation is not a question which should be addressed to me but to the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House.

    Washing Machines
    Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchisonasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the present policy of reserving a high proportion of electric washing machines for installation in new houses is unfair to people who live in old-fashioned houses and have great need of such labour-saving devices: and whether he will change this preferential policy so as to give the occupiers of older houses a fairer chance of obtaining these appliances.
    Mr. Bevan: I am not aware that any part of the production of electric washing machines is reserved for installation in new houses. The latter part of the Question does not therefore arise.
    Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Board of Trade say that a proportion of these machines is reserved for new houses?
    Mr. Bevan: I do not think that is the case.

  COAST EROSION, SEAFORD
  Major Tufton Beamishasked the Minister of Health whether, following his recent visit to Seaford at the invitation of
  1770
  the urban district council, he will state the cost of the estimated total damage to the sea defences; how this cost is to be met; and what assistance his Department has given and will give to prevent further inroads by the sea.
  Mr. Bevan: As the reply is rather long I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Will the Minister make a similar personal inspection of the sea damage in the Holderness Division if he receives an invitation from the appropriate local authority?
  Mr. Bevan: I cannot promise that I will go everywhere to look at coast erosion, but I certainly know how serious it is.
  Following is the reply:
  Temporary repairs to the sea defences have been carried out at an estimated cost of £49,000 and a scheme for the reinstatement of the sea wall and the renewal of groynes has been adopted by the Newhaven and Seaford Sea Defence Commissioners at an estimated cost of £417,000.
  Since the statutory income of the Commissioners from the four constituent authorities is totally inadequate to meet expenditure of this order, the cost of temporary repairs and of the first instalment of the reinstatement works is being met, pending a final settlement of responsibility in a local Act, mainly by the East Sussex County Council and the Seaford Urban District Council. No decision has been reached by the parties concerned with regard to the cost of carrying out the remainder of the reinstatement works.
  Officers of my Department have on several occasions taken part in discussions on the technical and administrative problems involved and will continue to give all the help they can. I have so far sanctioned loans to the county council and the urban district council totalling £71,000 and shall give sympathetic consideration to such further applications for loan sanction as prove to be necessary. No Exchequer assistance is at present available towards the cost of these works except from the Ministry of Transport in so far as the works protect a length of the county road near the Buckle Inn.

  PUBLIC HEALTH

    Hospital Libraries
    Captain Bullockasked the Minister of Health if he proposes to have libraries for patients and for the hospital staff in all hospitals in future; if there will be paid and trained librarians in all the larger hospitals; and if these librarians will become part of the hospital staff.
    Mr. Bevan: I hope to see library facilities developed in all hospitals within the National Health Service as and when possible. But the details will have to be worked out at a later stage by the regional hospital boards and hospital management committees.
    Captain Bullock: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the importance of trained librarians in the rehabilitation side of hospital work, and will he be prepared to use the facilities of the county libraries for the training of librarians for the hospitals?
    Mr. Bevan: I hope it will be possible to make arrangements so that we do not have as many dead books as there are at the present time and so that there will be a large number of points at which books are available to readers. These hospital libraries will be very valuable centres.

    Willesden Hospital
    Mr. Hardyasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the committee of the Willesden General Hospital, a voluntary hospital, have refused to set up a consultative committee in defiance of his advice to all hospital authorities; and what further steps he proposes to take.
    Mr. Bevan: I am drawing the attention of the hospital authority to the recommendation I have already made that there should be a nurses' representative council in every hospital.
    Mr. Hardyasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that recently the nurses employed at the Willesden General Hospital, a voluntary hospital, before commencing their night duties of 12 hours had to be satisfied with seven kippers for 11 nurses for breakfast; and if he will ensure that adequate food is provided.
    Mr. Bevan: I am making inquiries about the nurses' diet here, as I am most anxious that nurses should be well fed.
    Mr. Hardy: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will cause a review of the dietaries of the various hospital staffs in the country?
    Mr. Bevan: That is another question. I am, of course, at this moment not directly responsible for their administration.
    Mr. Gallacher: There was a multitude fed on five.

    National Health Service
    Mr. Somerville Hastingsasked the Minister of Health whether he will give an assurance that the statement in the summary of the proposed National Health Service, Cmd. 6761, to the effect that all the service or any part of it is to be available to everyone in England and Wales is still the intention of the Government and that he is taking steps to carry it out.
    Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir. But it is no longer the intention of the Government only, but of Parliament, and is embodied in the National Health Service Act. The preparatory work now in hand to bring the Act into operation is therefore based on the principle to which my hon. Friend refers.

    Alien Doctors and Dentists
    Sir Henry Morris-Jonesasked the Minister of Health what action he is taking in regard to alien medical practitioners and dental surgeons who are practicing in this country under the temporary registration scheme; and what are the proposals of the Government.
    Mr. Bevan: As regards temporarily registered doctors my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department and I are at present in communication with the profession and I am not yet in a position to make a statement. As regards alien dentists, other than the few practising solely by virtue of temporary medical registration, there is no provision for temporary registration. Those admitted to the Dentists' Register have secured admission in the ordinary way by virtue of either British or foreign dental qualifications.
    Sir H. Morris-Jones: Can the Minister say whether the men referred to in this Question will be eligible to come under his new Act?
    Mr. Bevan: All persons who are competent to practice will, I imagine, be competent to enter.

    Ex-Service Doctors
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Minister of Health how many ex-Service doctors are unable to obtain employment in general practice; and if he will make a statement as to the provision of employment for such doctors until the National Health Service Act comes into operation.
    Mr. Bevan: I regret I have not the information requested in the first part of the Question. Ex-Service general practitioners can take the hospital posts and refresher courses available under the Government's Postgraduate Scheme, and it is then open to them to buy or open a practice or to seek assistantships or other appropriate employment in the usual way during the interim.
    Mr. Hastings: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great difficulty there is among doctors in obtaining assistantships at the present time?
    Mr. Bevan: Yes, I am aware that there is a difficulty. It is a difficulty which always arises immediately before great changes are made. We are doing our best to mitigate the hardships where we can.

    Mass Radiography
    Dr. Comynsasked the Minister of Health if he will state the names of the authorities in the Greater London area which have been allocated mass radiography units; the dates when these units were allotted; and when it will be possible for the county borough of West Ham to have the use of such an apparatus.
    Mr. Bevan: The authorities referred to are the County Councils of London, Middlesex, Surrey and Essex. The first two began mass radiography at the end of 1943, Surrey County Council at the end of 1944, and Essex County Council early in 1945. A further allocation of apparatus to selected authorities who are prepared to operate it, including West Ham Borough Council, is to begin soon, and I shall shortly be communicating with these authorities.

    Sewer, Berkeley
    Mr. Alpassasked the Minister of Health if he will give his sanction to the Thornbury Rural District Council to renew a sewer on the east side of New
    1774
    Street, Newtown, Berkeley, and thus obviate any pollution of the wells of the district from defective sewerage.
    Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir. My approval was given in a letter to the Thornbury Rural District Council dated 26th of this month.

  PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS (POCKET MONEY)
  Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Health if he will permit the comforts allowance to inmates of public institutions to be increased above the present figure of 2s. per week; and the payment of such allowances to persons who have not yet reached the age of 65 years.
  Mr. Bevan: I regret that I have at present no power to do so. The existing law does not in general authorise the grant of pocket money in excess of 2s. a week or to persons below the age of 65. The statute does not, however, apply to pensioners, since the local authority can exercise a discretion as to the amount of the pension that they will refrain from claiming.
  Mr. Collins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have received sums of money from charitably disposed persons to be spent on behalf of the patients in public assistance institutions in my area, and have been prevented by the regulations from expending them for the benefit of the persons concerned? Can he have another look at the matter?
  Mr. Bevan: If the hon. Member will Jet me have particulars, I will certainly inquire into the case.

  ARMED FORCES TRAINING AREAS
  Mr. Dribergasked the Prime Minister it, before the Service Departments acquire further land in such districts as Dartmoor or Ashdown Forest for training purposes, he will instruct them to re-examine the possibility of conducting part, at any rate, of such training in Canada or elsewhere overseas.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The possibility has been only recently reexamined. The conclusion reached, which I am satisfied is the correct one, was that the great bulk of service training must

  1775
  continue to take place in this country. Even if suitable areas overseas were readily available the expense, the waste of time and the immense amount of transportation that would be involved would be prohibitive, quite apart from the necessity for having training ground available in this country in any case for men called up for National Service and for members of the Auxiliary Services.
  Sir Henry Morris-Jonesasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the present public concern at the retention of sites, and the proposed acquisition of new sites for Services training purposes, he will publish a White Paper specifying the areas, with full information thereon.
  The Prime Minister: Until the Interdepartmental Committee have gone further with their discussions and inquiries, all proposals are provisional. No useful purpose would, therefore, be served by the publication of a White Paper as suggested. At a later stage, however, and before any decisions are taken, I will consider in what form the fullest possible information can be made available.
  Sir H. Morris-Jones: In view of the conflict of interest between the Departments and the Services on the one hand, and civilian needs and amenities on the other, will the right hon. Gentleman appoint a Royal Commission, or a Select Committee of this House, to go into the whole of this question?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. This is obviously a matter which must be decided by the Government, in which the various interests are necessarily represented, and are put forward by the Service Departments and other Ministers concerned. It is quite impossible for the Government to hand that over to a Royal Commission.

  GERMANY (RESIDENT BRITISH MINISTER)
  Mr. Boothbyasked the Prime Minister whether in view of the continued deterioration of the position in Germany he will reconsider his decision not to appoint a Resident Minister, with Cabinet rank, for the British zone.
  The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on 15th October last.
  Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that while, generally speaking, it is true that those on the touch line see more of the ball than those in the scrum, it might be a good idea to have a junior Minister resident in the British zone of Germany?
  Mr. Eden: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will not bear in mind— as nobody can better than he—how very valuable we found these Ministers overseas during the war period? Will he also bear in mind the anxiety in many parts of the House about what is going on in Germany? Can he not give us an answer one way or the other in the near future?
  The Prime Minister: I am giving very close personal attention to the question of, what is the best arrangement in Germany. The conditions are not altogether on all fours with those which were met by the appointment of Resident Ministers overseas during the war, but I will make a further statement as soon as I can.
  Mr. Boothby: Can we take it from that supplementary answer of the Prime Minister that he has not altogether closed his mind to the possibility of appointing a Resident Minister in Germany?
  The Prime Minister: I certainly do not close my mind, but there are very great difficulties.

  UNIVERSITY STUDENTS (EX-SERVICEMEN)
  Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the slowing down of demobilisation, he will consider extending the present arrangements for ex-Servicemen at universities until 1949.
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): The arrangements for the future are now under consideration.
  Mr. Chetwyndasked the Minister of Labour if he is now in a position to say whether members in the Forces in age and service Groups 56, and above, will be eligible for Class B release to resume their studies at universities.
  Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Foxasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the slowing down in the rate of demobilisation, he will extend the special scheme of release on educational grounds

  1777
  which at present applies up to Group 55 to enable men with the requisite academic qualifications to resume their university studies.
  Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. Universities have now commenced their session. Preference must obviously be given to those released in Class A if any vacancies occur during the present academic year. The arrangements for the next academic year are under consideration.
  Mr. Pickthorn: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the arrangements for October, 1947, will become public knowledge?
  Mr. Isaacs: I could not give any guarantee, but we are in consultation with the authorities, and hope to make an early arrangement so that students can make their plans.

  DEMOBILISATION (RATE OF RELEASE)
  Mr. Dribergasked the Prime Minister approximately how many men, apart from those on regular engagement, who have served in the Forces for more than three years, and how many who have served for more than four years, will still be serving on 31st December, 1946.
  The Prime Minister: With regard to the Army, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 26th November to my hon. Friend the Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. H. D. Hughes), of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy. These are the best figures available. I regret that comparable figures for the Royal Navy, and the Royal Air Force are not available.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Hairdressing (Training Scheme)
    Mr. Marplesasked the Minister of Labour how many ex-Servicemen are waiting for a course of training in hair-dressing; and what is the average time an applicant waits before commencing training.
    Mr. Isaacs: Eight hundred and eighty-seven ex-Servicemen who have been accepted for training in hairdressing are awaiting admission to training. Informa-
    1778
    tion is not immediately available as to the average time an applicant waits before commencing training, but I will find out and let the hon. Member know.
    Mr. Marples: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the Ministerial training schemes in general, and the hairdressing scheme in particular?
    Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. I am satisfied with the administration, but in these cases we are not satisfied with the delay in getting the premises suitable for this training. The delay in these cases is entirely due to having to wait for suitable premises.
    Commander Noble: Will the Minister give special consideration to a case, particulars of which I have sent to his Parliamentary Secretary, in which an ex-Serviceman, having waited a year for a course in ladies' hairdressing, was told there is not to be such a course?
    Mr. Isaacs: I will look into that.

    Engineers (Release to Army)
    Colonel Wheatleyasked the Minister of Labour the nature of the terms governing the release from productive industry to the Army of skilled engineering artisans under the Leading Artisans Staff-sergeants Scheme; if he is satisfied that the conditions are being carried out; and whether he is aware that many of the men are dissatisfied.
    Mr. Isaacs: The release from industry of the men referred to was not governed by any conditions, and the second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise. I am informed that because of cuts in the Army's requirements after the end of the war, some men selected for training as potential leading artisan staff-sergeants had to be re-mustered in other trades, but every effort was made to post them to trades in which their industrial experience would be used.
    Colonel Wheatley: In view of the appeal of the Government for, production, is the Minister aware that many of these men have been waiting over a year for a course, that they feel their skill is being lost to the country, that they are losing practice in their craft, and that they are very upset and frustrated at the ill-working of the scheme?
    Mr. Isaacs: I will be most grateful if the hon. and gallant Member will let me have particulars of such cases, but the liaison between my Department and the War Office is most close, and this is a complicated question. I will be glad to look into it, if he will send me particulars.
    Colonel Wheatley: I have already raised the matter.

    Essential Work Orders (Relaxations)
    Mr. Mellishasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons who have now been released from the operation of the Essential Work Orders, or similar statutory provisions; the numbers now remaining under such Orders; and what classes of workers are likely to be released in the near future.
    Mr. Isaacs: The number of persons covered by the Essential Work Orders which, at its peak was about 8¾ millions, has now been reduced to 661,000 workers. As from 1st January, 1947, the number will be still further reduced to 232,000 workers, of whom practically all will be employed in building and civil engineering, certain building materials industries, and by the county agricultural executive committees. Civil servants have been covered by a special Order, and, with the concurrence of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I have decided to revoke this Order as from 1st February. This will affect about 660,000 civil servants.
    Captain Crookshank: Will the Minister say when he anticipates that the Orders will disappear altogether, as they are a very grave infringement on natural liberties?
    Mr. Isaacs: The Orders will disappear as soon as the need for them no longer remains.

    Hospital Staffs, West Ham
    Dr. Morganasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the West Ham Borough Council have not yet implemented the recommendations of the National Joint Council for Staffs of Hospitals and Allied Institutions (Domestic and Manual Workers), Mental Hospital Recommendations; that the staff of the West Ham Mental Hospital are dissatisfied at the delay, and are threatening to
    1780
    go on strike immediately; and whether, having regard to the risk of discomfort to the patients in this institution, and the resentment of the institution staff, he proposes to take any action on, or have any inquiry made into, the present position, especially the reasons for the procrastination of the West Ham Council.
    Mr. Isaacs: I understand that West Ham Borough Council have now decided to put into effect these recommendations of the National Joint Council, with retrospective effect from. 1st April, 1946.
    Dr. Morgan: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will accept the thanks of the staff for the very good work done by his officers?
    Dr. Comyns: In view of the fact that the recommendations of the National Joint Council were submitted to the local authority in October, and such of the recommendations as were not ambiguous were agreed to, and, as the Minister said, are being implemented, is it not the case that the assumption contained in the last part of this Question is a good example of a bad and ill-informed diagnosis?
    Dr. Morgan: The prognosis was a very good one.
    Mr. Isaacs: I am not sure whether this is a question of doctors disagreeing, but I am not going to enter into that argument.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Pensioners (Hospital Patients)
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, under what authority persons in receipt of non-contributory old age pensions who enter one of the municipal hospitals of London lose all right to their pension after three months.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): Under the provision of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1936, regarding the calculation of means.

    2½Per Cent. Irredeemable Stock
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total to date that has been subscribed, of the 2½ per cent. Irredeemable Stock.
    Mr. Dalton: £93½ million.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Can the Chancellor state how much of that sum is from private subscriptions, and how much from subscriptions by Government Departments?
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir.

    Government Stock (Bank Holdings)
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is in conformity with the policy of His Majesty's Government that the big five banks have doubled their holdings of Government obligations from the prewar level.
    Mr. Dalton: This is in no way contrary to Government policy.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Does not the Chancellor consider that, possibly under some less enlightened leadership, the high percentage of between 70 per cent. and 80 per cent. is very dangerous to national credit?
    Mr. Dalton: National credit is steadily improving under this Government.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Can the Chancellor say whether he has been making use of his powers under the Bank of England Act in this matter?
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir.

    War Damage Commission (Decisions)
    Mr. Boyd Carpenterasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the observations of the Honourable Mr. Justice Vaisey in re 36, 38, 40 and 42, Jamaica Street, Stepney; and whether, in view of the learned judge's statement that amending legislation would be necessary in order to correct previous wrong decisions of the War Damage Commission, it is the intention of the Government to introduce that legislation at an early date.
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. I do not read the learned Judge's remarks as the hon. Member does, but, since this case may be taken to a higher court, I should prefer not to make further comment.

    Destroyed Houses (Mortgage Interest)
    Mr. Mellishasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider
    1782
    making all mortgage interest charges on owner-occupied houses totally destroyed by enemy action, a national charge during the period that they are uninhabitable.
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. I could not undertake to bring payments of this kind within the field of public compensation.
    Mr. Mellish: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer bear in mind that the Co-operative Building Society and the Halifax Building Society have reduced their interest charges in such cases to 2½per cent.? Will he ask the other building societies to follow this very splendid lead?
    Mr. Dalton: That is a slightly different question, but I will take note of what my hon. Friend says. As he knows, we are endeavouring to reduce interest rates wherever possible.
    Mr. Foot: In view of the hardship caused to owner-occupiers by the operation of this, as well as other factors, will my right hon. Friend now say when he will be able to make a statement on the general settlement under the War Damage Act, which he foreshadowed last August?
    Mr. Dalton: That is rather a wider question than the one on the Paper, but, as I stated only a few days ago in reply-to another Question, we are working on this matter, and I hope it will not be long before a statement can be made.
    Mr. Janner: Pending a decision in this matter, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the rate of interest to be repaid to owner-occupiers in the case of war damaged houses, in view of the fact that they have to pay a higher rate of interest?
    Mr. Dalton: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that down.

    Pensions (Increase) Act
    Major Mott-Radclyffeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when legislation to amend the Pensions (Increase) Act will be introduced.
    Mr. Dalton: Today.

    War Gratuities (Income Tax)
    Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchisonasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why members of the British Red Cross War Organisation, who served

    1783
    overseas in front line areas and who have been awarded the 1939–45 Star and other campaign stars and medals, are having Income Tax deducted from their gratuities.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): Such gratuities are exempt in some cases. If the hon. and gallant Member will send me particulars of the cases to which he refers I will have inquiry made.

  SCIENTIFIC MANPOWER
  Mr. Charles Smithasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet received the observations of the University Grants Committee on the recommendations of the Committee on Scientific Manpower; and whether the University Grants Committee consulted the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals on this subject.
  Mr. Dalton: The answer to both parts of the Question is, "Yes, Sir."

  STUDENT HOSTELS
  Mr. C. Smithasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any consultations have taken place between the University Grants Committee and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals on the subject of the planning of student hostels; and whether the University Grants Committee will propose that a special committee be set up, with representatives of student bodies as well as of university authorities, to consider this problem of living accommodation.
  Mr. Dalton: Such consultations have already taken place, and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals have already set up a committee on student hostels.

  GOVERNMENT OFFICES (STAFFING)
  Mr. Keelingasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the queues of civil servants in the neighbourhood of the Millbank Government offices who wait a long time every afternoon for the arrival of the evening newspapers; and whether he will arrange for this practice to be stopped and for the staff of these offices to be reduced.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir.
  Mr. Keeling: If I send the hon. Gentleman photographs will he believe that these queues existed, at least until this Question was put down? Secondly, will he go and see for himself, when the next flat-racing season begins?
  Mr. Hall: Yes, Sir, but surely this is a matter for the Departments concerned, and not for the Treasury.
  Mr. Keeling: Surely the hon. Gentleman exercises a general supervision?

  CENTRAL OFFICE OF INFORMATION (PUBLICATIONS)
  Mr. De la Bèreasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will take steps to have published in the daily Press a comprehensive list of publications and booklets issued or in preparation by the Central Office of Information.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir.
  Mr. De la Bère: Surely the hon. Gentleman knows by now that I never take "No" for an answer. Mr. Speaker, it is thoroughly unsatisfactory.
  Mr. De la Bèreasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, with a view to the saving of labour and the extraction of accurate costs in connection with the list of booklets which have been issued or are in preparation by the Central Office of Information, he will give an estimated figure of the cost of publication of these booklets and an estimated cost of the commitments entered into.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Booklets issued during the six months to 30th September, 1946, £16,500; booklets in hand at 30th September, 1946, commitments to date, £27,500.
  Mr. De la Bère: Can the hon. Member stand a shock? Does he realise that I had a very satisfactory talk with the Director-General, for whom I have the highest regard, but is it not possible to give the House of Commons some proper information about this Department, which is trying very hard, and is very often not helped as it should be? Would he try to do something about that?
  Mr. Hall: As the hon. Member knows —and from what he said the House will gather—we are taking steps to see that more Members of the House are informed of what is going on.
  Mr. De la Bère: May I take it, then, that I have done good for once?

  PRODUCTION CAMPAIGN (POSTERS)
  Mr. Marplesasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that posters, urging the desirability of more production, are being sent to professional firms who do not manufacture or produce goods; and if he will consider taking steps to eliminate this wasteful practice.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: As far as possible, firms for which the posters were unsuitable were eliminated from the distribution list, but in so large an operation some errors were to be expected. The list is under constant review in order to eliminate the type of case to which the hon. Member refers.
  Mr. Marples: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that large envelopes are used to send these expensive production posters to professional firms such as accountants, who are non-producers, and who themselves cannot purchase that type of envelope in which to send out their balance sheets and accounts?
  Mr. Hall: We are doing our best to cut this list, but there are nearly 100,000 firms upon it and it is sometimes difficult to weed out all that should be weeded out.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION
  Mr. Frank Byersasked the Minister of Health by approximately what date he expects the Local Government Boundary Commission to be in a position to produce its Report.
  Mr. Peartasked the Minister of Health when the Report of the Local Government Boundary Commission is to be published.
  Mr. Bevan: The work of the Local Government Boundary Commission is
  1786
  likely to last for a number of years and they are required to prepare and transmit to me, as soon as may be after the end of 1946 and subsequent years, an annual report of their proceedings, which will be laid before Parliament.
  Mr. Byers: Is there no likelihood of this Commission reporting before the end of 1948 or the middle of 1949?
  Mr. Bevan: I think that is a rather discourteous reflection on the work of the Commission. It is an extremely able body, it has a great task to perform, and will report, I hope, next year.
  Mr. Byers: Has not the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood me? I asked if there was any likelihood of the Commission being able to report before the end of 1948 or the middle of 1949?
  Mr. Bevan: I am afraid that the hon. Member and I are at cross purposes— not intentionally. If he had listened to my reply he would have heard that they are under an obligation to report every year beginning with the end of 1946. Therefore, we are hoping to receive a report fairly soon.

  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (FAMILY ALLOWANCES)
  Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Health if he will give an assurance that no action will be taken against public assistance committees who disregard family allowances in determining scales of relief.
  Mr. Bevan: I cannot prejudge a matter which would primarily be one for the consideration of the district auditor and might ultimately be the subject of a formal appeal against the district auditor's decision.
  Mr. Lipson: Can the Minister not give guidance or hope to public assistance committees who wish to disregard family allowances?
  Mr. Bevan: Guidance is being sent out to all public assistance authorities, but it cannot be guidance which breaks the law.
  Mr. Lipson: Will copies of the circular which is being sent out be made available to this House?
  Mr. Bevan: Yes, certainly.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Churchill: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will make a statement on the Business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. The Business for next week will be as follows:
Monday, 2nd December—Second Reading of the Cotton (Centralised Buying) Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Tuesday, 3rd December—Second Reading of the Trafalgar Estates Bill and consideration of the draft Unemployment Assistance and Supplementary Pension Regulations.
Wednesday and Thursday, 4th and 5th December—Committee stage of the Exchange Control Bill.
Friday, 6th December—Second Reading of the Pensions (Increase) Bill; Committee and remaining stages of the Royal Marines Bill; and further consideration of the India (Governor's Allowances and Privileges) Order and the Burma (Adaptation of Acts of Parliament) Order.
Mr. Churchill: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that insufficient time is given for consideration of the Bills between presentation and Second Reading? Take, for instance, the Cotton (Centralised Buying) Bill, which was ordered to be printed on 20th November. It was available in the Vote Office on 22nd November, but the Second Reading is to be taken on Monday, 2nd December. That is to say, only 10 days have been allowed for consideration of this extremely complicated Bill, which affects a large part of the country. The Pensions (Increase) Bill was not presented until today, and is not yet available, but it is already announced that the Second Reading is to take place on Friday, 6th December, which gives only eight days in which to consider the Bill. Really, there must be some reasonable opportunity for Measures to be looked at after they are presented, before the House is forced to Debate them on Second Reading. What does the right hon. Gentleman say about all that?
Mr. Morrison: I would not wish to be unfair to the House, or not to give hon. Members proper opportunity of absorbing the contents of Bills before the Second Reading. I think, in principle, that is
1788
a perfectly sound argument, but in the case of the Cotton (Centralised Buying) Bill, I do not think it is a very difficult Bill to follow. Moreover, by Monday, hon. Members will have had an opportunity to study it, not only during the whole of the week but over two weekends, last weekend and the coming weekend, and I think it is perfectly reasonable for the Government to take the view that the House will have had an opportunity of understanding the Bill. Also, in this case, there was an earlier Debate on the principle involved in the Bill, when the decision was reached not to reopen the Liverpool and Manchester Cotton Exchanges. With regard to the Pensions (Increase) Bill, that is a small uncontentious Measure which the Treasury have produced to assist certain officers and employees of the State. There is nothing very difficult about it, and I do not think there is anything contentious in it. I am told, by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it will be in the Vote Office this afternoon.
Mr. Eden: I do not dispute what the right hon. Gentleman has said about this Measure but, of course, he will realise that we cannot judge, because we have not seen it. May I ask if there is any precedent for the House being asked to agree to the inclusion in the following week's Business of a Bill which has not yet been presented?
Mr. Morrison: I cannot say, because I do not know. I should be very surprised if there is not. There is a precedent for nearly everything that happens. After all, this Bill is not to be taken until to-morrow week. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to accept my assurance that it is not a difficult Bill. It is, as I say, quite small and, I think, uncontentious.
Mr. Churchill: On the general question of a reasonable time being allowed between the presentation or First Reading of Bills and Second Reading, surely the right hon. Gentleman would wish to meet the views of those who have to consider these Measures, and give the House proper time in which to study them. A week or ten days is very little time in which to raise many technical matters. There is other business which is also important and which can be taken. It is not a case of adding to the volume but only of leaving a more decent interval between

1789
presentation and Second Reading. At the present time the First Reading is usually taken in a formal way. But if the Bill is to be put forward without people in the country having even had time to read it, and consider how their different interests and rights are affected, naturally the whole question of procedure may have to be considered from a much more detailed point of view. Undoubtedly, the course of public business is better accelerated by reasonable agreements through the usual channels.
Mr. Morrison: I do not resist what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Quite frankly, I think that in the cases to which he has called attention, the period is not unreasonable but I accept the doctrine of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I can assure him that we will do our best to act in accordance with the spirit of it.
Mr. Churchill: May it, therefore, be a matter which will be subject to discussion through the usual channels?
Mr. Morrison: I am afraid I cannot give an undertaking that we should be willing to defer the Second Reading of the Bills which I have mentioned in the statement on Business.
Mr. Sparks: Can my right hon. Friend inform the House when the Transport Bill is likely to be available; and could he also say when we may anticipate the Second Reading of that Bill?
Mr. Morrison: On the first point, it may be for the convenience of the House to know—doubtless many hon. Members already know—that copies of the Transport Bill are now available in the Vote Office. I am not in a position to say when the Second Reading will be taken. I think this is a case in which the Government must take special care to see that there is reasonable opportunity for hon. Members to study the Bill.
Mr. Churchill: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his admission that in the case of the two Bills I have mentioned—the Cotton (Centralised Buying) Bill and the Pensions (Increase) Bill —the Government have not taken special care to see that reasonable opportunity is given to Members—while making acknowledgment for that admission—I would seriously urge him not to press upon us the taking of these two Measures so soon after they have been introduced
1790
and laid before us. Of course, it is said that there are two weekends during which they can be, considered. But, considering that this affects many people outside this House, and that many bodies have to be called together and consulted, and that the weekend under present conditions is not an easy time for them to meet, it would be more reasonable to let the period extend to a fortnight or so. At any rate, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider that. Otherwise there are many formal parts in the procedure of the House which we shall be forced to examine from the point of view of making sure that things do not slip through too quickly.
Mr. Morrison: On the last point made by the right hon. Gentleman, I am much obliged to him for telling us. We shall try to be ready for that eventuality. With great respect, I do not think that the time given is short. There are, as I say, two weekends and there is the whole week. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite would not believe how much work some of us do at the weekend. The industry knew what was coming. They know the outline of the Bill, and I think they will be ready to make representations to hon. Members stating their point of view, and so on. I do not think this is an unreasonable period, and I am perfectly certain that there are plenty of precedents for a period such as ten days being allowed in connection with a Bill of this size.
Mr. Walter Fletcher: May I ask the Leader of the House, in view of his remark about the Cotton Bill not being complicated, whether he does not realise that, in fact, it is extremely complicated? It is not just a question of suppressing the Liverpool Cotton Exchange. This Bill brings forward an entirely new form of Government trading, and raises large questions of principle, and, therefore, the time given for its consideration seems to me to be utterly inadequate for the purpose.
Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman seems already to be fairly fully possessed of the contents of the Bill. I would only say that the arguments in the Debate might conceivably be complicated, because this is rather a subtle business and the House may find itself involved in a complicated argument. But the House is always happy when it gets into complications, and there is no grievance on that

1791
score. I do not pretend to be thoroughly expert about these things, but I feel that this is really a straightforward Bill, easy to understand. Even I understand it.
Mr. Churchill: May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, instead of taking the Second Reading of the Cotton Bill, and the Committee stage of the Money Resolution, on Monday next, he should give time for the consideration of a Motion which stands on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) about the Roosevelt statue, which is really a matter on which the House should have an opportunity of expressing its views?
[That this House is of the opinion that the design proposed for the Memorial Statue of the late President Roosevelt is inadequate and unworthy; and urges His Majesty's Government to propose to the Pilgrim Society that the matter be reconsidered.]
Mr. Morrison: I am bound to say that it is a charming act of generosity on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to come to the rescue of the hon. Member for Maldon. There are times when I would like to come to his rescue in the opposite direction. But I am afraid that, ingenious as that proposal is, it is not one which the Government can accept consistently with the proper management of its legislative programme.
Mr. Churchill: But the right hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact that this Motion about the Roosevelt statue is a Motion proposed by hon. Members of all parties. It is quite true that it originates with an hon. Member, or a quasi-Member, of the right hon. Gentleman's own party, but there is a very large body of opinion requiring an opportunity of discussing this matter.
Mr. Speaker: It appears to me that we are wandering all over the shop, and discussing the Cotton Bill, the Liverpool Cotton Exchange and then the Roosevelt statue. I think it is for the Government and not for the Opposition to state the Business for next week.
Mr. Churchill: I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we always endeavour to show the utmost respect for the Chair, and I hope I shall not be thought lacking in that respect if I venture to say that,
1792
when the Government state the Business, it has always been the custom of this House that the Opposition is entitled to question it and criticise it.
Mr. Speaker: I have no doubt that the Opposition are perfectly entitled to question and criticise, and I do not complain of that. I only said that I did not think that it was the duty of the Opposition to suggest alternative Business. I think that is a very unusual procedure for this House.
Mr. Churchill: On that point, and with very great respect, Mr. Speaker, may I say that perhaps it would have been better if I had asked the question about facilities being given for the Motion put on the Paper by the hon. Member for Maldon, apart from the question of whether a proper interval for the discussion of Bills should be allowed. May I, therefore, put myself in line with your wishes on the matter, and not expose myself to any rebuke of being "all over the shop"? As we are to understand that the Government will not reconsider any extra time before the discussion of these Measures— the Cotton Bill and the Pensions Bill— will the Leader of the House inform me whether he will be able to give any opportunity for the discussion of the Motion, signed by Members of all parties, on the question of the Roosevelt statue, in respect of which we have had to legislate and provide finance from this House?
Mr. Morrison: If that matter was raised through the usual channels, we should be willing to consider the matter, and to try to sense the feeling of the House on whether it was thought appropriate that the House should have a discussion about it.
Mr. Gallacher: I want to ask the Minister of Transport if he does not think that it is quite possible for hon. Members of this House to understand the principles of a published Bill within eight or 10 days, and why the Leader of the Opposition should suggest that—
Mr. Speaker: That is quite a hypothetical question.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: May I, Mr. Speaker, put a personal question, and ask for your decision on it, regarding the Trafalgar Estates Bill? May I ask whether, as a trustee of the Trafalgar Estates, and appointed as such by Parliament, it is your

1793
intention to preside in person over the Debate on a Bill which is designed to alter or revoke the terms of that trust?
Mr. Speaker: If the House chooses to remove me, or give anybody else power to remove me, surely I have no complaint. That only means that I do less work; that is all. After all, I am a trustee for the Chequers Estates, for the British Museum, the Natural History Museum, Royal College of Surgeons and the Duke of Wellington's estate, and I do not know what else. I do not think there is anything personal, but, of course, I must not express any opinion on the merits of the Bill. I cannot see, however, that there is anything personal involved if I preside over this Debate.
Mr. Morrison: I should have thought it would be the feeling of the House as a whole, that we should have the utmost confidence in your presiding over us, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are also trustees; they are parents of the Bill, and are, I imagine, in a much worse situation than you are.
Mr. Churchill: Might I say that, so far as my hon. Friends on this side of the House are concerned, we should have absolute confidence in your conduct of any Debate upon this subject, Mr. Speaker, and that you would not be influenced, in any opinion which it might be your duty to form, in consequence of your capacity as a member of the Trust?
Mr. Speaker: I may point out that I feel myself, in a way, in rather a different category from the other trustees. I am an official trustee, and the others are executive trustees, who can alter the law. I cannot. Therefore, I am removed from the discussion.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I was far from trying to suggest any censure in regard to the conduct of the Debate? Is it not a fact that I spoke to you about this matter yesterday, asking whether you would resent a question on it, and was told that you would be prepared to give an answer should I raise it?
Mr. Speaker: I say, quite frankly, that, if any remarks are made which may be hostile to the trustees, they clearly will
1794
not apply to me, because, as I say, I am not an executive trustee, but only a statutory one.
Mr. Pickthorn: I apologise for not having given notice of this point, but it only occurred to me in this form as the result of the answers given by you, Sir, and the Leader of the House. I fully understand and respect your position. Sir, if I may say so. But about the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord of the Treasury—and I say this in no sort of criticism of them as persons—the question I wish to put is whether it would be in Order for trustees to impose legislation which can at least be argued to be contrary to the interest of the beneficiaries; and whether, therefore, it is in Order for those particular right hon. Gentlemen to back a Bill for this purpose?
Mr. Speaker: I should have thought that they were acting, not as trustees, but in their executive capacity as Ministers of the Crown.
Mr. Churchill: Ought they not, therefore, in those circumstances, to divest themselves of their responsibilities as trustees, which can easily be done by an amending Act releasing them from those responsibilities, when they would be perfectly free to destroy the trust and not be hampered by the Commandment which says, "Thou shalt not steal"?
Mr. Dalton: Without wishing, in advance, to deploy an argument on the Bill which it is proposed to read a Second time next Tuesday, I would draw attention to the fact that there is no proposal in the Bill to damage the beneficiaries under the trust. Indeed, it is designed—though this argument must wait until next week to be deployed in full—to benefit the— [Interruption]. But I have read the Bill. Clause 2 of the Bill proposes to enable estates, which may now not be freely dealt with, to be freely dealt with, and there is a prima facie case for thinking that this will benefit the beneficiaries, and not otherwise.
Mr. Churchill: If the right hon. Gentleman can assure us that there is no conflict between the parties concerned—between himself and the other trustees—and that there is agreement on the matter; and if he can further assure us that he has reconciled his fiduciary duties as a trustee,

1795
which are real, serious and living duties, with the other duties which he discharges as a Minister of the Crown, we should all feel much easier, but that matter may require looking into.
Mr. Janner: On the question of Business, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in view of the very glaring flaws —which are generally appreciated—in the present rent control Acts he will consider the introduction of a small, non-contentious Measure to deal with the most flagrant of them? Does he realise that it is the desire of the House to do so? It would not take long to put through such a Measure.
Mr. Morrison: One of the most charming features of the House of Commons is its occasional innocence. The idea of a small, non-contentious Rent Restriction Bill is a good example of such innocence. I have been deceived quite often enough by Ministers about small and uncontentious Measures.

PERSONAL STATEMENT
Sir John Anderson: On a point of Order. I rise, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, to call attention to an error in the OFFICIAL REPORT, an error which I have already brought to your notice privately. In the OFFICIAL REPORT for Tuesday, 19th November, column 761, I am represented as having taken part in a certain Division. I did not take part in that Division; indeed, it was not possible for me to be in the House at all on the day in question. I have no doubt that the circumstances will be inquired into, and the necessary correction made. My purpose in rising is merely to ensure all possible publicity being given to this correction.
Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I had a letter from him this morning. I have looked into the matter, and it will be rectified. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman's statement today will give proper publicity to it.

