Sitting of 17 October 1946

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

    Widows' Allowances (Forms)
    Commander Nobleasked the Minister of Pensions how many forms does a Service widow have to fill in annually to obtain regular payment of her widow's pension, child's allowance and education grant, respectively; and on how many of these forms is she required to state that she is her husband's widow, etc.
    The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Wilfred Paling): I apologise for the length of this answer.
    The widow of an other rank has to complete one form annually in order to secure payment of her pension and her children's allowances. On this form, which is required by Statute as a certificate of life, she has to state that she is the widow of the deceased member of the Forces and give particulars of identity. An officer's widow's pension is paid monthly or quarterly by the Paymaster-General by means of vouchers. On these she has to declare that she is the widow of the deceased officer. Allowances for children are payable quarterly by similar vouchers on which the widow has to declare her relationship to the children. One voucher for the widow and one for the children has to be attested annually as a certificate of life. The widow has annually to complete a form of application for payment vouchers for the ensuing year, but she is not required to state thereon that she is the widow of the deceased officer. I am taking up the question of simplifying the present arrangements in officer cases. Where
    1030
    an education allowance is awarded, a form has to be filled up annually. In addition, each term a statement has to be submitted showing the actual fees and expenses incurred.
    Commander Noble: Is the Minister aware that having to give this information so Often is particularly worrying to certain people, some in particular; and will he do everything he can to cut this down to a minimum?
    Mr. Paling: I think I shall be able to do something about it.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: In the analogous case of payment in respect of a deceased son, can the right hon. gentleman say how often a statement of means is required?
    Mr. Paling: I should like that question put down.
    Mr. Nicholson: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would let me know?

    Young Soldiers (Wives' Grants)
    Captain Chetwyndasked the Minister of Pensions if he will give the number of applications for war-service grants from the wives of soldiers under 21 years of age since the introduction of the new code of pay and allowances; and if he will give the number of awards made.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: Up to 12th October, 693 applications had been received from non-Regular soldiers under 21 years of age. In addition, 261 applications had been received in Naval and Air Force cases. Allowances have been issued in 522 cases.
    Captain Chetwynd: Is the Minister aware that the working of this scheme is causing great hardship and anxiety; and would he consider consulting with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War to see if the responsbiility could be transferred to the Army so that equal pay could be made to all soldiers?
    Mr. Paling: That is a matter rather out of my province.
    Mr. Symonds: Could my right hon. Friend say how much time elapses as a rule between a man being conscripted and his wife getting a war-service grant; and what he proposes to do in that period to prevent it being necessary for the wife to apply for public assistance?
    Mr. Paling: I do not know the time, but I do not think any time is lost between an application for a grant being made and the application, if warranted, being accepted.
    Mr. McGovern: As these men under 21 years of age are compelled to give some of their own money if not allowed the full amount as against men over 21, and as the right hon. Gentleman's Department have claims made upon them to make up the money, is it unreasonable to ask if he could make representations to the War Office to have these sums brought up to a proper standard?
    Mr. Symonds: Could not a man's family circumstances be investigated in advance of his call-up date so that such a grant, if required, could be paid automatically the moment he joins up?
    Mr. Paling: There is something in that. It is my desire that there should be no loss of time.

    Appeals
    Mr. Thomas Macphersonasked the Minister of Pensions how many ex-Ser-vicemen and women whose appeals to pensions appeal tribunals were disallowed before 1st August, 1946, have exercised their right to apply again to his Department for a pension; how many of those applications have now been granted; how many are still under consideration; how many whose applications were rejected have made an additional appeal to a special arbitration tribunal; and with what results.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: The number of applications for review of the Ministry's decision received up to 15th October was just under 9,000. My Department have reviewed 860, and the application has been allowed in 90 cases. In the 770 cases where the decision has been maintained 170 requests for reference to the Arbitration Tribunal have so far been received The remaining 8,100 cases are under consideration. In some of these the applicant is already in receipt of pension on the ground of aggravation by war service but is claiming that his condition was attributable thereto.
    Mr. Macpherson: Could my right hon. Friend tell the House what arrangements he has made in setting up the special tribunal to which he referred in his answer?
    Mr. Paling: I do not set up the tribunal; that is for the Lord Chancellor's Department. The business has gone ahead, and we hope to have a tribunal sitting by some time in December.
    Mr. Walter Fletcher: Will the Minister see that in these tribunals a new spirit is invoked and inculcated; and that they will consider cases on their merits and not merely with the idea of saving the public purse?