BILL PRESENTED
  PENSIONS (INCREASE) BILL
  "to authorise further increases under, and otherwise amend, the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1944, and to continue that Act in force as amended; and to authorise increases in pensions to which that Act does not apply, "presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; supported by Mr. Ede, Mr. Westwood, Mr. Bevan, Miss Wilkinson and Mr. Glenvil Hall; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 15.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CIVIC RESTAURANTS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.57 P.m.
  The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This Bill has a primary purpose which I might simply describe as the enabling of local authorities, if they so wish, to continue the services of public meals and other similar activities which they are now undertaking under the general title of "British Restaurants." The House will recall the genesis of the British Restaurants. It is true to say that they were born of the general wartime needs in the year 1940 and, in particular, of the needs of the cities during the time of the aerial bombardment of this country, and of the London blitz in particular. If the House will permit a personal word, may I say that I could not help recalling, when I found that it was my place to intro-' duce this Bill, that, in 1940, when the first beginnings of the system were being made, I, like many other hon. Members of this House at that time, was a member of the Civil Defence organisation of the country—an air raid warden in the metropolitan borough of Chelsea. I very well remember making what representations I could at that time to the authorities on the view, which they were quick to take up, not from my representations, but from many others, that the provision of hot food was, perhaps, the most important single factor of all in the relief which a population under aerial bombardment could be given. We all remember how, out of that dreadful need, and out of the

  1797
  general need during the war years, this very wide activity, which we now know as British Restaurants, came to be born.
  I need only give the House the following figures to show how wide the British Restaurant scheme became. At the peak point during the war, in May 1943, there were over 2,000 British Restaurants, and they were serving over 500,000 meals a day. Today, three and a half years afterwards, there are still over 1,000 British Restaurants, and they are serving over 400,000 meals a day. The average price of those meals is so. 3d. each. The House will notice that the drop in the number of meals served is very much less than the drop in the number of restaurants, so that the service is still in operation on a very wide scale.
  I need only give one or two examples. The London County Council, for example, is running no less than 150 restaurants and serving 60,000 mid-day meals a day. Birmingham is still running 59 restaurants and serving 20,000 meals a day. Nor are these activities confined to great industrial cities. Bournemouth, with five restaurants, is serving 4,500 meals a day. Almost all these restaurants which I have mentioned are in extemporised buildings, but there are one or two cases of cities which, for one reason or another, were enabled to build really suitable, or comparatively suitable, premises. Sheffield is, perhaps, the best example, and there is a restaurant in that city which today serves as a model for other local authorities. It has just been visited by representatives of the sister authority of York, in order that a similar restaurant may be established in York if the necessary powers are given. The Sheffield restaurant, which is part of the civic centre in that city, serves 1,250 lunches a day. It is open until 8 p.m., including Sundays, and it serves teas and suppers. I am giving those facts as an example that already today the British Restaurants are playing a very real part in the life of the population in certain cities.
  The first issue before this House is quite a simple one of whether all this activity shall end, as the Caterers' Association have asked us to decide, or whether it shall continue as, for example, an impartial inquiry into the matter undertaken by the National Council of Social Service concluded. I would like to read to the
  1798
  House a few words of that conclusion, because it is a notable one. The National Council of Social Service, after an exhaustive survey of the country, in a most interesting report which I recommend to the attention of hon. Members, concluded:
  "The British Restaurant service, which has grown up as part of a national feeding policy in wartime, should now be overhauled and made a better and more effective part of a national food policy which will help to keep the nation fit for the constructive tasks of peace."
  The object of this small Measure is precisely to enable local authorities to do that. I doubt whether in any part of the House there is any division as to the desirability of achieving those objectives, but, of course, there may be division on the question of whether, on the one hand, local authorities are capable of doing that, and, on the other hand whether private enterprise unaided is capable of doing so.
  On the first point, I think that 10 years ago, before our wartime experience, it might have been argued—although I would not have accepted the argument then—that the local authorities were hardly capable of running restaurants. But I put it to the House that the six years' experience which we have had of running British Restaurants have conclusively shown that local authorities can do this job. They have proved their capacity to run restaurants, to give service which is needed and appreciated by the population, and to run those restaurants as workable businesses which can pay their way. I would like to call the attention of the House to the latest accounts of British Restaurants for this financial year, for 361 out of the 419 local authorities which are still operating British Restaurants under the Ministry's scheme. They had a gross income this year of £89,300,000. Hon. Members will observe the scale of the operations. On balance, there was a net profit of £36,000 after providing £50,000 for amortisation.
  Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: Do those figures include the cost of converting the premises, which has been undertaken by the Ministry of Works?
  Mr. Strachey: They include an amortisation figure, which is being provided for these premises.
  Sir G. Fox: That is not the same thing at all.
  Mr. Strachey: Maybe not.
  Sir William Darling: The right hon. Gentleman gave the gross turnover and the net profit. What is the percentage of profit?
  Mr. Strachey: The percentage of profit on takings is the percentage of £36,000 of £89 million. The hon. Gentleman can work it out better than I can. I anticipated that some hon. or right hon. Member opposite would make that point, and it occurred to me that if they did it would show that they supposed that the British Restaurant service was being run to make the maximum amount of profit. Of course, no illusion could be greater. The local authorities were not, for one moment, attempting to make the maximum profit out of the population. It would be an absolutely repugnant idea, but I have quoted these figures to show that they are capable, in undertaking this very extensive operation, of making the restaurants pay as a business without incurring a charge on public funds.
  Mr. Jennings: Would the right hon. Gentleman allow me to say something?
  Mr. Strachey: No, I think I had better continue.
  Mr. Jennings: It is not a fair comparison.
  Mr. Strachey: The hon. Gentleman says I am not making a fair comparison. So far, I have made no comparison, fair or unfair.
  Mr. Jennings: With great respect, the right hon. Gentleman has given the total turnover of £89 million, showing a profit of £36,000 in respect of 361 local authorities, but in respect of the others he has given neither a loss nor a profit. The proper comparison would be to say whether, as a whole, they have made a profit.
  Mr. Strachey: No. The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I was taking the 361 as a whole. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the others?"] There are no others. Those are the restaurants of which we are speaking. There is no comparison being made.
  Sir Peter MacDonald rose—
  Mr. Strachey: I think I had better continue. I have noticed the extreme touchiness of hon. Members opposite. I now come to the other subject, and I am afraid hon. Members may be even more touchy on this aspect, which is whether private enterprise could now provide these good, cheap meals on this scale to the population as a whole. I would say right away that, in part, private enterprise can, does and will continue to provide meals, some good and some cheap, to the population in this country, but I would add that, so far at any rate, private enterprise in the catering trade has, on the whole and by and large, catered for the middle class and not for the working class. So far, on the whole, it has not provided, on anything like an adequate scale, for public eating out, for the industrial and, for that matter, the agricultural working class of this country. There is a real gap to be filled by some other kind of service. I am not saying that that is something which I do not deplore. I think it would be admirable if private enterprise did attempt to cater on a greater scale for the working class of this country, and I do not despair that, under the spur of public enterprise which is now going to be applied in this field, private enterprise will also play a part, and a greater part than it has played up till now—a part not confined to the "pull-up" and "pull-in" and the small café—in this field. I do not know. I do not anticipate the speeches which we shall hear from hon. and right hon. Members opposite in this Debate. However, it did seem to me, in considering what they were going to put before us, that they might be faced with a somewhat difficult dilemma.
  I think we may find it argued—as there was a tendency to do just now, I noticed, when I was quoting some figures—that of course local authorities would prove most hopelessly inefficient instruments for carrying on restaurants, that they would be quite incapable of providing, at prices which would enable them to pay their way, anything like as good a service as private enterprise would do. It may be we shall hear that argument from some speakers, and at the same time the other argument from other speakers, that what we are going to do now, in enabling local authorities to run restaurants—and that is all we are doing—is to place a very great menace behind the backs of private enterprise caterers, and that their businesses will be destroyed by

  1801
  the powerful and formidable competition of local authorities. I should not put it past some hon. Members, from our experience, if both those arguments were, in fact, used by the same speaker at different times in his speech. Of course, as I need hardly point out to the House, that hon. Members cannot have it both ways. Either local authorities are inefficient people, cumbrous and bureaucratic organisations, in which case the private catering authorities have nothing whatever to fear from them; or, they are efficient organisations capable of providing a really useful public service, in which case the public have something very great to gain by that service being provided on a permanent basis, as this Bill is designed to secure.
  That brings me to the provisions of the Bill, and it brings me particularly—and I will deal with the Bill in this connection—to the financial provisions of the Bill. It may be and I dare say will be argued that that dilemma is an unreal one, because local authorities will provide these services out of the- rates. I notice that the Caterers' Association, in the resolution which they moved in opposition to this Measure, used these words:
  "If the intention is to provide the public with meals at subsidised rates, such a system is socially undesirable in view of the fact that adequate old-age pensions and the possibility of a national wages policy will provide reason able buying power for all"
  I am deeply touched by, and grateful to the Caterers' Association for, that tribute to the general economic and social policy of the Government. But I must say to them that they are under a misconception in their implication in that passage, and in the subsequent one still more where they go on to say:
  "Rate-aided meals tend towards an unjustified pauperisation of the population."
  If they turn to Clause 3 of the Bill, they will see that rate-aided meals are not what is provided for. On the contrary, it is carefully provided that local authorities must keep careful and meticulous accounts of these services, should they desire to undertake them, that those accounts must be kept in the way prescribed by the Minister of Food, and that they must run their restaurants over a reasonable period so as to make both ends meet and not be a charge on the rates. They will see that by Clause 3 (2) any local authority which fails to make its
  1802
  restaurant pay over a period of three years, after an initial two years starting, simply loses the powers under this Bill to carry on any restaurant any further. That is a very drastic provision indeed. [HON. MEMBERS:"' Provided that.'"] I am just coming to that. Under certain circumstances the Minister of Food of the day can reprieve that local authority by giving it another chance to put its restaurant on a sound financial footing.
  Mr. Gallacher: May I ask a question on Clause 1? The British Restaurants are not licensed. Is it proposed to encourage the licensing of these premises?
  Mr. Strachey: I am going through the Bill. I am not taking the Clauses in the order in which they appear in the Bill, but in the order of my arguments. I am coming back to Clause 1.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: The Minister used the expression "under certain circumstances." Could he suggest what sort of circumstances he would consider?
  Mr. Strachey: If the hon. Member looks at the Clause he will see that the circumstances are set out. For example:
  "if the Minister of Food considers that a civic restaurant authority whose account shows such a deficit as aforesaid will, within a reasonable period, be able to defray their expenditure under this Act out of their income.…"
  That is the type of provision set out quite clearly in the Bill. In general, turning back to Clause 1 of the Bill, the House will see that the Bill provides that the proposed civic restaurants shall have authority to provide the range of services which British Restaurants provide today. They will be able to provide a cafeteria service in the restaurant if they so desire; to provide meals for factories, as many of these restaurants have done in the past; to provide meals for persons who wish to take them home with them, and to provide meals for communal centres. I now come to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). He raised a point dealt with in Clause 1 (4), namely, the licensing of these authorities. We gave this matter very careful attention, and after that consideration we came to the conclusion—it is unquestionably a controversial matter —that the best thing to do was to leave

  1803
  the existing law in this matter completely unchanged. The effect of that is simply to apply, in this respect, the well-known principle of local option. Under this Bill any local authority which so wishes will be able to apply for a licence to sell alcoholic liquor in its restaurant.
  Mr. Gallacher: It will have to apply to itself.
  Mr. Strachey: No. It will apply to the licensing authority. The effect of that is simply to apply—and I do ask my hon. Friends on this side of the House to remember this—the principle of local option, for which many temperance reformers in this House and elsewhere have pressed very hard in the past.
  Mr. Gallacher: Is not it the case that, in Scotland, the licensing authority is the local authority?
  Mr. Scollan: It is the magistrate, not the local authority.
  Mr. Strachey: It is quite true that in this Clause there is a difference between England, Scotland and Wales. It is a most complex matter, and I think that is a point which we had better work out in Committee, rather than today.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: Are these restaurants to have a licence to sell liquor, not only for consumption on the premises but also to be taken out?
  Mr. Strachey: That, again, is a question for the local authority concerned. It is a question of local option for each authority.
  Mr. Maclay: In view of what the Minister himself has just said about the difference between Scotland and England, will he give very serious consideration to the question of having a separate Scottish Bill?
  Mr. Strachey: I am willing to consider anything, but I do not believe any need for that has been shown. I do ask my hon. Friends on this side of the House and hon. Members generally to think carefully over this question of whether it would be right to stop such local authorities as may desire to apply for licences, from applying for them. No one is attempting to compel the local authorities to apply for a licence. We are simply
  1804
  giving local authorities the power to do so. The effect of that is to give the local government electors in each area the power, by their votes, to ask their local authority to apply or not to apply for a licence, precisely as they wish. If the local authority has strong temperance views, or if the local government electors have, then, of course, they will not apply for such a licence. But I do not think for one moment that they should wish to dictate to the local government electors in other parts of the country, who may have totally different views. So I do not see that one can do anything else than leave this to the local option of the various communities of the country.
  One final word on that. If might be held, of course—it would be held very sincerely and strongly by certain individuals—that no caterer should have the right to apply for a licence to sell alcoholic liquor; but unless we stopped commercial caterers applying for licences, it would be definite discrimination against public caterers, as compared with private caterers in the rest of the industry, if we picked out local authority caterers and said, "You, and you alone, will not be allowed to apply for a licence if you wish to do so." In general, therefore, what we have attempted to do in this Bill is to put the local authorities in exactly the same position as other caterers; to give them no advantages and to place them at no disadvantage in relation to private enterprise caterers. We shall have a fair field, and no favour, and let the best man win. [Interruption.'] I can only conclude from the sounds I hear opposite, that hon. Members take a gloomy view of the prospects in this field. The Bill is essentially a permissive one. No local authority should establish a restaurant, still less apply for a licence, if it does not wish to do so.
  I now come to the specific objections which have been raised by caterers to this matter. Their remedy, I put it to them, is a very simple one. It is not to attempt to persuade this House to reject a permissive, enabling Bill of this sort. Their remedy is a much more simple and direct one—to persuade their local authority, in their own town or county, not to operate the provisions of this Bill. They are, of course, perfectly able to do so, if they wish to do so. I see that they have put down as one of

  1805
  their demands, that no municipal restaurant is to be established unless the ratepayers have been consulted, and have expressed a desire for it. But the ratepayers are consulted once a year on this and on every other subject. That is the occasion on which caterers—
  Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: Does the Minister not realise that it is not only the ratepayers who vote in the local elections, but that almost everybody has a vote in the local elections, and that the ratepayers can be swamped?
  Mr. Strachey: I see. I confess I had not understood the true inwardness of the caterers' proposals. If that is what lies behind them, I confess that I find them less democratic than I had supposed. But the municipal electorate is consulted annually, and it is to that tribunal, I suggest, that the caterers, and all other citizens, must go when they wish to have matters decided which are essentially of local interest, as this is—whether, in a particular area, a restaurant is to be established or not. The next point is that, whatever caterers may think about this Measure, there is no doubt whatever about what the local authorities think. The genesis of this Measure is that the Ministry of Food was approached on 12th July, 1945, by the Association of Municipal Corporations; and I would ask the House to remember that in those days, the municipal corporations were much more in Conservative hands than they are today.
  Sir W. Darling: That is the English association, of course?
  Mr. Strachey: These municipal corporations, which, as I say, represented the views of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, in a much higher degree than they do today, strongly pressed the Ministry of Food to produce a Measure precisely with this object.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: Was that for wartime or peacetime?
  Mr. Strachey: It was for peacetime purposes—permanent purposes—that an enabling Bill of this sort should be produced. I am glad the hon. and gallant Gentleman has brought that point out. It seemed to us that these municipal authorities, irrespective of their
  1806
  political complexion, showed a much more realistic knowledge and understanding of the needs of the people than those Members of the House who see fit to oppose this Measure today. Taking the story a little further, there was a meeting at the Ministry of Food on 19th February this year. There were represented the London County Council, the County Council's Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations, the Metropolitan Boroughs' Standing Joint Committee, the Urban District Councils' Association, and the Rural District Councils' Association. A similar meeting was held on 6th March in Edinburgh, where the Associations of Scottish local authorities met—
  Sir W. Darling: It is the Convention of Royal Burghs which represents Scottish local authorities, as the Secretary of State for Scotland will tell the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Strachey: I am informed that the association which my officials met on 6th March in Edinburgh was an association of Scottish local authorities, but I bow to the hon. Gentleman's superior knowledge of its proper title. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland tells me there is more than one body concerned.
  Sir W. Darling: There is no such body as the right hon. Gentleman has named, as the Secretary of State will inform him.
  Mr. Strachey: I could not say about that. The Measure which is before the House today is precisely the result of those consultations with local authorities all over the British Isles. Those authorities are demanding a Measure of this sort, and the Bill is not, therefore, something which this Government, or any other Government are imposing on local authorities—they could not do so in any case—or even offering them unasked. It is something which has been produced at the urgent, and somewhat insistent, demand of the local authorities themselves.
  One word more as to the definition of "local authorities" under this Bill. If hon. Members turn back to Clause 1, they will see that the local authorities empowered under this Bill are, for England and Wales, the county boroughs, the London County Council, and "county

  1807
  districts. "That phrase may not have been clear—it was not, at first reading, to me—to every hon. Member of the House; but a" county district "signifies a non-county borough, an urban district or a rural district council. So that all those local authorities are covered.
  Mr. Scholefield Allen: Would the right hon. Gentleman make it quite clear that the words cover non-county boroughs, such as Crewe, and urban and rural district councils, such as that of Nantwich? Would it not simplify matters if such a definition were included in the interpretation Clause, Clause 4 (3)?
  Mr. Piratin: Perhaps the Minister will also deal with this question at the same time: In view of the definition which he has referred to, why is there any need for Subsection (2), on the subject of the delegation of powers? As every authority, apart from the parish councils, has the powers, why the possibility of delegation?
  Mr. Strachey: On the first question, we are advised that no such definition is needed legally, as this is a perfectly well-understood legal term, but if there is any doubt I am more than willing to consider the point. As to the second point, not all local authorities are empowered under this Bill, and therefore the provision in Subsection (2) for delegation is necessary. For example, in England and Wales the county councils are not empowered, except in the case of the L.C.C., neither are the metropolitan boroughs, for that matter. Several types of local authority are not empowered as civic restaurant authorities, but those authorities which are so empowered are given the right to delegate them, if they so wish, to the non-empowered authorities. That is the meaning of Subsection (2), and the reason why it is necessary, although, I agree, that it is puzzling at first sight.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: Then under Subsection (2) the authority which has power to carry on civic restaurants may not do so itself but may delegate its power to another authority which has not the power? That is to say, one authority may be carrying on, on behalf of another?
  Mr. Strachey: Yes, that is perfectly true. I pass now to Clause 2, which gives local authorities the same powers for the
  1808
  acquisition of land as they are given for other activities, for housing schemes for example. Although it is somewhat obscure at first reading, Subsection (2) of that Clause, dealing with war works, simply means that in any such acquisition, the price of war works on the land is not taken into consideration. The only remaining Clause of the Bill with which I have not dealt is Clause 4, which gives the Short Title and excludes Northern Ireland from the operation of the Bill, because, of course, the Northern Ireland Parliament legislates for itself in such matters as this.
  I would only say, in conclusion, that I, personally, feel great enthusiasm for this small Measure. I believe that its primary purpose of carrying on the work which has been done by British Restaurants ought to commend it to the whole House. I say quite frankly, however, that it has a wider purpose. It embodies, I believe, the principle that the peoples of our great cities, and for that matter of our smaller communities also, have the right to provide themselves, if they so wish, for their economic and social needs by communal enterprise. I believe that we have lagged behind considerably in that respect in this country. I was very much impressed on a recent visit to Copenhagen, the capital of Denmark, when I visited a park in the centre of that city. I do not know how many hon. Members know it, I expect some do. It is called Tivoli Gardens, and there, under municipal enterprise, is a wonderful series of public entertainments, orchestras and catering establishments. Some of them, I believe, are run by private enterprise, within the gardens which are a municipal enterprise, and such mixed enterprises may well grow up under the provisions of this Measure. There they provide for the people of Copenhagen something very much better, I say it to our shame, than most people receive, or have the opportunity of receiving, in this country.
  I believe that not only in our industrial cities but also in our pleasure resorts, this Bill will enable great and attractive enterprises to be produced, and I do not believe for one moment that the private enterprises of those areas, even the private catering enterprises, will be injured by this Bill. On the contrary, I think they will find, perhaps to their own surprise, that the actual amount of business which

  1809
  this type of development will bring to their city will be a very great benefit, and not an injury, to them. But I would say this quite frankly: even if it could be shown that the provisions of this Bill would injure certain private business interests, that would be no sufficient reason for its rejection. I think we should be forthright in saying that the people's interest, and the people's right to provide for their social and economic means in this way, if they so wish, must prevail over any private business interests whatsoever. That was why this Government came to power, and so long as the electors of this country give us their suffrages, the public interests will prevail over the interests of private business. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Mr. Jennings: In view of this Bill, is the Minister going to grant catering licences to all of my constituents to whom he has hitherto refused them? He has not dealt with the ambiguous form of words in the first Clause, and told us what is meant by "such activities incidental or ancillary to the activities aforesaid."
  Mr. Strachey: The issue of catering licences will not be affected one way or the other by this Bill. The hon. Member had better make up his mind on that. As to his second question, I am afraid I must give him equally cold comfort; it is perfectly true that these provisions in the Bill—and as a matter of fact I said so as clearly as I could—provide for all those activities, of which I gave a list, which British Restaurants are already carrying on.
  4.38 p.m.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: I beg to move, to leave out from "That", to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which authorises local authorites to continue, develop and expand a service started to meet wartime need, irrespective of whether that need now persists or can be met from other sources, which gives powers of compulsory land purchase that could be used to purchase privately-owned catering establishments and which permits of the subsidising out of rates, for a minimum period of five year, restaurants unable to show a trading profit, thus competing unfairly with other ratepaying establishments."
  The right hon. Gentleman started off by giving an account of the origins of British Restaurants under the administra-
  1810
  tion of his predecessor, Lord Woolton. We all remember the conditions of need which caused these experiments to be made. The right hon. Gentleman, like many of us, worked in London and other towns during the blitz. We realise not only that there was need, as he said, for hot meals to be provided as a part of the A.R.P. services but that, in those areas fortunate enough to escape the blitz —and let it be remembered that it was not only in the blitzed areas that British Restaurants were opened—British Restaurants were started very often to meet the specific needs of mothers and wives who, for patriotic reasons, went into factories and found that they had not time to do their own cooking at home for themselves, and still less for their husbands. Those restaurants, therefore, performed an absolutely vital function in the successful conduct of the war.
  The very fact, however, that the total number of British Restaurants has diminished, as the right hon. Gentleman told us, shows that there has already been a change in the conditions from which they originated, and one would hope that before too long, despite the results of the present Government's administration, those circumstances might change still further. The dilemma about which the Tight hon. Gentleman twitted us, and on the horns of which he thought we should be impaled, does not in fact exist, because as far as we on these benches are concerned, and I believe as far as all reasonable people, including members of the Hotel and Catering Associations, are concerned, we should all agree that where the need continues for such restaurants, or where the need may at some future time be established, we should have no objection at all, either to the continuance of these restaurants, or to the starting of new ones. But that is not what this Bill does. The right hon. Gentleman said early in his speech that the Bill was only giving power to continue existing services. But then, as he claimed towards the end of his speech, the Bill goes infinitely further than that. It enables, and is clearly intended to enable, any local authority not only to continue an existing British Restaurant or a series of British Restaurants, but to start new ones, irrespective of whether or not any need for that restaurant exists, or has been shown to exist, by a private inquiry.

  1811
  The right hon. Gentleman spoke of his visit to Denmark and to the Tivoli Gardens in Copenhagen. There are plenty of places in this country which provide, I do not say identical, but very similar, types of entertainment, subject of course to the limitations imposed by public opinion about Sunday observance, and local option. Local authorities provide these amenities as a result of local Bills. Inquiries are held and the authorities have to make out their case before a Committee of this House, where any objections on the part of ratepayers or any other organised body can be heard and weighed. It is only after authorities have run the gamut of Private Bill procedure, that they acquire—if they do acquire—the powers for which they seek. No one on this side of the House objects to a continuance of that state of affairs, or to local authorities obtaining powers in that way, but that again is not what the Bill does. This Bill enables any local authority, without any inquiry, and without giving any opportunity for any public hearing of objections, to set up one of these restaurants. Far from accusing, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested we should accuse, local authorities of being hopelessly inefficient, we know that many of them are extremely efficient, and most of us regret the extent of the present tendency towards taking away their powers, irrespective of whether or not they are efficient.
  We have heard from the Lord President of the Council that one of the tests of nationalisation—and by inference, muni-cipalisation—is whether it is conducted efficiently or not. I do not accept the view that local authorities are necessarily inefficient, but we say that when they want to introduce a scheme like this, which is a brand new experiment, they ought at least to be required to show that there is a reasonable probability of their conducting the service efficiently. Furthermore, we believe that before they are allowed to do it, there should be some form of inquiry to show that a need exists. The right hon. Gentleman talked very gaily and skated over the provisions in the Bill dealing with the compulsory acquisition of land.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what form of inquiry he is suggesting?
  Mr. Hudson: I am not His Majesty's Minister of Food. It is not my job to provide alternatives, but to criticise any shortcomings in the proposals put forward by the Government.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: The right hon. Gentleman has put forward a counter-suggestion; all I am asking him to do is to make sense of it.
  Mr. Hudson: There are plenty of precedents, even in Bills brought in by the present Government, for holding inquiries, although some of the people concerned— as in the case of the new towns, for instance—do not think much of them. At any rate, even that provides some form of safeguard. The right hon. Gentleman as I say skated over the powers for compulsory acquisition of land. Put, as he put it, it sounds a fairly innocuous and reasonable provision, but what he did not tell the House was that under the guise of the very simple language in the Bill, it will be quite possible for a local authority to acquire compulsorily an existing restaurant, or an existing hotel, and then proceed to run it in competition with other private enterprises. The right hon. Gentleman defended his Bill on the ground that all he wanted was a fair field and no favour. I think that we would all agree with that. The trouble about the Bill is that it does not provide for a fair field and no favour. On the contrary it leaves a local authority open to exercise every sort and kind of preference and favouritism on its own behalf, and against any private enterprise.
  I believe that the catering trade of this country if given a reasonable chance, and provided with the necessary facilities in the shape of kitchen equipment, linen, plates, cups and saucers and so on, in the great majority of cases could provide meals as cheap and as nourishing as those provided in any of the existing British Restaurants. They have never been given a fair chance during the last five years, and they are suffering inevitably today from the results of the war. In many cases they have been exceptionally hard hit. In Coventry and Southampton, for example, establishments have been completely destroyed, and in other cases there is need for entire rehabilitation. They are faced with shortages of all kinds of equipment. But the British Restaurants do not suffer under these disabilities. The British Restaurants have always been given priority for the acquisition of all the equip-

  1813
  ment they require, and that is going to continue. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent it, or ensure that the private caterer will get an equal chance. No one, therefore, can describe these provisions as giving a fair field and no favour.
  The right hon. Gentleman in his attempt to prove how efficient local authorities were, and how they had run their restaurants on sound business lines, said that 361 out of 419 had taken £89,300,000 in gross receipts, and had made, on that figure, £33,000 profit. But he did not define what that profit was, and we should be very interested to know how those local authorities arrived at those figures. Did they include anything for overheads, anything for a proper rent of the premises which they put at the disposal of the British Restaurants; did they provide for rates and taxes as a private caterer would have to do? The right hon. Gentleman said that £50,000 had been allowed for amortisation but he was careful, in answer to one of my hon. Friends, to say that he did not know what was the total capital involved. He is probably wise not to acquaint himself with that figure. The sum of £50,000, in face of that total capital sum, might have appeared much smaller than it does when merely stated as a figure on its own. There is nothing in the Bill at present which would ensure that local authorities should take into account all those expenses which the ordinary private individual, the ordinary catering establishment has to take into account if it is to continue business at all. Unless the local authority does take considerations of that sort into account, how can the right hon. Gentleman say that all he is asking is that local authorities should be allowed to conduct these restaurants on the basis of a fair field and no favour? It is very interesting to see that the right hon. Gentleman has apparently abandoned the criterion which was laid down by his predecessor, Sir Ben Smith. In answering a Question about British Restaurants in this House on 19th December last year Sir Ben Smith then said that, in the view of His Majesty's Government:
  "…each one will have to stand on its own economic footing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December. 1945; Vol 417, c. 1330.]
  If my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) were here, I would
  1814
  apologise for the English of that statement. But there is no doubt that it is fairly clear what Sir Ben Smith meant. He said, clearly, that in the opinion of His Majesty's Government each such restaurant should stand on its own economic footing, and he made no sort of qualification whatever that it was only to be an economic footing so far as the Exchequer were concerned. There is nothing in this Bill about that, nor, indeed, is there anything in the right hon. Gentleman's carefully selected statement that each restaurant belonging to each of the 369 local authorities stood on its own economic footing.
  We should have very much less objection to this Bill—and every reasonable person would have much less objection— if it laid down, or the right hon. Gentleman was willing to include it later, on the Committee stage, that in specifying the accounts to be kept by local authorities, the restaurants should be self-supporting, not only vis-à-vis the Exchequer but also vis-à-vis the rates, and that in those accounts they should include reasonable sums for rates, taxes, overheads, and, above all, rent. To quote a case by way of illustration, I understand that the city of Leeds wants to reopen a civic restaurant in the crypt of the town hall. In deciding whether or not the Leeds civic restaurant makes a profit, will the right hon. Gentleman have regard to the rent they have to pay for the crypt of the town hall? Clearly, the value of that town hall, if it was put up for public tender, open to caterers, would be a very substantial sum. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that a private caterer would be willing to pay £2,000 per annum in order to be able to start a restaurant in the crypt of that town hall. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to insist—and this is a serious matter, which is vital to us—that in the accounts of the Leeds civic restaurant, the corporation should charge themselves a rent such as they could get for the hall if it were put out to public tender?
  Mr. Strachey: If the right hon. Gentleman wants me to speak now—
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: On principle.
  Mr. Strachey: On principle, we shall, as I said in my speech, require that the accounts kept by the civic restaurant authority in question, are in such a form

  1815
  as to satisfy the Ministry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That may be an answer which Members opposite do not like; I daresay that many of my answers will not please them but, nevertheless, we shall require the authorities, in a fair and equitable way, to make ends meet. I am not willing, at this stage, to go further than that.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: That gives the right hon. Gentleman's case away entirely. It is clear from what he has just said, that his earlier description of this Bill, as merely to require a fair field and no favour, does not correspond with what he intends to do. We believe that if any local authority sets up a restaurant, they should receive no concessions at all in the way of rents or rates, as compared to what a private caterer will have to pay. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Otherwise it vitiates the argument which the right hon. Gentleman was using earlier in defending the Bill, when he said that it would provide something that the private caterer could not provide. What we want to do is to prevent local authorities from producing accounts, and saying that they have made a profit when they have not taken into account the proper expenses. Most of us know, from our experience of local authorities, the ease with which this sort of thing can be, and is, in fact, concealed. Therefore, we hope that the right hon. Gentleman will, in Committee, provide that these accounts should be properly presented.
  Finally, we believe that these local restaurants should be limited to the original conception of British Restaurants, namely, the provision of cheap nourishing meals for workers, which would not otherwise be available. The right hon. Gentleman, in describing one of the Clauses of the Bill, said he was anxious to enable civic restaurants to continue the service that the British Restaurants of today can provide. Again we should have less objection if the Bill carried out only what the right hon. Gentleman said it did. But it goes infinitely further. It enables local authorities to provide all sorts of ancillary services far beyond those which British Restaurants provide today. I am also concerned, as I am sure many hon. Members on the other side must be, by the proposal that a civic restaurant authority may also provide for the sale
  1816
  of alcoholic liquor. That is something quite new. I think that the right hon. Gentleman himself will admit that. So far as I know, no British Restaurant today sells alcoholic liquor. One of the defences put. forward for the British Restaurants, which I have often heard made by hon. Members opposite, is that they provide a place where mothers can take their children. That is not going to be possible, if they sell alcoholic liquor.
  Mr. Montague: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that a mother cannot take her children to a West End hotel?
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: One cannot go to a West End hotel to buy a bottle of liquor to take away.
  Mr. Montague: That is not proposed.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: I am referring to what the right hon. Gentleman said he wanted to do. In any case, the right hon. Gentleman said that this was a case for local option. Again, the right hon. Gentleman did not accurately describe what the Bill proposes. If an ordinary caterer, or an ordinary publican wants a licence he has to go before a bench. I do not know what the law is in Scotland, but I am told that, there, he has to go before all the magistrates. At any rate, he has to go before a bench, and, therefore, he is subject to every sort of inquiry, and other people can oppose his application. Taking it by and large, the benches are, on the question of the publican getting his licence or being refused, fair and unbiased. If this Bill passes in its present form, and a local authority wants a licence for a civic restaurant to sell drink, they will be applying, in the vast majority of cases, to members of their own council sitting on the bench. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Of course they will, and in the case of Scotland, they will be applying to the whole of the council.
  Mr. S. O. Davies: There are far more persons who are magistrates than there are members of the town council. In some places more than three-quarters of the magistrates are not members of the local councils at all.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: In any case, the local authority will' in fact, in a great number of cases, be applying not to an impartial bench, but to a bench containing members of its own authority. For those

  1817
  reasons, as well as for the other reasons which I have stated, we object to this particular Clause.
  Mr. Perrins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a member of a town council would be debarred from sitting as a member of a licensing authority in respect of an application in which he was personally interested?
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: There is a further point about applying for a catering licence. We have evidence that an ordinary person applying for a catering licence has to apply at present to a committee set up by the Ministry of Food. Sometimes an application has been turned down on the ground that there was already a British Restaurant. Under this Bill the town council will be applying to a body which, in many cases, is not entirely impartial. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that. A town clerk is often the chairman of the committee which decides whether or not a catering licence is to be granted—[An HON. MEMBER: "Never."]—and we say that this Bill, in all these circumstances, does not conform with the picture which the right hon. Gentleman painted for us. My final point, so far as the liquor trade is concerned, is this. I am informed that this is the first occasion in our history in which a Ministry of Food has been set up as an authority on the question of drink. Powers and duties are, by this Bill, being conferred on the Ministry of Food, and this is the first time, I understand, in this country that this has been done. Hitherto, the Home Office have always been responsible for matters dealing with the granting of licences.
  To sum up our objections to the Bill. If it were confined to enabling local authorities to set up and run these British Restaurants in cases where there was a definite need, we should have no objection to the Bill. But we do object to it on the ground that it is a purely enabling Bill, with no effective safeguards at all. We believe that if this Bill is given a Second Reading that, when it comes to the Committee stage, safeguards should be inserted with regard to the form of accounts, and to cover the other points which I have mentioned. If the right hon. Gentleman will accept Amendments to the Bill in Committee so that it will carry out the purpose which he prescribed,
  1818
  namely, to give local authorities the opportunity of starting themselves, with a fair field and no favour, a great number of our objections will be removed. But as the Bill stands, without any safeguards, it is open to objection, and on those grounds I move the Amendment.
  5.10 p.m.
  Mr. James Hudson: I think the House will not complain if, on this occasion, I take a short time to refer to the drink question, which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food, and a great many others, must now bear the responsibility for having introduced as a first-class issue in the House. I am glad that is so. I wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend on having assisted me and my hon. Friends in getting some attention paid to this very important issue. I want at the outset to say, as one who is keenly concerned with what is usually called temperance reform, that this Bill is well worthy of the support of genuine temperance reformers. I shall criticise some of its details, both today and in Committee, but I do not wish the point to be missed that it is part of the outlook of those who are concerned to bring about a reduction in the consumption of drink in this country that there should be provided, in increasing numbers, alternative places where people may get food and refreshment in healthy conditions, and their needs may be met without there being an attempt by powerful interests to filch from them the great amount of money that is now filched from them in the form of expenditure on drink. A good scheme of British Restaurants, or civic restaurants, as they are now to be, is an essential part of the process by which I and my hon. Friends want to see the good work carried on.
  It may be that some of the British Restaurants that have been developed during the war do compete with private traders in the provision of restaurants, teashops, and so on. That is inevitable. A great number of industrial canteens also compete with private traders. In 1945, there were 11,000 or 12,000 of those canteens providing hot meals for the people, and they were in addition to the 1,000 British Restaurants to which the Minister has referred. No hon. Member on either side of the House can maintain, in face of the tremendous needs of the workers, in peace as in war, that those needs should

  1819
  be neglected. The necessity for hot meals, for a place where those meals may be taken reasonably and in proper surroundings, a place at least as good as the homes of the people—and when one remembers the bad homes, a good deal better than their homes—where meals can be taken in proper conditions, is a matter for serious consideration by all those who want to see social improvement of the people. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend and the Government that at the time when there was some chance of the British Restaurants fading out because there were no longer the powers to conduct them, it was the business of the Government to intervene, and I congratulate the Government on ensuring that there are full powers to see that this excellent work is carried on.
  This Bill is a first-class piece of temperance work. During the war, as a temperance advocate, and as one who was, I suppose, regarded as having some responsibility of leadership in the temperance movement, I went round the country helping the British Restaurants, insisting that their activities ought to be extended, that they should be used in the evenings as well as during the day time, that they should be available for youth, without there being any sort of temptation to drag youth back under the domination of the public house. It is because of these things that I approve of the Bill, but I must say to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food that we shall have to look again at the proposal about the licensing of British Restaurants. I wish to put some facts to the Minister, although I dare say he will be aware of them, since he quoted from an excellent report. When a census was taken in Birmingham of the people who used the British Restaurant concerning the places they had frequented, before the British Restaurant had been set up, for the purpose of securing meals, it was found that some of them had taken packed lunches to work, some of them had gone to the canteens, some had gone to private cafes, and some of them had gone home for their midday meals; but the number of people who had gone to public houses in search of drink represented only 1 per cent. of all those using the British Restaurant. Only 1 per cent of them required that sort of provision.
  1820
  I think a terrible mistake is being made by the Government in assuming that there is any real desire, even on the part of those people who drink in the evenings as a regular thing, to have this facility for drinking with their midday meal. I believe this case has been manufactured by the brewers and those who are interested. I am sorry, therefore, that the Government have yielded on this point. I do not know whether pressure has been exercised, but I know that I was never consulted about this Bill, and if I had been consulted, I would have saved my right hon. Friend from making this mistake. It is a serious flaw in what is otherwise a splendid Measure. I am hoping that in Committee we may get further consideration of this matter. I was very glad to find that, unusually, I am in agreement with my namesake the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) on this matter. I insist— and here I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague)—that in the eyes of the State, by law, it is a bad thing to introduce young people into bars where liquor is sold. The law says that one may not take children and young people into those places, and one may not serve liquor to anyone under the age of 18 years. When my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council was Home Secretary, during the war, he devised a special notice to be exhibited in all public houses saying that it was an offence for anyone to bring a young person into a bar to be supplied with liquor, or to supply a young person with liquor. It was asked that that notice should be shown in every public bar as a reminder to the public of its duty.
  Mr. Montague: Since my hon. Friend has referred to me and my point of view on this matter, may I say that I do not want to put temptation in the way of young people, or to drag young people into boozing bars? I do not want anything of the kind. I do not think it would be a bad thing if the British Restaurants were without alcoholic liquor. That is a matter for the local authorities, as, in my opinion, it should be. What I do object to is the calm assumption that is made in every part of the House that the only classes in this country who are drunken wretches are the working clases. One can have all the liquor one wants in an

  1821
  ordinary hotel in London—[An HON. MEMBER: "No, one cannot."]—and nobody says anything. I am not making a joke.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. Member is making a speech.
  Mr. J. Hudson: What I say applies to all classes.
  Mr. Montague: It is always the working class every time.
  Mr. Gallacher: We know they are the drunkards over there.
  Mr. J. Hudson: What I say applies to all classes. A person under 18 years may not go into a public bar, and may not be supplied with drink. Now under this arrangement drink may be taken on restaurant premises. Three or four different types of alcoholic beverages can be supplied under restaurant licences to persons of 16 years and over. Let us remember that great numbers of apprentices, and, indeed, school children have, used the British Restaurants. There is evidence from Birmingham of the use to which school children and students put these British Restaurants, and when we take that factor into account I think it is a retrograde step that we should be considering the possibility of licensing these places. According to my information, British Restaurants, as they are today, are not licensed to sell alcoholic liquor. I cannot see why that excellent example could not have been followed here for the general benefit of the country. Then, this Bill would have been a fine social advance without the defects now associated with it. I would ask whoever replies to this Debate to answer one question. Am I right in thinking that, as the law now stands, a town council is empowered to apply for a restaurant licence in respect of a British Restaurant? I do not know whether I am right or wrong in that, but if I am right, what was the need, from any point of view, for introducing this particular provision in the Bill?
  The last thing I have to say is that the merit of this Measure will be judged by its effect on the general happiness and contentment of the masses of the people. I believe that their contentment will be better served by concentrating on what the Minister mentioned in the earlier part of his speech, namely, supplying healthy,
  1822
  hot meals when and where they are most 'needed, and leaving out of account altogether what is looked upon with suspicion by the whole community and what is to be dealt with with extreme care, namely, alcoholic liquor. I would like before I sit down to disabuse the Minister's mind about this being a Measure of local option. I know that the principle of local option is still part of the policy of the British Labour Party. We have never gone back on the last resolution which we passed in open conference on this matter. It should be remembered, however, that local option does not leave the question to the members of a local authority. The local electors have the opportunity of voting on and deciding the issue. If the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me, I see an opportunity for an Amendment in Committee by which the people would be given the opportunity of voting on this matter before it is decided.
  5.24 p.m.
  Sir Stanley Holmes: While we all enjoyed the very earnest speech from the hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson), and while we all sympathised with the point of view which he expressed, I could not help feeling it is, rather unfortunate that he suggested that the Ministry of Food had been nobbled by the brewers, for I do not think any of us would say that that was true. I am going to vote for the Amendment proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson), because I feel that this Bill is, in the first place, unnecessary, and, in the second place, unfair. I feel that it is unnecessary, because of the Factory Canteens Order, 1942. As has been said already in this Debate, 12,000 industrial companies now have their own canteens, and I would point out that it is compulsory for any factory having more than 250 employees to have a canteen and provide hot midday meals five days a week.
  Mr. Gallacher: Is it possible in any factory, as it exists today, to have a canteen that will supply all of the workers with a hot meal five days a week?
  Sir S. Holmes: I have the privilege of being head of a company which has ten factories with 10 canteens, and every employee of ours gets a hot meal five days a week if he or she wants it.
  Mr. Perrins: What does the hon. Gentleman consider should be done with employers who do not employ the required number to make a canteen necessary?
  Sir S. Holmes: I was coming to that.
  Mr. Perrins: In the city of Birmingham we have 11,000 separate employers, each of whom does not employ a greater number than 20 employees, and they are entirely outside the Order.
  Sir S. Holmes: The hon. Member anticipated the next thing to which I was going to refer. I was going to say that the only reason, in my opinion, for continuing this system of British Restaurants would be that in the neighbourhood where there were small factories, those factories were not able to provide the hot meals that were required by their employees. However, I think it will be found that this Bill is not going to help those people in the slightest degree. I do not know the Birmingham district, but I know a district in Manchester where there are a number of small factories where the men and women have said they would like to have a canteen. This Bill will not be any good to them, because no factory canteen can be put in that neighbourhood for these people and be made to pay.
  Mr. Nally: Could we have the name of the district?
  Sir S. Holmes: It is in the district of Manchester.
  Mr. Nally: But could the hon. Gentleman give us the name of the district?
  Sir S. Holmes: It is not very important.
  Mr. Nally: Oh yes it is.
  Sir S. Holmes: It is between the town hall in Manchester, and Stretford. No canteen which could possibly pay can be put up in that district for those people. The people do not live there and, therefore, they would only require one mid-day meal each day on five days of the week, and that mid-day meal would have to be given them at a price which they could afford. No restaurant could possibly carry on without a heavy loss where it was dependent on a low price for lunches only five days a week. So, I am afraid that the idea that this particular case can be met by the Bill is quite mistaken. I hope that the Factory Canteen Order is going
  1824
  to be made permanent. I know that some of my Friends on this side of the House are great sleuths in looking up the Rules and Orders which have been passed during the war, and they are continually calling upon the House to "pray" late at night that some Orders should be annulled. They have not done so with this particular Order, and I hope they will not, because I think it is a very sound arrangement, and one which is accepted by nearly all people who are in charge of factories. As a matter of fact, I think one of the reasons why a number of factories are able to retain their present staffs and obtain new recruits is because they have the reputation of having a good canteen. As one might say, "lovely grub" makes people want to work in such factories.
  Besides considering the Bill unnecessary, for the reasons I have given, I also think it is unfair. It will not only set up civic restaurants in competition with the caterers and restaurateurs and the shopkeepers, but will also give those civic restaurants definite and unfair advantages in many respects. Clause 1, in addition to enabling a local authority to
  "…establish and carry on restaurants and otherwise provide for the supply to the public of meals and refreshments …"
  also permits them to
  "carry on such activities incidental or ancillary to the activities aforesaid as they consider necessary or expedient."
  This matter has already been referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport, but I would like to emphasise it. Under this provision the restaurants could sell cigarettes and tobacco, sweets, cakes and other confectionery, soft drinks —I was going to say "and other drinks," but I think I will leave that subject to other hon. Members since it is one which is arousing great feeling—and probably groceries and provisions. Further, there is no reason why these civic restaurants should not make arrangements for wedding receptions, public dinners and luncheons and dances.
  Mr. Medland: That is what we want them to do.
  Sir S. Holmes: It is going to be a very expensive matter to build and equip civic restaurants. It is a very expensive undertaking for the ordinary private trader to open a restaurant. I have not had anything to do with building and opening a restaurant, but I can say with regard to