  HOUSING

    Aluminium Houses
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Health if the aluminium houses now being fabricated at Bristol, Gloucester and Blackpool are temporary or permanent; and what is the accommodation provided in each.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): The aluminium houses being produced at these factories form part of the Government's temporary housing programme. The accommodation consists of living room, two bedrooms, kitchen and bathroom.
    Mr. Bossom: Would the Minister tell the House if all the equipment required to complete these houses and to enable them to be occupied is coming out with equal speed with the production of the hulls?
    Mr. Bevan: I am reasonably satisfied with the synchronisation of the parts of the houses of the aluminium programme, which is very little, indeed, behind schedule.
    Mr. Bossom: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many of these are being produced in a week or a month?
    Mr. Bevan: I could give the hon. Gentleman exact figures if he asked for them.
    Mr. Bossom: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will let me have them?
    Mrs. Castle: What are the factors that make these houses temporary instead of permanent, apart from the places where they have been sited?
    Mr. Bevan: They are rather small in size; that is one of the reasons.

    Private Building Ratio
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Health why the proportion of four

    1033
    houses to one for local authorities and private builders is not in operation at Plymouth.
    Mr. Bevan: The ratio of four to one applies to the country as a whole and not necessarily to a particular local authority district. At Plymouth the labour resources are insufficient to meet all requirements, and to ensure the best possible progress of the local authority and private enterprise schemes already authorised, it has been necessary strictly to curtail for the present the issue of further licences.
    Sir W. Smithers: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what powers he has to come down on local authorities who deliberately refuse to obey the four to one rule, which they are doing all over the country?
    Mr. Bevan: I have said that the four to one rule is not necessarily applicable to any particular area, and I encourage local authorities to reduce the ratio, and not to increase it.
    Sir W. Smithers: May we take it the right hon. Gentleman is now supporting private enterprise?
    Mr. Bevan: The hon. Gentleman may take it that the policy of the Government is now as it has been since the Government was formed—to construct houses for those in need, and not merely for those who can afford to buy them.

    Mere
    Mr. Grimstonasked the Minister of Health if he will now reconsider has refusal to sanction the expenditure necessary by the Mere and Tisbury Rural District Council for rendering habitable the Manor Road Dairy, Mere.
    Mr. Bevan: No, Sir, I cannot see my way to reconsider this matter for the reasons already given.
    Mr. Grimston: Is the Minister aware that six months ago this place was taken over with the approval of his Ministry as being potentially suitable for housing people who required housing, and that since then permission has been refused to the local authority to do the repairs necessary? Nor has permission been granted to derequisition the premises. Will he take steps to remedy this ridiculous situation?
    Mr. Bevan: The reason for refusing to have the accommodation renovated was that this project was likely to be uneconomical in the use of materials, and would result in sub-standard accommodation. I am not aware that we had, in fact, pressed the local authority to take it over. I will look into it again.