  1825
  canteens that the last one which my company put up, cost us £3,000 for structural alterations to part of our own factory, and £4,000 for equipment. That involved £7,000 of capital expenditure to give some 250 meals each day for five days a week. A private man who starts a restaurant has to make that capital expenditure, and probably borrows the money at 4 or 5 per cent. The local authority will be able to lend the money free of interest to their civic restaurants, which will have that advantage over a private individual. Then, the most expensive person in a restaurant is the manager or manageress, who is also the most important person because the success of the undertaking usually depends upon his or her ability, and the remuneration has to be commensurate. There is nothing whatever in this Bill to prevent a local authority appointing a welfare officer to its permanent staff, who will then be instructed to look after the civic restaurant. The salary of such a person would be paid out of the ordinary list of salaries at the town hall, and nothing would be charged for the manager or manageress against the restaurant accounts. That is another most unfair advantage for a civic restaurant over a private individual.
  Mr. Tolley: The hon. Gentleman has a very poor opinion of local authorities.
  Sir S. Holmes: There will be many other ways in which the local authority could reduce the expenses of the civic restaurant which, in the case of a private restaurant, would have to be paid by the individual owner.
  The Bill contains nothing to say that civil restaurants shall not have a priority with regard to food supplies. This is a Measure which is being introduced by the Ministry of Food, and the present Minister of Food has not had much success in his office up to now so that he will probably not want this Bill to be a failure. As I see it, the temptation to the right hon. Gentleman will be to see that the civic restaurant receives priority with regard to food, and if it does, it will obtain yet another unfair advantage over the private caterer. The position appears to me to be that a private trader has to allow for interest on his capital expenditure and on the money which he locks up in stock. He must charge up every expense in connection with his business, and must make
  1826
  sufficient profit to be able to keep himself and his family. The civic restaurants, on the other hand, have no interest to pay, and may be able to charge against the local authority's funds many expenses which should, in fact, be charged to the restaurants themselves. The local authority with a civic restaurant can, under the Bill, make a loss without limit which will have to be paid by the ratepayers for a period of five and a half years. I venture to suggest that, this being the case, the civic restaurant, with all these unfair advantages, will be in a position to undercut not only the restaurateurs but also the retailers in the neighbourhood who are selling sweets, cakes, confectionery, and all the other things which come under the ancillary paragraph in the Bill.
  What I have said so far applies to the country as a whole. I now want to discuss the way in which this Bill will apply to seaside resorts. Seaside resorts have been difficult for the Ministry of Food to cater for, particularly in the last 12 months. Their population changes rapidly. During the winter months, it is at its lowest level; from Easter onwards, it gradually rises to its peak in July and August, and then gradually comes down again. I have five seaside resorts in my constituency and I was told that the Ministry of Food did very well last summer. Of course, there were some complaints, but, on the whole, it was felt that they had done their best to provide the food that was required. I do not know whether the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary can tell me straight away, but the question I want to ask is whether, if a civic restaurant is opened in any seaside resort, it would be allotted a supply of food and, if so, would the supply to existing establishments be reduced? If the answer is in the affirmative, and the opening of a civic restaurant in a seaside resort is to mean that the other caterers, who may have been in business there for many years, are to suffer as a result—
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): If there is a consumer need, and a local authority decides to open a civic restaurant, of course the allocation to the other licensees will not be reduced.
  Sir S. Holmes: I think there was rather an "if" in that answer.
  Mr. Piratin: Surely, the hon. Member's whole argument is an "if"? He is looking into the future. No one will say that the civic restaurants can be established in the next year or two, but the hon. Member is looking into the future and comparing it with the present.
  Dr. Summerskill: Perhaps my answer to the hon. Member was not emphatic enough. Let me therefore repeat that the allocations will not be reduced. I think the hon. Member will agree that we treat seaside resorts very fairly.
  Sir S. Holmes: I thank the hon. Lady for that reply. It is now clear that if a civic restaurant is established in a seaside resort, the amount of food supplied to existing caterers will not be reduced.
  I would like to point out—I am not sure that it is to my advantage, as representing seaside resorts, but I do so in the interests of truth—that it now appears from what the hon. Lady says, that people in seaside resorts will get more than their fair share of food in the summer. That will happen in this way: Suppose there is a town ordinarily with 20,000 inhabitants and that in August the population rises to 120,000 because there are 100,000 visitors. The food sent there is sufficient for 120,000. If a civic restaurant is opened, and gets an extra amount of food, the total amount of food will be increased, but the number of people will not increase correspondingly beyond 120,000. Therefore there will be more food in the seaside resort when a civic restaurant is opened than there would be if there were no civic restaurant.
  Dr. Summerskill: May I clear up this point? I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is so confused about this matter. He must know that catering establishments have an allocation according to the number of meals served. It will not make any difference whether a family who go to the seaside resort feed at the British Restaurant, at the local Lyons, or at any other place.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing rose—
  Hon. Members: Order.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman who had the ear of the House has given way. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) is therefore entitled to ask a question.
  Mr. Piratin: On a point of Order. May I point out that the hon. Member wishes to put a question to the Parliamentary Secretary, who herself was an inter-jectionist?
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: Is it in Order, Sir, for a Member who has not been speaking, to address a question to a Minister who also has not been speaking, since some other Member has the Floor?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Whether the hon. Member who desires to ask the question has been addressing the House or not, does not affect his right to put a question.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels rose—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If hon. Members will be so good as to leave these matters to me, I am sure we shall make progress. Let us hear the point which the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare desires to put.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I only wanted to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to explain a statement she made. She referred to these words: "where consumer need is proved." Those qualifying words seem to explain everything, but they might make nonsense of the scheme.
  Dr. Summerskill: I am assuming that a local authority is composed of fairly sensible people and that no local authority would put a British Restaurant at a place where there is no consumer need.
  Sir S. Holmes: I feel that I should acknowledge the brief rest which hon. Members have given me. I want to point out to the hon. Lady the position with regard to milk. Milk is allocated in this country so much per person. Then there is a surplus, which is allocated to exceptional cases, such as those of children, expectant and nursing mothers and invalids. If the Bill is passed, no cow in this country will give an extra gallon of milk as a result. There will be exactly the same number of gallons of milk as there would have been whether civic restaurants had been opened or not. The position will be that immediately a town opens a civic restaurant, a quantity of milk will be allocated to it, and the milk will be taken away from the pool of extra milk. In other words, it will be taken away from the milk that would otherwise go to children, expectant mothers and so on.
  Mr. George Porter: Is not the hon. Member developing an entirely erroneous thesis? The first people entitled to milk are the priority people. The hon. Member is therefore arguing upon a wrong assumption, and his argument falls to the ground.
  Sir S. Holmes: I was going to develop the point to which the hon. Member is referring, in relation to the whole of the milk of the country, and not to the priority pool. The additional amount of milk for civic restaurants will have to come out of the priority pool.
  Dr. Summerskill: May I help the hon. Member with this point?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Many of the points which are being raised are matters for the Committee stage, and can be disposed of then. As hon. Members know, in Committee a little more intervention is permissible, even on the part of both Ministers and hon. Members, than is desirable during a Second Reading Debate.
  Sir S. Holmes: I can sum up this point by saying that civic restaurants can be set up only by robbing, with the help of the Minister of Food, existing restaurants of their supplies—the hon. Lady has said that the Ministry will not do it—or by robbing children and other people of their milk.
  Mr. Gallacher: Shame. The hon. Member and his gang have been robbing the children for generations.
  Sir S. Holmes: The Factory Canteens Order proved a necessity in wartime, and should be made permanent, because it was of very great use to the people. It gave working people in the factories where they worked the mid-day meals they required. The Bill will not provide for the other people who do not come under the Order. I therefore feel that the Bill should be rejected by the House.
  5.50 p.m.
  Mrs. Wills: I congratulate the Minister upon bringing in this Bill. If there has been one thing that local authorities running British Restaurants have been anxious about for years, it has been the uncertainty as to what would happen to this service. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Harwich (Sir S. Holmes) to talk about factory canteens, but in a city like
  1830
  Birmingham 90 per cent. of our workers are employed in factories which are not catered for by the Factory Canteens Order—factories employing less than 200 persons. It is to these people that British Restaurants, or civic restaurants as we now call them, are necessary. It is important that our people should be well fed. I ask hon. Members who are standing up so strongly for private enterprise, what did private enterprise do for the workers between the wars? How many meals did they provide for the workingclass people? In the city of Birmingham there were very few. Workers had to rely on bread and cheese and a pint in the pub or a bun and a cup of tea in a coffee house. There was no such thing as a regular hot meal at a price the workers could afford.
  This is a most important Bill. We found after starting British Restaurants in Birmingham that timekeeping was very much better because the workers were able to stand up better to their jobs. The magnificent efforts made by Birmingham workers during the war could not have been made if they had not been so well fed by the restaurant- service run by the local authority. I am sorry to have to illustrate all I have to say with Birmingham, but that is the city I know most about, and what applies to the workers in Birmingham will apply to the workers in any other city which is similarly situated. We had 60 restaurants in Birmingham but we now have 59. We are serving more meals with the 59 than we served with the 60 because we have vans which take meals to the factories which were covered by the restaurant we had to give up. We had to give up that restaurant because the property had been requisitioned, and as the need of the people who wanted it back was very great the local authority gave way and allowed them to have it.
  There are many very human reasons why British Restaurants should be continued. Before the war many workers had their meals in packets on the bench where they worked. The food picked up particles of metal and dyes or whatever they were engaged on, and there was a considerable amount of ulcerated stomachs and other gastric conditions which caused much loss of time through incipient sickness and incidental absenteeism. We say definitely that the workers who have gone through the period of blitz in the

  1831
  war and who have suffered and have lived in damaged houses for years deserve better of this nation than that, and that this service ought to be continued for them. Their effort was made to win the war. Are not hon. Members opposite yet aware that a similar effort is now needed to win the peace? We must see to it that our people are capable of making the effort which is needed, and it is, therefore, important that these civic restaurants should be continued in peacetime.
  At present our civic restaurants are all in converted buildings and we have to make them pay. They were all valued by the district valuer and rents were charged, and all the accounts have been carefully kept in order to see how we stand, and we still make them pay. We gave good value for the money the people spent in those restaurants. We cannot afford to ignore the experience we gained during the war in this respect. The charges for meals were made to cover all these incidental costs, and the Ministry of Food were very careful about the charges which were made and in examining the accounts. We were compelled during the war not only to use unsuitable buildings, which made labour charges higher, but to buy short-lived utensils, the sort of utensils which would never be bought by any competing private enterprise hotel or restaurant. These utensils have practically no life and they have had to be replenished very quickly. I would illustrate this by saying that British Restaurants have one hand tied behind their backs in order to make sure that they have no excessive advantage over the private enterprise firm with which they are competing, so that private enterprise can make a better show. Even though these restrictions tied a hand behind our backs, we had deputations from private enterprise caterers who wanted to see what they could do towards tying up the fingers of the other hand so that we should be still further handicapped in the competition. In fact a very dog-in-the-manger atitude was adopted towards us in Birmingham. Private enterprise was not prepared to do the job itself and it wanted to make certain that we could not do it either.
  Eating out is becoming a habit of our people—and a pleasure in most instances —and it will continue to grow, and it will
  1832
  need to be catered for more in the future than it has been in the past. Here are some of the reasons why these restaurants should be continued. If the housewife knows that her family who go out to work and stay away from home the whole day are getting really good meals in the middle of the day, it will help to relieve her burden. It is no joke for the housewife to do her job and to clean up and get tidy in the evening and then have to start to prepare a good meal for the workers of her family as they come home because they have not been able to get one during the day. This is one of the practical ways in which hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are always saying they want to, car help the housewife.
  Dr. Summerskill: Hear, hear.
  Mrs. Wills: They can help quite easily in that way. There is also the saving in sickness and suffering of the workers and that, too, will save the housewife who, as the maid of all work, has to wait on the sick persons, has to put up with their bad temper when they are not quite so sick, and is the Chancellor of the home. The protection which a good meal gives to the worker is something which has to be enjoyed to be understood. Between the wars threequarters of our people were underfed and ill-nourished. We have taught them what a good meal means and the feeling after a good meal, and we shall not relinquish that very easily.
  Evening facilities should be provided in the British Restaurant. Why should not the working man take his wife out for a meal sometimes? Nobody but the housewife, who is cooking every day and all day, knows what it means to eat a meal without first having had to scrape the potatoes, clean the stove, and carry out all the drudgery of cooking. So I believe that these should be made places where the community can meet together to enjoy meals. Also, as has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson) they should be places where the family can go and, if liquor should be provided, local authorities will provide it in a decent way, instead of in the degrading way in which it is very often served in public houses. We believe that people should be able to get a meal without being forced into the public house.
  The community spirit which will be engendered will help local authorities in

  1833
  the government of their own locality. Talks on interesting subjects, cultural subjects, even music and singing, will help to brighten the lives of the people who patronise these community restaurants without the family feeling that one meal out will break the bank for the whole week. The reasonable prices will make them attractive to the people in the vicinity. Properly planned and placed restaurants, I believe, can be the pivot of the community in the neighbourhood units that are planned for our cities of the future. I want to commend the Government for bringing forward these plans which will give local authorities the power to go on and make their own preparations. After all, the community in a city, a town or a neighbourhood will do as the people in that city, town or neighbourhood want. It will not be held up by private interests; it will consider the interests of its citizens, because those citizens will help to make the prosperity of the town in the future.
  6.4 p.m.
  Sir Peter Macdonald: I have listened to the hon. Lady the Member for Duddeston (Mrs. Wills) with very great interest, and I must commend her speech to anybody who has the interests of the working classes at heart, and to her own constituency in particular, because Birmingham, as we all know, suffered very greatly in the last war and probably has need of a civic restaurant such as this Bill provides.
  The Minister commended this Bill to the House as a simple Measure. I do not think its implications are nearly as simple as he would have us believe. What he is doing is foisting upon the community in perpetuity a Measure which was introduced originally as a wartime emergency measure. This is not the first Measure of this kind with which the House has had to deal in this Parliament, and no doubt it will not be the last. The first question he asked himself, and which everybody on reading the Bill must ask themselves was: Is there a need for this Measure to-day? Is there need for a Measure which was introduced originally as a wartime emergency measure? I do not think there is a necessity for it in most parts of the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Sir S. Holmes) mentioned a seaside resort where, perhaps, they
  1834
  have to deal with problems that are not inflicted upon other parts of the country, such as Birmingham. Those of us who have to deal with seaside resorts have a very difficult problem in catering for foodstuffs and restaurants. We have, for instance, the regular customer who resides permanently in our community; we have the day tripper who descends upon us, generally has a meal or two and, if there are any points goods in the shops, carries them off as well. Then we have to cater for the summer visitor who comes for a holiday and expects to be provided with sufficient restaurant accommodation and meals during his holiday. Very often summer visitors expect these things without their ration books.
  The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady who assists him in his Department know well that I have been worrying them a good deal ever since they have been in office, and their predecessors as well, over the question of catering for seaside resorts. They have tried to meet us and our problems this last season, the first season since the war that we have really had an opportunity of trying out our postwar facilities, yet in spite of the efforts they have made, there is no doubt that the catering facilities we were able to provide in many of our seaside resorts this Summer fell short of what was desired and what we wanted to provide. It was a very difficult problem, and was made far more difficult by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman introduced bread rationing just before the holiday season started, which made it almost impossible for caterers in some places, certainly in my own constituency.
  Sir Robert Young: Surely, the hon. Gentleman is not conversant with his own constituency. I was in Shanklin during the Summer Recess and I found there was no difficulty about bread rationing. The restaurants put up a notice that their own people would be supplied up to a certain time, and the general public after that.
  Sir P. Macdonald: I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman had a good holiday in my constituency and did not go short of food. However, I can assure him that master bakers in the Isle of Wight stated at the outset that they did not see how they could possibly carry out bread rationing. Later, I heard from them that

  1835
  it was impossible to carry out the regulation. Therefore, I think that in the place where the hon. Gentleman spent his excellent holiday, they were not trying to carry it out at all because they found it was impossible. At any rate, that was what they told me and what I passed on to the Minister. That is the problem with which we are trying to deal. There are various types of people for whom we have to cater in seaside resorts.
  If the local authority find it in their interest to introduce civic restaurants, and this Bill becomes law, I hope that the private caterer, who has had a very hard struggle, will be considered. He has to get his licence to restart his business after the war, and has to get his premises put in order after they have been blitzed. Then he has to re-equip them, and often finds himself short of staff. He has to deal with all these problems and in addition he has to carry overhead charges, rates and taxes, lighting, and so forth, all the year round. If civic restaurants are introduced, I want them to start on a fair level. That is something that is not necessarily provided for in this Bill. Under the Bill's provisions any local authority can start a civic restaurant and run it at a loss for five years. If the right hon. Gentleman sees fit, he can give it an extension for a longer period. How pleasant it would be for private caterers if they could do the same. Supposing they were given powers of compulsory purchase, for instance, and for compulsory requisitioning of land, or property, in order to start businesses, and were given licences without being held up by local committees. All these facilities are bestowed on civic restaurants. I think private caterers would be delighted if they had such facilities, but that is not the case.
  Very often these people, especially in the defence areas and seaside resorts, started with very grave handicaps after the war. Many of them had been blitzed, and had to buy equipment again and get a staff together again. They have had a very great battle to get re-established. Now we find that a local authority with a Socialist majority can decide to set up a civic restaurant with no regard for the interests of private enterprise or fair play. They can easily start a civic restaurant under very unfair conditions, and put the private caterer out of business. That is
  1836
  where I consider this Bill is unjust. It is not only unjust and unfair, but uneconomic in most cases. The Minister has not proved to the House that it is economic. I hope that later he will give us a little more information, for he glossed over the figures in introducing the Bill when he spoke of the gross income of £89 million and £36,000 net profit. To me that sounds very ambiguous. I want to know how many restaurants made a very considerable loss, and are still being kept going at the ratepayers' expense.
  There are many other aspects on the financial side into which we want to probe and which will be dealt with, probably on the Committee stage. I see no necessity for this Bill. I support the factory canteen, and hope it will be encouraged, and kept in perpetuity to play a part in factory life, but I do not think this Bill is necessary. If private enterprise is given a fair opportunity, I do not think it necessary to have civic restaurants. The test that is put to everyone who tries to start a restaurant, to ex-Service people and others, is consumer need. That is thrown at me every time I try to put a case to the Minister. Consumer need has to be proven. Has consumer need been proved in the case of civic restaurants on the same basis as in the case of private enterprise I do not think so. These restaurants were set up as an emergency measure during the war. Regardless of whether they pay, or prove themselves economically, they will be continued, certainly for another five years, by this Government. That will be to the detriment of private traders who are struggling, and deserve to be given an opportunity of earning a living.
  The right hon. Gentleman has described this Bill as a simple Bill, but I think it is a brazen hussy of a Bill, a painted harlot of a Bill, and I do not think it is necessary on any ground. I hope that when the Amendment is put, it will be carried and the Measure will be rejected.
  6.17 p.m.
  Mr. T. J. Brooks: I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) call the Bill "a hussy," after the statements of my hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston (Mrs. Wills), who showed that it will give a great deal of joy and pleasure to the working classes of this country. In my home town we have a very good restaurant which has paid its way and has been a

  1837
  blessing and a boon to many people, not only during but since the war. I am confident that there will be a great need for civic restaurants in the future, even when rationing has ceased. I suggest that there is really no substance in the arguments for opposing this Bill on the ground that civic restaurants would be in opposition to and competition with existing restaurants and hotels. Thousands of people who use British Restaurants do not frequent hotels and expensive cafes. Civic restaurants serve a very useful purpose, and I hope the Bill will be passed, so that authority can be given to continue them. All that is needed is good managers and good staffs.
  I hope the right hon. Gentleman might consider a few questions before the Committee stage is reached. It is provided that the authorities shall include county districts and that authorities may delegate their powers under the provisions of Clause 1
  in respect of the whole of their area or any part thereof, to any other local authority."
  From that it would appear that an urban council might delegate powers to a county council, or a county council to an urban council. In any event, it would seem that for efficient working, one authority only should be directly concerned in the running of a civic restaurant in any area. Presumably, a county council would be allowed to delegate powers to the urban or rural council, where those authorities have not decided to operate p. British Restaurant. It is suggested that in the case of a county council the expenses will be special expenses under which any loss would be charged to the area in which the restaurants were operated by the county council. The alternative would be for the district councils, who have provided restaurants, probably at a profit, to contribute towards the loss of the county council which has delegated these powers to adjoining rural or urban districts.
  It is observed that the form of accounts and particulars to be included therein are to be prescribed by the Minister of Food, after consultation with the local authority associations. Can we be assured that the regulations imposed in this matter will not be onerous or restrictive since it is a service where the utmost liberty of action should be allowed to local authorities? I note that there is authority for the charging of losses to the general rate in the case of the common council of the city of
  1838
  London, but there does not appear to be any provision authorising the charging of losses to the general rate of a county district. It may be, no doubt, that when the finance regulations are drawn up, it will become clearer whether the Minister of Food proposes to take responsibility for any such losses, or whether perhaps the county district rate should bear them.
  Again, the Bill does not attempt to deal with the matter of the terms for taking over existing British Restaurants. Three alternatives are offered to local authorities in the Bill. Under all three it would appear that existing equipment would fall to be transferred to the civic restaurant authority. Consideration might well be given to this matter, since the equipment supplied for British Restaurants was not, in all cases, the most up-to-date of its kind. It would be a pity if a civic restaurant authority were handicapped from the start by having to take over equipment which was not the most economic, either from the point of view of finance or the consumption of food. Why should we have to use out-of-date equipment, when there are more up-to-date labour and fuel saving devices? I cannot find in this Bill any specific authority to raise moneys for capital expenditure by local authorities. It may be, of course, that the provisions for raising loans included in the Local Government Act, 1933, are considered adequate for that purpose. The Parliamentary Secretary may be able to tell us something about that.
  I was very glad to hear the Minister say that the Bill is sufficiently wide to allow the local authority to operate a British Restaurant, say for the benefit of young people—I do not know whether he would agree with this—opening it on Sundays and providing concerts. If a restaurant could be operated in this way, it would keep a number of young people off the streets on Sundays, and perhaps provide the means of getting in touch with hundreds of young folk who are not in touch with the churches. A talk and a song might, in time, go a long way to improve the conditions and outlook of our young people, and keep them off the streets. From that standpoint it would be a good thing. The Minister mentioned that he had visited Denmark and seen the gardens there. I do not see why our working people should not have such

  1839
  facilities available to them in places where they could spend a social evening, or go on Sunday evening after church. I believe I am definitely voicing the opinion of my own urban district council, who have a good restaurant with an excellent manager and staff—that is what we need —in hoping that the Bill will become law, and allow them to continue their good work, which is of great service to our town.
  6.25 p.m.
  Wing-Commander Roland Robinson: A little time ago the hon. Lady the Member for Duddeston (Mrs. Wills) told the House what is very true, that this is a most important Bill. I agree with her, but I would add that it is also a very vicious Bill. It is not designed, as she told the House, merely to continue the existing British Restaurants, but rather to open wide the floodgates of subsidised municipal competition against the private caterer, and the private trader also. I think the hon. Lady told us that she was all in favour of the housewife having an easier time, and being able to go out for her dinner at night, or her lunch in the middle of the day. So are we. That is not the point about which there is any controversy. The difference between us is that we believe these facilities can be provided by private enterprise.
  Mr. Gallacher: Since when has the hon. and gallant Member had that opinion?
  Wing-Commander Robinson: If the hon. Member will listen, I will develop my argument, though, if my suspicion is correct, I shall be unable to convince him.
  I listened with great interest to the Minister of Food. The only point on which I found I could agree with him was that during the war there was a necessity for the British Restaurant. Of course there was. When the country was under attack from the air, and whole centres of cities were wiped out, it was obviously impossible for private enterprise and the small local caterer to do their job. The individual caterer was bombed out and lost his resources, and perhaps storage facilities for food did not exist in that town; food had to be shifted on a large scale from one part of the country to another. That was done, and done well, and we approved of it. But conditions of war are gradually getting further and
  1840
  further away. We are returning to peace time conditions, and the Government have no right to bring this Bill before this House, without proving that there is a need for the facilities which it is proposed to offer. I do not think that any speech that has yet been made has proved that the existing caterers cannot meet the needs of the people. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary, will tell us whether there have been consultations with the catering industry? Has the Ministry of Food at any time put it up to the caterers that they are not providing the facilities required to meet the needs of the working class of this country for meals? Has she invited them to do so, and offered to provide them with the same facilities as those which will be provided for these new civic restaurants?
  Mrs. Wills: We have done that in Birmingham. We told them what was needed, and we asked for their help, but we did not get it.
  Wing-Commander Robinson: I very much doubt whether the hon. Lady was able to offer to private enterprise and caterers in Birmingham the full range of equipment and facilities which is being offered to civic restaurants by this Bill.
  Mrs. Wills: We offered to transfer it.
  Wing-Commander Robinson: If the hon. Lady made the offer, it was one which could not have been fulfilled as easily as she thinks.
  Mr. Walkden: Probably a profit could not be made out of it.
  Wing-Commander Robinson: If the Ministry is to prove its case for this Bill, it must show that facilities for feeding the workingclass people of this country are inadequate. I say that facilities exist today, that during the past few years there have been provided more millions of cheap and good meals than were ever provided before in the history of this country. The people of this country have greater purchasing power. Cheap food, as the Minister himself said, is not reserved for the few, because Government policy is to subsidise the price of food. In fact, an admission was made the other day that this was being done up to an amount equal to 3s. in the £in Income Tax. By means of rationing, an equal quantity of food is made available to all. Therefore, the Minister has to go quite a long way

  1841
  before he proves that catering facilities in this country are such that people cannot get food to which they would be entitled in the normal way.
  Nor did I hear him make any suggestion that private enterprise in the catering industry had in any way exploited the people or that prices were too high. The Minister did follow up with the old piece of prejudice telling the House that, of course, private enterprise is only interested in providing expensive meals for people in the West End and does very little to feed the workers of the country. I submit that the great majority of the thousands of meals provided in canteens, are provided efficiently and cheaply by private enterprise. I take it still further. In the town that I represent, the people earn their living by catering, not for the rich man with his Rolls Royce, but for the workers who come from all over the country. Whether it be a great private enterprise concern such as the Blackpool Tower, or any little cafe on the corner of the street, good food and facilities are provided for the working people who come back in their millions every year to enjoy those facilities once again.
  Mr. Gallagher: Jugs of tea—that is all the workers get in Blackpool.
  Wing-Commander Robinson: The workers when they visit Blackpool are offered a great variety of food and each one is catered for according to his desires. Some like tea, and others like different things. I say that we are delivering the food, and it is my belief that, given terms of equal competition, private enterprise will win hands down in nine cases out of ten.
  I put my case in this way. There has been no serious criticism of the job the industry is doing at the moment. Obviously, there is no case for nationalisation. Instead of that, the Government are offering to us cut-throat subsidised competition, which they think will weaken the private caterer and, in the end, will let in the State. The Government are asking for an awful lot. The whole resources of municipal finance are to be available for a period of some 5½ years and then, if the Minister thinks fit, in certain circumstances they can go on still further. If, some five years from now, the country still has the misfortune to have the same Minister of Food, I would
  1842
  not trust him to cut out those municipal restaurants which have been running at a loss. That is fair criticism. There could well be a change of circumstances, achieved by ruthless price-cutting in industry, by municipal enterprise, with the knowledge that the resources of private enterprise were becoming strained and that in two years they would be put out of competition so that the Government would have the field practically to themselves. It is hard to compete under those terms.
  The point has been raised already that these municipal enterprises will not bear the burdens which must be borne by private enterprise. Mention has been made about the power to requisition land. Whatever else it means, the municipal restaurant will not have to pay rent or capital values for its land and buildings, such as its competitor in private enterprise will have to pay. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will consider the point that, under this Bill, by the use of the powers of requisitioning, it is possible for a local authority to requisition any restaurant which is at present run by a private caterer, to put him out and to use his premises. There are many other ways in which local authorities can make the life of the private caterer very difficult. There is the matter of licence priorities for material, equipment and labour. Another difficulty will be the question of who is to have the liquor licence. It is well known that in any part of the country, when there is a chance of a new licence being available, there is a great queue of people who want to have it. Undoubtedly, the municipality will put itself right at the head of the list.
  Another advantage which municipal restaurants will have concerns the question of general overheads. When the accounts are produced I do not think they will be sufficiently accurate to show the general overhead position. A great deal of expense, by way of salaries and administration, can be swallowed up as part of the general overhead expenses of the town hall, and it will not be charged against the municipal catering enterprise. I think that this Bill goes much farther than merely attacking the private caterer. It is a Bill which, for the first time, gives powers to the municipalities to go right ahead in the field of private trade. That comes under the heading of "ancillary activity." It is quite clear that if a local

  1843
  authority have a catering establishment they will also enter into outside catering work. They will cater for wedding parties and receptions and there will be music and dancing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad hon. Members say, "Hear, hear," because I believe the country should know exactly what is the position and just how far the Government propose to go in the field of private catering. There are thousands of people, who voted for hon. Members opposite at the last Election, who will be voting against them at the next Election when they know the exact position.
  To take my argument a little further, I would point out that outside catering leads to outside trading. For everyone who runs a restaurant it is common form to have a counter somewhere near. This means that the local authority will go into business for the sale of sausage rolls, and pastry of all sorts, in direct competition with the small trader. As the Minister of Food is prepared to admit, we may well see these places with off-licences. I think that is a thing about which this House must be very careful. Competition will go further. A place like that cannot be run without selling cigarettes and tobacco, and that, again, is in direct competition with the man who has a little tobacco shop. I think that the Government have been leading the people astray. In August the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade went to the Conference of the National Chamber of Trade and said:
  "There is a personal human contact between the private trader and his customers which it would be very difficult to duplicate."
  He added that there was a place for the private trader and that none of his colleagues in the Government had any desire to harm the private trader. If this Bill is passed, then I say the pledge made at that meeting by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade is just about as valuable as the earlier pledge made by another junior Minister to the friendly societies.
  A further important point is that catering is wrapped up, inevitably, with the tourist industry. For a long time now, the Government have given a great deal of lip service to the development of the industry. Various Ministers have encouraged those engaged in the industry to go ahead and spend money in developing
  1844
  their catering and entertainment resources, in order to attract the foreign visitor. From time to time they have thought it necessary to give assurances. Such an assurance was given by the learned Attorney-General at the annual meeting of the Travel Association, as late as July of this year, when he said:
  "I can assure members that there is no question of the Government nationalising the tourist industry or the travel industry and no question of any fettering by the Government being established in regard to it."
  Later he said:
  "I am most anxious that the trade should develop as a perfectly independent trade but that in its development it should be given every possible support and assistance by the Government. The proposals put forward by the Catering Commission were put forward with that end, and not in order to control; not in order to fetter initiative or private enterprise and development."
  I think that here we are fettering initiative in the catering industry. How in the world do the Government expect large sums of new money to go into the catering industry when, at the same time, the people know that, at any time, they are going to have to face rate-aided competition?
  Mr. John Lewis: Is the hon. and gallant Member suggesting that foreign tourists would patronise British Restaurants? Is that his case?
  Wing-Commander Robinson: If the civic restaurants are developed in the way the Minister and hon. Members opposite said they should be developed when they were talking about the great holiday facilities in Denmark, then they will compete with everyone. I am sorry the hon. Gentleman was not here to hear his own Minister lay that down.
  Mr. Walkden: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us what objection there would be to the municipality of Blackpool taking on such a job as he mentioned in connection with Copenhagen, as compared with the Blackpool Tower Company and the enormous dividends which it has made for the last 30 years?
  Wing-Commander Robinson: Quite a lot. It is unnecessary for public money to be spent in providing these facilities where they exist today. I quoted the example to show that the needs of the people were met. However big the dividends, no one would ever suggest that

  1845
  the company was exploiting the public. People could go there and get more for their shilling than elsewhere.
  Mr. Walkden: As an old customer, I disagree with that.
  Wing-Commander Robinson: One of the other points I want to make, in order to try to get the support of hon. Members on the other side of the House, concerns the position of hon. Members of this House associated with the Co-operative movement. The co-operative societies are traders, and to some extent they are in a privileged position. Now, for the first time they are going to get some competition of which they never thought before. Are they going to say as traders, "We object to it," or on the other hand, are they going to sit back in the hope that perhaps for the co-operative society there might be some nice, juicy management contracts, or an extra outlet for the goods of the C.W.S.?
  Mr. Tiffany: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that two Co-operative Members have spoken already in support of this Bill, and that the Co-operative movement is not afraid of good competition?
  Wing-Commander Robinson: I have listened to every speech made in the House up to now, and I have not heard one hon. Member say, "I speak as a Co-operator and as a representative of a co-operative society, and I want this competition." We, on this side of the House, unlike those hon. Members who are members of cooperative societies, find no difficulty at all in judging our position. We believe that this is unfair subsidised competition against caterers, both big firms and small, especially the small man, all over the country. We believe it is unfair competition against traders. We, on this side, will honour the pledges we made, and will support the little man, be he caterer or tobacconist who backs his initiative with work and with money, believing that he is serving the country well, and we will fight for his case tooth and nail.
  6.44 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: First of all, I speak as a Co-operator, as a Labour Party member and as a trade union official representing 12,000 organised catering workers in the West End of London alone. I desire to speak in favour
  1846
  of this Bill and against the Amendment on the Order Paper in the names of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. In welcoming this Bill, I want, first of all, to try to prove, if any proof is necessary— and, quite frankly, I do not think proof is necessary—that this Measure is, in fact, long overdue as far as this country is concerned. I want, if possible, to get the support of every hon. Member of this House behind it, and I want to say, in addition to that, that, as far as the workers in the catering industry are concerned, they welcome this Bill.
  When looking through the Bill, I noticed that it gave powers to local authorities to establish British Restaurants and to maintain those that are already in existence. As the Minister quite rightly stated when he opened the Debate, it is true that, during the war period, British Restaurants and civic restaurants proved what a wonderful job was able to be done on behalf of the whole of the working class population of this country. Particularly was that true so far as the lower income groups and also the old age pensioners were concerned. I shudder to think how some of the poor old age pensioners would have existed during the war period if it had not been for the services rendered by these British Restaurants. It is right and proper that local authorities should provide all the necessities of life for the people within their respective areas, and I suggest that adequate restaurant and feeding establishments are, in fact, a necessity for the workers of this country.
  Before I conclude, I want to deal with one or two points raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Blackpool (Wing-Commander Robinson), but it has been suggested generally by all those who have spoken from the Opposition benches that, while it may have been true that civic restaurants were a necessity during the war period, when they served a very useful purpose, there is no necessity for them now. It has been suggested by the Opposition that there is no longer any need for them.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: No, it has not.
  Mr. Lewis: It may be true of those hon. Members opposite who use the Mayfair and the Ritz, but, if any right hon. or hon. Gentleman opposite tries to go to any small cafe or restaurant in and around the City, on the outskirts of the West End

  1847
  of London, or in any big city in the country, during the peak period in the lunch hour or during the workers' break time, he will find that it is almost an impossibility to obtain a meal within a reasonable time.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: The hon. Gentleman really must not misquote what we say on these Benches, and certainly not what I say. I made it clear in my speech, and it will be within the recollection of the House, that we had no objection at all to these restaurants continuing where the need could be proved, and that our objection to the Bill was that it enabled them to be started and continued whether the need was proved or not.
  Mr. Lewis: As I was trying to explain to the right hon. Gentleman, if he tried to get a meal in any ordinary, middle-class cafe or restaurant during the lunch-period, in London or in any big city, he would find it almost an impossibility, and the worker has to spend the greater part of his hour's lunch time in trying to get served because of the lack of facilities for eating out. That is a statement of fact. It is all right if one has two or three hours for lunch, and that is why I mentioned the West End hotels. I know that some hon. Gentlemen go there and take two or three hours for their lunch period. The workers in factories and in offices cannot spend all that time waiting to be served, and, therefore, there is a dire necessity for adequate facilities for eating out. The best way of providing those facilities is to give the opportunity to the local authorities to establish that which has proved itself conclusively during the war period—the civic restaurant—because it serves the best interests of the workers and middle-class people.
  Mr. Marlowe: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me?
  Mr. Lewis: I cannot give way because Mr. Deputy-Speaker tells me that there are many more speakers to follow. I have several objections to this Bill. One of them is that it does not go far enough; I would like to see it extended.
  I will now deal with some of the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member. I would like power to be given to local authorities to establish holiday camps, hotels and clubs so that the worker could have not only cheap, good and reasonable
  1848
  food during his lunch period and while he is at work, but so that he could have the opportunity to go to some of those coast resorts mentioned and get a decent holiday at a reasonable cost. At present, many workers find that they cannot afford to go to hotels and restaurants in coastal places because of the terrific charges that are made. I would like to see this Bill even further extended. I would like to see local authorities given power to increase their rights so far as British Restaurants and the setting up of holiday camps and the establishment of hotels and restaurants in holiday camps are concerned. I would also like local authorities to have power—to deal with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Tiffany) who has now left—to set up hotels which would encourage the tourist traffic.
  What is the position now? We talk about encouraging tourist traffic, but the foreigners who come here from the Continent or from America invariably say, "We go to your luxury hotels and we pay a terrific charge, but we do not get the service or the quality that we get on the Continent."
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon Member is getting rather wide and is not discussing the Bill.
  Mr. Lewis: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I understood that, on Second Reading, it was permissible to wander a bit and to mention that which was not in the Bill, but which one would like to see in the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member has wandered "a bit."
  Mr. Lewis: One hon. Member opposite said that, given a fair opportunity, private enterprise can do the job. Private enterprise has had every opportunity in the past to do the job, but, in the majority of instances, it has made a mess of it. When they talk about the unfair position in which the private caterer will be placed, hon. Members opposite seem to forget the unfair position in which local authorities were placed in running their civic restaurants during the war. They were the only catering employers of any size who were paying decent wages and providing decent conditions for their employees. In the majority of instances, catering employers were not providing

  1849
  such good conditions and wages. It was only in the British and civic restaurants that workers were able to get decent conditions. The Minister of Food made a statement to the effect that a gross profit of somewhere in the region of £89 million in one year—
  Mr. Strachey: If my hon. Friend would give me an opportunity to intervene, I would be very grateful. I misquoted the figures, and I should like to correct them, especially as the error that I made cut against my own argument. The House was surprised when I spoke of gross takings of £89 million and a profit of only £36,000, which seemed a very small amount. I am afraid that my notes were wrong. I must admit that the £89 million seemed a very strange figure. The figures of the financial statement from which I was quoting were for three months, and not for a year. They were £893,000 gross takings for three months, so that the annual figure would be, roughly, £3,200,000. Therefore, the profit represents a far larger percentage than it did on the figures I originally gave to the House. I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity to make that correction.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: Is the £36,000 for three months, or for the year?
  Mr. Strachey: For three months.
  Mr. Lewis: I am glad that the Minister has corrected the figures because I was somewhat astounded when he first mentioned them. I naturally thought that he must be giving the profits of private employers and not those of civic restaurants. When hon. Members opposite say that we should give private enterprise the chance and that they will do the job, I would point out that they never have done the job in the past. If any private employer in the catering industry had the opportunity to open a restaurant or a cafe tomorrow, wherever it may be, even if there were a workers' or a consumers' need for such an establishment, he would not open it unless he was sure of the profits coming in. I say that that is wrong, and that the place should be opened. If there is a consumers' need or if there is a factory where facilities for eating are not provided for the workpeople, there should be a proper establishment, a restaurant or a café, set up so that those workers can have a decent meal on the spot.
  1850
  Friends—[Laughter]—when I say "friends," I am under the impression that all of us are progressive enough to see the wisdom of welcoming this Bill, but, unfortunately, only those are friends who realise what a big improvement this Bill will mean in the catering facilities for the workers of this country. I would ask the Minister to consider whether it is possible to give local authorities the opportunity further to extend their activities in the sphere of catering. This is one of the most important industries in the country, and, in the weeks and months to come, it will become the most important industry. Therefore, I want to see civic restaurants springing up all over the place so that the workers may have decent meals at a reasonable cost without having their pockets picked by private enterprise
  6.59 p.m.
  Mr. Sidney Marshall: I know that the Government are bound, in the course of this Session, to bring in several Bills which are totally unnecessary. I think that this Bill is unnecessary for the following reasons. As we all know, the British Restaurants were established for a very good purpose and a very good reason. The conditions under which they were established made it necessary that they should be subsidised to a very large extent. It was right that those subsidies should have been provided, because the years during which they were needed were years of urgency and emergency. We could not look at the cost of things; we had to look at the need and at the provisions which they would supply. Therefore, there was every excuse for subsidising the British Restaurants as they were subsidised. But one cannot say that the same need exists today, or should exist in the years ahead.
  I believe this Bill is a sop to those Socialist councils who are anxious to extend their municipal trading opportunities. The Bill not only enables them to extend their trading facilities, but the on conditions in which they are to be allowed to do so are such that anyone with the slightest business experience must see that they will result in reckless expenditure. One only has to look at Clause 3 of the Bill, to see that not only can the Minister condone losses of three years, and make them up for a further period if he wishes, but he is given the power almost to raise the dead, because it is proposed that if it can be proved—how, I do not know—that