    London Region
    Mr. Derek Walker-Smithasked the Minister of Health how many of the 120,000 families provided with homes in the London region in the 16 months before 18th September, 1946, had been so provided before 3rd August, 1945; and how many had been provided with homes by requisitioning and/or the repair of war damage, temporary hutments, temporary houses, new local authority housing, new private enterprise housing and by any other method, specifying the same, respectively.
    Mr. Bevan: Precise figures are not available for the dates mentioned, but the number of units of accommodation provided between 1st April, 1945, and 3rd August, 1945, was approximately 39,000. As the remainder of the reply involves a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Would the Minister agree that a substantial proportion of those houses were provided under an Administration other than his own? With regard to the second part of the Question, would he say, in advance of the figures which he is going to make known—
    Mr. Stokes: The hon. Member is reading.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: This is merely the Order Paper I have before me.
    Mr. Stokes: We know that.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Would the Minister say that, when these figures are given, they will show that a very small proportion of the 120,000 were, in fact, provided by his chosen instrument, the local authorities?
    Mr. Bevan: It is perfectly correct that the previous Administration did not completely fail to provide any sort of accommodation whatsoever. It is also true to say that the amount of accommodation provided by the previous Administration

    1035
    was made easier by the fact that they were able to deal with those houses that were only slightly damaged. We are now having to deal with those houses more grievously damaged, which take longer

    ADDITIONAL UNITS OF FAMILY ACCOMMODATION PROVIDED IN THE LONDON REGION.

    —

    1st April, 1945 to 3rd August, 1945.

    3rd August, 1945 to 31st August, 1946.

    Total.

    New Permanent houses:

    Local Authority

    Nil

    643

    643

    Private enterprise

    Nil

    1,278

    1,278

    Rebuilding of destroyed houses

    Nil

    746

    746

    Temporary houses

    1,756

    9,125

    10,981

    Emergency huts

    1,720

    1,760

    3,480

    Repair of war damage (including requisitioned properties).

    Approximately 32,000

    Approximately 50,000

    82,333

    Conversions and adaptations (including requisitioned proper-ties).

    Approximately 3,500

    Approximately 11,500

    14,781

    Totals

    Approximately 39,000

    Approximately 75,000

    114,242

    Radcliffe-on-Trent
    Mr. Sidney Shephardasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that, although the Bingham Rural District Council decided in February, 1945, to build 70 houses in the parish of Radcliffe-on-Trent, Nottingham, no building work has yet been commenced; and what steps he proposes to take to see that the work is begun without further delay.
    Mr. Bevan: My regional architects have recently conferred with the council's architects, and it is expected that the council will submit lay-out and house plans to my Department shortly. Subject to these being satisfactory, the council will be authorised to go to tender. I hope that the scheme will now proceed expeditiously.
    Mr. Shephard: Is the Minister aware that although, as he agrees, building of any houses in this parish has not yet commenced, the local authority refused to grant any licences for private building? How does that fit in with his four to one concession?
    Mr. Bevan: Because it may be that houses are being built in neighbouring parishes, using labour.

    Birmingham
    Sir Patrick Hannonasked the Minister of Health the present position
    to put into a habitable state. Perhaps, with regard to the last part of the supplementary question, the hon. Gentleman will read the reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the figures:
    of the housing programme in Birmingham; and if the Ministries of Works and of Health are in cooperation in the removal of any difficulties which have arisen with the local authority.
    Mr. Perrinsasked the Minister of Health what action he proposes to take to deal with the delay in Birmingham's municipal housing programme caused by the city council's inability to accept inflated tenders.
    Mr. Bevan: At 30th September 1,848 temporary houses were under construction, including slabbing, and 946 had been completed. Tenders had been approved for 2,172 houses of permanent types, of which 1,013 were under construction and 167 completed. I am aware that tenders for further permanent houses which were recently received were too high for acceptance. In view of the large amount of work outstanding and the large number of houses not yet started in contracts already let, I do not think it is necessary for me to take any action at this stage, and I understand that the council are themselves endeavouring to negotiate satisfactory prices.
    Sir P. Hannon: Is the Minister satisfied that every conceivable effort is being made, both by the local authority and his Ministry, to meet the immense number of applications for housing accommodation