  1851
  if they are allowed to continue for some longer period they can defray their expenditure, he can allow them to carry on, in which case I imagine they may still make these losses. I, like other Members of this House, am closely connected with the running of British Restaurants, and I have known none which have been able to show a profit.
  Mr. Tolley: I could give an example of a British Restaurant which, within its first year, made a profit of £600 and is now averaging £1,000 a year.
  Mr. Marshall: There may be one or two exceptions, but usually they are not economic profits. Those people acquainted with the accounts of British Restaurants know that the charges are very often not the proper charges, but that assistance is given in unrevealed ways, thus enabling the restaurants to carry on. These businesses have been carried on in a manner which would not be followed by any private firm, and the services rendered by British Restaurants are not such as would be rendered by any private trader.
  An hon. Member referred to the lack of facilities in the cafes and restaurants in the West End. These facilities existed before the war, and the reason why they do not exist today is because people have not been allowed to trade; the opportunities have not been given back to them. There was never any complaint about the lack of these middle-class facilities before the war, and I feel sure that, given the opportunity, we shall see these restaurants supplying all the needs of the people in the towns. In this Bill, not only are the municipalities and county district authorities allowed to carry on these restaurants under most favourable conditions, but they are to be given even greater facilities than are available today. They are to be allowed to engage in ancillary trading and, as has already been pointed out, there is no limit to what may be sold in ancillary trading. Honourable Members opposite wish to see British Restaurants selling foodstuffs, tobacco and so forth, because it is part of their philosophy that all trading should be done by the authorities and not by the private trader. Why should the small man in the catering trade be prevented from carrying on his work? If there are any hon. Members opposite who are, or have been, engaged
  1852
  as small private traders, would they like to lose their businesses?
  There is another point in regard to this question of ancillary trading It is obvious that if these British Restaurants are to be allowed to sell provisions, tobacco, confectionery and so forth, all those tradesmen who have earned a living in a proper fashion, who have made a profit, and paid their rates and taxes, will loose the birthright to which they are entitled. I cannot see why this Bill is necessary, except for the reason, which may seem proper to hon. Members opposite, that such trading should be carried on exclusively by the municipalities. I do not fear the suggestion of the hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson), who thought the British Restaurants, or civic restaurants as they are to be called, would compete with the public houses or licensed restaurants. He drew a vivid picture which made one think of a civic restaurant named, perhaps, "The Summerskill Arms", where one would see "Strachey's fine old ales" for sale. I do not think for one moment that there is any fear of that. However, the Bill is totally unnecessary because in the days ahead there will be ample opportunity for the private trader to provide all that is necessary in this direction.
  I cannot help thinking that this Bill is what one might call a form of minor nationalisation. It proposes to give opportunities to municipalities to engage in trading, in the same way as the Government, who now imagine that they are the big bosses of industry. It amounts to handing down to the smaller fry, who follow their philosophy, the opportunity to engage in similar transactions, but always at the cost of the ratepayer and taxpayer. There is no reason why the sort of British Restaurant which is envisaged in the Bill should be provided. Hon. Members opposite have asked why they should not provide evening entertainment which, I suppose, includes dancing. One hon. Member actually suggested that these restaurants might go in for culture, which, I believe, included music and singing. I do not think it necessary that these amenities should be provided in restaurants at very low prices subsidised by the rates.
  The private trader must be given his opportunity. He is the man who earns the money and pays his rates and taxes,

  1853
  thus making a very considerable contribution to the revenue of this nation. If the livelihood of these men is to be taken away, what is to happen to them? I suppose hon. Members opposite want them to enter into industry and work in factories instead of being allowed to use their own initiative, endeavours and energy. I think hon. Members opposite will agree that the small trader in the days gone by has been a hard worker He has contributed much to the nation. Many a small trader starting in very humble circumstances has, by his endeavours, forged a considerable way ahead and become a well-established trader, employing many people in very happy circumstances, and making no small contribution to the revenue of the nation.
  Therefore, I hope we on this side will be able to muster a good number in the Division Lobby tonight to express our opinion of the value of this Measure. It is very essential that this pernicious form of subsidised trading should be stopped once and for all. If tonight we indicate our objection to it by going into the Division Lobby in support of this Amendment, I hope we shall be able to impress the country, if not hon. Members opposite and the Minister, that we are looking after the interests of the small trader, whereas hon. Members opposite are anxious that he should be exterminated altogether. On those grounds we shall go into the Division Lobby and indicate our displeasure at this unwanted child of the Minister of Food.
  7.10 p.m.
  Mr. McKinlay: I rise to state the position as regards Scotland. I do not propose to interfere in any way with the private quarrels and aspirations of mere English Members. If British Restaurants had been able to submit to the terms of the Ministry of Food on the number of main meals serve based on prewar usage, the British Restaurants would have been in the same happy position as all other catering establishments, many of whom did not know where to hide their profit. I know that for the purposes of applications the period used in watering places was July, August and September; I know that in the winter time they drew supplies based on their summer figures. That only applies in a minor way North of the Tweed. Let me say at the outset that I think this is rather an anaemic looking Bill. The Ministry of
  1854
  Food is like other Ministries—the longer they last the less they learn. I should be out of Order were I to draw the attention of the House to the fact that all the Civil Defence arrangements in this country were based on the perimeter of London; nothing that happened outside that imaginary line was right, never mind what conditions were North of the Tweed.
  There is a point which I wish to mention now and which I will raise again in Committee, when I hope to get an explanation from the Lord Advocate. Assuming for the moment that any local authority decides to set up civic restaurants, or to retain the existing British Restaurants, who informed the Ministry of Food that it we: the practice in Scotland for workmen to drink beer with their meals? I must have been going about blindfolded all the years of my industrial activity. Why does the workman in Scotland carry his can? I have seen them boil their cans, take their meals and go out for a drink. But in 99 cases out of 100 you will not find them going into either a pub or a licensed restaurant to take beer with their food. That is a good old English custom, though in my view a silly one. If they were as canny as the Scots, they would get drunk before they were full. The reason why beer is so popular in England is that Englishmen get full before they are drunk. I was chairman of the licensing bench in Glasgow, and I was a magistrate for four years. If an application came from the Glasgow Welfare Department—it will not, but let us assume it—would anyone suggest that I could split my identity, and act as convener of the welfare committee, who are running the restaurant, and also act in my capacity as a magistrate, without prejudice?
  Mr. Gallacher: It would be illegal.
  Mr. McKinlay: Of course it would be illegal. These provisions cannot be applied to Scotland as they are here. The licensing authorities in the county areas are appointed by the county councils, and the same difficulty will arise. I can see the liquor trade saying, "Of course you should have a licence for a restaurant." In the city I come from the corporation have a standing order to the effect that on no property or premises owned or controlled by the corporation can alcoholic liquor be sold. That standing order keeps

  1855
  the liquor trade out of the big housing developments. The liquor trade have been trying to pull that standing order to pieces, because they are losing their customers. They are now going into new areas, where the standing order will be forgotten; and the trade will support the setting up of civic restaurants with a licence in the middle of housing developments, not because they want civic restaurants but because they want to pull down the barrier of the standing order so that they may enter.
  If this Bill was framed by the Ministry of Food and thrown out as a tasty morsel for the signature of the Secretary of State for Scotland, that is all right. But if the Ministry of Food consulted the Law Officers of the Crown in Scotland, that is quite a different matter. You know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, there is a difference in the law in Scotland. During the war English judges, dealing with persons guilty of food offences, sent the offenders to gaol or fined them £500; but the generous Scottish sheriffs usually fined them two guineas and let them go out to commit the offences again. Do not let anybody be under any misapprehension about it: there is a difference. I do not believe the Socialist movement wants the business it has to conduct to be subsidised from the rates. There is only one thing to justify an activity like this: its efficiency. If it is not efficient, it should not be put on the rates. When a rate is levied on owner and occupier alike, where is the deficit? What do they do with the profit? Do they apply that to the rates? It is definitely against all the tenets of the Socialist movement to apply anything that may accrue from a municipal trading undertaking to the reduction of rates. Imagine a £100,000 surplus of the transport department in Glasgow going towards the rates. Whose rates? The railway companies' rates. The thing is absurd.
  To make this Bill apply to Scotland seems absolutely stupid and futile. It does not apply to Northern Ireland. Of course, they may all be teetotallers there. I am not speaking for England at all now. Everybody has his own way of going daft. If anybody thinks alcohol is an aid to digestion, I shall not interfere with him. I am concerned only with the position in Scotland. I, for one, will not accept any suggestion that it is only an
  1856
  enabling Measure. Never mind about the poor little private trader. If somebody wanted to put up a new Corner House in Charing Cross Road, the poor private trader would get it in the neck, and nobody would say anything about it. The tears for the small man always come when it is convenient. I am not concerned about setting up establishments in competition with small men, merely for the sake of setting up establishments.
  I give due notice that I shall want a legal explanation about how this Bill can be applied to Scotland if any local authority desires to go in for a licence. My submission is that one cannot do it, because one would be an interested party. I know that on one occasion there was a case in the court at Edinburgh against members of the Labour Party, who were told that they could not sit as licensing justices, because they had previously given an undertaking, before coming into the council, that they would not support an application for a new licence. It was argued that, if they carried out that pledge that they had given, it would be interfering with their judicial function. It is all poppycock. All they had to do was to sit quiet, say nothing, look wise, and vote against the new licence.
  Although I am speaking thus on this Bill, I am still, even after the General Election, concerned about the company in which I find myself in the Division Lobby. This is not a revolt. This is a one-man performance. I have no party organisation behind me. Perhaps, however, it will be conveyed to the Secretary of State for Scotland and to the learned Lord Advocate that the Scottish Members —and I think that, generally speaking, I am speaking on behalf of the bulk of Scottish Members—do want an explanation. I want again to protest against the suggestion that the main interest in working-class life, in either England or Scotland, is the drinking of alcoholic liquor. I have heard more nonsense about altering the hours to suit the working man than, perhaps, about anything else. There was consternation because the working men were getting into the habit of walking past the "pubs" to the civic restaurants.
  I say to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side, "Do not worry too much about this Bill." I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) does not

  1857
  look as though he were worried. There are still local authorities in England out of the grasp of the Socialist movement. I cannot for the life of me see Blackpool putting in an application for a municipal restaurant, when one can buy tripe by the yard on the shore from the private traders. I cannot even imagine Eastbourne, though they have a Socialist majority there, daring to do a thing like that. There is nothing to worry about in this Bill, I am satisfied of that. The only thing that worries me is the particular point I have raised. Amendments will be put down in Committee for the purpose of getting an explanation, or even of taking Scotland out of the Bill altogether. There is no use putting Scotland into the Bill, if it cannot be applied in Scotland. In my view, it would simplify matters, and save a great deal of time, if, between now and the Committee stage, the Minister would get the Law Officers to look at this, so that we could have some explanation.
  7.24 p.m.
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: It is very difficult, in discussing a small Bill such as this. to refrain from repeating what has been said. Here we have a Bill of two apparently innocuous pages, with glib wording; and it apparently is so innocent that it is just a question of providing cheap meals for the working classes. But I suggest that there is something very much deeper behind these two small pages here. The end of the wedge is always thin, and I suggest that this is the thin end of the wedge—that it is the first step —towards nationalisation of the catering industry. This is one way of trying it out as an experiment.
  But before I go any further I should like to say, as was said by my right hon. Friend from the Front Bench, that we, on the whole, do not oppose this Measure where its necessity can be proved. I suggest most sincerely to the Minister that that necessity must not be artificial; that necessity must not be created by the withholding of licences from private individuals, as he has done in the past. It is a very easy thing to say that necessity exists, when one knows full well many people have applied for catering licences and have been refused. I hope that the Minister will remember that, when the question of necessity arises.
  1858
  There are one or two aspects of this Bill which arouse alarm, and I do hope we shall get some assurance from the hon. Lady when she replies. There is another point about which I would ask the Minister. He quoted figures with regard to profits. Everybody, I think, has had a go at him about that, but there is this point, that these profits cover the period when a very large amount of work was done in British Restaurants by voluntary labour, and when there were practically no overheads of any sort or kind. So, really, I do not consider that that was a just example to put forward. It is only very recently that wages have ben paid to waitresses and cooks employed in British Restaurants. Practically throughout the war they were run by the W.V.S.
  Mr. Strachey: On that simple point, those were the figures of the last financial year—postwar figures.
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I see.
  Mr. Perrins: Surely the hon. and gallant Member is aware that before the British Restaurants were started there was in existence an agreement about the payment of wages, so that in the big towns, at any rate, the workers came into the industry on certain stated wages and holiday conditions?
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I was very busy doing other things, and I was not able to review all the British Restaurants. Those I saw were on the voluntary basis. I would ask the Minister: Does he consider it is equitable that the private trader, who, on the whole, I think it is agreed, bears as great a proportion of the rates as, if not a greater than, the average citizen, should be compelled to meet simultaneously the burden of this subsidised competition and that of meeting the charge on the rates to subsidise that competition? It does seem to me to be an injustice.
  Mr. Strachey rose—
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: May I just finish? I do realise that this is allowed to run for five years, but there is that period of five years in which, presumably, somebody has to pay the losses, if any.
  Mr. Strachey: I could not agree at all that there is to be subsidised competition. This phrase has been used. I have been asked to press very strongly that we shall not put up concealed subsidies. I should

  1859
  like to give the assurance that, in the accounts for which we ask in the Bill, we shall include items such as the rent of premises. It would be utterly wrong to permit such concealed subsidies. But it would be equally wrong to say that the restaurant authority must produce a profit in the first year, because conditions are quite abnormal at the present time, and I think that the provision of a breathing space is an essential one.
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Yes, the Minister will admit that, if there is a loss in the five years, it must be borne out of the rates; and the unfortunate trader is going to provide the rates and subsidise his own competition. That is extremely hard. I do not understand how the Minister reconciles this Bill with the repeated assurances that have been given in the past that British Restaurants were a wartime measure, and would not be continued into the peace. I may have formed the wrong impression, but I have seen and heard that frequently; and there was the question of the assurance given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, that private traders would not be harmed in any way. I was delighted to hear that, and remember it, and I hope the Minister remembers that statement, too, and that he will set up, during the Committee stage, various safeguards, to see that the private trader, who is, after all, the backbone of the industry in this country, is not harmed in any way.
  If he really does not mean that this is a Socialist ideological scheme and that the private trader is to be squeezed cut of business and crushed altogether, I hope that there will be safeguards to ensure that the private trade is not hurt. I, like many other hon. Members, am not happy about one definition. I should like a clearer definition of the "incidental and ancillary activities" which are allowed to the authorities operating civic restaurants. Does it really mean that they are to be encouraged to set up' a large municipal retail service dealing with the sale of groceries, sweets and tobacco? If I might have the hon. Lady's attention for a moment—is there to be set up a large municipal trading concern dealing in the sale of groceries, confectionery, tobacco and the making of bread? If so, I think it would be absolutely and entirely wrong. I will not touch on the
  1860
  subject of intoxicating liquor, but will leave that to other and more capable people than myself, but I will just ask one question in case those hon. Members who are interested in the subject fail in their efforts in Committee. Will people be allowed to consume intoxicating liquors in British restaurants without at the same time consuming food? That is a question which I hope will be pressed very hard.
  Further, I am very unhappy about the question of the acquisition of land. Will the Minister give as an assurance, or will he set up some safeguard to ensure, that in no circumstances whatever will a catering concern suddenly find its establishment requisitioned? There is nothing in the Bill to say that that kind of thing cannot be done by a ruthless or unscrupulous local authority. I consider that it is typical of the totalitarian tendencies of the Government to find Parliamentary time for a Measure of this kind which is a direct attack on the small man while at the same time refusing to find time to introduce legislation to deal with the scandalous state of affairs which has been brought to light by the Curtis Report.
  7.33 p.m
  Mr. Scholefield Allen: I welcome this Bill. Hon. Members have asked whether it is supported by the Co-operative societies, and have been asked to declare whether they adhere to Co-operative societies. I am a co-operator, I have been a co-operator, either myself or through my family, for many years. My father founded a Co-operative store that now has over 200,000 members, and as a small boy I went along. Our number was 14. I am quite sure that the great Co-operative movement is behind this, and I should be amazed if any member of this party got up and opposed it because he is a member of a co-operative society. We welcome this Bill because it gives the local authorities an opportunity to show what they can do in the way of providing catering establishments and all the amenities that go with catering. One thing which puzzles me is, What is to be covered by the words, "incidental and ancillary activities"? I hope they will be wide enough to produce if necessary an establishment owned by a municipal authority which will be the equal of the Tivoli in Copenhagen referred to by the Minister. I

  1861
  have had the pleasure of visiting the Tivoli. It is a magnificent institution, and I know of nothing in this country which equals it. One goes in there and pays a very small admission, and there is one of the finest orchestras on the Continent playing the finest music for nothing. On the other hand, you can hear jazz if you wish. Every kind of amenity is there and every kind of restaurant, at prices which vary.
  Mr. William Shepherd: If the hon and learned Member has been to the Tivoli, can he say who owns these restaurants and by whom they are run, and has he any idea of the number of restaurants?
  Mr. Allen: The Tivoli itself is owned by the Copenhagen Corporation, but within it there are private enterprise cafes. That is not against them. If we liked to open a large Tivoli in London, I am sure we should give the private enterprise gentlemen an opportunity to compete within the grounds, but what they seem to be frightened of is the healthy competition of the municipal authorities. I do not know why hon. Members should be so alarmed at this venture, because it is free to any private trader to set up his own restaurant in competition, and if our fare is better and cheaper and our premises are brighter and happier, I should be only too pleased to see that once again, as I believe, Socialist enterprise is superior to private enterprise.
  One hon. Member who spoke earlier actually had the audacity to say that this Bill prevented the private trader from setting up. Of course that is the kind of argument that is put forward and, as I said only the other day, it provides a good headline for the Tory Press, and that I believe is why some of them do it. Time after time when they have made statements like that, one picks up the "Express" or the "Mail" next day and reads: "Private traders prevented from trading in catering establishments. "Such irresponsible statements are made by back benchers or even by front benchers, who may not even be following the line of their own front bench, as we saw the other day when the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) made a speech which was entirely contradicted on several occasions by hon. Gentlemen on the back benches.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman was not here when the Parliamentary Secretary was asked whether there was any restriction on the starting of these things, and she used the expression, "First of all, if consumer need were proved, …"When I interjected to ask what that meant she said that she was relying on the commonsense of the local authority, but at the present moment the test as to whether a private trader can start a catering establishment depends entirely on proving consumer need, which is quite a different category from that in which the public authority is now to be placed.
  Mr. Allen: I appreciate that, but, as I understand it, we are not legislating merely for a war period or immediate postwar period, we are legislating for the Socialist State which we hope to set up. This is a permanent and not a temporary Measure. As has been said, it may be that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite find no difficulty in getting food in London or elsewhere, but other people, droves of people, find difficulty in getting food. I have no doubt that in many places there is ample opportunity for getting food if you have a large purse, but a minimum opportunity if your purse is small.
  I notice certain movements, Mr. Speaker, but I should like with your permission to go on for one minute longer in order to point out one thing which I think ought to be known. 'The words used in the Bill with regard to authorities are, "county district"—"the county district may set up a restaurant." That puzzled a number of hon. Members on this side of the House, and it also puzzled a number of my constituents, namely, whether a place like Crewe which is a non-county borough, or a place like Nantwich, which comes under an urban district council, will have an opportunity to establish British Restaurants. I have had an opportunity to look at the law, and I think it is quite clear that a non-county borough or a rural or urban district council can set up a British Restaurant, because under the Local Government Act, 1933,"county districts" are defined as
  "non-county boroughs, urban districts or rural districts."
  That appears in Section 1 of the Act, and so my constituents need have no fears

  1863
  in Crewe and Nantwich that British Restaurants may not be set up. Having said that, I welcome this Bill, and the opportunity to establish British Restaurants equal to those established in other parts of the world by municipal authorities.
  7.42 p.m.
  Mr. Wadsworth: I have been told by more experienced Parliamentarians than myself that these small Bills of one or two pages have to be carefully regarded, because they usually contain dynamite and often give powers to a Minister which at first in our innocence we did not think they contained. I view this Bill with very great concern, because I believe that it gives great power to the Minister, and is the first step towards the socialisation of distribution which was supposed to be part of the Labour Party's programme. When my constituents have pointed out that I have supported the Government in this Division and that Division, I have always told them that the Government are composed of a large number of Liberals who are carrying out the Limehouse speech of the late David Lloyd George, as he then was, in 1910, and that as they have brought forward this large flow of Liberal legislation, I naturally supported it.
  I find myself somewhat in a dilemma, because this Bill does quite the opposite. We understand that part of the constitution of the Labour Party is the socialisation of production, exchange and distribution, and here we have the first step towards socialisation of distribution in one particular industry. It is for that reason that I am not supporting the Government on this occasion.
  I am opposing the Bill chiefly on a question of efficiency. I believe that private enterprise, particularly in the catering industry, can produce better results than public enterprise. It is true that during the war we had some very efficient British Restaurants, but I would remind hon. Members on the other side of the House that in those days the catering business was very severely handicapped as a result of a large number of the employees entering the Forces and the difficulty of obtaining supplies, and that the only answer was that to establish British Restaurants throughout the country. I supported them during the war, and in my own town I attended the
  1864
  first lunch given in the British Restaurant, and was wholeheartedly in support of the scheme. That does not mean that in these days of peace—in spite of the fact that when one says that it always seems to be just around the corner—we should not get back to normality.
  I believe that private enterprise will serve the workers of this country more efficiently than public enterprise. In that respect I would draw attention to Clause 3, which appears to lay down that British Restaurants should be carried out on certain lines of efficiency. Many hon. Members opposite who have served upon local authorities where there has been a trading department, know full well—and I have served for many years on a public authority myself—that it is very difficult to ascertain the exact costs. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not at all."] There are all sorts of ways in which costs can be disguised or not shown. In the case of British Restaurants, as has already been mentioned, there was voluntary help, apart from items for carriage, labour and interest, which are often not shown on the balance sheet. If you have ever served on a local authority where there has been a trading department, you will know that there are all sorts of ways to disguise the real costs.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: May I ask whether you, Mr. Speaker, have served on a local authority, because I gather from the hon Member that you have?
  Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member is asking me whether I have ever served on a local authority, the answer must be in the negative.
  Mr. Wadsworth: I was suggesting that many hon. Members on the other side of the House had served on local authorities, and I am sorry if I gave any other impression.
  Mr. Austin: The hon. Member has made a serious allegation against local authorities' undertakings. Surely, after his personal experience of such undertakings, that is no tribute to the service he has rendered himself to local authorities?
  Mr. Wadsworth: That is hardly fair. The point I was wishing to emphasise is this. It has been brought out before that the duty of a member elected to a local authority is to run the services for the

  1865
  ratepayers as efficiently as possible. Many of these ratepayers are in the catering business, and they are responsible for a certain proportion of the rates. Therefore, the local authority is in direct competition with the ratepayers who are supplying part of its funds. That appears to me to be an injustice, and from that point of view I am against local authorities trading.
  Major Cecil Poole: Is the basis of the argument that local authorities ought not to engage in any form of business in which any ratepayers are also engaged? If the hon. Member pursues that, we 'cannot have local authority transport undertakings, and local authorities cannot even take part in the educational sphere because they are competing with private schools run by ratepayers.
  Mr. Wadsworth: To me, it is a question of efficiency, and in certain directions it is true. Passenger services provided by local authorities have been mentioned, and in that case I think the service has been rendered more efficiently by those authorities. But in the case of the catering business it is my view, and the opinion of my party, that it can be carried out more efficiently by private enterprise than by local authorities.
  It is unfortunate that this Bill should be introduced at this time, when the private catering trade of this country is being very severely penalised. I know from my own experience a number of small traders who have applied to me for assistance to enable them to obtain a catering licence. In every case, without exception, they have been turned down I would like to give illustrations of the sort of cases which are being turned down at the moment by the Ministry of Food, at a time when he is introducing a Bill to enable local authorities to set up catering establishments. First, there is the case of Mr. A. Barron, who put the whole of his savings into a business which, for 25 years, was a fish and chip shop with a house attached. This was at Bridlington where, during the war, few people went, and where there was no catering, except for local residents whose numbers were very few owing to evacuation With the help of a building society, he put the whole of his savings into this business He applied to the local food authority for a licence, but his application was refused. They said that he must estab-
  1866
  lish need in the locality, so he obtained hundreds of names on a petition. But he was told that that did not make any difference because, as there were fish and chip shops 500 to 600 yards away, he could not have a licence. That is a case I have taken from a whole list of cases which have come into my hands this week.
  The second case concerns a Mr. Eric Pursehouse, who also bought premises in Bridlington, which had been used as a cafe before the war. He, too, applied for a catering licence, but was refused. Having spent a lot of money on the premises, he decided to use them for another purpose, for a waxworks exhibition He appealed to the Ministry of Health for a decision as to whether he could open the premises for such an exhibition, and the Minister's representative told him he could not, because there was definite need in the locality for a café. On the strength of this, he appealed to me, and I put the case to the Minister of Food and was refused. Although there was supporting evidence from the town clerk, that man's application was turned down on the ground that there was no further need for a café. This sort of thing is absurd; it is getting us nowhere, especially when a Bill is being introduced to enable local authorities to establish catering businesses.
  The worst case of the lot is one which I have not yet presented to the Minister. It concerns a small village in East Yorkshire, in which a person wants to obtain a food licence to open a fish and chip shop, as there is not one in the village, which has 300 to 400 inhabitants. His application has been refused, although I hope that when I appeal to the Minister he will grant the licence because of the special circumstances. The reason for the refusal so far is that there is a fish and chip shop in another village, two and a half miles away. How can men working in the village, agricultural labourers, find the time to go over two miles to get the fish and chips they need? Is that the way in which rural districts are being treated?
  I believe that private enterprise, given a fair chance, a fair deal, can satisfy completely the working men of this country, and that there is no need to give all these powers to local authorities when the demand can be satisfied by private enterprise. I therefore hope that the Labour

  1867
  Party will once again go back to the support of private enterprise, instead of wandering away from the broad paths of Liberalism. If they do that then their action will make for more efficiency in this country.
  7.57 P.m.
  Mr. Somerville Hastings: I am very glad indeed that the Government have decided that one of the greatest successes of wartime should be continued into peace. I can speak from some personal experience of British Restaurants, for I have had many meals in them in London, including my Christmas dinner the Christmas before last. The hon. Member for Buckrose (Mr. Wadsworth) suggested that British Restaurants had not been characterised by their efficiency. I want to refute that statement, especially when we consider that they were started during the war, that they had difficulty in obtaining premises and equipment, that they were restricted in their activities, to a large extent, by the Government. In London, they were not allowed to obtain the type of equipment they wanted and they had to provide for cooking by both gas and electricity and also by coal, in case of a breakdown—
  Mr. Wadsworth: I did not say that they were inefficient during the war. I said that they satisfied a definite need during that time.
  Mr. Hastings: I understood the hon. Gentleman to suggest that there was some lack of efficiency, and I am sorry if I have mistaken him. I believe that the British Restaurants have been extremely successful. Another reason why they have been so valuable, which I do not think has been mentioned so far, is that they have taught people something of food values, and the value of balanced meals. In the old days, people used to think that if they had sufficient of any sort of food that was all that was necessary, but now we have learned that we must have proteins, fats, vitamins, and salts in our diet. The fact that we have acquired that knowledge has resulted in the great improvement in the health of this country during a Second World War as compared with the first. In these British Restaurants the people have had demonstrated to them the value of a regular and properly mixed diet. Nowadays, a wise woman no longer
  1868
  exists on a cup of tea and a bun, but spends her money in the British Restaurants where she gets nourishing meals.
  Objections raised on the other side of the House to this Bill have been that there is no real need for a continuance of the British Restaurants and that what need there is for them is sufficiently supplied by industrial canteens-. I dispute both those statements. Industrial canteens admittedly have been doing a great deal to provide food for the people. Where a factory is standing alone, little better could be desired than a factory canteen, but I think that there is something to be said for people not working, feeding and playing together. If we can give them a change of environment at mealtimes, and a change of society as well, it is a very good thing. One advantage of these restaurants is that all sorts of social and industrial classes are mixed. Moreover, everyone cannot use an industrial canteen; only those engaged in industry. In London, in 1943, an analysis of those who used the British Restaurants showed that 15 per cent. were over 60 years of age, and a good many of them were not engaged in industry. These British Restaurants in the past, as, I imagine, will be the case in the future, are a particular boon to old people who do not want the bother of cooking meals for themselves, and who would rather go out for their principal meal of the day.
  I suggest that the demand for this type of restaurant in the future will be greater than in the past, for the reason that people are now getting into the habit of eating together. The education authorities are proposing to develop and extend school meals. In the schools, the children are seeing the advantages of being able to have a pleasant meal and chat with their friends. The men who have come back from the war have been accustomed to taking their meals together, and the conscripts of the future will have acquired the habit of enjoying meals together. Another objection that was raised from the other side was the need for extensive building. I think that is over estimated. I believe that civic restaurants of the future should be developed in association with other civic functions. I hope that we shall have community centres and youth clubs. What could be better than a common building for all these purposes? Why not a big hall, in which the midday meal is served,

  1869
  which can be used in the evening for dances or meetings of various sorts, and why cannot there be smaller rooms in the same building used for serving snacks? I think that in the future the civic restaurant will have a very important part to play in the life of this country.
  I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister one or two further points which I think need a little elucidation. The first is the suggestion that these restaurants must pay their way within five years. What about other trading organisations? Does every big organisation that starts pay a dividend within five years? We have to remember that social habits change rather slowly in this country, and people are only beginning to see the advantages of taking meals together. I think that we are asking rather a good deal of these restaurants that they must be made to pay a divident within five years. I can conceive of a case like this: Perhaps, for four and a half years, a restaurant has just managed to keep its head above water, gradually increasing its trade, and then comes a time when a new industry arrives and fresh factories are built in the area and it is felt by the local authority that there is a great call for the development of another restaurant. That may just turn the scale. The restaurant may cease to pay, and over the five years there may be an adverse balance, and the whole enterprise may have to close down.
  Then on the question of equipment: When these restaurants started, heavy equipment, such as stoves, was obtained from the Ministry of Works pool. It was purchased on the understanding that the capital cost would be repaid in eight and one-third years—I believe I am giving the period correctly. In some cases, these restaurants have already been running for six years, so that 'three-quarters of the cost has been paid. Would it not be right for the Minister to do the generous thing, and say to the local authorities, "The people of your area have been paying steadily for the past six years; we will let them start with a clean sheet and take and make use of all the equipment which they now have"? In London, the cost of equipping these restaurants— and, of course, they are paying rent and very often pretty heavy rent—and the cost of adaptations has been somewhere in the region of £140,000. The profits of these restaurants in London up to March
  1870
  of this year were £130,000, so that by March last they had nearly paid the total cost of the equipment. Could not we ask the Minister if he would say to the local authorities, "You have done very well in the past. Now let there be no further trouble about equipment; keep as your own the equipment which is in your hands"?
  There is a further matter which I would like to bring before the Minister. The question of licences has been mentioned before today—and I feel very strongly about it. In my view, these restaurants have developed a very special character. They have been places in which parents could take their children, being sure that not only would they receive a good wholesome meal, but that it would be taken in the best surroundings. I am not sure if that will be the case when these restaurants have a licence.
  I hope, as has been suggested repeatedly by hon. Members, that British Restaurants will extend and develop their trade, as is, indeed, happening in London today, by supplying snacks, breakfasts, teas, and even suppers. Nowadays, people seem to be taking a good deal more than the standardised three meals a day. Certainly I do, and I expect many other hon. Members do. I would not like to say how many small meals a day I sometimes have. People are going in for snacks more than they did in the past. Is there not some danger that if these restaurants have a licence, and it is possible to get in them biscuits, bits of cake, and some beer or spirits, they will cease to be British Restaurants as we know them, and become places to which people go mainly to get drink? I am sure that is not the intention of the Government.
  There is another reason why I have strong fears on that score. I have referred already to what one might call the "five years rule" by which the restaurants must be made to pay in five years. I can conceive very well that in an area where the need for these restaurants is felt to be great, they may not have been doing very well in four years, and may become very apprehensive that in the fifth year they may show an adverse balance, and have to close down. Will there not be a very strong tendency then for the restaurants to apply for a licence and so make up, by the sale of drink in the fifth year, the adverse balance of the previous

  1871
  four years? I have often seen political clubs, with which I myself have been connected, ruined by the introduction into them of liquor.
  I hope that in the future, as in the past, the Ministry will give advice and encouragement regarding these restaurants. Considering everything, I think they have done exceedingly well, but there are many ways in which they could be improved. There is one restaurant near Baker Street where there are excellent pictures on the walls. When I lived near it, I went there partly to see the pictures. I hope also that in future British Restaurants will be better advertised than they have been in the past. There is an excellent British Restaurant, known in London as one of the Londoners' Meal Service, nearly opposite St. Pancras station. I have had several meals there, but I did not discover it until about two years ago, and then only when it was pointed out to me. I think the British Restaurants ought to advertise more than they do at present. Finally, the people who go to these restaurants are sometimes manual workers, who want a lot of food, and sometimes sedentary workers, who want much less. Could it be impressed upon the British Restaurants that food is often wasted by their giving too big helpings, and would it not be desirable to stress that, where asked for, small helpings should be served? I have mentioned these small details—and there are many more I could mention—not because I am averse to this Bill, for it is an excellent one. I wish the Bill all success, as I wish all success to the restaurants that will be developed by it.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Somerville Hastings) devoted a large part of his speech to demolishing an argument which he said had been made from this side of the House, but which had never been made from this side. He said that, as he understood it—and I would point out to him that if he did so understand it, he misunderstood it—our objection to the Bill was that there was no need for these British Restaurants. I do not think it could have been said more plainly by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-port (Mr. R. S. Hudson) that we are not putting forward the case that there is no
  1872
  need for restaurants. What we have said throughout is that where the need is shown, there should be restaurants, but that we did not want a general power to be given to enable restaurants to be set up where there is no need because the demand is already being met.
  Mr. Somerville Hastings: I took down the words of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald), who asked: Is this Bill necessary?
  Mr. Marlowe: That is perfectly consistent with what I have said. Hon. Members on this side of the House say that the Bill is not necessary, and all that is needed is a Bill to enable restaurants to be established where the need is proved. We do not want to give the general power to enable restaurants to be set up where there is no need. That completely tallies with what my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight said, that although this Bill is not necessary, some other Bill might be advantageous. The hon. Member for Barking rather begged the question when he pointed out that it was necessary to have these restaurants in order that certain amenities such as he mentioned, dance places, and so on, could be provided. Nobody disputes that those things are required, but the question is whether they should be provided by civic restaurants, or by other forms of restaurants.
  Our case is not by any means that these things should not be provided; indeed, we admit entirely the need for these facilities to be provided, but we say they could be provided by a different method. I notice only too frequently that when hon. Members on this side oppose a Measure of this sort, it is immediately assumed by hon. Members opposite that we are trying to do the workers out of something to which they are entitled, or to deprive them of some benefit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I was sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite would oblige me by endorsing that statement. It really is not so. There is, I think, no difference between hon. Members in any part of the House on the question that these facilities should be provided. The issue between us is the manner in which they should be provided We on this side believe that private enterprise is fully capable of filling the demand which undoubtedly exists. No one disputes that there is a demand. We believe it can be filled in

  1873
  a different way, and that it would be to the advantage of the community, on the whole, to meet the demand in the way we suggest.
  Almost every hon. Member opposite who has spoken has rightly paid a great tribute to the success of British Restaurants, and it is rather remarkable that hon. Members opposite are rushing to praise something that was set up by the Coalition Government under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). What would have happened if that chorus of praise had come from this side of the House, if we had said what wonderful work the Coalition Government had done in providing these facilities for the workers, the old age pensioners, and the children, and that because the Coalition Government had provided these facilities, they were good, and therefore, should be maintained? We would probably have been charged with being reactionaries of the most diehard type. I am very glad that hon. Members opposite have recognised at least one virtue in the Government which preceded theirs.
  I want now to turn to another matter which rather shocked me. In his opening statement the Minister of Food made great play with one point on which he received vociferous support from those behind him. It was when he said he was not concerned with the traders but only with the people's interest. I am giving the general effect of his statement, and his reference, of course, to traders was in regard to our efforts in support of private traders. As I say, that statement produced loud acclamation from the Government benches behind him, but are these private traders, whose interests we are here to defend, not people, too? Do they not form a large part of our community, and is it right for a Minister of the Crown to refer to a large section of the community in that way and say that the Government are not concerned with them but are only concerned with defending the people's rights? What the right hon. Gentleman means is that the Government are not concerned with the trading section of the community, and that they are only concerned with one particular section of the community. That is a startling confession from one occupying the position of Minister of Food, and it only confirms the charge which we have con-
  1874
  stantly made against this Government, namely, that they have only a sectional interest and are not generally concerned with the interests of the whole of the community. It should be noted that the right hon. Gentleman has made that confession.
  Quite frankly I am not ashamed to say that I am here to do what I can to represent the interests of the great trading community—those tradesmen who have by their independence and by their own hard work built up their businesses. I want, if I can, to defend them from that unfair competition to which they are subjected under this Bill. I do not propose going into all the details of the Bill, because that has been done so often, but my submission is that the competition is unfair because the local authority has this power to carry on for five years by subsidising its loss out of the rates, and it has the power to requisition premises which, of course, no private trader has. It has other undoubted advantages over the local trader, and with these I will deal a little more fully in a moment.
  I want for a moment to deal with my submission that there is the competition against which the average private trader cannot stand up. I suppose if a private trader tried to carry on for five years with a loss he would be driven out of business before the end of that time, but the ironical thing about this scheme is that that trader, against whom the municipal restaurant may be competing, even though he may be losing money and may be a competitor of the municipal restaurant, has to pay his rates which will help his competitor to drive him out of business. I regard that as most unfair. With regard to requisitioned premises, that is an enormous advantage to a person engaged in the trade, particularly when we can go and requisition a going concern. A municipal authority may be able to walk into a restaurant, which is a going concern, and take it over with all its equipment, thereby gaining a great advantage. I confess that I have not had much time to go into this particular part of the Bill, but perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food will deal with it in her reply. However, my impression from reading rather quickly the Clause dealing with requisitioning is that requisitioning is a speedy procedure, which really was originally intended for Government Departments acting in an emergency

  1875
  like housing. Not only has the municipal authority to get the advantage of getting requisitioned premises, but it is to get the advantage of the speedy procedure which was not intended for this kind of business at all.
  Although not actual nationalisation, this Bill is really akin to nationalisation. The Lord President of the Council has said that he who is proposing nationalisation has on him the onus of establishing his case. I entirely agree with him there, and the same principle applies to a proposal of municipalisation. I do not think that the Government have made the slightest attempt here to prove that the demand, which undoubtedly exists, cannot be met by the ordinary trading public. Unfortunately; that is a process with which we are all too familiar in this House. The Government, backed by a large majority, are relieved of the responsibility for establishing a case, because they know perfectly well that their supporters will carry the day whether the case is proved or not.
  I want now to refer to one or two other matters with regard to the advantages which are given to the municipal trader as against the private trader. Several instances were given by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckrose (Mr. Wadsworth) of constituents of his who had difficulty in obtaining catering licences. We all, of course, have experiences of that kind, but this Bill is going to accentuate that difficulty. It must inevitably be so, because if a local authority sets up a restaurant, which probably caters for several hundreds, it will absorb the equivalent consumer need of perhaps two, three or four other restaurants. It means more and more when constituents come to complain that they cannot get catering licences and we take their case up with the Ministry of Food, that the answer is going to be, "There is no consumer need.'' The reason why we will get more and more answers of that kind is because the consumer need will be taken up by the municipal restaurants.
  The next matter is that of equipment. The Bill itself gives no preferential treatment to local authorities requiring equipment, but I think that no one who knows anything about such things will have any doubt that they will get it. One
  1876
  knows only too well what prospects the individual private trader has if, when there is a shortage of equipment, a particular item becomes available and he and a local authority apply for it at the same time. I think most of us have no doubt as to who would get it. That, again, is an unfair advantage from the private trader's point of view. I think it is fax to say that the system of accounts used by local authorities is not suitable for disclosing fully their financial position so far as one undertaking of this kind may be concerned. One or two hon. Members have suggested that losses might be concealed. Although personally I am not for one moment suggesting that there would be deliberate concealment, I think it should be said that the accounting system of the local authorities is not in fact likely to disclose the true financial state of an individual undertaking such as a municipal restaurant. It is quite impossible for it to do so.
  Mr. Medland: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman develop that argument?
  Mr. Marlowe: I do not want to develop anything—it would take up too much time. The hon. Gentleman has made me lose the thread of what I was about to say. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister said that it would be open to the electors in a municipal area to turn out of power a local authority which ran a municipal restaurant. I do not think however, that that is really a strong enough safeguard. One knows perfectly well that when voting takes place in local election there are a thousand and one issues on which one is voting, and I think the right hon. Gentleman made rather a weak point in suggesting that, given all the things with which local elections are concerned, the electors would say, "We are going to turn out the municipal authority because of the way in which they are running the civic restaurant." I think that a better safeguard could be inserted in the Bill. Certainly, allowing the local authority to run a restaurant at a loss for a period of up to five years while other people are being driven out of business is giving them undue favour.
  One hon. Gentleman opposite said that we should not find any anti-Socialist local authorities running these municipal restaurants. The hon. Gentleman may be

  1877
  very surprised to know that although my own local authority is quite strongly anti-Socialist, I have nevertheless received a message from them asking me to support this Bill. Hon. Members opposite will see that I have to disappoint them. I do not support this Bill by any means, because I do not believe that this is the right field in which a municipal authority should be working. A local authority has its own proper business to attend to and the private trader has his sphere. I do not think that the municipal authority should try to drive private traders out of business and compete against them on advantageous terms. For these reasons I shall vote against the Second Reading.
  8.33 p.m.
  Mr. Montague: I welcome this Bill for a particular reason. Like the Education Act and the National Health Service Act, it is a form of distributive Socialism, and if Socialism means anything at all it means social distribution. I have listened to the arguments put forward by hon. Members opposite, and since I cannot deal with all of them I should like to reply to the argument that the whole question is whether a municipal enterprise of any kind— whether British Restaurants or civic restaurants—pays in a financial sense by the test of the balance sheet. Although it may be unpopular with hon. Members opposite, I want to submit that that is not the real test. The real test is whether an efficient service is being given, and I would object as much as anyone to a municipal restaurant being run inefficiently. It is not a question of whether the undertaking is paying in pounds, shillings and pence. If a needed service is given properly and efficiently it must pay. Does Westminster Bridge pay? Does Woolwich Ferry pay? Do roads pay? Does lighting pay? Do all the social services pay from the standpoint of the balance sheet and from the point of view of dividends—a term which has been used frequently during this Debate?
  Mr. Drayson: Is the hon. Member suggesting that if there were a toll gate across Westminster Bridge it would not pay?
  Mr. Montague: That is not my point. If we are setting up a service of a Socialist character we must remember that the only test is social service and efficiency in providing that social service. It is not true
  1878
  that private enterprise is likely to provide the kind of service that is required, quite apart from the abstract question of social distribution.
  I live in an area where it is impossible to get a decent meal unless one goes to a publichouse at specified times. I can go along the main shopping street and find so-called milk bars, which are terrible places nowadays and very different from what they were when they were started. I can go to a shop from which the stench of fat that has been cooked over and over again nearly knocks me down, and get fish and chips. I remember I used to pay 4d. for what now costs me half a crown. One is rooked right and left. There is no place to which one can go for a comfortable meal, as one wants to do after coming from the pictures or the theatre.
  Some British Restaurants are managed better than others, and some are finer than others in their general setup. I would like the Minister to take note of one question. Might it not be possible to encourage something rather less institutional in character in the management of some of these restaurants? The area where I lived before I came back to London was a good place in the country, where there was a British Restaurant. I remember going to the restaurant on one occasion for a meal. I got a fairly good meal, considering wartime restrictions. I was satisfied, although there were no tablecloths. They are unnecessary for a proletarian. Nevertheless, the place was clean and tidy and the cooking was good. The meal was quite substantial.
  Then I found facing me a poster containing the big black word "Bones." It went on to say what could be done if I salvaged my bones and got them made into various kinds of articles. Frankly, I was afraid to look at the other walls. I was sure I should find a poster there about death on the roads or venereal disease. There is a good deal of that kind of thing. There is no reason why a British Restaurant should not be run in a decent sort of way so that people could go to it in comfort and feel that they were having a meal under reasonable conditions.
  The question of licensing has been raised. I think hon. Members on this side of the House know my views on the subject. I am not an agent of the business. If we were turning British Restaurants

  1879
  into ordinary public bars for drinking for its own sake, it would be deplorable, and I should not advocate anything of the kind. I object, however, to the argument which says that alcoholic liquor on the table with a meal encourages young people, or some other people subject to temptation,' to go along the downward path. That is not true. When that type of argument is used by right hon. Gentlemen opposite I want to point out that they may often go into the smoke-room of this House for a drink. I am sure that in the hotels to which they go, as I do myself when I can and find it convenient, or in their homes, there is a decanter of wine or other drink. If such places are frequented by young people, I do not know that anything very terrible will arise.
  I have travelled very much upon the Continent where I have never yet seen a drunken man or woman. I have been into Swiss and German beer gardens and other places on the Continent where whole families can enjoy themselves over a meal and have drinks of all kinds if they want them. They enjoy themselves in a way in which we seem incapable of enjoying ourselves. Those who have been on the Continent know the kind of thing I mean. Yet I do not find any deplorable results. If is a deplorable thing to drink for its own sake—the long bar business—but if the argument is put forward that a working man should not have beer side by side with a meal, that should apply to everybody. But it does not apply to anyone else, and, therefore, it should not apply to the working class. I very much resent the attitude of mind which says that the working class must be protected from these things and wet-nursed on issues of this kind.
  A week or two ago I went to a symphony concert at the Bournemouth Pavilion. There is a first-class municipal restaurant there, and I had a meal after the concert. I was able to obtain a drink. I am not a teetotaler. I am not ashamed of it. I have never had a drop too much in my life, that is to say, in the ordinary sense of the term. The meal was a good one and it was served at a reasonable price. Everything was decent, in order, and clean. I did not see any immorality or deplorable results because drinks were served with the meal, but I agree that drinks should be confined to being served
  1880
  with meals. It is the other thing which is objectionable. For that reason I rose to explain my attitude on the subject. I do not want to be unreasonable. I know that intoxicating drink is a great danger, but, at the same time, I deny the right of certain people to say what I shall eat or drink. The moral issue is my issue. It had better be left to the individual rather than to certain people who wish to impose their own wishes upon the habits of the rest of the community.
  On the whole I welcome this Bill very much because it is a means of encouraging a development that will make for a better social life among the people, a kind of social life that the people have not had up to the present, for even if it is argued that it is possible for private enterprise to supply the need, it has not done so in the past. I have lived long enough to remember when one could not get a cup of tea in London. That was a very slow development. There used to be nothing like this service to the people; there was the ordinary "pull-up" of the carmen where one could get cheap, badly-cooked meals. We want something better than that, something with the amenities of the table and social life. What the Government are proposing to do is concerned with the principle for which I have stood all my life—social distribution and the amenities of life looked at from the point of view of the public and not from the point of view of the private person. So far as the private person is concerned, hon. Members opposite believe in competition. The only competition they do not believe in is the competition of the people themselves through their local representatives or the competition of the cooperative societies. Why? It is all competition. If the service is required, if it can be provided efficiently by the community and if the community is satisfied with the service it gets, private enterprise will simply have to put up with the consequences. It has to do that anyhow in ordinary competition, and it is no use simply living in the past. We must recognise the fact that there is a sense of social life arising which is the essence of the principle for which we stand as a Socialist Party.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. Digby: I am very glad to hear that the hon. Member

  1881
  for West Islington (Mr. Montague) believes in the principle of efficiency, because that is the principle which we believe in very much on these benches. I was not quite clear how he was going to apply that principle to the case of the civic restaurants. As I understood his argument, provided they were run efficiently, it did not matter how much it cost the ratepayer. That seems to me to be rather a dangerous argument at a time when so many of our industries are to be nationalised—that if they are to run efficiently on an overdraft, it does not matter.
  I was somewhat disappointed with the introduction we had from the right hon. Gentleman, because I hoped that he, at least, would have dwelt seriously on some of what appear to be the defects of this Bill and, further, that he would have gone on to tell us why it was necessary to introduce this Measure as a matter of urgency. We all know quite well that the Bill was not necessary in order to continue the powers to ran British Restaurants. Powers to run them could have been taken again for another year without any difficulty, and it is hard for us to understand why it was necessary to cram this Bill in at a time when we are told that other important Measures, such as the implementation of the Curtis Report, are crowded out of the timetable of this Government.
  We would all agree on this side of the House that where a need is shown for British Restaurants, they should be allowed to continue, but the question is to establish the need. The need must be a real one, but, having established a need which cannot be met by private enterprise, we must then go on to apply the principle to which the right hon. Gentleman himself subscribed, the principle that the competition must be fair. As a matter of fact, listening to the course of the Debate afterwards, it was perfectly obvious that a lot of hon. Members opposite would prefer the competition to be unfair. However, the Minister himself has subscribed to the principle that competition should be fair, but he skated over, I thought, some of the characteristics which appear to be very unfair indeed. It is perfectly obvious to anybody that a municipality which is setting up a civic restaurant has very much more money behind it than an ex-Serviceman—
  Mr. Attewell: What about the poor widows?
  Mr. Digby: —who comes out of the Forces and tries to set up a small restaurant on his gratuity. Under the Bill, a municipality is able to embark on enterprises which are
  "incidental or ancillary to the activities aforesaid as they consider necessary."
  Who is to be the judge as to whether they are necessary? The municipality itself is to be the judge. There is no reason why it should not buy a chain of farms; indeed, one hon. Member opposite has suggested that municipalities should buy chains of hotels. That is really a form of competition which, at the very least, would be very difficult for many of the present smaller type of caterer. I am not so much concerned with the large chain restaurants.
  That brings me to the question, How can a municipal authority acquire the restaurant they wish to operate? Here I think there is very real discrimination in favour of the local authority which has been very much glossed over tonight. It is clear from the Bill that a borough council can acquire compulsorily under the Acquisition of Land Act, 1945. We have not been told that the speedy procedure under Clause 2 of that Act may not be used and, from my study of it, it seems to me that it can be used. Hon. Members ought to remember exactly what that means. It means that a borough council can like the look of an existing restaurant and decide to take possession of it. They can serve a notice, to which an appeal has to be lodged within 14 days or not at all, and a week after that—three weeks after their first intention was notified to the restaurant—they can take possession. I believe I am right in saying that; I hope I shall be corrected if I am not.
  If that is the case, it seems to me to be highly dangerous. As I read the Bill, there is no need whatever to stop them going further than that. When they have set up one restaurant, they might find they have a dangerous competitor down the street, and can do exactly the same thing all over again. If hon. Members opposite take the view that that is right, I do not. They may say that in practice it would be very difficult for that to be done, and that the necessary authority would not be given. But I believe that

  1883
  in framing a Bill in this House it is our duty to see that safeguards are there, and that there are not opportunities for abuse.
  In regard to the acquisition of land, it a private firm or individual wishes to set up a catering establishment and is lucky enough to get a licence, they have to buy the land at 1946 price. If a town provides the same restaurant they pay the 1939 price. There is a tremendous difference between 1939 and 1946 prices. That does not seem to me to be a case of fair competition. Further, there is the point, which has been dwelt upon already tonight, the question of losses. A civic restaurant can go on losing money for five and a half years, or longer. It can go on for five years and not be forced to close down for six months. That puts it in a much stronger position than any but an extremely soundly financed catering establishment. It is quite clear that there is no reason why British Restaurants should not go on under current legislation. If we are to have new legislation, it should be proper legislation, with proper safeguards, so that borough councils are not put in a tempting position to abuse their authority, and are not tempted to take upon themselves to do down people who can ill afford to be deprived of their livelihood. For that reason, I support the Amendment.
  8.53 p.m.
  Mr. Sargood: The right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson), in opening the attack, asked that all factors should be taken into account when assessing the merits of the Bill. In the few moments I have at my disposal I want to deal with some of the factors which he failed to mention. As he expressed concern as to whether the accounts of the new civic restaurants will be properly debited by the charges that ought to be debited against them, I would remind the House that we still have district auditors. I am certain that those district auditors will look at the accounts of municipal authorities with the same eagle eye which they use at the moment.
  Another charge against British Restaurants which is not normally a charge against the private caterer, is the fact that in London, at any rate, the use of voluntary labour was very small indeed. In
  1884
  fact, the wages standard we set up was the first agreed wages standard for catering workers in London. It was very considerably in excess of what was being paid by private caterers. That was a factor in assessing the charges compared with the private caterer. British Restaurants had to be sited in areas where it was extremely difficult to obtain suitable accommodation, with the result that we often had to take over very uneconomic buildings. A further handicap was that British Restaurants were only open for very limited hours. Nevertheless, they had to carry a full staff to deal with the peak load, and most of the overheads which would normally be charged against them if they had been open all day long. The new civic restaurants will have that as a credit to put against their accounts when assessing the difference between the running of a municipal restaurant and a private catering establishment.
  My last point—I am being very brief because I know there are many others who wish to speak—is this: It is a point which has not been mentioned in the Debate. This will enable municipalities, for the first time in their existence, to make the parks and open spaces of their localities much more attractive. In addition to providing open air they will be able to provide proper eating facilities for the people who use them.
  8.56 p.m.
  Sir William Darling: I am always grateful for an opportunity to discuss anything which has a bearing on local authorities, because since the present Government came into power there has been a disinclination to give to local authorities the extensive powers which they formerly enjoyed; there has been a lowering in the status of local authorities. To that extent this Bill is interesting. Hon. Gentlemen must be aware of the National Health Service Act and other Acts which take away from local authorities many powers which they formerly enjoyed for centuries. It. is no part of my purpose tonight, however, to educate and instruct hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, but to address myself to this Bill. I know something about civic restaurants. I was employed, during the time I was chairman of a local authority, to start a civic restaurant the first in Scotland. In this case, the Socialist Council of Glasgow would not start civic

  1885
  restaurants. Edinburgh did, in fact, start the first civic restaurant in Scotland.
  One should keep in mind that it was an achievement thrust on the local authorities by the Ministry of Food, who had excellent reasons. They were pressed on local authorities because men had gone to the war and women to the Services, and ordinary catering establishments were unable to supply the services the public demanded. When I say catering establishments I mean catering establishments of all kinds, including those of co-operative societies who, as hon. Members do not know because they are often out of touch with working class movements, run extensive catering establishments and restaurants. Under these circumstances because staff was not available, because fuel was precarious, and because the action of the enemy might destroy the capacity of the housekeeper to produce food for her household, the Ministry of Food imposed, quite properly, the duty of providing civic restaurants. These had some success. No coupons and no points were required, there was no financial control. The Ministry of Food inspectors in those days forced on local authorities the desirability of these restaurants, whether they were equipped for the purpose or not. Under the circumstances of the war we loyally discharged those duties. That does not seem to me to be a justification for a continuation of this war service.
  It is typical of this Government that they can only think in terms of what the Coalition Government did—whether in education or in all the many other social services. There is a sheer inability on the part of the Government to think of anything new. They are only able to carry on something which war made necessary.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): It would be an advantage if the hon. Member would come to the purpose of the Bill itself.
  Sir W. Darling: I am grateful, as always, for your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. A little history is not unhealthy, even if it is not a very accurate historian who presents it.
  The purpose of this Bill is to continue these relics of the war. The purpose of the Bill is to allow local authorities to continue these responsibilities. I would ask whether the Minister can tell me of any
  1886
  local authority which individually has asked this House to give it these powers. Local authorities are not backward in asking for powers. Not long ago Glasgow came and asked for permission to build tramcars. When great cities in this country want powers—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Member will tell me where tramcars come into this Bill.
  Sir W. Darling: I am always grateful for your indulgence. The relation is that if local authorities want a thing I have never known them backward in asking for it. When they wanted tramcars, they asked for the power to build tramcars. No local authority has asked for the power to extend civic restaurants. Groups of local authorities were consulted and I am glad to be able to inform the Minister that the group in Scotland was not the group he thought he consulted. No single local authority, to my knowledge, has asked the Ministry of Food to carry on this service. This is a piece of imposed legislation. The Ministry of Food, with its passion for power which it is reluctant to abandon, is imposing upon reluctant local authorities the responsibility of doing this thing which they do not want to do.
  Mr. Strachey: May I be allowed to correct that statement, because it is important? I realise that the hon. Gentleman believes that things are only valid if they are done individually rather than collectively, but I must point out that the local authorities in July, 1945, collectively, through all their associations which I enumerated in my speech, including the Conservative local authorities and the Scottish local authorities, did urge us to give them precisely these powers. We cannot possibly call it something which has been imposed on reluctant local authorities. We cannot let that pass.
  Sir W. Darling: It is none the less true—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] There is nothing for me to withdraw. The Minister may be accurate. He may have made a collective consultation. I am sure he is right when he says so, but I assert that no single individual local authority approached the Government with a desire to extend or continue this service. I repeat that no local authority has asked for this service and very few local authorities have discharged it even adequately. Very few have the capacity

  1887
  to do it in the future. It is a service which is better provided by individual effort. I finish by suggesting to the House that this is another example of the desire of the centre to control the provinces of the country. The Ministry of Food is a wartime organisation set up because of the rigours and difficulties of war with, quite properly, great powers. It is now engaged in an attempt to extend permanently its control over local authorities in the country, to dominate a policy which local authorities may not particularly want, to compel them to set up, or to encourage them to set up, which is the same thing, on an uneconomical basis a service for which only a very small percentage of the public have any great use.
  Have the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary looked at the repercussions of the proposal? The Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland are engaged in building many hundreds of thousands of houses for the people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Well, they are engaged in constructing a large number of houses—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Again, I must ask the hon. Member to indicate to me whether there is anything about the building of houses in the Bill.
  Sir W. Darling: Sir, the building of houses, as you are aware, includes the kitchen. If His Majesty's Government are building kitchens in which domestic cooking is to be raised to a higher standard, the need for civic restaurants, surely, disappears. Are we engaged in the encouragement of the domestic arts and in the building of kitchens? I suggest it would be a waste of public money to engage, at the same time, in the provision of municipal restaurants. If adequate facilities are supplied to the housewife, with all these labour saving devices of which we have heard so much, there would be no need for this collective, socialised soup-kitchen that is being offered to them today. I feel that local authorities can look after their own business. They do not want imposed upon them an extravagant policy which is only going to be continued by bribes and which has been forced upon them. I beg this House to have nothing to do with it, but to leave it to the people who have the food to cook it in their own houses
  1888
  and in the way they want it, and to reject this socialisation.
  9.6 p.m
  Mr. Perrins: I have listened with great interest to the remarks of hon. Members opposite throughout the Debate, and we have heard the suggestion that British Restaurants are unfair in their competition with private traders because they are in some form and measure subsidised, but no real evidence has been given to that effect. In the city of Birmingham, which has been mentioned previously, we have 59 restaurants. The catering trade, under the circumstances that prevailed, would not undertake their responsibilities for this work.
  Sir W. Darling: On a point of Order. There is no mention of British Restaurants in this Bill.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of Order. When I think the hon. Member is out of Order, I shall call his attention to the fact.
  Earl Winterton: Further to that point of Order. Do I understand—[Interruption.] Certainly, I will raise a point of Order, if hon. Members will be audibly silent. Do I understand, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you have ruled that no point of Order was raised?
  Mr. Mitchison rose—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We cannot have two hon. Gentlemen on their feet at the same time. Lord Winterton.
  Earl Winterton: Is it not a fact that anyone has a perfect right to call your attention to a breach of Order, and are we to understand that this was not a breach of Order?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Not at all. It is left to the discretion of the Chair, and I do not think that was a point of Order.
  Mr. Tiffany: Is it in Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for the noble Lord to ask you to keep quiet?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I was rather assuming that, when the point of Order was raised, it was an invitation to me to speak.
  Mr. Perrins: I was trying to develop the point that the Birmingham Council invited the assistance of the catering trade

  1889
  to provide these services, and that they declined, but a Conservative council was very careful to make sure that, in the accounts of the restaurants open in the city, all necessary charges, including overheads, and the like, were debited against the account. What happened? The trading profit for the last year, which ended in March, 1946, was actually over £27,000, despite the fact that the restaurants had to meet that which hon. Members of the Opposition call unfair competition. To provide that, they had to allow for Income-tax and the like, and they provided profits amounting to £58,000, from the start of the service, after allowing for rent, rates, wages, amortisation and so on. I want to suggest to the House that we cannot generalise on this subject. We "have heard hon. Gentlemen talking about Blackpool and seaside resorts, but we have got highly industrialised centres, where the private traders never have wanted and never will want to cater for this type of service. I am a trade union official. When I went to the industrial country I found that there were no factory canteens for the industrial workers; they were dependent on the fish and chip shops, on a cup of tea with a wrapped meal. Why did not private enterprise choose to meet that need?
  If one knows anything about industry, it is very obvious that men whose clothes are impregnated with the odours of industry are never welcome in ordinary restaurants. That is very natural, but, unfortunately, there are not always adequate washing facilities in the places where they work. Before local authorities take any action under this Bill, they may—or they may not—determine such action according to their local circumstances. As I said earlier in my speech, we have over 11,000 small employees in my city who, individually, do not employ over 20 people. How are such workers to be fed unless the local authorities provide the restaurants? I thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this Debate. There are many other things I would like to have said had there been time, but in the circumstances the only way to cease talking is to discipline oneself and to sit down.
  9.12 p.m.
  Commander Galbraith: We who sit on these bences have shown on numerous occasions during this
  1890
  present Parliament that when the Government introduce a Measure which does not conflict with our principles we are always ready to cooperate, and to put forward helpful criticism in an endeavour to make the Bill a better Measure. Therefore, it will be obvious to those who have followed this Debate today that our opposition does not arise merely from the fact that we are His Majesty's Opposition, but because this Measure violates principles in which we believe.
  Like many other hon. Members who have spoken from these benches today, I am of the opinion that before a public service is instituted, the need for that service should be proved beyond any reasonable doubt. It should also be proved that private individuals are either unwilling or incapable of providing that service. We have had no evidence whatever on these matters today. [An HON. MEMBER: "That evidence has just been given."] An hon. Member opposite calls my attention to what the hon Member for Yardley (Mr. Perrins) has just said. All I can say, in that respect, is that Birmingham is very unfortunate, and that in Glasgow we are much more fortunate. Even when I was a boy, I was able to get a magnificent meal in the vicinity of any of the great workshops on Clydeside.
  The hon. Member for Upton (Mr. A. Lewis) told us that more restaurants were necessary, and many hon. Members on both sides of the House were in agreement with that. But if that need exists, then I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it exists, in part at least, because of the policy which he is pursuing in regard to licences, a policy which he has told us today he has no intention of relaxing. We all know of cases where his Department have refused to issue licences. One such case in my own constituency came to my notice only last week. A woman who wanted to provide a service which would have been of great benefit to the hardest hit community— the housewives — was not allowed to do so because it required a small allotment of food which the right hon. Gentleman's Department was unwilling to grant. The fact is that private persons are willing to undertake this service and that it is the right hon. Gentleman's Department which is standing in the way. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the

  1891
  Member for South Blackpool (Wing-Commander Robinson) that we in this House have a right to be told what steps the Government have taken to ascertain whether or not this service could be undertaken by private persons. I do not believe that public funds should be risked in a venture of this nature, except in the last resort. In his opening speech, the Minister said that we on this side of the House were in a dilemma, that there were only two arguments which we could put forward and they were mutually destructive. If he will look carefully at the Bill, he will see that these arguments, in the case of the Bill, are not mutually destructive, and I will endeavour to show it to him before I sit down.
  It has become fashionable on the part of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and those who hold the same political views and are members of local authorities, to assume that once they are elected to office they immediately and automatically become qualified to undertake any trade or industry whatsoever, no matter how intricate that industry may be and no matter what amount of experience is necessary before it can be carried on satisfactorily. I do not suppose they will ever learn that they are not so qualified until they have had very bitter experience indeed. As I listened to the hon. Member for Upton and others, I could not help wondering whether they would be willing so readily to venture into this undertaking if their own funds were at risk. In this case the local authorities who, notwithstanding what has been said, have very little knowledge of the catering industry, are to be empowered to set up an unknown number of civic restaurants, but the risk is to be borne by, and the loss is to fall upon, the ratepayers. The Minister has told us that the results so far have been good, but, after all, these restaurants up to now have not had to meet any serious competition, and they have had granted to them every privilege that if was possible to grant. At the same time, he admits—because he admits it in the Bill—that the risk is great, because the Bill envisages losses for five consecutive years. I wonder how many hon. Members in this House, had they been told in a prospectus that there was possibility of five years' losses, would be willing to venture in a matter of this kind.
  I have understood that the ratepayers of England and Wales were beginning to
  1892
  complain of the burden of rates that they have had to bear, and I know from my own experience that for a generation and more the ratepayers in Scotland have been complaining very bitterly indeed of the almost intolerable burden which they have suffered. Yet we have the Government coming forward in a more or less light hearted way and placing a further unknown burden upon these long suffering people. I can only assume that, in part, the purpose of the Government in bringing forward this Measure is to help the people to eke out their present meagre rations, and if I am correct in that assumption it is surely an admission that the rations at present are insufficient. If that be so, I believe the country should be treated equally. Under this Bill, the urban areas will stand to profit far more than the rural areas. Today in the rural areas, where people, for one reason or another, are not in a position to grow their own produce, they have to subsist on their rations alone. In the urban areas, people can always supplement their rations by meals at canteens or restaurants, and this Bill will make that inequality greater than ever. The right hon. Gentleman has told us en numerous occasions that so long as scarcity exists, it will be his policy to see that there are fair shares for all. I hope he is not fooling himself into the belief that this Bill achieves that end.
  Mr. Strachey: It does.
  Commander Galbraith: That is not the only inequality which this Bill creates or accentuates, for payment in regard to any loss incurred is to be borne by all, whether they have an opportunity of enjoying the service or whether they have not. It is obvious that this service cannot be of universal application. This service cannot be provided in little hamlets, in villages, or in rows of cottages which are scattered all over the countryside. Yet the occupiers in these villages, the ratepayers, are to be called upon to subscribe to a service which they can never enjoy, and from which they obtain no benefit.
  Mr. Donovan: It is the same with water and electricity.
  Commander Galbraith: The inequality is even greater in the case of Scotland. If hon. Members examine Clause 3 (4) they will find that any deficiency is to fall equally upon owners and occupiers.

  1893
  The justification for owners' rates in Scotland is that if they receive a service they are entitled to pay for it. As an example, if a man who owns property has that property protected by the police, then he is entitled to pay his share for that protection. I wonder if that argument really applies in the case of civic restaurants. The owner-occupier of a house of the same value as one occupied by another person will pay two shares as against the other man's one. I do not think that is equitable at all. It goes much further than that. Take a man who happens to own 10 houses and resides in one of them. He will be called upon to pay 11 shares against the one share paid by an occupier of one of his own houses. [Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite think that that is a fair or an equitable arrangement I am very much surprised indeed. I cannot recall any previous occasion when Parliament has been asked to grant powers to local authorities which will enable them to compete with private citizens on the grand scale that is suggested in this Bill. I would deplore such competition at any time, in the public interest. The injury inflicted need not be severe if the competition be fair, but this Bill does not provide for fair competition. Notwithstanding what the Minister has said, these civic restaurants are to be subsidised by the ratepayers
  Mr. Strachey: No.
  Commander Galbraith: They are to be in competition with caterers, confectioners, tobacconists, publicans, proprietors of dance halls, and with a multitude of other people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because under this Bill incidental and ancillary services are brought in which cover a great number of other activities. The traders will be fought with their own money. I remember that before the war we used to complain very bitterly indeed of the unfair, foreign subsidised competition in regard to shipping. How much more unfair is it to compel people to subsidise a public undertaking which is in competition with themselves. These civic restaurants will have no difficulties whatsoever in procuring licences for painting, repairs, alterations, and for the sale of liquor and tobacco. The local authority in many cases will be the licensing authority and even where it is not the licensing authority, the Ministry
  1894
  will place no obstacles in the way of this State-sponsored scheme.
  I cannot see that these private traders will be able to compete under all these disadvantages. Many of them may be driven out of business, and it is possible that, within a reasonable time, the whole of the catering industry of this country will fall into the hands of the local authorities, and I should not be surprised if that is the real purpose behind this Bill. The powers of compulsory purchase which are granted under Clause 2 of the Bill make it possible, as other Members have said, for existing catering establishments to be taken over, for shopkeepers to be dispossessed, on the authority of the Minister of Health or of the Secretary of State for Scotland; and if the procedure under Clause 2 of the Acquisition of Land Act is invoked—and it is competent under the Bill for the Minister to invoke that Act—then no trader will be safe in the possession of his own property, and those who are under lease may well be turned out in a matter of a few days, as the hon. Member for Western Dorset (Mr. Digby) has said, and that without any inquiry.
  Mrs. Jean Mann rose—
  Commander Galbraith: I cannot give way. And that with no inquiry, with no right of appeal, and with only the opportunity of stating an objection to the Minister. In fact, they can be turned out, and are at the mercy of the right hon. Gentleman. If this House is going to grant such powers to Ministers when the safety of the country is not at stake, and merely to meet the convenience of a few— and in that connection, let me remind the House that the Minister has himself told us today that these restaurants serve only 400,000 lunches a day—then I despair of the survival of the rights which the private citizens of this country have hitherto enjoyed under the law of this country. These are powers such as a dictator in a totalitarian State might have. They are powers which no democratic Minister would ever seek, but I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman is a democratic Minister. They are powers which no democratic Government would ever think of granting, and if these powers are not to be used as I have suggested, I should like to know what the purpose is of including them in the Bill.

  1895
  If they are not to be used to dispossess people, then the local authorities will be forced to build their own civic restaurants; and I should like to know, since when civic restaurants have become of more importance than homes for the people of this country. Or is it that the Government foresee a breakdown in their food policy, and that they are preparing to introduce communal feeding? The administrative incompetence of this Government is such that even that would not surprise me. We on these benches cannot give a Second Reading to a Bill which places such powers over the individual in the hands of a Minister; which may well deprive many traders of their means of livelihood, through no fault whatsoever of their own, through no inefficiency on their part, but simply because of their inability to withstand unfair subsidised competition from the State dressed in the guise of a local authority; and which, in many of its Clauses, is both unjust and inequitable.
  9.30 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summer-skill): As I listen to hon. Members opposite it is clear to me that they have not the same conception as the Government of the Government's function in the sphere of food and nutrition. I was surprised that the hon. and gallant Member who wound up for the Opposition could not conduct himself in a reasonable manner and approach this in a quiet and unemotional way. It seems to me, listening to hon. Members tonight, that there is a certain excitement about them. I cannot understand why the Civic Restaurants Bill, which, after all, is a social reform, should not be regarded as such by every progressive man in this House, whatever his party. The Government have accepted responsibility for promoting the health and welfare of the people, and the Ministry of Food was placed on a permanent footing for the purpose of ensuring that the people are adequately fed and that their standard of nutrition is safeguarded. Food is the first essential for human well-being, and the civic restaurant, together with the industrial canteens and the schools meal service, is complementary to our rationing scheme. The Bill which we are discussing today is not an attack on private enterprise, but is part of our national food policy. It has been said
  1896
  that Lord Woolton told caterers in 1942 that he saw no reason to anticipate the continued existence of British restaurants; he did not commit himself. I can see no reason why our policy should be framed in the light of Conservative pronouncements.
  We have made no secret about introducing this Bill. If hon. Members opposite had taken the trouble to read "Let us Face the Future," they would have seen that in that publication we made it quite clear that if we came to power we should introduce a Civic Restaurants Bill. In the King's Speech it was also made clear that we should introduce it this Session, and although hon. Gentlemen opposite have suggested that we have foisted this Measure on local authorities, I can assure them, as my right hon. Friend has already done, that the representative associations of local authorities in this country have asked us to introduce these powers. The hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) asked my right hon. Friend whether any single local authority had approached the Ministry. The first authority was South Shields. They asked us if we would give them these powers, and we said that we intended to introduce a Bill in order that every authority in the country would be able to have them.
  Sir W. Darling: South Shields had the powers; they did not need to ask for them.
  Dr. Summerskill: But the hon. Member must realise that these powers lapse in March, and the reason why this Bill has been introduced is to enable local authorities to continue to exercise them.
  Sir W. Darling: Then they have not had the powers for six months.
  Dr. Summerskill: Again I must contradict the hon. Member. It is next March, and not last March. One hon. Member said that this is a sop to the Socialist councils. I must remind the House that Birmingham has 59 British Restaurants, and it is only just recently that we have had a Labour majority in Birmingham. There was a Conservative majority in Birmingham when these restaurants were introduced. [HON. MEMBERS: "There was a war on."] I have not observed that the war makes much difference to party labels of a local authority, and if the Conservative authority in Birmingham did not approve of these

  1897
  restaurants, they would certainly not have set up 59 of them. I regard any service where a substantial meal can be obtained at a price within the means of the lowest paid worker as ancillary to the health services. I welcome the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings). Civic restaurants play a great part in this country, because they are complementary to the services which we shall very soon see operating in this country, when the Health Bill comes into effect in 1948.
  I welcome the tributes which have been paid to the housewife, that weary, unpaid worker who performs the most important function in the country—the renewing of the nation's life. I deplore the contribution made by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh when he said that the place for the housewife was in the kitchen cooking, and there was no need for civic restaurants if the housewife had a kitchen where she ought to be cooking for her husband. I hope that the housewives of South Edinburgh will read the hon. Member's contribution. It is time that social reform penetrated the kitchens and relieved the lot of the housewives. I wonder whether hon. Members opposite who like to jeer at the housewives, who have not seen fit to have one working-class housewife on the benches opposite— [An HON. MEMBER: "They are at home scrubbing the kitchen floors."] That is exactly what I expected from those benches—the woman is there to clean up the house. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why is the hon. Lady not there?"] I wonder whether hon. Members opposite would be so vociferous if they had to prepare every meal every day, and do the unpleasant business of washing up afterwards.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Has the hon. Lady done it?
  Dr. Summerskill: I have probably done it much more than the hon. and gallant Member, and I have renewed the life of this country. Hon. Members behind me have reminded the House of the old age pensioners who will use these restaurants. The old age pensioners who live alone never know what it is to have a properly cooked meal. They do not cook joints and potatoes, and these restaurants that we hope to see in operation, will give them an opportunity of having balanced
  1898
  meals, and that will probably mean that their expectation of life will be lengthened.
  Mr. Tiffany: On a point of Order. Is it in Order, Mr Speaker, for an hon. Member to voice his thoughts audibly, even although those thoughts might be most childish and inane?
  Mr. Speaker: It may not be in Order for a Member to voice too audibly what his thoughts are, but I cannot control Members sometimes.
  Earl Winterton: May I say, Sir, that the inability of the Chair to control Members was very apparent during the speech which preceded that now being made by the hon. Lady, and that the only reason I interrupted was because I thought that what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander?
  Mr. Speaker: My answer was not directed to the noble Lord, or to anybody else. It was merely a general observation.
  Mr. Alpass: Is it in Order, Sir, for the noble Lord to keep up a continual run of interruptions when Members on this side are speaking?
  Mr. Speaker: The noble Lord, I daresay, makes his comments, and if they are heard on the other side of the House, well, I cannot help that.
  Dr. Summerskill: My right hon. Friend, in his speech, referred to statements by the Catering Association which appeared in the newspapers last night, in which they said that rate-aided meals tend towards unjustified—[Laughter.]I want Members opposite to understand that this is a matter of serious concern to their constituents. Although they have spoken tonight on behalf of private enterprise, I can assure them that their constituents will be very concerned with their approach to this matter. Members opposite have asked for evidence. The hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) said that we had produced no evidence that these restaurants were needed. Well, I am producing evidence which in my opinion is of the greatest importance—
  Commander Galbraith: What I called for was evidence of need, and also evidence of the inability of the service to be supplied by private enterprise.
  Dr. Summerskill: I have been trying to explain to the House that there is need, that there are certain groups of people who are under-nourished. Private enterprise has failed to solve that problem.
  Mr. Wadsworth: It has not been allowed to do so.
  Dr. Summerskill: When the catering industry said that this was a method of pauperisation of the population they should logically be against meals in schools, and welfare services. I have not heard Members say that these reforms should never have been introduced. Furthermore, evacuation revealed that children from poor areas had never had a chance to acquire a liking for good, wholesome meals. I ask hon. Members opposite to examine the public health statistics. They are a justification of our food policy—a policy of each according to his physiological needs. I recommend hon. Members—new Members here—if they want evidence to read Sir John Boyd Orr's Book "Food, Health and Income." Between the wars a survey was made in this country, and it was discovered that 50 per cent. of the population was suffering from under-nourishment.
  Tonight, I heard hon. Members opposite speaking of profit. They can only think of profit in terms of £s. d. We on this side of the House have a very different standard of values. We believe that health and human well-being cannot be assessed in terms of £s. d. The hon. and gallant Member for South Blackpool (Wing - Commander Robinson) asked whether private enterprise was not making a contribution which was satisfactory to every income group. The average price of a substantial British Restaurant meal is 1s. 3d. The cheapest restaurant meals, even in Blackpool, are, I think, 5d. and 6d. more, for less substantial meals. I would remind hon. Members who are opposing this Bill that many workers will not be choosing between private enterprise and public enterprise. When these restaurants are set up by every local authority, the worker who has been in the habit of taking a snack to his work will find that he can get a substantial meal at a British Restaurant. I suggest to hon. Members opposite that the caterers will benefit, because the workers will learn to have meals out, and will probably, in the long run, go
  1900
  to restaurants when in other parts of the country, if they cannot find a civic restaurant available. I sympathise with the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague), who went to a restaurant and had a meal on a table without a cloth and who saw "Bones" on the walls. I agree that that does happen. There is lack of vision and lack of imagination, as we have seen tonight; lack of enthusiasm and lack of initiative in many places; but the success of a restaurant, as I think every hon Member will agree, depends upon the individual in charge. I would recommend the hon. Member for West Islington to go to York and look at the delightful mural decorations there
  We are grateful to the catering industry for the services which they have rendered in the past, but the industry must reorientate itself and try to understand that in the future we must ensure that the needy and not the greedy get first consideration. The catering industry has not fared badly during the war, and I find it difficult to understand the attitude of the Opposition. On the one hand, they are opposed to nationalisation on the ground that it kills private enterprise, which alone, they say, can guarantee efficiency; and yet when we come to the House to night with a project which should stimulate private enterprise and competition, we find little enthusiasm.
  Sir P. Macdonald: It is not fair competition.
  Dr. Summerskill: Is it the kind of competition which the hon. Gentleman is used to? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) asked particularly about financial provisions, and he mentioned the crypt in Leeds. By a curious coincidence, one of the most active members of the catering committee of Leeds was sitting in the gallery while the right hon. Gentleman was speaking. I think it is an understatement to say that she was a little disturbed by the aspersions which the right hon. Gentleman cast on the Leeds City Council. She produced the document which I have in my hand, and this document is very instructive. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who is she?"] She is sitting in the gallery now. If the right hon. Member for Southport would like to have her name, I will let him have it.
  Earl Winterton: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not an entire innovation for a Minister to refer to the

  1901
  presence of someone in the Gallery who takes an interest in this Debate and is making comments on it? In those circumstances, should not the Minister be asked to give that person's name? I had understood that an hon. Member could not refer to the presence of anyone in the Gallery.
  Miss Bacon: Further to that point of Order, Sir, I should like to state that the person in question gave me certain information, and I, in turn, handed that information to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary.
  Mr. Speaker: I am not quite clear as to what the hon. Lady's reference was to a person in the Gallery.
  Dr. Summerskill: When the right hon. Member for Southport was speaking, he asked whether the Leeds authority had paid a rent for the crypt which they used for catering purposes, and by a curious coincidence this document came into my hands, and I thought the House would like to know how it was I happened to have all these details concerning Leeds within such a short time of the right hon. Gentleman's statement.
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that the hon. Lady was given information by somebody just as a civil servant might have given her the information. She is entitled to use that information, although she might not have been entitled to give as authority that someone from the Gallery gave it.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Buchanan): Further to the point of Order, Sir, may I put it to you that when we are debating Private Bills, it is not uncommon for, say, the railway companies to have a person under the Gallery Whom hon. Members frequently consult, and then come back and state that they have received advice on the subject?
  Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, but I think his reference was to a person under the Gallery, whereas the original point of Order referred to the words "in the Gallery." In the case of a person under the Gallery, it is perfectly in Order.
  Mr. Buchanan: But even in the Gallery it has been done over a period of years.
  Mr. Speaker: I did not actually hear the hon. Lady say from where she got the information, but if she did state where it came from, I would point out that it is not usual for information to be sent down from the Gallery. It could be from under the Gallery, because people are there to supply information on a Private Bill.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: Further to the point of Order, is it not rather dangerous that we should be given figures the source of which we do not really know? I am quite certain the Minister would not want to mislead the House, but we do not know whether the figures are official or unofficial.
  Mr. Speaker: If the Minister gives them, she gives them on her own responsibility.
  Dr. Summerskill: These figures have been published by the civic catering department of the City of Leeds, and I think hon. Members opposite will accept them. The figures answer many questions that have been asked tonight about the expenses which are incurred by local authorities in operating civic restaurants. As to the question that was asked by the right hon. Member for Southport, I am told that Leeds has been paying a rent of £200 a year for the crypt.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: That, in fact, was not the question I asked. I am very sorry, but whoever it was did not take the trouble to listen to the question. The question I asked was not whether the Leeds City Council had paid a rent; what I asked was whether the Leeds City Council was paying a rent equivalent to what they could have got from a private caterer tendering for that particular accommodation. I am led to believe there was some substance in what I suggested, because the amount they paid is small compared with what they could have got.
  Lieut.-Colonel Thorp: On a point of Order. Would the hon. Lady supply those figures before she concludes?
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of Order.
  Colonel Stoddart-Scott rose—
  Mr. Speaker: The Parliamentary Secretary does not give way, and the hon. and gallant Member must resume his seat. Hon. Members are only wasting time.
  Dr. Summerskill: Hon. Members opposite must not blame me if their questions are not answered, for they have only left me a few more moments. I think the fact that £200 has been paid for the crypt is the evidence for hon. Members opposite that local authorities have no intention of getting in concealed subsidies. The hon. Member for Buckrose (Mr. Wadsworth) suggested the same thing, but in fact the returns show that is not so. Leeds, in their return, have mentioned transport and fuel. [An HON. MEMBER: "Rates?"] Yes. They show transport, fuel, rent, rates, lighting, heat and the full maintenance of equipment. When I tell hon. Members that these items have totalled nearly £8,000 for the quarter ending 30th June, they ought to be satisfied.
  In the few moments which I have got left I want to deal with the acquisition of land, which has perturbed so many Members. Many Members feel aggrieved that local authorities should have these special powers, but I want them to realise that local authorities have always exercised these powers. They have powers to acquire compulsory sites for mortuaries and washhouses and surely no Member opposite is going to suggest that a civic restaurant is not as important as a mortuary or a washhouse. Members have said that local authorities might use their powers to acquire a catering restaurant. Certainly they have those powers, but surely hon. Members opposite realise that
  most members serving on local authorities are people of integrity. There is a safeguard. Having earmarked their site the local authority must get permission from the Minister of Health. I cannot believe that the Minister of Health would allow local authorities to take a catering establishment.
  My final word is on licensing because I want to reply to the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) and the hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson). I his reference to liquor was inserted in the Bill because we were given to understand that if these powers were omitted the local authorities would have no powers at all. At the moment their position is a little obscure. Therefore, we inserted this in order that they should have these powers. I want to remind the hon. Member for West Ealing of the position of George Lansbury. He felt as strongly as the Member for West Ealing on these points. I think the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), who has been here for 40 years, will bear me out. He agreed that these powers should be given in order that the people should enjoy a glass of beer with their meals, if they so desired, in the Hyde Park Lido.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes 272; Noes 116.