    1037
    now, and are the difficulties, which arose a short time ago between the Ministry of Works and his Ministry, now adjusted?
    Mr. Bevan: The matter under consideration at the moment is the fact that the council have received tenders which are, in fact, too high. The delay in negotiating lower tenders is not really resulting in the production of fewer houses, because there are more houses already under contract than the local labour can manage.
    Mr. Perrins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these tenders were at least £250 higher than the previous tenders, and that, in consequence, Birmingham City Council are being subjected to what might properly be described as a builders' ramp?
    Mr. Bevan: I think Birmingham City Council, from my own experience of it, can be trusted to deal with any conspiracy which may exist.
    Mr. Awbery: Would the right hon. Gentleman circularise local authorities to set up public works departments of their own, so that they can build houses, and so remove profits now obtained by contractors, and ensure, at the same time, better quality houses?
    Mr. Bevan: Where a local authority have a housing programme sufficiently large to warrant it, and where they can satisfy me that they can establish an efficient direct labour department, we have, in fact, encouraged them to do so.
    Mr. Osborne: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to keep these estimates down?
    Mr. Bevan: Steps have already been taken to keep estimates down. Hon. Members opposite throughout the whole of last winter and the spring of this year were attacking me because I was resisting high tenders and accusing me, thereby, of not getting the houses, because I was resisting high tenders. We shall resist tenders which are unreasonably high.

    Service Camp Huts
    Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Health what would be the cost of providing cooking, heating and lighting facilities in the R.A.F. huts at Holton-le-Clay, Lincolnshire, which have been occupied by married couples; and on what grounds he refuses to provide these facilities.
    Mr. Bevan: The cost of providing the facilities mentioned would be about £350. I am advised that such an outlay, and the necessary diversion of labour and material entailed, would not be justified in view of the nature of this camp and the condition of the five huts, the estimated life of which is only 12 to 18 months.
    Mr. Osborne: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile this answer with the statement he made in the House only last week that public services were being put into all these camps?
    Mr. Bevan: I never said for a moment that they were being put into all the camps. I am not going to spend public money for the purpose of providing substandard accommodation.
    Major Guy Lloydasked the Minister of Health whether the huts in military camps are now being included as an addition to the numbers of temporary houses given in the monthly housing returns for England and Wales.
    Mr. Bevan: No, Sir; units of family accommodation provided by the conversion of Service camps have hitherto been included under the heading of "conversion and adaptation of existing premises" on page 2 and in Table 6 of the Housing Return, but I am arranging to have them shown separately in future.
    Major Lloyd: Can we therefore have the Minister's assurance that, in the speeches made by him or by his Parliamentary Secretary, these individuals will not be included amongst those who have been found homes?
    Mr. Bevan: I have already pointed out that I do not propose to include them at all, so that the supplementary question had obviously occurred to the hon. and gallant Member before he heard my reply.
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Health what progress he has to report in the arrangements to use hutted accommodation on Hixon Airfield, Staffordshire, for emergency housing.
    Mr. Bevan: The accommodation on this airfield, redundant to the needs of the Air Ministry, has been offered to the Stafford Rural District Council for housing purposes. I have not yet received their decision.

    Land Acquisition (Compulsory Orders)
    Wing-Commander Roland Robinsonasked the Minister of Health in connection with acquisitions of land for housing under compulsory purchase orders made by local authorities, in how many cases a decision in favour of the local authority has been given; and in how many cases in favour of the private landowner during the past 12 months.
    Mr. Bevan: The figures asked for are 786 and 51 respectively.

    Wages and Costs
    Mr. Walker-Smithasked the Minister of Health what increase, at present rate of output, in the total cost of a local authority house, based on the average of tenders approved in recent months, it is estimated would result from an increase of 6d. an hour in the wages of craftsmen and a proportionate increase in the wages of labourers; and what would be the rent equivalent of such increase.
    Mr. Bevan: Approximately £70 and 10½d. per week.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Without wishing in any way to anticipate or prejudge any discussion that may be going on between the two sides of the building industry in regard to this matter—
    Mr. Stokes: Oh.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: One of these days the hon. Member will realise—
    Hon. Members: Speech.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I was going to say, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Member will realise that the value of his observations is in inverse proportion to the loudness of voice in which they are made. Would the Minister say whether any change of circumstances has happened since last December, when the 4d. rise was agreed to, and was thought to stabilise the position, at any rate for the time being?
    Mr. Bevan: If the hon. Member thinks that I intend to make any comment on this application, he is mistaken.