  Division No. 14.]

  AYES.

  10.01 p.m

  Adamt, Richard (Balham)

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Daggar, G

  Adams. W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Daines, P.

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Alpass, J. H.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

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

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Attewell, H. C.

  Buchanan, G.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Burden, T. W.

  Deer, G.

  Austin, H. L.

  Burke, W. A.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Awbery, S. S.

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

  Delargy, Captain H. J.

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

  Callaghan, James

  Diamond, J

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Chamberlain, R. A.

  Dobbie, W.

  Baird, J.

  Champion, A. J.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Balfour, A.

  Chater, D.

  Donovan, T.

  Barstow, P. G.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Barton, C.

  Clitherow, Dr. R

  Dye, S.

  Battley, J. R.

  Cluse, 'S

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Bechervaise, A. E

  Cobb, F A

  Edelman, M.

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J

  Cocks, F. S

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  Benson, G.

  Collick, P.

  Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

  Berry, H.

  Collindridge, F.

  Edwards, W J (Whitechapel)

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

  Collins, V. J.

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Binns, J.

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  Farthing, W. J.

  Blackburn, A. R.

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

  Field, Captain W J.

  Blenkinsop, A.

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

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

  Blyton, W. R.

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Follick, M.

  Boardman, H.

  Corvedate, Viscount

  Foot, M. M.

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

  Cove, W. G.

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Crawley, A.

  Gaitskell, H. T. N.

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

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S

  Gibbins, J

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Sharp, Granville

  Gllzean, A.

  Marquand, H. A.

  Shurmer, P.

  Glanvilla, J. E. (Consett)

  Marshall, F. (Brightsida)

  Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.

  Goodrich, H E

  Mathers, G.

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Gordon-Walker, P. C

  Medland, H. M.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Grey, C. F.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Skefington, A. M.

  Grierson, E.

  Messer, F.

  Skeffington-Lodge, T. C

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Gunter, R. J.

  Mitchison, Maj. G. R

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

  Guy, W. H.

  Monslow, W.

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

  Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

  Montague, F.

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Hale, Leslie

  Moody, A. S

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F

  Hall, W G. (Colne Valley)

  Morgan, Dr. H B.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R

  Morley, R.

  Stamford, W

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Morris, P, (Swansea, W.)

  Stephen, C.

  Hardy, E. A.

  Moyle, A.

  Strachey, J.

  Hastings, Dr, Somerville

  Murray, J D.

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

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Nally, W.

  Summerskill, Dr. Edith

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

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

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Hicks, G.

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Hobson, C. R.

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

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Holman, P.

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Thomas, John R. (Dover)

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  O'Brien, T.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Horabin, T. L

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  House, G.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Thurtle E.

  Hudson, J H. (Ealing, W.)

  Orbach, M.

  Tiffany, S

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

  Paget, R. T.

  Tolley, L

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Palmer, A. M. F

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

  Hynd, Rt. Hon. J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Isaacs, Rt Hon G. A.

  Parkin, B. T.

  Ungoed-Thomas, L

  Janner, B.

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Usborne, Henry

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Walkden, E.

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

  Pearson, A

  Walker, G. H.

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Peart, Capt. T. F.

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

  Jones, J. H (Bolton)

  Parrins, W

  Warbey, W. N.

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Piratin, P

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

  Keenan, W

  Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

  Weitzman, D

  Kenyon, C.

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  West, D. G.

  Key, C. W.

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

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

  King, E. M.

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

  Pritt, D N.

  Wilcock, Group-Capt. C A. B

  Kinley, J.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Pursay, Cmdr. H

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Lavers, S

  Randall, H. E.

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Lee, Miss J, (Cannock)

  Ranger, J.

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Leslie, J. R.

  Rees-Williams, D. R.

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Lewis, A W J. (Upton)

  Reeves, J.

  Williamson, T.

  Lewis, J. (Bolton)

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Willis, E.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Rhodes, H.

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Richards, R.

  Wllmot, Rt. Hon. J

  Longden, F.

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  Woods, G. S.

  Lyne, A. W

  Robens, A.

  Wyatt, W.

  McEntee, V. La T

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Yates, V. F.

  Mack, J D.

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Royle, C.

  Zilliacus, K.

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

  Sargood, R.

  McKinlay, A. S.

  Scollan, T.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  McLeavy, F.

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  Captain Michael Stewart and

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Segal, Dr. S.

  Mr. Popplewell.

  Mann, Mrs. J.

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

  NOES

  Aitken, Hon. Max

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Gridley, Sir A.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Corbatt, Liaut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

  Grimston, R. V.

  Beechman, N. A.

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

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Birch, Nigel

  Crowder, Capt. John E.

  Harvey, Air-Comdre- A. V.

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

  Darling, Sir W. Y

  Head, Brig. A. H.

  Bossom, A. C

  Davidson, Viscountess

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

  Bower, N.

  Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Boyd-Carpentar, J. A.

  Digby, S. W.

  Hogg, Hon. Q.

  Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Hollis, M. C.

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Cemdr. J. G.

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

  Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Howard, Hon. A.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

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

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Erroll, F J

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

  Butcher, H. W

  Fletcher, W (Bury)

  Jarvis, Sir J.

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

  Fox, Sir G.

  Jennings, R.

  Byers, Frank

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Carson, E.

  Gage, C.

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

  Challen, C.

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

  Gammans, L. D.

  Linstead, H. N.

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G

  Glossop, C. W. H.

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  1906

  1907

  Lucas, Major Sir J.

  Peto, Brig. C. H M.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H

  Ponsonby, Col C. E.

  Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

  McCallum, Maj D

  Poole, O B S. (Oswestry)

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

  Macdonald, Sir P. (Is. or Wight)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O

  Thomas, J P. L. (Hereford)

  Mackeson, Brig. H R

  Raikes, H. V

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

  Maclay, Hon J S

  Ramsay, Maj. S

  Touche, G. C.

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

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Turton, R. H.

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

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

  Wadsworth, G.

  Manningham-Buller, R. E

  Renton, D.

  Ward, Hon. G R.

  Marlowe, A A. H.

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

  Marples, A. E.

  Roberts, Maj. P G (Eeclesall)

  Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.

  Marshall, S. H (Sutton)

  Roberts, W (Cumberland, N.)

  Willoughby do Eresby, Lord

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  Ross, Sir R

  York, C.

  Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E

  Sanderson, Sir F.

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

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  Shepherd, W S. (Bucklow)

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon Sir H

  Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

  Commander Agnew and

  Orr-Ewing. I L

  Spearman, A. C. M

  Mr. Drewe.

  Main Question put, and agreed to

  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be committed to a Com-

  Division No. 15.

  AYES

  10.10 p.m

  Aitken, Hon. Max

  Gage, C.

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Galbraith, Cmdr I. O

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

  Beechman, N. A

  Gammans, L. D.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H

  Bennett, Sir P

  Glossop, C.W H

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Birch, Nigel

  Gridley, Sir A.

  Peto, Brig C. H. M

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

  Grimston, R. V

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Bossom, A C

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

  Bower, N.

  Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbrldgs)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V

  Raikes, H. V

  Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

  Head, Brig A H.

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W

  Hogg, Hon. Q

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

  Buchan-Hepburn, P G T

  Hollis, M. C

  Renton, D.

  Bullock, Capt M.

  Holmes, Sir J Stanley (Harwich)

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Butcher, H W.

  Howard, Hon. A.

  Roberts, Maj. P. G (Ecclesall)

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

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

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Byers, Frank

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

  Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

  Carson, E.

  Jennings, R.

  Ross, Sir R.

  Challen, C.

  Lambert, Hon. G

  Sanderson, Sir F.

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E A. H

  Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Linstead, H N.

  Spearman, A. C. M

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

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirra)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

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

  Lucas, Major Sir J.

  Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H

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

  Crowder, Capt. John E.

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Thomas, J P L. (Hereford)

  Darling, Sir W. Y

  Macdonald, Sir P. (Is of Wight)

  Thorp, Lt.-Col. R A F

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R

  Touche, G. C

  Digby, S. W

  Maclay, Hon J. S.

  Turton, R. H.

  Dodds-Parker, A D.

  Maclean, Brig F H R (Lancaster)

  Wadsworth, G.

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

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Ward, Hon. G. R.

  Drayson, G B

  Manningham-Buller, R. E

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J

  Drewe, C.

  Marlowe, A A. H.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Marples, A. E.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Erroll, F. J '

  Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

  York, C

  Fletcher, W (Bury)

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Fox, Sir G.

  Morrison, Maj. J. G, (Salisbury)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Fraser, Sir I (Lonsdale)

  Mott-Radelyffe, Maj. C E

  Sir Arthur Young and

  Commander Agnew

  NOES.

  Adams, w r. (Hammersmith, South)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Benson, G

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Berry, H.

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Alpass, J. H

  Bevan, Rt Hon A. (Ebbw Vale)

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Attewell, H. C

  Bing, G. H C.

  Bruce, Maj O W T.

  Awbery, S. S

  Binns, J.

  Buchanan, G.

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Blackburn, A. R

  Burden, T. W

  Baird, J.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Burke, W. A

  Balfour, A.

  Blyton, W R

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

  Barstow, P. G

  Boardman, H.

  Callaghan, James

  Barton, C.

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

  Chamberlain, R. A

  Battley, J. R.

  Bowles, F. G (Nuneaton)

  Champion, A. J.

  Bechervaise, A E

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

  Clitherow. Dr. R

  mittee of the Whole House."—[Mr. R. S. Hudson.]
  The House divided: Ayes, III; Noes. 242.

  Cobb, F. A.

  Hynd, Rt. Hon. J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Pursey, Cmdr. H

  Cocks, F. S.

  Itaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Randall, H. E.

  Collick, P.

  Janner, B.

  Ranger, J.

  Collindridge, F.

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Rees-Williams, D. R.

  Collins, V. J.

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

  Reeves, J.

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

  Rhodes, H.

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

  Jonas, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Robens, A.

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

  Keenan, W.

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Corvedale, Viscount

  Kenyon, C.

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Crawley, A.

  Key, C. W.

  Royle, C.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  King, E. M.

  Sargood, R.

  Daggar, G.

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

  Scollan, T

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Kinley, J.

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Layers, S.

  Segal, Dr. S.

  Davit., Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A

  Davies, Harold (Leak)

  Lewis, A. W J- (Upton)

  Shurmer, P.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Lewis, J. (Bolton)

  Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.

  Deer, G.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Longden, F.

  Simmons, C. J,

  Delargy, Captain H. J.

  Lyne, A. W.

  Skefnngton, A. M.

  Diamond, J.

  Mack, J. D.

  Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

  Dobbie, W.

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

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

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Dye, S.

  McKinlay, A. S.

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

  Ede, Rt Hon. J. C.

  McLeavy, F.

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Edelman, M.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Stamford, W.

  Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

  Marquand, H. A.

  Strachey, J.

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Marshall, F. (Brightside)

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

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Mathers, G.

  Summerskill, Dr. Edith

  Farthing, W. J.

  Medland, H. M.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Field, Captain W. J.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

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

  Messer, F.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Follick, M.

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Thomas, John R. (Dover)

  Foot, M. M.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Gaitskell, H. T. N.

  Monslow, W.

  Thurtle, E.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S

  Moody, A. S.

  Tiffany, S.

  Gibbins, J.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Tolley, L

  Gilzean, A.

  Morley, R.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Goodrich, H. E.

  Moyle, A.

  Usborne, Henry

  Gordon-Walker, P. C

  Murray, J. D.

  Walkden, E.

  Grey, C. F.

  Nally, W.

  Walker, G. H.

  Grierson, E.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Warbey, W. N.

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

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

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Weitzman, D.

  Guy, W. H.

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

  West, D. G.

  Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

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

  Hale, Leslie

  O'Brien, T.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Orbach, M.

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Hardy, E. A.

  Paget, R. T.

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Willis, E.

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J

  Hicks, G.

  Pearson, A.

  Woods, G. S.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Peart, Capt T. F

  Wyatt, W.

  Holman, P.

  Perrins, W.

  Yates, V. F.

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Piratin, P.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Horabin, T. L.

  Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

  Zilliacus, K.

  House, G.

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

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

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

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

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Capt. Michael Stewart and

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Pritt, D. N

  Mr. Popplewell.

INDIA (GOVERNORS' ALLOWANCES AND PRIVILEGES)
10.23 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for India (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I beg to move,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act,
1910
1935, praying that the Government of India (Governors' Allowances and Privileges) (Amendment) Order, 1946, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."
The object of this Order is to increase certain allowances that are payable to the Governor of Sind. The reason why we seek to increase such allowances is due to two factors. The first is because, since the amounts were originally fixed by the Order made in 1936, the Governor of Sind has had to move his quarters from the

1911
bungalow to an official Government House that was completed in 1942. As the House will see from the Draft Order, certain of the amounts refer to the renewal of furnishings, the maintenance of the Governor's furniture and certain allowances in respect of hospitality and the pay and upkeep of domestics. The second point relates to the Governor's Military Secretary. These amounts have been very carefully scrutinised by the Viceroy, and he advises that he is satisfied that they are necessary.
Earl Winterton: I desire to offer no opposition to this on behalf of those who sit on this side of the House. If I may venture a somewhat sombre or sinister joke, I should say that anyone who happens to be a Governor in India under the present deplorable conditions deserves to be properly housed and to have proper emoluments.
Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: May I ask whether air conditioning is to be put into the Governor's residence, and if not, when it is anticipated that it will be put in?
Mr. Henderson: That is not actually governed by the Order. As I have said, this refers to domestics, and the maintenance and renewal of furniture.
Debate adjourned. —[Mr. R. I Taylor.]
Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

BURMA (ADAPTATION OF ACTS OF PARLIAMENT)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Adaptation of Acts of Parliament) (Second Amendment) Order, 1946, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."
10.26 p.m.
Earl Winterton: May we have an explanation of this Motion?
The Under-Secretary of State for Burma (Mr. Arthur Henderson): The object of this Order is to carry on for a further period the exemption of Burma from Section 4 of the Import Duties Act, 1932. As the House will be aware, and as I said in March, when a draft Order
1912
on this subject was last passed, it has been necessary, ever since 1937, when Burma was first given self-government under the Government of Burma Act, I935, to provide this exemption. The object is to enable Burma to enter into a trade agreement under the Import Duties Act, 1932. For one reason or another, it has not been found possible for the Government of Burma to enter into a trading agreement with this country, and, consequently, previous Governments as well as this Government, have found it necessary to come to the House from time to time, and ask for this exemption to be continued until it has been found possible for the Government of Burma to enter into this trade agreement. The difficulty at the moment arises because of the approaching international trade organisation conference. It is thought better to wait still further until we see what emerges from that, before His Majesty's Government and the Government of Burma enter into discussions with a view to a trading agreement.
10.27 p.m.
Earl Winterton: I would like to say in all courtesy and seriousness to the hon. and learned Gentleman—I know he will not regard this as a criticism but as a friendly suggestion—that the long experience of Indian government which I have had, and which so far as this country is concerned is unique, has shown me that nothing annoys Indian opinion more than the impression that we deal with their affairs in this House in a casual manner. I intend this as a perfectly friendly suggestion. I hope that when these important matters come before us—and this Motion deals with a substantial matter—the hon. and learned Gentleman will get up and explain them.
Mr. A. Henderson: I had intended to give an explanation.
Earl Winterton: It is important that they should be explained. I am not at all clear, and I doubt if other Members who have studied this matter are quite clear, as to how Burma stands in this matter. May I say in passing—I know you would chide me Mr. Speaker, if I went outside the terms of the Order—that this House is still largely responsible for the government of a vast country like Burma, where there are millions of people. This Order applies to the trading welfare, indeed the

1913
individual welfare, of millions of people who are under the, at any rate, remote control of this House. It is most desirable, in considering an Order of this kind, that we bear this fact, in mind. I wish to ask one question. I am not clear, from the explanatory note, what the position of Burma is at the present time. If hon. Members have the explanatory note in their hand they will see that the first three paragraphs deal with the situation as it existed before the war, and the third paragraph ends by saying:
"the Government of India (Adaptation of Acts of Parliament) Order, 1937, was made in March, 1937, applying Section 4 to Burma (i.e., classing Burma with the Dominions and India) with effect from the 31st March, 1938. This meant that Burma had a year's grace during which she enjoyed colonial immunity from duties in order to make an agreement under the Ottawa scheme. If at the end of the year she had not made such an agreement she would cease to enjoy Imperial Preference."
That is clear enough. Anyone familiar with the Ottawa Agreement knows how Burma stands in relation to that. What I am not clear about, and what I wish to ask a question about, is what is said in the last two paragraphs:
"Various factors prevented Burma concluding an agreement before the outbreak of war and, so as not to penalise her undeservedly, it was found necessary by successive Orders in Council to extend the period of grace from year to year."
Mr. Speaker: This matter was discussed before when this Order came before the House in former years. Therefore we cannot go over that ground again. Surely that is a fait accompli.
Earl Winterton: Surely, Mr. Speaker, when an Order is issued with an explanatory note—and I understand this is an explanatory note issued with the Order— one is entitled to refer to it.
Mr. Speaker: But these matters were discussed before. We can only discuss the last twelve months because the Order has been renewed every twelve months, for the past six or seven years. We cannot go back on various factors existing before the outbreak of war.
Earl Winterton: I am referring to the explanatory note, and I am afraid I must ask you, Sir for a Ruling upon this. I submit that when an Order of this kind is issued, and there is an explanatory note, one is entitled to refer to the explanatory
1914
note. Otherwise it would make nonsense of our procedure. If an explanatory note is to be of use, surely we must refer to it.
Mr. Speaker: Various factors might have been discussed when the Order was presented twelve months ago. These various factors have existed every year since the war began, and before. Therefore this reference is simply a statement of fact. I do not think it is in Order to ask about these various factors, now, because they are past.
Earl Winterton: May I again call your attention, Sir, to the particular paragraph which I was quoting:
"Various factors prevented Burma concluding an agreement before the outbreak of war, and, so as not to penalise her undeservedly, it was found necessary by successive Orders in Council to extend the period of grace from year to year."
Mr. Speaker: It was necessary to point out from year to year that it had been found necessary to disregard these various factors. The Orders were passed from year to year, and were decisions of the House, and it is not in Order to raise them again.
Earl Winterton: Then I must raise another point of Order. The note goes on to say:
"The last Order elapses on 30th November, 1946."
I call particular attention to the next words of the explanatory note:
"It is still necessary to give the Government of Burma a breathing space in which to make their trade agreement with the U.K., which may depend on the conclusions reached in the present International Trade Negotiations."
As the present International Trade Negotiations were not taking place on the occasion of the former passing of the Order, my object was to ask a question about the present International Trade Negotiations. When the House discussed this matter before, the International Trade Negotiations were not in operation. Is it not then in Order for me to ask a question?
Mr. Speaker: The Order emphasises that clearly, and, therefore, it is perfectly in Order for the noble Lord 'to ask any question in reference to the International Trade negotiations that are referred to.
Earl Winterton: I hope, Sir, you will allow me to make a most humble apology

1915
to the Chair, and to say that I deeply regret that, owing to my stupidity in not making clear at the commencement of my statement that I was referring to the last sentence dealing with the International Trade Negotiations, it was necessary to call me to Order. I now come to the question which I propose to ask the hon. and learned gentleman. I want to know whether it is not the case that since we passed this Order last, there has been a change in the constitution of the Government of Burma. I understand we now have an interim Government in Burma, which is not, in any sense of the word, a Dominion Government or a Government which has the same status as the Government of India. I therefore want to know, reverting to the last sentence of the explanatory note, about the necessity of giving the Government of Burma breathing space, whether we have or have not any power under this Order to approach the Government of Burma to ask them to make an agreement which many of us regard as really desirable. He may say it is ultra vires and, therefore, out of Order to discuss it tonight. Have we not, under the interim Government, full power to make representations; and will he give us an assurance that everything will be done? I think he will be the first to agree that it is most desirable to make this agreement if possible.
10.35 p.m.
Mr. A. Henderson: I would like to say at once, that there is no basis for any suggestion that the legal basis of the Burma Constitution has been altered by political developments recently. The legal basis of the Constitution of Burma rests today, as it did during the term of previous Governments since 1935, on the Government of Burma Act, 1935. That is the position today. So far as the Government of Burma is concerned, it is entitled to ask for discussions with regard to a trading agreement with the U.K. Government, but I have indicated that, in the view of the U.K. Government, it is desirable to wait until we see the outcome of the international discussions which are taking place, and which will eventually merge into an International Conference which I believe is to begin in April next year.
Mr. Brendan Bracken: Is Burma to be represented there?
Mr. Henderson: That will be a matter for the Government of Burma—whether they will be represented through the U.K. delegation. This is a matter for the Burma Government and not for the U.K. Government.
Earl Winterton: What does the hon. and learned Member mean—does he mean His Majesty's Government? It is very important for the Government of Burma that the agreement should be made on behalf of His Majesty's Government.
Mr. Henderson: What I said was that in the view of His Majesty's Government, if we are going to have an agreement between the two parties both parties should express their views as to whether the time is opportune. In the view of the U.K. Government, the time is not opportune now to enter into a trading agreement with Burma because we desire to wait until we see the outcome of the International Conference.
Mr. Bracken: But the hon. and learned Gentleman must explain something. Are the Government of Burma to be represented? The hon. and learned Gentleman apparently assumes they are going to attend. But are the Government of Burma in fact going to attend this Conference?
Mr. Henderson: I did not say they were going to be represented. I said they would have the right to be represented, but that is a matter for the Government of Burma to decide.
10.37 p.m.
Mr. Rees-Williams: I rise because on a previous occasion, when an Order relating to Burma came before this House, the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) made certain references to hon. Members on these benches.
Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with this Order.
Mr. Rees-Williams: My remark is only introductory. I was going to say that the insinuation was made that we were not interested in the subject before the House. I want to say tonight, so as to let the people of Burma know, that many of us on these benches are interested in Burma, and fully support this Order, and hope it will have the results which are intended.
Debate adjourned.— [Mr. R. J. Taylor.]
Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

WAYS AND MEANS [27th November]
Resolution reported:
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to revoke certain emergency provision as to licences to drive motor vehicles, and to amend the law as to the destination of fees in respect of driving tests, it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of such fees."

R.A.F. EDUCATION OFFICERS
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. R. J. Taylor.]
10.39 p.m.
Mr. Ralph Morley: I wish to draw the attention of this House to the very serious grievances which the education officers of the R.A.F. suffered in their service during the late war, and to suggest to the Secretary of State for Air that, unless these grievances are rectified, with retrospective effect, he is not likely to make up his full establishment in the new education service which he is now organising for the R.A.F.
Since the hour is late and the time limited, and I know of at least one other hon. Member who wishes to take part in this Debate, I will content myself with epitomising as rapidly as I can the position of these education officers in the Royal Air Force. They joined under civilian conditions of service, and since they joined under these conditions of service, they did not receive Service pay or allowances. They were paid the Burnham scale, with a slight addition. Nor did they receive the tax reliefs paid to officers in the Service, and if they received injuries in the course of their duties they were awarded civilian compensation and not the higher rate of compensation applied to the Services. In spite of these disabilities, they were compelled to wear the Service uniform: they carried the normal Service identity cards, were subject to Air Force law and were frequently called upon by commanding officers to perform the duties of a fully mobilised officer. They had one advantage at the beginning of their service. They were employed on a con-
1918
tract which could be terminated by a three months' notice on either side. In May, 1945, under Regulation 58AA of the Defence and Civil Service Regulations they were told they were to be treated as civil servants and could not be released unless with the consent of the Permanent Officer of the Ministry. And that consent was not often given.
As the German war concluded, these education officers were retained in the Service against the contract under which they had entered, while other teachers were being released under Scheme "B". As a result of being retained they came back to the schools later and lost opportunities of promotion, of which some of those who were released earlier were able to avail themselves. When they were released they received no leave with pay, no gratuity, and no clothing allowance. In fact these education officers had the worst of both worlds: they suffered from all the disadvantages of both Services—the Royal Air Force and the Civil Service—and had the advantages of neither. It is little wonder that these officers have returned to the schools with a feeling of deep resentment against their treatment by the Royal Air Force. They have had a raw deal and they have not forgotten it. As a result they are advising other teachers not to enter the educational service of the Royal Air Force. I would not altogether put past their advising the boys whom they are teaching against service with the Royal Air Force. If the new and fully mobilised educational service of the Royal Air Force is to reach the required standard, something will have to be done to rectify this injustice.
A few weeks ago I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many applicants he had had for the new educational service in the Royal Air Force. In reply he said he had 131 applicants. But a few weeks before that the Financial Secretary to the War Office stated that for 300 vacancies in the Army, he had had over 1,500 applications. The difference is due, no doubt, to the memories of the bad treatment received by the education officers in the period of the war. On several occasions I have led deputations to the Air Ministry to plead the case of these officers to the Under-Secretary of State and his predecessor, the present Minister of Food. On both occasions,

1919
we were received most courteously; our view appeared to elicit a considerable amount of sympathy and agreement from both Under-Secretaries and we left the conferences feeling that our requests were going to be granted. But they have not been granted. To-night I ask the Under-Secretary if he can give us a promise that he will pay these people the gratuities to which they claim to be entitled and also give them their clothing allowance. If he does so, I can assure him that he will do very much to expedite the building of the full establishment in the new R.A.F.
10.45 p.m.
Sir Ian Fraser: In the closing months of the war, a flying bomb fell on an R.A.F. school in St. John's Wood, and blinded for life a young education officer of the R.A.F. Had he been in the Army or in the Royal Navy, he would have been treated as a blinded officer and pensioned accordingly. But because he was in the R.A.F. he receives a civilian pension which is less than half the amount he would have received had he been in the other Services. He is the only one in that category. I have asked successive, Under-Secretaries for Air that this should be remedied; I have asked about it at the Ministry of Pensions, but the Ministry of Pensions cannot move, unless the Secretary for Air moves first. Is it too late— surely it is not—for the Government to make an exception in this case and grant this man what he would have had, had he been in either of the other Services?
10.47 p.m.
Mr. George Thomas: There has always been a feeling of uneasiness among hon. Members of this House about injustices to ex-members of His Majesty's Forces. The Under-Secretary is acquainted with the fact that the education officers of the Royal Air Force have had a raw deal. On many occasions the matter has been brought before the Minister and the hon. Gentleman will know, and the House should know, that these men have given gallant service throughout the war, have faced the same hazards as the other members of the Services during the war, and have had all the responsibility of mobilised people. But they find at the end of their service that they get no gratuity with which to face the difficulties of "Civvy Steet," and they have the further increased hardship to which the hon. Member for Southampton
1920
(Mr. Morley) has drawn attention, in connection with their clothing coupons and allowances. We have been considering in recent days the question of conscription, owing to the admitted difficulties of providing sufficient numbers by voluntary service. But I think it right to say that, so long as there are manifest injustices suffered by those who are in the Services, or those who have been in the Services, we cannot expect much from the voluntary recruiting campaign which is being attempted. I hope that my hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary, will be accommodating to-night. In the St. Athan station in South Wales there is a large proportion of these education officers, who have had very high commendation for what they have done. Are we to allow them to leave the Service disgruntled and dissatisfied after all they have done? I am certain that the Under-Secretary will render a great service, not only to the Royal Air Force, but also to recruiting at this time, if he takes steps to wipe out the injustices and grievances which these men feel.
10.50 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): The championship of the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Morley) of the members of the old civilian R.A.F. educational service is well known to me, as it is to all those in the field of education. I have discussed this matter with my hon. Friend in the extreme discomfort of the Lobbies and corridors of this Palace, in the relative comfort of my office at the Air Ministry, and in the relaxed ease of the Members' smoking room. At all times, he has told me the line of attack that he would use when this matter was raised upon the Adjournment. The case presented tonight is that our civilian education officers during the war had the worst of two worlds, military and civil, and as a result the officers have left the Service and taken with them a feeling of resentment. It was further said that this resentment will cause them to influence other members of the teaching profession not to join the education branch of the R.A.F. and may even cause the pupils in the schools not to join the R.A.F.
The facts of the R.A.F. educational service are as follow—and, of course, the history is here relevant. It was formed soon after the 1914–1918 war as a civilian service. The Government of the day no

1921
doubt decided to make it a civilian service because it was cheaper but, unfortunately, successive Governments followed this policy. Thus it was that at the beginning of the 1939 war the Royal Air Force, in so many ways the most progressive of the Services, was the only Service without a militarised education branch. It is that point, to which I will return in a moment, which is relevant to the point made by the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser). It was the only Service without a militarised education branch. It had only the civilian service established 20 years before, and this is the whole crux of the matter. The R.A.F. educational service remained civilian until 1st October, 1946.
It has been said that in some way this civilian status was changed because of the way these men were employed in the R.A.F. during the war. It has been said that they were commissioned. That is true. It was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) that they were in a similar position to other mobilised men. That is not so: they were not mobilised—
Mr. G. Thomas: But they had the same responsibilities.
Mr. de Freitas: I will deal with the Point about responsibility in a moment. hey were commissioned in the R.A.F.V.R. but they were not mobilised. Other civilians were also commissioned—members of the works, the audit, and the scientific staff. It is said they were put into uniform. That is true, but so were other civilians. It is said they were under R.A.F. law, and so they were. They were subject to R.A.F. law as members of the R.A.F.V.R. but, as one of my predecessors said in this House, on 26th November, 1941:
"As unmobilised officers of the R.A.F. Volunteer Reserve, they are subject to the Air Force Act only to the same extent as are other civilians accompanying the Air Force on active service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1941; Vol. 376, c. 732.]
It is said that they had Service identity cards. So they had. They had Form 1250 but that had nothing to do with their status and was merely because they were in uniform.
Mr. King: What is an unmobilised officer?
Mr. de Freitas: An unmobilised officer is a well recognised category. It is a
1922
man Who is commissioned but not mobilised.
Mr. G. Thomas: It is a contradiction in terms.
Mr. de Freitas: It is not a contradiction in terms. There is art unmobilised officer. He is a man who receives a commission but is not called out or mobilised.
Mr. Pritt: Are they demobilised—they are not mobilised?
Mr. de Freitas: No, they are not. A further point that has-been made by the hon. Member for Southampton is that they were called upon to perform the duties of fully mobilised officers, That is not so. They were not called upon to do so, but it cannot be denied that many of these education officers were from time to, time entrusted by station commanders with duties which as- civilians they could not be called upon to perform. I remember myself in the R.A.F. meeting an education officer acting as an orderly officer, but in such cases the education officer volunteered for those duties as a public spirited and obviously educated man, who-realised how important it was to, give all the help he could especially on routine and uninteresting jobs in the Service.
Mr. King: As a personal experience I recall that on an R.A.F. station, where I had the command of the defence troops, the education officer was taking an active role in the defence of that place, and he did not volunteer for the job. He was detailed to do it.
Mr. de Freitas: I should like to have information on that, because the Air Ministry letter of 28th May, 1942, which was sent to all commanders-in-chief, expressly laid down conditions on that point. It stated that many education officers were anxious to take part in. station defence, and after detailing how they could do so and how they could be accepted if they volunteered—that point is made plain— the letter makes it quite clear that these men were civilians and remained civilians, and it adds:
"If education officers sustain death or injury while taking part in defence duties they are eligible for compensation, under the Civilian Injury Warrants."
That means that they were civilians and that their status was not changed. If, however, they volunteered to do a certain job they could do it.
Mr. Pritt: It should have been explained to the Germans that it would have been cheaper to have shot them than the others.
Mr. de Freitas: I have dealt with the points which were raised to show that nothing had been done to take away their civilian status from them. Then there is the last point which the hon. Member for Southampton made/ that these men were subject to three months' notice. That is correct. They remained subject to three months' notice and at the end, as has been stated, they had the Control of Employment (Civil Servants) Order applied to them.
Dr. Segal: Is it a fact that these education officers were subject to these very serious disabilities because they were not liable for operational duties?
Mr. de Freitas: No they were not. These education officers were civilians, and as civilians they had certain functions to perform, but in addition to that, because as I have said they were public spirited men and obviously wanted to help, they were allowed to do certain volunteer tasks, but at all stages their civilian status was emphasised and safeguarded.
Mr. G. Thomas: Did the three months' notice ever operate?
Mr. de Freitas: I have been informed that the three months' notice did operate, and the fact that clinches the argument has been submitted by one of the speakers tonight—that these men were subject to the Control of Employment (Civil Servants) Order. How can they really expect to be treated in any other way? They were treated as Civilians throughout the war. Therefore, it is natural that at the end of the war they should also be so treated. It follows from that that it is impossible to give them military benefits. There is the sad case mentioned by the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser). Naturally, we must all have the greatest sympathy with this man, but we cannot alter the fact that he was a civilian.
Sir I. Fraser: As that is the only case in the whole of this great war, can the hon. Gentleman say whether some special effort could be made through the Dispensing Warrant, or in some other way, to meet it?.
Mr. de Freitas: I will certainly look into that particular case, but, fundamentally, of course, that man was, as I have pointed out, a civilian. The wartime education officers did great service. We are grateful to them; we are especially grateful to those who volunteered for work outside their strict duties. But we are faced with the fact that the Government have endorsed the general principle that military benefits can only be paid for periods of war service in the Forces on full Service pay. This particular decision, as it applies to education officers, does deprive them of military benefits, but it is not a small back-room Air Ministry decision; it is a considered decision of His Majesty's Government.
As my hon. Friend has pointed out, and as I have announced in this House on more than one occasion, from 1st October this year we have a R.A.F. Education Branch, the members of which are full officers, equal in status to the general duties officers or officers of any other branch of the R.A.F. This Government have done what no other Government have done; they have recognised the enormous importance of education in the Service, and have, therefore, raised the status of the education officer from that of a civilian in uniform. The terms of service for education officers are such that I am sure they will attract the high type of man which we need for this job. I ask the House to recognise that it is because we began the war with civilian education officers that these disadvantages flow, and I particularly ask my hon. Friend who raised this matter to use his great influence among teachers to persuade them that the men of the R.A.F. today and tomorrow should not be prejudiced because of the disdeeds of yesterday.
Sir I. Fraser: Put it right now.
Mr. de Freitas: I also wish to deal with the point that he made concerning the figures given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office. I cannot speak for the War Office, but I think mat, if those figures are closely examined and if he puts down another Question to the War Office, he will find that the high number of applications which the Army have received are applications for forms on which to apply, whereas the low number which I gave was actually the number of applications for commissions received by the R.A.F. and that the

1925
Army's position is much the same as ours. There has never been a time when there was such a great opportunity for adult education as there is in the Services today. I appeal to all who are interested in adult education to help us. Our education branch begins in lean times when teachers are in short supply. It begins at a time when it is maintained that there is a feeling of resentment among our former civilian employees. If that is so, then there is a good deal against us, and that is why we rely more than ever on the help of all those who believe in adult education.
11.3 p.m.
Mr. Pritt: I am sure that the Under-Secretary, who I think is a man with a sense of honesty and a desire to serve his Department, must have bitterly regretted the task he has had to perform. I do not think it is good enough to appeal to officers and others and say," They swindled me, but they promise not to swindle you." I think my hon. Friend ought to have tendered his resignation rather than come down and present such a sorry case to the House. There is no excuse at all, except
1926
The "red tape "excuse of these people being, in fact, civilians. In the first world war I was a civilian in the War Office, graded for pay, I think, as a staff captain. I never told Sir James Grigg— it would have shocked him—but it was a fact. I was engaged on confidential duties. At the end of the war, I found that because I was graded for military pay, I was entitled to a gratuity. I had not the insolence to take it, but what a contrast to the end of this war when men who had performed military service were told," You are technically civilians, and technically we can swindle you." The Under-Secretary ought to be ashamed of himself.
Mr. de Freitas: The word "swindle" is surely not justified. These men were civilians and they knew they were civilians. We did not lead them "up the garden path," saying that we were going to treat them as something else, and then later treat them as civilians. There was no swindle.
Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.

  A.R.P. (FUTURE ORGANISATION)
  A.R.P. (FUTURE ORGANISATION)
  AGRICULTURAL WORKERS (PROTECTION)
  AGRICULTURAL WORKERS (PROTECTION)
  UNION FOR BRITISH FREEDOM (INCIDENT)
  UNION FOR BRITISH FREEDOM (INCIDENT)
  CHILD CARE (ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION)
  CHILD CARE (ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION)
HOUSING
  Agricultural Cottages (Private Enterprise)
  Agricultural Cottages (Private Enterprise)
  Erpingham Rural District
  Erpingham Rural District
  Agricultural Workers
  Agricultural Workers
  Doctor's House, Morden
  Doctor's House, Morden
  Land, Wednesfield
  Land, Wednesfield
  Leicester
  Leicester
  Airey Houses, Somerset
  Airey Houses, Somerset
  FENCING (DANGEROUS PITS AND QUARRY HOLES)
  FENCING (DANGEROUS PITS AND QUARRY HOLES)
  WATER SUPPLIES, GREATER LONDON (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE)
  WATER SUPPLIES, GREATER LONDON (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE)
EMPLOYMENT
  Catering Industry
  Catering Industry
  Liverpool and Bootle
  Liverpool and Bootle
  Creative Industries (Employees)
  Creative Industries (Employees)
  Lost Working-Days (Industrial Disputes)
  Lost Working-Days (Industrial Disputes)
NATIONAL SERVICE
  Conscientious Objectors
  Conscientious Objectors
  University Students
  University Students
NATIONAL FINANCE
  U.N.R.R.A. (Government Contribution)
  U.N.R.R.A. (Government Contribution)
  P.A.Y.E. (Administration)
  P.A.Y.E. (Administration)
  Requisitioned Property (Public Funds)
  Requisitioned Property (Public Funds)
  Cheap Money Policy
  Cheap Money Policy
  Import Restrictions (Foreign Currency)
  Import Restrictions (Foreign Currency)
UNIVERSITIES
  Teaching and Research Space
  Teaching and Research Space
  Entrants
  Entrants
  National Debt
  National Debt
EDUCATION
  Teachers
  Teachers
  School, Cheshunt (Member's Letter)
  School, Cheshunt (Member's Letter)
  Higher School Certificate (Call-up)
  Higher School Certificate (Call-up)
  All-Age Schools
  All-Age Schools
  Grammar Schools (Junior Departments)
  Grammar Schools (Junior Departments)
  Wrexham Training College
  Wrexham Training College
  Inspectors, Wales
  Inspectors, Wales
  Temporary Appointments, U.S.A.
  Temporary Appointments, U.S.A.
  Text Books
  Text Books
  Training Grants
  Training Grants
  Spanish and Portuguese
  Spanish and Portuguese
  Trade Union Membership (Teachers)
  Trade Union Membership (Teachers)
  Wales and Monmouthshire (Joint Body)
  Wales and Monmouthshire (Joint Body)
  Closed School, Salcott
  Closed School, Salcott
  Milk (Waste)
  Milk (Waste)
  Corporal Punishment
  Corporal Punishment
  Leaving Age
  Leaving Age
  LEGAL AID (PROPOSED LEGISLATION)
  LEGAL AID (PROPOSED LEGISLATION)
  CROWN PROCEEDINGS BILL
  CROWN PROCEEDINGS BILL
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Woollen Underwear
  Woollen Underwear
  China
  China
  Infants' Clothing
  Infants' Clothing
  New Periodicals (Licensing)
  New Periodicals (Licensing)
  s.s. "Queen Elizabeth" (Passengers' Purchases)
  s.s. "Queen Elizabeth" (Passengers' Purchases)
  Crockery
  Crockery
  Consumer Goods (Distribution)
  Consumer Goods (Distribution)
  World Conference (Preparatory Committee's Meeting)
  World Conference (Preparatory Committee's Meeting)
  Clothing Books (Demobilised Personnel)
  Clothing Books (Demobilised Personnel)
  Children's Books
  Children's Books
  Factory Extension Schemes (Aberdeen)
  Factory Extension Schemes (Aberdeen)
  Surplus Factory, Swadlincote
  Surplus Factory, Swadlincote
  Bus Services (Tyres)
  Bus Services (Tyres)
  Radio Valves (Price)
  Radio Valves (Price)
  Cotton Control (Purchasing System)
  Cotton Control (Purchasing System)
  Egyptian Cotton Exports (Types and Marks)
  Egyptian Cotton Exports (Types and Marks)
  Food and Raw Materials (Imports)
  Food and Raw Materials (Imports)
  Rose Mill, Hollinwood (Export Applications)
  Rose Mill, Hollinwood (Export Applications)
  Liverpool Cotton Exchange
  Liverpool Cotton Exchange
  Italian Marble Imports
  Italian Marble Imports
  Rubber Control (Cessation)
  Rubber Control (Cessation)
  FUEL ECONOMY
  FUEL ECONOMY
COAL INDUSTRY
  Salford Floods (Extra Fuel)
  Salford Floods (Extra Fuel)
  Allocation, Hull
  Allocation, Hull
  Coal Boards (Politics)
  Coal Boards (Politics)
  Cleaned Coal
  Cleaned Coal
PETROL
  Sources of Supply
  Sources of Supply
  Stolen Coupons
  Stolen Coupons
  GAS SUPPLIES, NEWBURGH
  GAS SUPPLIES, NEWBURGH
  BRITISH OIL RESERVES
  BRITISH OIL RESERVES
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Columbia House, Aldwych
  Columbia House, Aldwych
  Electrical Fittings
  Electrical Fittings
  CIVIL AVIATION (SCOTTISH ADVISORY COUNCIL)
  CIVIL AVIATION (SCOTTISH ADVISORY COUNCIL)
ARMED FORCES
  Health
  Health
  Deserters
  Deserters
BRITISH ARMY
  Leave Camp, Sidi Bishr
  Leave Camp, Sidi Bishr
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  Territorial Army (Officers)
  Territorial Army (Officers)
  SECURITY COUNCIL (GOVERNMENT POLICY)
  SECURITY COUNCIL (GOVERNMENT POLICY)
  LUSSIN ISLAND
  LUSSIN ISLAND
TRANSPORT NATIONALISATION
  Metropolitan Assented Stock
  Metropolitan Assented Stock
  Ecclesiastical Commissioners (Income Loss)
  Ecclesiastical Commissioners (Income Loss)
  TRAIN SERVICES, WALES
  TRAIN SERVICES, WALES
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (PERSONAL CASES)
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (PERSONAL CASES)
  NYASALAND (PROVINCIAL COUNCILS)
  NYASALAND (PROVINCIAL COUNCILS)
  GAUGE AND TOOL ADVISORY COUNCIL
  GAUGE AND TOOL ADVISORY COUNCIL
  TRINIDAD (SEAMEN'S STRIKE)
  TRINIDAD (SEAMEN'S STRIKE)
Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to inform your Lordships that we propose to hold a purely formal sitting of the House to-morrow afternoon at a quarter past four o'clock for the purpose of receiving Bills from another place.

  TERRITORIAL ARMY OFFICERS.
  EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I beg to ask a question of which I have given private notice. I desire to ask His Majesty's Government whether they have any statement to make about the provision of officers for the Territorial Army.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for enabling me to make a statement regarding the provision of Commanding Officers and staffs for the Territorial Army. As the statement contains a fair amount of detail and is therefore necessarily rather long I am arranging to circulate it in the Official Report. I will send a copy to the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue. I hope to make a further statement shortly as to the provision of regimental officers. With your Lordships' permission I would just now like to summarize the position. Territorial Divisions, except two Divisions with their headquarters in London, will be commanded by the Major-Generals commanding the local districts. Brigade and similar Commanders will be Territorial or other officers not on the active list of the Regular Army whenever suitable officers are available and willing to accept these appointments. It is likely, however, that the numbers who can spare the necessary time will be considerably less than the total needed and, if so, Regular officers will be appointed.
  464
  Commanding officers of units will generally be non-Regular officers and Regular officers will, as a rule, only be given command when no non-Regulars can be obtained. Some Staff officers are needed at once for the Territorial Army. Their duties will correspond with those of Staff officers in similar appointments in the Regular Army and they will in nearly all cases be Regular officers. Regular officers will also be provided as Adjutants and Quartermasters of units. Suitable non-Regular officers who are available and willing to serve may, however, be appointed when Regular officers are not available. The same standards are being applied in the selection of all these officers, whether non-Regular or Regular. They are being drawn from the same field as are officers for similar appointments in the Regular Army and the same process of selection is being followed. The age zones for selection have, however, been slightly raised so as to take advantage of the experience of rather older officers which will be invaluable in the early stages of the reconstitution of the Territorial Army. Great importance is being attached to the war records of the officers being considered and to their experience on active service.
  The statement referred to by Lord Pakenham is as follows:
  DIVISIONAL COMMANDERS.
  Normally, a Territorial Division will be commanded by the District Commander (Major-General) in whose district the headquarters of the Territorial Army Division is situated. The District Commanders concerned commanded Divisions in the war. District Commanders, who are also to command Territorial Divisions, will in future, as the appointments become vacant, be selected primarily as Divisional Commanders.
  Two Divisions, with headquarters in London, will be commanded by Major-Generals who are not also District Commanders. These officers have been specially selected for these appointments.
  BRIGADE AND SIMILAR COMMANDERS.
  The intention is, whenever suitable officers are available and willing to accept the appointments, to appoint Territorial Army or other non-Regular officers as Commanders of Territorial Army Armoured, Infantry and Anti-Aircraft Brigades, and as Commanders, Royal Artillery, Commanders, Army Group Royal Artillery and Commanders, Army Group Royal Engineers.
  A number of officers have been provisionally earmarked as suitable for these appointments. In most cases, these officers held similar commands in the war with success, and are between the ages of 40 and 52. They are now

  465
  being approached to find out whether they are willing to be appointed.
  A few rather younger non-Regular officers with particularly distinguished war records may also be approached. It is expected, however, that the total number of non-Regular officers who will be in a position to accept these responsibilities will be very considerably short of the number required and it is intended to fill all remaining appointments with Regular officers. A number have already been earmarked so that they can be appointed without loss of time when the number of vacancies is known. They have been drawn from the same field as are officers for similar appointments in the Regular Army. Many of them held Brigade or similar commands during the War.
  STAFF OFFICERS.
  The headquarters of districts, the Commander of which also commands a Territorial Division, will receive an increase of staff to provide the necessary staff officers for the Division.
  The headquarters of other districts will also have some addition, as they will have Territorial Army units to deal with.
  New headquarters are needed for the two Divisions in London and staffs are being selected.
  The number of Anti-Aircraft groups is being increased from three to five. All Anti-Aircraft groups will include both Regular and Territorial Army Anti-Aircraft Brigades. The number of staff officers at the headquarters of these Anti-Aircraft groups is being increased.
  The headquarters of Armoured, Infantry and Anti-Aircraft Brigades and Commanders Royal Artillery, Commanders Army Group Royal Artillery and Commanders Army Group Royal Engineers will each be provided with one wholetime staff officer.
  All these staff officers will be Regular officers selected from the same staff pools as are staff officers for similar appointments in the Regular Army. The majority have already been earmarked. There may, however, be some difficulty in providing at once some junior staff officers (third grade) at District and Divisional Headquarters, as at present there is a shortage of officers suitable and trained for these appointments.
  The staff officers to be provided now, are the minimum considered necessary to form and train the Territorial Army in peace. If and when the Territorial Army is embodied, a large number of additional staff officers will of course be needed and it is hoped to provide most of these from the Territorial Army itself. The provision and training of these officers is now being considered.
  REGIMETAL OFFICERS.
  (a) Commanding Officers.
  The intention is to appoint non-Regular officers to command units whenever fully qualified non-Regular officers are available. Lists have been prepared of Territorial Army and other non-Regular officers between the ages of 34 and 47 who have been recommended for command of units, and Commands are to make provisional nominations, which may include
  466
  names not on the lists. When these nominations are received they will be considered by a Selection Board.
  Lists of potential Regular Commanding Officers have also been prepared in case sufficient non-Regular officers are not available.
  It is possible that at a later stage all units with non-Regular Commanding Officers will be provided with a Regular officers as 2nd in command. In the early stages this will only be necessary when a unit is changing its role or being raised for the first time.
  (b) Adjutants and Quartermasters.
  It is hoped to provide these for all units commanded by Lieutenant-Colonels (together with other ranks as permanent staff instructors, clerks, storemen, technical N.C.Os. and other specialists). The question how far it will be practicable to fill these posts with Regular officers including officers with Short Service Commissions, is under examination.
  There is, however, a general shortage of Regular officers, and it would not in any case be possible at present to provide Regulars for all the posts, particularly for Royal Artillery units. It is proposed, therefore, to appoint suitable Territorial Army officers to some of these posts, when they are available and willing to serve.
  (The War Office, 28th November, 1946.)

  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (BOROUGH OF BECCLES ORDER).
  LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
  Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act, for extending Section 1 of the Act to the Borough of Beccles, and laid before the House on Tuesday last, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (URBAN DISTRICT OF SPALDING ORDER).
  LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be agreed to.
  Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act, for extending Section 1 of the Act to the Urban District of Spalding, and laid before the House on Tuesday last, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (RURAL DISTRICT OF WORKSOP ORDER).
  LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
  Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act, for extending Section 1 of the Act to the Rural District of Worksop, and laid before the House on Tuesday last, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL BILL. [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  MATRIMONIAL CAUSES.
  4.9 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING THE MARQUESS OF READING rose to call attention to the great number of matrimonial causes, especially Service causes, now awaiting trial, the serious delays that take place under present conditions before such causes can be heard and the consequent urgent need for drastic revision of the existing procedure, with special reference to the recommendations of the Committee on Procedure in Matrimonial Causes contained in their Second Interim Report dated November, 1946 (Cmd. 6945); and to move for Papers.
  The noble Marquess said: My Lords, in the course of the debate that took place yesterday on the Motion of the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, described the subject as a grave social and moral problem. I do not think it is over-stating the case to say that the general question lying behind my Motion ranks in the same category. It is, however, perhaps worth noticing that, so far as the terms of this Motion go, they do not ask your Lordships either to advocate or to resist any enlargement or any contraction
  468
  of the present grounds of divorce but merely to give attention to the methods by which progress can be made towards the disposal of the very large numbers of petitions for divorce which are at present on the files of the Courts. The figures are, to put it mildly, alarming, but it should, I think, be made clear from the outset that the fact that these figures have attained their present proportion, and, indeed, the fact of my Motion being upon the paper, does not for one moment cast the slightest reflection upon the noble and learned Lord who presides over the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division or upon his colleagues. Indeed, if I may say so respectfully, they have struggled with almost superhuman zeal to battle with the tidal wave of petitions which has for some time threatened to submerge them.
  There are, presumably, a number of different ways of meeting the present state of affairs, and they are perhaps worth brief consideration individually. The first possibility, if it be a possibility, is to leave matters as they are. I think that such a course would be no solution and would satisfy nobody. I have seen it stated that there is this partially favourable aspect of the present situation, that people are becoming so desperate at the delay which is taking place before their cases are disposed of that reconciliation is taking place from sheer weariness and husbands and wives are coming together again. It may be that in some cases that is true, but if the problem be objectively regarded it cannot be conceived as a credit to our legal system that people should be driven to abandon their legal rights because they are unable to obtain them within a reasonable space of time Against such few reconciliations as may take place there are in the other scale of the balance people who, if there was a reasonable prospect of their cases being disposed of, would await the result of the trial before entering into matrimony with some other person whom they hope to marry, but who in the existing circumstances are driven by mere delay into abandoning hope of obtaining freedom and into living in more or less permanent adultery with all the unfortunate consequences upon such children as there may be of such association. Therefore I think it may be assumed and will be generally accepted that some substantial speeding up of the present procedure is necessary.
  The second possibility, if we are not content to leave matters alone, is, of course, to increase the number of permanent High Court judges of the Divorce Division. That from many angles is an attractive proposition, but I think its merits largely depend upon whether it be considered that the present state of affairs, in which we have these swollen numbers, is a transient or a permanent feature of the life of the country. If it be the view that it is merely an ephemeral though rather a protracted feature, then it would be undesirable and highly uneconomic to appoint a large number of permanent Judges of the High Court whose work might within a reasonably brief period come to an end. What the answer is as to whether this be a permanent or a transient feature of life, I would like to deal with very briefly a little later on. The third possibility is that the Judges of the County Courts should, in their capacity as judges of the County Courts, be accorded powers equivalent to those exercised by the High Court to deal with matters of divorce. They are trained and experienced lawyers of high quality. But there is this objection. I know from conversations I have had that it is in many quarters strongly felt that the County Court, admirable institution as it may be in itself, is not upon the same level in the estimation of the people of the country at large as the High Court, and that if you degrade the status of the Courts which have power to try divorce cases you incur the danger of correspondingly debasing the institution of marriage itself. That is a view which is strongly held and which obviously must be respectfully regarded.
  Another possibility is to draw a distinction between the defended case and the undefended case and to say that the Judges of the Divorce Court shall continue to try the defended case but that the various District Registrars, who are located about the country to deal with `the many matters which come up in the course of divorce proceedings (largely of a procedural character), shall be empowered to deal with undefended cases. To that scheme also there are, I suggest, objections, and those objections are in a large measure the same as those to the investing of the County Court Judges with these powers—namely, that you are giving to the District Registrars power to deal with cases which are at present dealt
  470
  with by judges of the High Court. Be it remembered that the undefended case is very often the one which requires the closest scrutiny because it is in the undefended list that the collusive case will be found, if it is found anywhere at all. Therefore it is important that the undefended case shall not be thought to be of less standing than the defended case and shall not be tried by a less exalted tribunal.
  There is one more possibility, of a somewhat extreme kind, which, as I am working through the catalogue, I mention. The view is held in some quarters that we should follow the practice adopted in some continental countries of the parties merely making an application, not to the Registrar I talked about before—the District Registrar of Divorce—but to the ordinary Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths, and that after a reasonable period for reflection has been allowed to elapse, a certificate of dissolution of marriage should be automatically issued. No project of that kind would, I 'think, be accepted in this country without, to put it gently, considerable controversy. It would, of course, require legislation before any such steps could be taken, and no doubt such legislation would be bitterly, and I imagine successfully, opposed.
  There remains the proposal which is that put forward by what I may call the Denning Committee in its Second Interim Report, the publication of which was the occasion for a statement recently by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and also for my putting down this Motion, which has been on the Paper before and which I removed when the Denning Committee was appointed. The essence of the recommendation of that Committee is that the Judges of the County Courts should be given the status of Commissioners, which would invest them with the full powers and authority of a High Court judge, for the purpose of trying divorce cases and that they should be empowered to deal with both defended and undefended causes. To those who have either followed the law as a profession or followed its workings in the newspapers, there is nothing novel or sensational about the appointment of a Commissioner. There are from time to time occasions when the Lord Chancellor of the day is obliged, because of sickness amongst the. Judges or for other causes, to appoint a

  471
  Commissioner to go on a particular circuit and assist in disposing of the cases for trial at a particular Assize. There are other occasions when a Judge, finding himself overburdened with the work of a circuit, himself appoints one of the leaders of the circuit to assist him by sitting in another Court and helping him to dispose of the arrears.
  Nor would the Denning Committee claim (and indeed in their Report they specifically disavow it) any originality for this proposal to accord to the County Court Judges the status of Commissioners. They refer it back to that extremely capable and farsighted Royal Commission on Divorce which reported as long ago as the year 1912, after sitting for three years under the expert chairmanship of the first Lord Gorell. It took a quarter of a century for the recommendations of that Royal Commission in regard to an extension of the legal grounds for divorce to find their way on to the Statute Book in the Bill originally sponsored by Sir Alan Herbert, which became law in 1937. Nine years later we have so far advanced that we are now contemplating putting into effect some of the procedural recommendations of that Royal Commission. The difference, I think, is merely that the original recommendation of the Royal Commission of 1912 in this matter was selective rather than comprehensive; in other words, it recommended that a certain number of picked County Court Judges should be invested with these powers, whereas the present scheme recommends that all County Court Judges should be given the same status.
  There are, I think, one or two things which may be said about this proposal, perhaps more as reservations of judgment than as actual criticisms. I do not profess to be very closely in touch with these matters any more, but I know there have been times—in fact most times have been of that character—when County Court Judges have been extremely hard-worked persons. Although they are, by the passing of the National Insurance Act, relieved of the arduous and complex task of dealing with workmen's compensation, none the less I am bound to wonder whether they have sufficient leisure to take on these very considerable extra duties. It may be that in the country districts there is no great difficulty attaching to it,
  472
  but my concern is rather with London and with the big cities and towns where I should have thought that the time of County Court Judges was as reasonably fully occupied as might be.
  The second reservation is this. The occasional practice, as I have said, of appointing Commissioners is not novel in itself, but I think there is no use pretending that it is liked by litigants. I cannot help thinking that the general feeling of a litigant, when instead of having his case disposed of by the Judge he is having it disposed of by the Commissioner, is that he has not had quite a fair deal and that he has been put off with the second best. It is rather the feeling that we have when we go to a theatre and find that unfortunately the star is ill and the understudy has been called upon the play the part. I think we would all agree that it is important that the litigant should feel amply satisfied with the status of the person who is to deal with his case. The third reservation is that it does, I suggest, make the position of the County Court Judge a slightly anomalous one. On one day he sits in purple and, in spite of his splendour, is addressed as "Your Honour" and paid at the inadequate rate applicable to County Court Judges; on the next day he sits in black and in compensation for his drabness he is addressed as "My Lord" and paid at the slightly less exiguous scale applicable to a High Court Judge, and on the third day he reverts to purple and penury. That does seem to me a curious oscillation in the position of a County Court judge from one day to another, and even though he is sitting in a different capacity and with a slightly artificially different status, it is one that may not favourably impress the public.
  So far as I am qualified to express any view, I would respectfully say that of all these various alternatives which I have endeavoured to present, the plan submitted by the Denning Committee seems to me to be that most likely to meet the situation and to receive the approval of your Lordships' House and of the country at large. Admittedly it is more in the nature of a palliative than a panacea, but it may well be that a palliative is all that is necessary. The answer to that question depends upon the question upon which I have already more lightly touched,

  473
  whether this present condition of affairs is transient or permanent.
  The members of the Royal Commission of 1912 would, I think, be dumbfounded if they could see the extent to which the lists in the Divorce Division have grown in the intervening years. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that at the time when they were considering the problem the Poor Person's Procedure did not exist in any form, and until that was introduced in the course of the 1914–18 war the number of persons of very limited means who could come before the Courts and ask for the dissolution of their marriage was circumscribed by the financial demands involved in taking such a step. It was obviously right that that barrier should be, as it has been, removed. It is probably true to say, too, that in the years between the two wars there was a considerable slackening in the seriousness of the view which was taken of divorce in itself. There we get our old friend the vicious circle, because the slacker the public attitude towards divorce the more divorces there are likely to be; but on the other hand the more divorces there are the slacker becomes the public attitude towards them, because they are accepted as a normal feature of everyday life.
  Then came the war with all the breaking down of barriers and discarding of inhibitions which appears inevitable in the train of war. I think it was Mr. Eric Linklater who, in a recent book, wrote that in any war the first casualties are always the Ten Commandments. That is picturesquely phrased but there is, I am afraid, a good deal of truth lying behind it. You get the situation where you have numbers of young people of both sexes, uprooted from their normal lives, and herded together. They are young, fit and full blooded. You get marriages taking place after a very short acquaintance, perhaps a few days of married life, and then as many years of separation following immediately after. You also get the invasion of this country, happily not by enemies but by friends, on a very large scale. Again, they are young men in the prime of life separated by oceans from their own womenkind, and others coming from Continental countries of Europe who have little hope of ever seeing their own wives and families again.
  You have also in a total war not only the Service problem, but the problem created by direction in industry, where men are sent to other parts of the country and forced to leave their wives and families for long periods of time. Those conditions should now be abating and it may well be—as I hope and believe it will be—that the acute congestion which has prevailed during these past years in the matter of divorce petitions will subside, as the last aftermath of those particular war conditions subsides. But I think it is probably true to say that if this new procedure be adopted there is likely to be, temporarily, an increase in the number of petitions, since there will be people who have held their hand in filing petitions during these past years because of the apparent hopelessness of ever getting their case tried. If they see new machinery set up which will enable them, within a reasonably short time, to get a decision upon their petition then they are likely, I think, to take the necessary action. In consequence we must be prepared, perhaps, to face not a decrease but, for a relatively short time, an actual increase in the numbers of divorce petitions to be heard.
  Viewing the whole position, I submit to your Lordships that the proposals which have been put forward by the Denning Committee are, looking as far ahead as we can, those most likely to deal expeditiously and effectively with the present situation if we accept, and I have suggested reasons why we should accept, that that condition is not one of permanent duration but of a temporary character only. If I may say so, in conclusion, the thanks not only of your Lordships' House but of the public at large are due to that Committee for the zeal and promptitude with which they have acted. I have always a certain hesitation in approving the course taken when a problem is brought up and is immediately farmed out to a Committee. It at least opens up the possibility that, so far from producing a rapid solution, it will merely increase the delay. Happily, in this case any such fears have already been proved entirely groundless. The Committee has produced these two Interim Reports, the second of which we are discussing to-day, and has put forward propositions and proposals which are carefully set out, objectively argued, and designed to remove what is a real

  475
  and serious problem that is obsessing the minds of many persons to-day. My Lords, I beg to move.
  4.34 p.m.
  LORD MERRIMAN: My Lords, I am sorry to be making so belated an appeal for the indulgence which is always accorded to those who address your Lordships' House for the first time. I can only plead by way of excuse two otherwise entirely unrelated facts. The first is that since I first had the honour of becoming a member of your Lordships' House, now nearly six years ago, your Lordships have been accustomed to sit at half-past two o'clock in the afternoon, and the other is that this Motion calls attention to the great number of matrimonial cases, especially Service cases, now awaiting trial. I think you can be trusted, if I may say so, so draw the necessary connexion between these two facts.
  I do most cordially agree with an observation made by the noble Marquess at the outset of his speech. It is utterly impossible for any right-minded person not to deplore the swollen state of the divorce, lists. I prefer to think that, in part at any rate, it can be described in words which I came across accidentally only today; words used by one Sir Leoline Jenkins, who held the three offices which are now combined in one just after the Restoration, as being "the sad black, lasting effects of the late confusions." The Motion deplores the serious delays that take place under the present conditions before such cases can be heard. I am speaking, of course, only so far as the Courts are concerned. I have nothing to do with any delay which occurs before the case comes to Court. That has been dealt with in a debate which I had the pleasure of hearing some time ago. I think I shall be able, in the course of a few moments, to give the noble Marquess some reassurance so far as the Courts are concerned.
  May I begin with the provinces? As your Lordships know the Autumn Assizes—the last of the year—are at present in full progress. So far as divorce business is concerned, at any rate, in the three largest towns, the Divorce Assizes have already concluded and the rest will be finished in the course of the next three weeks. I am told that there is not the slightest doubt
  476
  that all lists, both of defended and undefended cases, in the provinces which have been set down for trial at the Autumn Assizes will be cleared before the end of the term, and that in spite of the fact that during the present year the number of cases tried at Assizes has risen from 12,000 last year to no fewer than 20,000 this year. As the Denning Committee point out, that has undoubtedly been achieved to some extent at the expense of London suitors. Attention is called, perfectly accurately, to the figure of 6,100 undefended cases which were in this term's list. To this, in fairness, must be added another 1,200 from the separate Registry which has been set up to deal with the cases of men and women in the Services. The Denning Committee estimated that only one-third of these would be disposed of during the present term, and that behind that there would be all the fresh cases piling up for next term's lists.
  If I may be allowed to say this in parenthesis, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has met with unfailing sympathy and promptitude every request which I have been compelled to make to him, and I am afraid they have been many and insistent. He has appointed four additional Commissioners, in addition to those who were sitting, to deal mainly with the Service cases. I am given to understand that there is practically no doubt that, unless we have an unexpected setback in the course of the next three weeks, the whole of the undefended lists will have been disposed of by the end of this term. That is in spite of the fact that there have been rather exceptionally heavy demands on the services of two Judges sitting at one time to deal, by way of appeal, with the cases which come up from the magistrates' courts—I think your Lordships will agree that this is by no means the least important part of our jurisdiction—and that there has been a considerable number of Admiralty cases and sittings in Prize. The Divisional Court and the Admiralty and Prize will also have been cleared by the end of term so far as dates have been demanded. There is only one qualification to this which I must make. I am bound to admit that the defended cases in London, though not the defended cases in the provinces, are causing me some anxiety. The time-lag is not as great as it has been in the bad days of the past, but it is serious.

  477
  The only thing I can say about it is that the fact that we have been able to make these very great inroads on the undefended list will enable us to make a much more determined attack on the defended list than might otherwise have been the case.
  The Motion goes on to refer to the "consequent urgent need for drastic revision of the existing procedure "with special reference to the recommendations of the Denning Committee contained in their Second Interim Report. I expect your Lordships will wish me to say something about this Report. It is divided into two parts. The first deals with the proposal for the appointment of the County Court judges as a body as Commissioners of the High Court, and the other deals with certain procedural reforms. I am not going to deal in detail with the questions of procedure. I only wish to say that no one reading that Report I think would realize that there was a complete revision and simplification of the whole procedure and practice of the Division in the anticipation of the passing of what is commonly known as the "Herbert Act" in 1937, and that the whole thing was revised again in 1944 to give effect to such amendments as became necessary in the meanwhile and to adopt certain suggestions put forward by the Law Society. In fact, neither I nor any of the Judges—and particularly those two who are most versed in this matter, having spent all their professional lives in the Court—were consulted about any of these procedural recommendations. I therefore propose merely to say that at the moment I am not wholly convinced of the wisdom and efficacy of all of them. I feel that it is only fair that I should say that here and now, so that no false hopes shall be raised.
  There is one other thing which, if your Lordships will allow me, I desire to say in justice to myself. There is a suggestion in this Report that our practice is, at any rate in part, governed by obscure directions. It really is not so. I have been scrupulously careful during the time that I have been President to do by Rule of Court everything that can properly be done by Rule of Court. Everything that could not be done in that way has been done by means of a "Practice Note" published with all the publicity which is the custom of all other Divisions of the High Court.
  478
  Now I come to the substantive recommendation, the one which lays down that "The County Court Judges should be appointed Commissioners for matrimonial causes so as to supplement the number of Judges available for such cases in London and the provinces." I was a little surprised to find on the next page a statement that on this proposal there was general agreement by all the witnesses. As a matter of fact, I myself was the first witness on behalf of all the Judges of the Division. I presented an entirely different scheme, one which has not been referred to by the noble Marquess. I am not going to dilate upon it, but perhaps your Lordships will allow me to summarize it in a sentence or two, more particularly as I am given to understand that it was supported without reserve by the most reverend. Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, who gave evidence at a later date.
  The scheme was this. The underlying idea was to try to get rid of the unreality which so often attends undefended divorce cases and, at the same time, to introduce an element of conciliation. What we proposed was that there should be set up a Commission of Conciliation and Inquiry which would work in Tribunals. Each Tribunal would consist of a lawyer and either a Welfare or a Probation Officer before whom the parties—both of them—should be encouraged to attend. The idea was that the Tribunal should first of all attempt reconciliation. If that failed, as no doubt it would fail in a great number of cases—possibly the majority of cases—there would be an investigation of the facts, about which, again, in the great number of cases, there would be very little dispute. We also suggested that the Commission should have power, by consent of the parties, to deal with all the other things which matter so tremendously in a divorce suit—questions, for instance, of custody, maintenance of the wife and the like—and then, when all these things were done, report to the Court. We felt that if a Commission such as that had reported to the Court all that would be necessary would be the publication in the locality where the parties were known of something in the nature of what I might perhaps be allowed to call "Banns of Divorce." Upon that, if there was no intervention or objection by anybody, a

  479
  decree could be pronounced without the necessity of public trial.
  I have had sufficient Parliamentary experience to realize two things. The first is that any Government is bound, particularly in connexion with this thorny subject of divorce, to prefer a solution which can be dealt with by administrative methods. Whatever the merits of our scheme may have been, it had this one defect that it would have required legislation. The other thing which I think one must realize is that when a Committee has been set up and has either rejected a solution or has, as in this case, not even paid it the tribute of a passing reference, it is hopeless to expect that the question will be reopened. That being so I regard that scheme as being ruled out, at any rate for the time being, and do not propose to discuss it any more. I have said these things not by way of criticizing the admirable expedition with which this Committee have worked, but because I would not like your Lordships to think that those who are responsible for the day-to-day handling of these matters are so blind to the need for procedural reforms and the like as might possibly be suggested to a casual reader of this Report.
  With regard to the substantive recommendations, I absolutely agree with the Committee that the existing High Court Judge Bench is not sufficient to deal with the present situation, and I do not advocate that it should be increased for the purpose. Moreover, I would like to add that the present situation is absolutely intolerable for the Judges themselves. I have said something about the lists which have been disposed of this year at the Assizes—8,000 more cases than last year. That has only been done by Judges sitting day after day, very likely for four or five weeks on end, dealing in the main, though not entirely, with undefended cases until six or seven o'clock at night. I know from my own experience on circuit that that is an extremely exacting task.
  Another thing in regard to which I entirely agree with the Committee is this—that the cost of divorce cases can be and ought to be reduced. In particular, with regard to the question of counsel's fees, if the Government are proposing to put into force the recommendations of
  480
  the Committee presided over by my noble friend Lord Rushcliffe, which recommended assistance to all litigants according to their means, there would at once be an immense reduction of costs. For this reason; it would no longer be necessary (if I may borrow a metaphor from the card table) for the paying cases to "carry" the Poor Person cases. You cannot expect counsel to make expensive journeys to do a number of Poor Person cases, unless they can legitimately expect to receive full remuneration on those which are paying cases. To some extent that difficulty has been solved, or at any rate alleviated, by the modest remuneration which has recently been awarded to counsel in Poor Person cases.
  I heartily agree that the King's Bench Judges should be relieved of undefended divorce on circuit, and I absolutely agree, also, that County Court Judges are fully qualified to undertake this work. Your Lordships will understand that although I have no sort of responsibility for the decision, I have given a good deal of anxious thought to the solution put forward and, like the noble Marquess, I have come to the conclusion that, on the whole, it is the best solution in the circumstances. The noble Marquess mentioned the question of the Registrars. Very clearly, there can be no advantage in a scheme which would result in the appointment of the Registrars, nearly all of whom are in fact County Court Registrars, as distinct from their own judges.
  So far as the perpetuation of the system of Special Commissioners is concerned, having regard to what I said about tedium on circuit, I feel bound to say that I doubt whether any man ought to be asked to do merely undefended divorce cases, year in and year out, or whether he could do so without getting utterly and absolutely stale. At the same time I do most earnestly reinforce one condition which the Committee regard as essential. I hope your Lordships will bear with me a moment while I speak about it. The Committee lays stress on the absolute necessity of retaining the sole audience of the Bar. I regard that as absolutely vital. I do not attach the slightest importance to this question about whether County Court Judges should sit in black robes or purple robes, or even in what divorce sitting day is kept absolutely distinct from the ordinary County Court

  481
  court they sit, so long, always, as the day. This question of the Bar is a delicate subject. Judges for whom I speak feel very strongly about it, and so, I am given to understand, do the County Court Judges themselves.
  I should never attempt to deny the high standard of skill and honour which the best type of solicitor advocate sets for himself. I myself was articled to one of them, who stood deservedly high in his profession, and I know what it means. But in this divorce business—to the peculiarities of which I will refer in a moment—every Judge knows the value of having the assistance of counsel. And so, I believe, do the best type of solicitors, because they know and can warn their client that the case will have to pass through the mesh of very severe scrutiny by counsel before it is presented to the Court. To that extent they are relieved of responsibility. The solicitor himself in this matter is too near the client; and the client may be a valuable client in other respects. It would be simply deplorable if this business got into the hands of advocates who were concerned only to get any case through, by any method, and unchecked by the very high standard of honour in this matter which is habitually observed by the Bar to the Court. If I may make one practical suggestion—I think things are working out like this, so I need not dilate on it—I hope that as few additions as possible will be made to the existing Assize towns. Some additions must be made, of course. I hope that the County Court judges will, so to speak, work in a pool round each of the towns at which divorce is heard, and that system will have a distinct advantage to which I would like now to allude.
  I said that I wanted to say something about this jurisdiction, and if I have not wearied your Lordships I hope you will allow me a moment or two more. I have never said, and I have never thought, that this divorce business is such that it cannot be dealt with, and mastered, by any person of average intelligence. But it is, a peculiar jurisdiction, because of the duty put upon the Court by Act of Parliament. May I read a short passage from the Report of the Committee appointed by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and presided by Sir Ralph Wedgwood? The matter, I think, is put as well as it possibly can be in a couple of sentences, and the Report draws the
  482
  distinction between the ordinary common law cases and the divorce suits. The Committee say:
  "In a divorce suit the question decided is the status of the parties to the suit, and the State has a direct interest in the maintenance of the institution of marriage and the status not only of the parties to the suit but of any children who may be born of the marriage. It is, therefore, the business of the Court to see that the decision reached is in accordance with law, even though it may be contrary to the wishes of both parties, and consequently, in certain cases, to refuse to alter that status, even though both parties desire it, if the Court reaches the opinion that the parties are acting in collusion or that one of them has connived at the matrimonial offence of the other or has condoned that offence … "
  I hope it will not be taken amiss by any of the County Court judges if I say that it would be simply disastrous if there should arise a Gallio among them who cares for none of these things. It is all a question of approach. It is not a question of intellectual attainments. The Judge must allow himself time to be sure that he performs his statutory duties and the parties, to whom this may be one of the great events in their lives, are entitled to time to tell the world why the marriage has broken down. If there should be such a Gallio the effectߞbelieve me—would not be that the suitors would be driven from the judgment seat; it would be just precisely at that seat that the disreputable and fraudulent cases would tend to congregate.
  I have the most profound belief that, so long as we stick to this method of judicial divorce, that is to say, so long as it is ordained by Parliament that divorce is only to be granted as a, remedy for a proved matrimonial offence, established to the satisfaction of a Judge, the administration of this jurisdiction is a cardinal test of respect for the rule of law. I wish this experiment well. I hope that it will succeed. But I am convinced that it will succeed or fail precisely as those who conduct it are or are not guided by this criterion.
  5.2 p.m.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, it gives me peculiar personal satisfaction that I should have the opportunity of being the first person to congratulate my noble and learned friend upon his maiden speech in this House. Whatever may be the delay in the hearing of divorce cases, there has been, as the noble Lord confessed, delay

  483
  in the delivery of his first speech in this House, but we shall accept the reasons which he gave for that fact. The noble and learned Lord has had the advantage of making his first speech in this House on a topic of which he is an acknowledged master and in the service of which he has rendered the greatest possible benefit. We have listened to him with respect and with pleasure, and I feel that we can assure him that, whenever he speaks on any other topic in your Lordships' House, we shall listen to him with equal respect and pleasure.
  To a Churchman divorce is always a tragedy. It is always the outcome of human sin and it is infected by that sin. But since to develop that line of thought would not be appropriate on this Motion, I wish to speak, if I may, entirely on the general ground of social welfare. Divorce has become a social phenomenon, so large in its scale and so dire in its social effects as to disturb and indeed to alarm, I doubt not, every one of your Lordships and every thinking citizen. Some of those, I suspect, who, moved by sympathy for "hard cases" and the desire to provide them with relief, have in the past encouraged and assisted extended facilities for divorce, may very well now be wondering whether they were right in taking that course. Hard cases there are, and they are problems both to the Church and to the State. The Church, having a clear principle and standard of marriage entrusted to it, can deal with hard cases without catastrophe, because marriage is always viewed in relation to that first governing principle. The State is in an entirely different position. So far as it opens the door of divorce to hard cases, it opens it also to everybody who, from whatever motive, may desire to pass through it. The State has no doctrine, as the Church has, by which to judge and to discriminate. It makes the law of divorce, and thereby everybody who satisfies the legal requirements can obtain a divorce. So it is that the number of petitions has increased from under 1,000 a year in 1911 to the present gigantic figure.
  The noble Marquess has indicated some of the causes which have led to that increase. I doubt myself whether there is any evidence that, when the local causes and the moral strain of war have passed, there will be any great reduction
  484
  in the number unless there is a real change in the whole public attitude to marriage and divorce. Familiar though it is to your Lordships, I must say that divorce sets up a train of possible evils, first to the parties to it, whose sense of obligation, fidelity to the pledged word, and integrity of soul are grievously threatened. Secondly, with regard to the children of all these broken homes, there is almost the certainty—and there is almost overwhelming evidence for this—that where homes have been broken, the sins of the parents are, in fact, visited upon the children in a grievous moral and psychological disturbance. I doubt not that if I had been able, as I was not able, to be here for the debate yesterday, there would have been some kind of reference to that fact on the question of juvenile delinquency. Any schoolmaster will tell you that in his own school the difficult pupils—sometimes terribly difficult—in an overwhelming majority of cases come from homes where there have been divorces.
  Every divorce is, therefore, a point of disease in the body politic, and, while a robust nation can stand up to a certain amount of slight infection, its strength and its stability are really threatened at the vital point of family life, when one marriage out of six comes to divorce and separation proceedings. And, of course, as the noble Marquess has said, the disease is infectious. Every divorce breeds more divorces, and its prevalence renders every marriage that much less secure than it would otherwise have been, by the mere fact that it is common. When many people are coveting their neighbours' wives and husbands, and then by legal process gaining possession of them, it is an encouragement to others, who lack some surely-based sense of obligation, to think of doing the same thing.
  It is against that background, sombre as it is, that the proposals of the Denning Committee have to be considered. I do not wish in any way to resist them. If the community desires the divorce laws to be as they are, then the legal provisions must be accessible to all, and administered with efficiency and with reasonable rapidity. That is only common sense. These proposals do not in any way widen the grounds for divorce, but they do make divorce easier in so far as it can be obtained on the existing grounds more rapidly and more cheaply. I certainly

  485
  would not wish to resist that. But let us be fully aware that the mere fact that the procedure becomes cheaper and more rapid does at the same time inevitably cheapen marriage. You cannot cheapen divorce in terms of time and money without at the same time cheapening marriage in its spiritual significance. The more easily the procedure works, the more easily the conception of marriage is devalued. That is not at all the purpose of the proposals of the Denning Committee, but I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that that is the inevitable concomitant of its proposals. So the State finds itself in a very strange position. Here is a social disease, which the State recognizes as a social disease. The guardians of the public welfare know that they must deplore it; at the same time they are put into a position in which they must assist to spread it more quickly. So do not let us imagine for a moment that these proposals are in any way constructive or deal with the real problem.
  As to the Committee's proposals themselves, one suggestion is, as you have heard, that all County Court Judges should become Commissioners of the High Court for this purpose. As has been put before you with authority, there are reservations to be made about accepting this proposal and there are dangers in it. From my own point of view, however, so long as the audience of the Bar is retained—and I there associate myself with all that was said by the noble and learned Lord—I do not wish to quarrel with the proposal. I would merely say that if ever as a further step for some convenience it is proposed that the High Court status should be surrendered, or the audience of 'the Bar no longer maintained, I personally, and I think all those for whom I can speak, would resist that most resolutely.
  Before I finish I would like to mention 'two other matters. The first is that the Denning Committee have not yet discharged their most important duty, that of devising machinery for reconciliation. They have, indeed, rejected, and indicated that they rejected, the proposal put forward by the noble and learned Lord which won ray approval. Their own scheme they reserve for their final Report. I know they are most earnestly engaged upon it. It is, all the same, a great pity that what first has come to the public knowledge are their proposals for making divorce more easy and more rapid in its machinery. These
  486
  having come first to the public mind will be what the public mind will retain, and much less will be thought of the constructive proposals for machinery of reconciliation when they come. These things happen like that, but how one could wish that it could have been that the first utterance of the Denning Committee had been on the constructive and not merely on the administrative side!
  Reconciliation is, I would say in a few words, the really constructive and the only constructive thing with which the Denning Committee are concerned. Reconciliation is really a pastoral office. Here, as in some other fields, the State is being forced into a pastoral relationship to the community, doing in the interests of the nation for non-Church people what the Churches do for their own members. Here as in other fields the State finds that it is not well-suited for such pastoral work; it has no doctrine of forgiveness, no doctrine of redemption or of grace to work with. That does not so much matter if it has the wisdom to employ in reconciliation workers who have such things in their power to give, but because it is forced into this pastoral position the State must provide the machinery by which reconciliation can be brought about as often as possible. The Array experience has proved again and again in a very large number of cases that reconciliation can be effected. This is not the time to pursue that topic, and I only wish to say this. I trust that the Denning Committee will, as rapidly as possible, produce 'this machinery for reconciliation and that the Government will be as rapid in adopting it as they have been in adopting these administrative proposals.
  There is one last matter I would like to mention, if I may. If the State rightly and necessarily is concerning itself with reconciliation at the one end, must it not look rather anxiously at the conditions under which the State admits people to the married state, and ask whether the conditions of civil marriage are calculated to help those who are so married to set their marriage from the start on a true and lasting basis so that it is less likely ever to reach the danger of breaking down? The civil marriage must be such as to make plain to everybody the seriousness and nature of the responsibility, the personal and social obligations of marriage itself. Such evidence as I have been able to get goes to show that Registrars

  487
  go to a great deal of trouble to provide in the best way that they can decent surroundings and decent behaviour, though that is not always easy, for the legal ceremony, but inevitably in those conditions even at their best the ceremony cannot rise above the purely legal level—the name of the office and of the official; the connexion with births and deaths; the attendance at an office and filling up the necessary forms, and the startling brevity of the actual ceremony followed by the sentence "Next please" to the waiting couples. All that cannot possibly create on the minds of the persons concerned, unless they themselves put it there, the real seriousness, the real nature and the real obligations of marriage. It may be that the State cannot produce anything more impressive than that, but if that is all that can be done it is essential in that case that the State should make absolutely clear what the legal contract is which it thus enables to be undertaken.
  I have referred to the startling brevity of the actual ceremony. It takes, I believe, three minutes, and it consists of two sentences only spoken by each of the two parties. In the first sentence each party declares that there is no impediment to the marriage; and the second sentence is simply this: "I call upon these persons here present to witness that I A.B. do take thee C.D. to be my lawful wedded husband" or "wife," as the case may be. There the ceremony ends. A ring may be exchanged, and the register is signed, and the whole of the actual completion of the marriage takes three minutes. That is a jejune ceremony, but what is worse is that it fails to make clear what the ceremony is intended to effect. I am told that the Registrar may not add to the words prescribed by law, and may not even remind the couple of the seriousness of the step they are taking, or that marriage is a lifelong contract. Quite certainly many people civilly married are unaware that they are entering upon a lifelong contract. The words they use do not convey that meaning to them. "Lawfully wedded wife" means to them simply "legally registered and therefore mine."
  But "lawful" does in fact mean in this context "lifelong." Is that not so? I ask that question with some certainty.
  488
  In Halsbury's Laws of England it is stated:
  "The only kind of marriage which the English Law recognizes is one which is essentially the voluntary union for life of one man with one woman to the exclusion of all others."
  "Lawful" means that in the English law and nothing else, although that lifelong union may be, as the noble and learned Lord has said, put an end to for some misdemeanour which cancels it. If the State does not mean that, and if the State attaches to the word "lawful" any other meaning than that of "lifelong," then it must say so, and for it to say so would be a disaster to the nation. But even further than that, the Church would then be put into a position in which it could no longer recognize civil marriages as such in any true sense for their purposes, because there would be a lack of lifelong intention. But I take it that the State still means what it always has meant by the word "lawful"—namely, that it is lifelong. If it means that, then surely it must be made absolutely clear to those who are being married that that is what they are committing themselves to.
  I would say that not only when the ceremony takes place must it be made clear that "lawful" means "lifelong," but that when the notice is given beforehand there should be on the notice some description of marriage and a declaration by the parties that in the proper sense of the word they desire to enter upon the married state. It seems to me quite intolerable that we should allow the use of a form of words to go on which admittedly vast numbers of people misunderstand and which they think means merely "registered" and not "lifelong." I feel that this is a matter of real moment. If the State cares, as it must, for the stability of marriage, if it is so concerned as to be considering methods of reconciliation where marriages break down, it must strengthen the foundations when it solemnizes marriages and must make sure that they are, in fact, solemn and solemnized by a clear indication of the responsibilities and the obligations which are therein involved.
  I hope that these matters will not be regarded as irrelevant to the Motion which is now under discussion. I have the comfortable knowledge that in this House one can be as irrelevant as one likes, but I

  489
  would, in fact, maintain that my observations are not in the least irrelevant and that the State must see to it that its pastoral function, so important, is fulfilled to the best of its ability.
  5.33 p.m.
  LORD RUSHOLME: My Lords, I should not have ventured to intervene in this debate had I not felt, as a member of the Denning Committee, that I ought, to say one or two words in support of the Report which is under discussion. May I first say how very gratified I am at the reception which has been given to the Report and the proposals contained in it by the noble Lords who have already spoken? I want to say, however, that I cannot accept the suggestion which has been made that the increase in the number of divorces must necessarily be due to a deterioration in moral standards and that the number of divorces which are going through indicate a growth in the marital disharmony which exists in this country. It seems to me that there must at all stages of history have been unhappy marriages. I think none of your Lordships would deny that. What we have to recognize is that there has been a very definite change in the attitude of the people towards marital disharmony and that there has been a variation in the law permitting divorces to take place now which could not have taken place in years gone by because the facilities for divorce then were not such as exist now.
  It seems to me very possible indeed that many people now are prepared to bring to the light of day the fact that their marriage is an unhappy one, whereas in previous decades they would have been prepared to continue to live in what would have been, to my mind, intolerable conditions. If it is a fact that the different attitude of people towards divorce and the improved facilities for divorce have resulted in married couples being released from intolerable married conditions, then it seems to me that that is all to the common good. It is, of course, a fact, as your Lordships well know, that the attitude of the public mind towards divorce has altered considerably. As I understand it, in the Victorian era, and probably in the Edwardian era, any person who was concerned in a divorce suit, whether innocent or guilty, was regarded as a person who could not enter into respectable society. That, fortunately, is not the case to-day.
  490
  Whilst I make these general remarks on the subject of the increase in the number of divorces, I do not fail to recognize that there is a very serious problem confronting the community, as is made clear to us by the very large number of divorce cases which annually come before the Courts; but I suggest that that problem is not one with which we are dealing to-day. The problem, it seems to me, is how can we ensure that marriages, when they do take place, take place in conditions and in circumstances which are likely to lead to them becoming permanent and happy unions. That seems to be the problem with which we are faced and it is a problem which we are doing little, in an organized way, to deal with. From the startling figures which are now available and from the number of marriages undertaken in the best of hopes which fail to last, it seems to me that we cannot very much longer defer dealing with the problem of how we can ensure those circumstances which will lead to permanent and happy unions. It seems to me that many failures in married life could have been made successes had those who were contemplating matrimony had the benefit of advice at that time, and if those married couples who were facing difficulties in their married life had been able to get some advice and assistance which would have helped them to get over their difficulties.
  I have said that the figures in relation to the increase in the number of divorces granted annually are startling, and they certainly are. I understand that the figures are 5,000 in 1937, 7,500 in 1938. 10,700 in 1942, 14,700 in 1944 and, so it is suggested to me, about 20,000 in 1945. I realize, of course, that those figures cover an entirely exceptional period in the life of our nation. They cover mainly the war years. Many of the applications for divorce and many of the divorces granted relate to men and women in the Forces who have been taken away from their homes. Those are conditions which will not normally apply in peace-time, and we have as a consequence grounds for hoping that the situation will improve. But so long as people are separated for long periods and so long as young married couples cannot get their own homes, then I am afraid we shall be faced with very heavy calls upon the services of our Divorce Courts.