    Ealing
    Sir Frank Sandersonasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that there are 10,500 applicants on the waiting list for housing accommodation
    1040
    in Ealing and that plans are being drawn up to accommodate only 5,000 within the next five years, leaving 5,500 totally un-provided for; and, in view of the urgency and the hardships which these people are suffering without hope of any future for themselves and their children, what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
    Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir. The problem of building sufficient houses to meet the needs of districts in which sufficient land is not available, which is common to the London Region as a whole, can only be solved completely by the decentralisation of population and industry, in accordance with the Greater London Plan, to new and expanded towns. The necessary legislation for this purpose has been passed and proposals for new towns are already going ahead. In the meantime the town council are building on the sites available houses up to the capacity of the building resources available.
    Sir F. Sanderson: Could not the Minister provide for many of these derelict, obsolete and completely out-of-date houses to be pulled down, thereby making room for modern flats to meet the emergency?
    Mr. Bevan: It would not be possible to pull down houses occupied at the moment before finding alternative accommodation, and that is one of the difficulties of decentralising London. It is one of the legacies left to us by the party opposite.

    Rent Tribunals
    Mr. William Shepherdasked the Minister of Health if he is satisfied that the Rent Tribunals have sufficient powers for their purpose; or what fresh legislation is contemplated.
    Mr. Bevan: I am satisfied that experience of the working of these tribunals has not so far disclosed need for enlarging their powers.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is the Minister satisfied that applicants are not deterred from coming forward by the possibility of being evicted sometime after their applications have been made?
    Mr. Janner: Would the Minister also say whether his attention has been drawn to the information that a number of landlords who have received adverse decisions from these tribunals have ejected their tenants before the three months' notice to

    1041
    quit had elapsed, and will he give some instructions to the tribunals to stop that kind of action being taken in future?
    Mr. Bevan: I think hon. Members may rest assured that in the next few days they will find that I have already taken adequate steps to deal with landlords who do this.

    House Purchase (Local Authorities)
    Mr. Royleasked the Minister of Health if he is prepared to consider making regulations to compel the sale of all new houses, built by private enterprise, through the local authorities.
    Mr. Bevan: Conditions as to the sale price of houses are included when licences are issued and safeguards for their observance are provided in Sections 7 and 8 of the Building Materials and Housing Act, 1945. Local authorities have in addition power to purchase houses and, further, can make arrangements for the erection of houses for them by private builders who are not able to undertake contracts on the usual basis. These provisions should ensure the object which my hon. Friend has in view.
    Mr. Royle: Would my right hon. Friend believe that many of the houses are being sold by the exchange of money in addition to the maximum price, and does he feel that the preventive provided by the local authority's action might be better than the doubtful queueing up at the law courts?
    Mr. Bevan: If I could agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I would admit that a breach of the law had occurred and I should therefore have to take action against those responsible. My hon. Friend will realise if he looks at the answer that there are very heavy penalties indeed for charging any additional price.

    Returns (Publicity)
    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Health if he will arrange with the B.B.C. for a monthly broadcast of progress made in housing development on the basis of the present monthly housing return.
    Mr. Bevan: The B.B.C. has always included a summary of the monthly housing return in its news bulletins on the day the command paper is 0issued. I am in sympathy
    1042
    with the intention behind the Question, namely that these returns should receive as much publicity as possible.
    Major Lloyd: Is it not possible that the intention behind this Question is not only to receive publicity, but some biased publicity?
    Mr. Bevan: As the monthly returns are objective and factual statements of the housing programme, hon. Members opposite are obviously anxious not to have them publicised.