  491
  Those times were, of course, exceptional, but I cannot accept the view which has been put forward that we can hope that in the years ahead there will be a very heavy decrease in the number of cases which annually come before our Divorce Courts—at least not until such time as some active steps are taken to see that advice is available to young people contemplating matrimony or to people who are meeting the snags of married life. The view put forward in evidence submitted to the Committee by persons and representatives of organizations who have considered this question very seriously is that there does not appear to be any prospect of a reduction in the number of divorce causes annually awaiting trial unless there is a reversal of the public attitude in its approach towards divorce. It would therefore appear that for many years to come there will be very heavy calls indeed upon the services of our Divorce Courts.
  I am very glad that it has been made clear during the course of the debate that the Committee of which I had the honour to be a member has not been concerned to vary or to consider in any degree the present grounds which exist for divorce. That was quite specifically outside the terms of reference. It is true that we are making proposals which will, in my view, make the procedure which operates before cases come before the Courts operate very much more smoothly than it does at the present time. But I cannot accept the view that those proposals will in fact make the grounds easier for divorce, or tend to make the number of applications for divorce greater. It seems to me that if the law exists then we ought to take such steps as are available to make that law operate easily, smoothly and expeditiously, and any proposal which is directed towards that end in my view cannot be stated to be a means of encouraging or enticing people to make an application for a divorce.
  As the Denning Committee, all that we have been concerned with has been to see whether we can speed up the legal processes and whether we could make them less costly than they necessarily are at the present time. Now it was made quite clear to the Committee from the evidence that was submitted that a situation had
  492
  undoubtedly arisen which made it absolutely necessary that a review should be undertaken of the procedure both in the Courts and before the cases come to the Courts. The increase in the number of divorces, to which reference has been made several times in the course of this debate, has undoubtedly created an impossible situation from the standpoint of delay. So much so in fact that I am given to understand that the President himself stated at Leeds on November 16, 1945, that the saturation point of trial at Assizes had been reached, if not passed. The Denning Report says that out of 7,284 cases in the London List for the present term, it is expected that little more than one-third will be taken. It is clear, I think, from that that the increase in the number of cases has quite clearly outstripped the capacity of the present Courts to deal with them.
  I was very glad indeed to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Merriman, refer to the fact that the cases in the provinces had almost been cleared from the lists. I am delighted to think that there is some improvement, but if I am correctly advised, in the Manchester Autumn Assize of 1945 no fewer than 300 cases out of 716 went over to the Winter Assize, with the consequence of course that the Winter Assize was obviously overcrowded. Take the position in regard to the capacity of the Courts to deal with these cases. In Manchester, a city with which I am quite familiar, there were 900 causes set down for trial in 1943; the number had grown to 1,441 in 1944, and a year later, in 1945, it increased still further to 1,990. I suggest that it is not surprising that an increase in the number of cases within two gears of over 100 per cent, should create tremendous difficulties for any organization which had to attempt to expand and develop its organization to deal with that increase. The important point about the delay of these cases is that it does undoubtedly lead litigants to believe that the delay is due to a desire to prevent divorce from taking place, and that they are in fact not getting a square deal. Well, I think the figures which I have quoted prove quite conclusively that the present system has in effect broken down and that the legal process in connexion with divorce proceedings is quite incapable of dealing in a reasonable period with the number of cases which are coming forward.
  LORD MERRIMAN: I wonder if the noble Lord would allow me to interrupt. It is the fact that at Manchester three hundred cases were sent over from the corresponding Assize this time last year. I believe I am right in saying that this is the only occasion on which that has happened.
  LORD RUSHOLME: I accept the noble Lord's statement, of course. May I assure the noble Lord that I quoted that case not because it had been specifically picked for me, but that I was able to choose it out of some of the evidence which had been submitted. At all events, I am bound to say that I am quite confident that the recommendations which are made by the Denning Committee in their Report will have the effect of dealing satisfactorily with the present difficulties which cause such great delay. The conclusions which are before you in the Denning Report have, of course, been reached only after careful consideration of all aspects of the problem, and after hearing evidence from individuals and representatives of organizations who are interested in this question of divorce, both from the legal and the moral standpoint. If I may digress for a moment, I would like to say that it is a very admirable trait in the British character which leads persons to disregard time and trouble to themselves as individuals to come forward voluntarily, readily and willingly to give of their knowledge to inquiring committees, merely in the hope that they will thus be able to serve the common good. I have been very much impressed by that attitude of the people who came to see us.
  The proposals have been well discussed during the course of the debate, and I do not propose to go into detail in connexion with many of them. But with regard to the proposal that the County Court Judges should be appointed Commissioners, I would just say, first, that we do attach very great importance to the fact that nothing should be done to detract from the conditions under which these cases are heard; and, secondly, whilst we have suggested that the County Court judges should be appointed Commissioners, we have also suggested that they should in effect act as High Court Judges with all the conditions attaching to High Court Judges. The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, semed to think that there was some difficulty in connexion
  494
  with this suggestion, although I am very glad to see that he finally accepted it as being the best in the circumstances. The noble Marquess asked, for example, whether the County Court Judges had time to undertake this work. As I understand it, the County Court Judges are quite certain that they have time. The noble Marquess was afraid that the County Court Judges would only be looked upon as understudies, and that litigants appearing before them might have the feeling that they were not getting the best from the legal system of this country,. Well, may I suggest that in fact the County Court Judges in this particular case will not be understudies; they will in fact be seconded for duties as Commissioners in divorce proceedings, and will be recognized as taking on that job not merely as a temporary job but as something of a permanent character.
  The noble Marquess suggested that it would be placing our County Court Judges in rather an anomalous position for them to have to act as High Court Judges on one day and County Court Judges on the other. May I say that we who serve democratic movements would find no difficulty in acting on one capacity one day and in another capacity another day? Indeed, one day I am occupying the chair at gatherings and the next day I am responsible to the chair as an official of that organizaion. I do suggest that the County Court Judges would have no greater difficulty in accommodating themselves to the situation. It does seem to me important, if the number of divorce cases are to continue on the high level of the present time, that some step must be taken to enable hearings to be dealt with more rapidly. By our proposals, which, I am glad to see, are generally acceptable to your Lordships, we bring in an additional fifty-seven judges to deal with these cases. These additional Judges would be capable of handling, we suggest, something like 28,000 cases a year.
  May I pass on from the recommendations which relate to the hearing of cases in the Courts to the recommendations in respect of the machinery of legal processes before the cases actually come up for hearing? This part of the Report of the Committee seems to me to be equal in importance to the portions with which I have already dealt. In the Report you will find that there are no fewer than

  495
  twenty-seven steps in procedure recommended for abolition. The reasons are fully set out in the Report and I do not need, therefore, to go over them. I must say that as I listened to the evidence whim was submitted to us with regard to clerks waiting for hours in long queues, with regard to "Office Copies" having to be waited for from one to six weeks, I did get the impression that the procedure had been framed with the object of giving the maximum difficulty both to the legal profession and to litigants alike. I am bound to say I was somewhat surprised when I heard the most reverend Primate on the subject of easy divorce making a remark which I took to be all in favour of making the procedure to be followed as difficult as it could be made.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I said no such thing.
  LORD RUSHOLME: I beg the most reverend Primate's pardon but that was the impression I received.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I am perfectly certain I said no such thing, and I think the other noble Lords will agree.
  LORD RUSHOLME: I withdraw. It seemed to me from the evidence which was submitted that it would be possible, quite easily, to cut out some of the procedure which had to be followed and make the machinery run much more easily, sympathetically, and speedily. There is one case in point to which I would refer. May I read Recommendation 23? I do not want to delay your Lordships, but I would like to make this point. The Recommendation says:
  "At present there is often difficulty and delay in the Divorce Registry in finding the papers in a particular case. We are of opinion that the system could be much improved if each petition when filed, were distinguished from the outset by the year, a letter and a number in the same way as causes in other Divisions of the High Court are distinguished, and a cause book kept on the same lines as the cause books in other Divisions."
  I must say that I am very surprised that the course the Committee suggests is not one which is now followed. I should have thought that an adequate and complete filing system was a basic necessity. I should have thought that a filing system which enables documents to be found with the minimum of delay was something
  496
  which would be in every up-to-date office. I am not saying this in any critical spirit, because I know we are all content to accept and retain that with which we are familiar as being the best method to be followed. I am led to wonder whether it might not be advisable in connexion with Government offices to have some means whereby there could be what I would call an efficiency audit. This would ensure that the best and most up-to-date methods in connexion with office routine were brought into operation.
  We found that the procedure in many respects in the Divorce Division of the High Court varied from that which was followed in other Divisions. I must say that it did appear, where these variations did exist, that they had the effect of being a handicap and a hindrance rather than an improvement. You will also find that in the Report it is said "In our opinion the rules as to the service in the Divorce Court are more elaborate than is necessary." A very frequent phrase in the Report is "that is the case in other Divisions in the High Court, and we see no reason why it should be different in the Divorce Division." In these cases we have suggested that the procedure to be followed should be similar to that of other Divisions of the High Court. These proposals are made with the approval of the legal profession, whom we have had the opportunity of seeing, and as they appear acceptable to the solicitors and to counsel, I am quite prepared as a layman to accept them as being an advantage over the present methods of procedure. These changes which we propose have the merit that not only will they save a great deal of time and trouble, but they will also be instrumental in effecting a considerable saving of expense.
  I think it is correct to say that in the course of our investigations we have found that there is very little ground for any suggestion that the Court costs, the solicitors' costs, or the counsel's fees, are unduly high. If any saving is to be effected in connexion with the procedure which has to be followed in the Divorce Court, then that saving can only be effected by cutting out many of the items of procedure which have to be followed. I will not delay you any longer, but I do wish to say that the proposals which the Denning Committee place before you will achieve the object for which the Committee was set up. They will save both

  497
  time and money. In brief, the Committee's proposals, which I am commending to the Government for their approval, are not concerned with the grounds for divorce but are directed towards simplifying procedure and lessening the costs. In my view these proposals will result, if adopted, as the Manchester Guardian has quite correctly said, "in the present law being applied with decency and dispatch."
  5.49 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I think it will be generally agreed that we are indebted to the noble Marquess for having initiated a debate to-day which is both important and timely. I do not want to go over the ground at any great length. I knew very little about the subject during my years at the Bar, having only very occasionally appeared in the Divorce Court as counsel. Every Lord Chancellor of recent years has found the problems connected with this subject among the innumerable matters to which he has to give his gravest and most devoted attention. It is true beyond any manner of doubt, of course, that there has been a rapid and startling increase in the number of divorces. I do not myself think that that is entirely due to the circumstances of the war. There is, if we speak frankly as we ought to do in this House, another reason. And the other reason is that there has grown up in the lifetime of some of us a tolerance in these matters, a tolerance of proved infidelity, whether in the case of a respondent who is found guilty by the Court or a co-respondent who is similarly found guilty, which is quite different from the attitude taken up by large classes of the people earlier in our lifetime.
  It may have been—some people say that it was—due to the standard which was set by Queen Victoria. I think that she had very good reason for doing her best to alter the standards which had prevailed before her time. She, as your Lordships well know, would not allow a person to go to Court who had been involved as a guilty party in a divorce case. I rather think that a rule on those lines is still in operation. But if we take Parliament—I go back to my own early days in the House of Commons, and I dare say there are others here who can go back a long way also, though not many, perhaps, who can go back so far as I can—there is no doubt at
  498
  all that at the time when I first got into Parliament if a Member was found to be a guilty party in a divorce case he was certainly not expected to retain office, and he was regarded as a person who had been stamped publicly with disgrace.
  That change in the attitude of a very large part of the community to divorce is, I think, one of the reasons why there has been such an increase in the numbers of divorce suits. When a person was found guilty in the Divorce Court of what was at one time practically the only ground upon which a suit could be brought—namely, infidelity—and that was visited by, I will not say complete social ostracism, but by the view that he or she was not an acceptable member of a large part of decent society, people, whether men or women, went to all possible lengths to try to avoid such consequences. Manifestly that situation has fundamentally changed if what I have called a greater tolerance obtains. I am not at the moment concerned to discuss that matter, and I do not propose to express an opinion as to whether the more benevolent attitude now adopted is for the public good or not; but I really cannot doubt that before there was any difficulty due to the long absence of spouses owing to war, this tide was rapidly rising. Then when the war came—and here I speak from very personal knowledge on the subject because I was Lord Chancellor for nearly the whole of the war period—we had the added difficulties due to the great numbers of Service cases about which the noble Marquess has spoken. The result was really alarming to the last degree. No machinery which we had then could hope to cope with it except at the cost of immense delay.
  Here, I would like to point out, with great respect, to the most reverend Primate and to your Lordships, that there is an aspect of this matter of delay towards which I feel sure the Archbishop as well as others would be warmly sympathetic. So long as there is great delay in getting what, after all, the law of the land provides you with, the right to be divorced, there is a most unjust discrimination between the poor and the rich. A serving soldier learns from his home town, perhaps learns from letters written by his wife or her relations, that unhappily the home to which he is going to return has been utterly broken up by the

  499
  conduct of his partner. He comes back on leave. He may have got advice—if he is wise he certainly will have got advice from the officer in his unit who was specially appointed during the war to help in such cases—but what is he to do?
  I know quite well what a man who has adequate resources would do. Nothing is clearer in the law on this distasteful subject than that if you condone the offence of adultery by continuing to live with the spouse who you say has betrayed you, you thereby wipe out any right to apply to the Court for a divorce. But when a poor man comes back on leave where is he to go? He is almost bound, at any rate in many cases, to go to his own home. It is the only place to which he can go, and even though, in fact, he keeps himself apart to the extent of using a different room to sleep in, he would find it very difficult indeed to persuade those who administer this law, and rightly administer it with great strictness, that he had not condoned the adultery. But take the man with plenty of resources who has a good and upright reason in law for saying "I want my marriage dissolved." When he comes home he is in no such difficulty as the poor man. He goes to stay at an hotel. He takes very good care to do that for it is the first thing which his solicitor would advise him about. He would be strongly advised to take no action of any kind which might possibly be misunderstood as being a resumption of cohabitation.
  The same thing applies either way. What is to happen to the poor woman who is, possibly, dependent on her husband's earnings and who lives with him in a small house in a town in this country? If she is going to rely upon her husband's unfaithfulness—it may be notorious unfaithfulness, it may even be as between the husband and somebody else an admitted unfaithfulness—she must keep away from him. But it becomes very difficult for her to do so if there is a long period of time to wait. She might perhaps go to live with an unmarried daughter for a short time or something of that kind. But look at the strain that is put upon her which is not put upon a lady of different position, a lady of means. She is able, without any strain, to go to live with relations or friends who will no doubt be willing to take her in and keep her. I say that, to my mind, it is one of the fundamental
  500
  facts—and I am certain that the Archbishop would be willing to take it into account—that as long as there is considerable delay in dealing with cases of this sort, you are, in fact, getting an example of what we all wish to avoid, that is of the law working out for the very poor in a manner different from that in which it works out for people of larger means.
  It is not in the least true that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. That is a foolish, criminal, ignorant proposition wherever it is advanced. But what is true is that the delay in these proceedings in the case of divorce is sometimes quite fatal to giving the rights which the law gives and which ought to be given equally to all citizens whatever their means. I mention the point because it is one which in the course of this most interesting debate, so far as I know, has not been referred to previously. I am sure that some of us, at least, have had such actual cases brought to our personal knowledge.
  During the war, what we did in connexion with this difficulty of the long delay was, first, to set up a special organization for Service cases. If the truth be told, a very large part of the credit for that should go to a former official who is very well known to many of your Lordships in this House, Sir Claud Schuster. I happened to be Lord Chancellor at the time, and I know that he had a very large hand in gutting each of the Service Departments to join with us. The noble Lord, Lord Merriman, was also constantly assisting in the whole matter, so that we might have in the Army, Navy and Air Force an officer who was known to be a person to whom the serving man could go if he had trouble at home. In suitable cases the serving man would be told: "You are making too much of this. Write to your friends and see if there is any substance in it." In other cases the man might be told: "If you wish to do this, and have really thought it over, I can put you in the way of communicating with the committee set up." That committee was drawn from the solicitors' profession, and we owe them a very great deal for the unselfish and devoted service—unpaid—by which they and the barristers who volunteered helped these men in their trouble. The difficulty was to arrange that the man's case should be taken when he was at home. The President of the Divorce Division, my noble friend Lord

  501
  Merriman, took endless trouble to arrange matters so that the case could be heard when the man was available in this country. That was a good piece of work.
  The other thing which we attempted to do in my time may not have been, in all respects, so successful as we had hoped. I was very much interested to see in the Denning Report—a Report in whose preparation the noble Lord opposite, Lord Rusholme, took part—the steps taken to have these cases disposed of at Assizes. I took the view—and I think there is great force in it—that there is something very unnatural in saying that in the ordinary way divorce cases must be tried in London. When you are dealing with a divorce suit you are dealing with a dispute between two spouses who presumably live in the same town, and almost certainly their witnesses will be in the same town. To make all these people come to London because there is a dispute seemed not a good and economical use of our legal machinery. With the consent of Parliament, therefore, we devised the system by which we were going to enlarge the jurisdiction of Assizes. We owe a very great deal to the Judges from the Divorce Court who have gone to the Assize towns—or to the more important of them—and undertaken a particularly heavy burden of what must be most disagreeable work. We all heard what my noble friend Lord Merriman said about that just now. I know from my own experience that even when one is sitting with colleagues and trying a case in much 'more pleasant circumstances—very probably a quite interesting case—one finds that five or six hours of close attention to the case are a very considerable strain on one's powers of attention and judgment. We owe an immense debt to the gentlemen who have discharged a much heavier, a much longer and certainly a much less interesting job than that.
  The Report says that as far as we have extra Divorce Judges on circuit—they go on circuit in turn—we have not only undefended but defended cases heard by a man who is a Divorce Judge. I think that has been a great success. What my noble friend said, I think, proves it. I am not surprised, however, at the comment in the Report on the old arrangement by which a King's Bench judge went to an Assize town and was normally
  502
  concerned in trying either civil or criminal cases. If one were to say to that King's Bench Judge: "At the end of your list there are three hundred divorce cases, will you deal with them?" the result in some cases would be quite appalling. May I read one extract on this matter from the Report?
  "At other towns the King's Bench Judges have tried to take the divorce work in addition to their other work, but in fact they have not the time for this and there have been many complaints of chaotic and indecorous conditions. We have been informed of one town where 'at the Summer Assize in 1946 no less than 320 cases, including twenty defended cases (not merely discretion cases) were heard in six and a half days and the scenes outside the Courts were described as more reminiscent of Epsom Downs than a court of Justice.'"
  The Report does not reveal the identity of the town, nor does it state the date. I am very glad that the recommendation was made to relieve that pressure. I am sure that it was right to increase the number of Divorce Judges from aye to eight, for the express purpose of securing that we might have through the country Judges who deal with divorce, rather than concentrate a certain class of divorce case entirely in London.
  I now come to the question of what we are to do. For my part, I would entirely exonerate the most reverend Primate from any suggestion of saying that there was a certain satisfaction to be obtained from delay in dealing with these matters because it tended to discourage people. He did reflect, of course, that if divorce could be more promptly obtained, it might lead to there being more divorces. If I may say so, that is true; indeed it is obvious. But I doubt very much whether people who discuss this subject to-day always bear in mind how enormous is this influx of new divorce cases. During the debate I reminded myself that some years ago (as is the duty of every Lord Chancellor in turn) I read the Life of Lord Campbell—not The Lives of the Chancellors, by Lord Campbell, but his autobiography. He is not only a great writer on other Lord Chancellors, -but he wrote something about himself, and I came across an interesting passage. It was in 1857 that a Statute was passed, under the influence of Lord Lyndhurst, to set up the Divorce Courts, and I believe it came into operation in 1858. Lord Campbell had been a very vigorous member of this House, either as lord Chancellor or ex-Lord

  503
  Chancellor for many years and had taken part in this promotion of that legislation. Here is an extract from his diary, dated January 10, 1859:
  "I have been sitting two days in the Divorce Court, and, like Frankenstein, I am afraid of the monster I have called into existence. … Upon an average, I believe there were not in England above three divorces a year, a vinculo matrimonii, and I had no idea that the number would be materially increased if the dissolution were judicially decreed by a court of justice instead of being enacted by the Legislature, but I understand"—
  said the old gentleman—
  "that there are now 300 cases of divorce pending before the new court. This is rather appalling."
  That was the reaction of Lord Campbell.
  And now unquestionably divorce cases have assumed most stupendous dimensions. It is very rash indeed to question another man's arithmetic without having seen it on paper, but I must say that I was rather taken aback by being told that we can now consider a situation where one marriage out of six is going to find its way into the Divorce Court. It may be so. It rather depends on how one takes one's figures. It may be true for all I know that, if you take the number of people married last year, and compare it with the number of divorces last year, you get such a fraction. But, speaking with much humility, I rather doubt whether that is the proper way to deal with the matter. Marriages, fortunately, do not go on for a year. Happy marriages go on as long as the two parties live. If one considers how many married people there are in the country in one year—not the number of people who are married in that year—I cannot think, and I hope it is not the case, that we are living in a society in which one out of six marriages is destroyed every twelve months.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Perhaps I had better explain. The figures are reached by comparing the number of applications for divorce and separation in one year with the number of marriages solemnized in that year, and by that computation one out of six marriages solemnized will eventually end in divorce proceedings. On the same computation, the ratio before the war was one in twenty; it is now one in six, and the comparison between those two sets of figures indicates the increase.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: I rather guessed that that was the way it was done. I did not want it to be thought that the situation with regard to marriage (which I trust we regard as a permanent state, except in these very unhappy cases which are increasing) was that, if you took all the married people in the land, one out of six would find themselves in the Divorce Court. That obviously could not have been intended. I do not wish to detain your Lordships any longer. We all want to hear the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. I hope, however, that I may be excused for making these few observations. I particularly desire to stress that, rightly or wrongly, I feel very keenly that undue delay in dealing with these matrimonial causes inflicts a great deal of injustice on people who might thereby lose a right to which they are entitled.
  6.15 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for more than three minutes. I desire to mention in this debate one point which is very near to my heart and which I believe is very near to the heart of every noble Lord in this Chamber. That point is the proper protection of children, the marriage of whose parents is before a Divorce Court. The parents of children are, of course, their proper guardians. When a marriage is before a Divorce Court—and indeed generally many months before—these guardians are unable to fulfil their proper functions in protecting the children, for the reason that they are at loggerheads with each other; the interests of one pull against the interests of the other, and frequently against those of the children. The parties to the cause go to a Court. Each parent, naturally, is represented by counsel. But the children of that marriage also have an interest in the case, and, since the interests of their proper guardians are not at that moment theirs, there is no way in which those children can properly be defended.
  I believe that divorce will always be a subject which cannot properly be dealt with by the Courts until there is some person—possibly an officer appointed by the Lord Chancellor—who can step into the Court and say: "The proper guardians of these children are at loggerheads. I am here to represent their interests." While this matter is before the House, I should like to put in a plea for

  505
  the appointment of some such person, who could take up this matter, because, while that marriage is before the Court, the entire issue of a child's career is also before the Court. Until some proper counsel can step into the Court and defend these helpless children, there remains a large body of our citizens, weak, young and unrepresented, who are unable to defend themselves.
  6.17 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT): My Lords, although as the most reverend Primate has reminded us, we can in this House he as irrelevant as we like, yet he will I think agree with me that this is not the moment for me to indulge in my right of irrelevancy. I am very glad that we have had this debate. I rather invited it. I am very grateful to the noble Marquess for letting us have it. It has been a very remarkable debate, remarkable if for no other reason than that we have had the advantage of hearing a most splendid maiden speech from my noble and learned friend Lord Merriman. He was good enough in that speech to refer kindly to myself. I should like to tell your Lordships that, since I have been Lord Chancellor and this matter has been one of the greatest worry to me, I have gone to him with all my difficulties. We have treated those difficulties as difficulties common to both of us. I can say for myself, at any rate, that, having done that, I believe I have halved the weight of the difficulties which rested upon me. With regard to the matters which still remain to be considered, I propose to continue in the course I have adopted, and I know that I shall not ask in vain for the assistance of the noble and learned Lord, who has, of course, a greater knowledge of this matter than any man.
  The debate has also been illuminated by the speech of the most reverend Primate, and it does reveal the truth of what I said yesterday, when we were discussing a question also of public morals and public concern. While I realize to the full what heavy calls are made on the time of the most reverend Primate and of his brother Bishops, I should like to stress the value that we get from the contributions they are able to make on these social problems, which are just as much the concern and the work of the Church as they are of the State. It was in' that sense, and in that sense only, that I said what I did yesterday.
  506
  I should like to repeat what I have said before about the Denning Committee. When it was appointed, as the noble Marquess reminds us, he was rather sad that we had adopted this well-known expedient for shelving a question; but I had my eye on an appropriate chairman and impressed upon him the urgency of the question. Furthermore I was able to get to work with him what I think was an exceptionally strong Committee. Both sections of your Lordships' House were represented on it; the legal element was strong, and the lay element was strong. They have applied themselves to their task with splendid energy, and have given us already two Reports. I am bound to say on my own behalf that I think I have not done too badly either. I think I accepted and got the first recommendation working within about two days of the Report being published, and so far as the substantive recommendation here is concerned, I hope to have it working in January. There will, of course, be teething troubles at first, but the scheme has been worked out and I shall certainly bear in mind in applying that scheme what has been said in this House.
  We still await the Third Report, and I agree with the most reverend Primate that the Third Report is the most important of all three and the most constructive. It will concern itself, I understand, with the problem of reconciliation and also, I hope, with the problem of children to which the noble Lord who has just spoken has referred. There again I do not doubt that I shall, directly I get that Report, make it public, and if, as is very probable, your Lordships want to debate the matter, I shall certainly facilitate a debate, because I think these debates do nothing but good and give strength to many in working out these schemes. Judging from the general rapidity of the Denning Committee, I shall be very surprised if I do not get that Report in the month of January or very shortly thereafter.
  That leaves me to refer to one or two figures. Many have already been given. I would like to say quite plainly that, whatever the explanation may be, I regard these figures with very great concern. I was certainly brought up to believe that marriage involved a union for life. I believe that that is the only lawful conception of marriage. I cannot help saying that if people start with some

  507
  lesser idea and regard those little disturbances and bickerings which are bound to occur in the course of marriage as a reason for dissolving the marriage instead of taking them in their stride and getting over them, then I think it is a great disaster.
  It is a great disaster, particularly having regard to the children. I entirely agree with what was said, that the children of an unhappy marriage do have a difficult time in life. It may be better sometimes—let us face this—that the marriage should be ended rather than that it should continue with constant nagging and that children should be brought up in an atmosphere of unhappiness. But if parents take the responsibility of bringing children into the world then surely it is their responsibility also to see that those children have a fair chance of life, and those children will not have a fair change of life unless they are brought up in an atmosphere of happy married life. That I believe is the foundation on which society rests.
  I give you just these few striking figures which show the position. In 1905 there were 670 petitions; in 1915, ten years later, 1,100; in 1925, 3,000; in 1935, 5,000; and in 1945, 25,000. I omit the post-war years of 1919 and 1920 when the figures were 5,000 and 4,500 respectively, and I also omit the freak year of 1938 when the figure reached 10,000 owing to the passing of the Herbert Divorce Act. This year is nearly concluded and my estimate is that we shall exceed 38,000. For next year I find myself faced with a total which I estimate at 50,000. When we think of all the unhappiness which that means, I think we shall realize that there is an immensely serious problem here. Of course it is the fact, and I do not want it to be overlooked for a moment, that in the old days, before the Poor Person Procedure, it was impossible for many of these people to obtain a divorce. In those circumstances I dare say they did not bother very much about it, but contracted irregular unions. You must always remember that, in comparing the figures of today with the figures of the past. But, whatever comparisons you may make, I maintain that it is quite clear that these figures which relate to the number of petitions which I anticipate will be filed in the course of this year and next are
  508
  figures which must give us the gravest concern.
  Before I go on may I tell your Lordships the reason why I anticipate that the 38,000 of this year will go up to 50,000 next year? Your Lordships will remember that in March I came to your Lordships' House and told you all about the delay there was in the working of the Services divorce scheme. I pointed out that it was not a delay in the Courts at all, but a delay in getting the cases ready for hearing. We have now set up an organization under the auspices of the Law Society. I am not going to trouble your Lordships with the details, but having kept very careful and close touch with the thing, I would like to express my indebtedness to the President of the Law Society and his devoted band of workers for the work which they are doing. They are now dealing with this vast mass of papers, which was really getting almost overgrown with moss because there was no staff to deal with it, and they are now bringing these cases forward. So that next year you will begin to get in the Courts the results of their labours, and that is why I anticipate that we shall have a very much larger number of petitions brought on. That is all to the good.
  I felt then, whatever I may feel about divorce myself, that I was confronted with this position. The law decrees and allows that in certain cases a husband shall have the right to bring an action for divorce, or the wife shall have the right to bring an action for divorce. That being the law, it is quite plain that I should not put obstacles in the way of that right being exercised by creating unnecessary hurdles which people have to jump over, creating unnecessary expense or creating or tolerating undue delay. I am sure everybody will agree with that. So we have battled with a vast number of cases this year. I appointed this Committee and it gave me a unanimous Report. We have had this matter discussed from all angles, and I think every speaker in this House has expressed the view that I am right to go on with this scheme and give it a fair trial. That is what I intend to do.
  The County Court Judges are collaborating and co-operating. It is difficult to generalize about the County Court Judges. If you ask me whether they are all busy or slack, I should say the answer is "Neither." Some of them are very

  509
  busy and some of them are comparatively slack. But most of them have some spare leisure days to themselves, and the working of this scheme does involve that many of them will have to give up those spare days and their little leisure time. I should like to express the sense of indebtedness that I feel to them for coming in and trying to make this scheme work. Knowing them as I do, I feel that our County Court Bench now is as good as ever it was, and I feel quite certain that your Lordships need not fear that the work will be shirked. It is the duty of a Judge to see that these cases are properly and carefully considered, and I feel sure that the County Court judges who are to be entrusted with this very responsible work will be most anxious to make good and will do their work carefully and with due regard to the most important public issues which are involved.
  That is the position so far as the County Court Judges are concerned. I may have still to appoint a Special Commissioner or two. I shall have, I think, to appoint two further County Court judges for the London area, and I can do that without exceeding sixty, which is the statutory limit. I do feel, although I hesitated for a time, that on the whole it is better to have sixty Judges, each one of whom is giving 10 per cent. of his time, than to have six Judges, each of whom is giving one hundred per cent. of his time. I think that judicially as well as gastronomically a change of diet is useful. That, therefore, is the scheme I am proposing to adopt.
  With regard to the questions of procedure to which the noble Lord, Lord Rusholme, referred, I cannot help saying that I think it is a pity that he did not have the advantage of hearing from the President in regard to these various proposals. As it is, he may be in the position of a man who has not heard both sides of the case. Consequently, it is very difficult to express a final opinion. I feel sure that the President (with whom I am going to confer on this matter) will be most ready to see that all the obstacles which can be put on one side without interfering with the satisfactory nature of the work, and with the necessity of arriving at the truth, shall be eliminated. I say quite frankly that I regard the cost of a normal divorce case (which is, I think, something of the order of £65 or £75) as too high.
  510
  We must take steps to bring the expenditure down if we can. I think that would be the wish of all your Lordships because, if this is the law, it is not right that there should be an obstacle placed in the way of people who want to exercise their rights because they have got to expend a sum of money which they can ill afford.
  That is really all I have to say. I am very grateful to the noble Marquess for raising this matter. In trying to work out the details of my scheme, as I said before, I am sure to have teething troubles at first, but I shall learn by experience, and I go forward in working out my scheme refreshed and reinvigorated by the thought that all of your Lordships in all sections of the House wish me well.
  6.35 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I am glad that your Lordships think that this Motion has provided a valuable debate. I said something earlier on about understudies. As producer this-afternoon I certainly cannot complain that any but the stars themselves have appeared. I am particularly grateful to the most reverend Primate for having found it possible to take part in the debate. I would add just this. I have in the past sat behind and stood before the noble and learned Lord the President of the Divorce Division so often that I am particularly glad that a Motion of mine should have given him the opportunity to make the first of what I hope will be many speeches in your Lordships' House. The great advantage of the Denning scheme as we have been discussing it is that it can be put into operation by administrative action only. With the blessing it has had from your Lordships' House and in the knowledge that its examination by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will proceed as rapidly as possible, I think we may leave it in his hands to deal with the matter. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  PETROL RATIONING.
  6.36 p.m.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name. May I be permitted to apologize to your Lordships, and particularly to the noble Lord who is going to reply, for the fact that I

  511
  had to postpone this question from Tuesday, when I was unable to be present?
  [The question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government, whether in view of their intention to continue petrol rationing and the increasing public dissatisfaction at the lack of any adequate explanation for this restriction in peace-time, having regard to the world statistical position relating to petrol supplies and the increasing tanker tonnage available in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, they will now make a full explanation of the reasons for such rationing, indicating the precise extent to which it depends on supplies of petrol and tankers, the desire to conserve dollar resources, the desire to discourage expenditure of money on private motoring, and the desire to reduce expenditure of money, materials and man-power on roads, tyres and maintenance and repairs of motor-cars; and also whether such rationing is in any way linked with the proposal to nationalize road transport and to impose permanent limitations on the use of all classes of road vehicles; what is the number and cost of the staff involved in petrol rationing, and whether the number has been increased during the past six months; what is the cost of printing the necessary coupons.]
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, the sole reason for the continuation of petrol rationing is the need to conserve dollar resources. The petrol requirements of the sterling area are in excess of the petrol produced by British-controlled companies and the excess has to be bought from dollar resources. None of the other factors mentioned by the noble Lord has entered into consideration in connexion with petrol rationing. The number of staff engaged on petrol rationing on November 1, 1946, was 1,847 and the approximate cost is £500,000 per annum. The staff increased to 1,894 at September 1, but it has since fallen and shows a general downward trend. The cost of printing the basic ration books and the coupons relating to supplementary allowances is approximately £41,000 per annum.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask
  512
  whether he noticed that a statement was published in The Times—I forget the exact date—which stated that the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was producing this year 20,000,000 tons of fuel oil as against 10,000,000 tons before the war. While one quite understands the need to conserve dollar resources, one knows that, for instance, Iraq or Iran is not the only source of oil fuel within the sterling area. Many people cannot understand why it is continuously necessary to go outside the sterling area in order to obtain petrol. There is—
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, may I, with great respect, interrupt the noble Earl to point out to him that he is not in order in making a speech on this matter? According to the rules of the House, he is entitled to ask a supplementary question arising out of the reply. It is not our custom to make a speech and I hope he will help us by observing the rules.
  EARL HOWE: I beg the noble Viscount's pardon. My lapse is due to my inexperience in these matters. I will certainly observe the ruling which he has so rightly laid down. May I ask just this one question? We are told that petrol rationing has got to go on. The new licensing period begins on January 1. Can the noble Lord hold out any hope whatever with regard to next year to the enormous number of people, amounting to nearly 3,000,000, who own and run motor vehicles on the roads of this country to-day?
  LORD CHORLEY: In answer to a question which the noble Earl put in this House about a fortnight ago, I made a very full statement on behalf of my right honourable friend, and I am afraid I have nothing to add to that.

  PETROL.
  PETROL.
  TIMBER SUPPLIES.
  TIMBER SUPPLIES.
  SHEFFIELD AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1946.
  SHEFFIELD AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1946.