    Requisitioning Powers
    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Health what course of action is open to him where local authorities, acting as his agent, fail adequately to exercise the powers of requisitioning unoccupied property for housing purposes.
    Mr. Bevan: I am prepared to take up with a local authority any case in which I am satisfied that they are not making adequate use of their delegated powers.
    Mr. Sparks: Is the Minister aware that a few months ago I drew his attention to the existence of several thousands of unoccupied dwellings in Kensington, Chelsea, Westminster, Paddington and St. Marylebone, a large proportion of which could be made available for housing purposes? Can he say whether he is satisfied that his powers are being adequately exercised in these areas?
    Mr. Bevan: It does not happen to be the case that a large unoccupied house is always capable of adaptation without an enormous expenditure of money. Is the hon. Member also aware that houses which have been taken over by local authorities in some boroughs are unable to be occupied because we have not the building material and labour to adapt them?
    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Health if he will extend the power of requisition to unoccupied and inadequately occupied furnished houses in areas where the housing shortage is acute.
    Mr. Bevan: The powers I have delegated to the clerks of local authorities enable them to requisition unoccupied furnished houses. I am prepared to consider applications for the delegation of powers to requisition inadequately occupied furnished accommodation in par-

    1043
    ticular cases, where I am satisfied that there is an exceptional demand for housing accommodation which cannot be met in any other way.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Can the Minister say whether in such cases the tenant is allowed to remove the furniture or any part of it?
    Mr. Bevan: That is always a matter for arrangement.

    Requisitioned Houses (Rents)
    Sir Hugh Lucas-Toothasked the Minister of Health whether the rent demanded from a person living in requisitioned premises to which he was originally moved by reason of his being a transferred war worker is assessed on the same basis as that of a person living in requisitioned premises to which he was originally moved after having been bombed out; and, if there is a difference in method of assessment, what is the reason for such differentiation.
    Mr. Bevan: There were special arrangements applying to persons who had been bombed out, which were terminated by the circulars issued on 22nd October and nth December last year. These special arrangements did not apply to transferred war workers. If, however, there are individual cases which the hon. Member thinks require further consideration, I will be glad if he will let me have details.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why there has been a distinction drawn between the bombed-out and the moved war workers?
    Mr. Bevan: There always was the distinction.

    Building Licence, Cheshunt
    Mr. Irvingasked the Minister of Health why a licence has been refused to W. Moore and Sons, who have offered to build houses to let on land which the firm owns at Cheshunt.
    Mr. Bevan: I have found it necessary to restrict the issue of licences in this district because of the heavy competing demands for labour and materials, and the adverse effect on the housing schemes of the local authority for that district and for neighbouring districts.

    Duchess of Bedford Flats
    Mr. Piratinasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Ministry of Works, who had requisitioned the Duchess of Bedford flats, Kensington, subsequently offered them to the Kensington Borough Council so that they could be requisitioned for rehousing purposes and that this local authority refused the offer; and what steps he is taking to ensure that the Kensington Borough Council makes full use of its powers of requisitioning with particular regard to this block of flats.
    Mr. Bevan: In accordance with the normal procedure these flats were offered by me to the borough council. The local authority ascertained that the owners would let these flats at rents which, having regard to the pre-war rents, were reasonable, and indicated that in these circumstances they did not wish the requisition to be transferred to them. I see no reason to take any action.
    Mr. Piratin: Is the Minister not satisfied that the action of this Borough Council could have been such that this accommodation would have been provided for the homeless, rather than for those who already have decent homes of their own?
    Mr. Bevan: As I have already explained on a variety of occasions, London is a great capital City, and there is need for accommodation in London for all types of persons. It would be a very sad day indeed if we could not find accommoda-tion in London for the large variety of persons who need to live in the City.
    Major Lloyd: Can Members have an opportunity of seeing in the Library the comments made in a Russian broadcast sympathising with the Duchess of Bedford and her family in this unfortunate episode?

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES

    Employees (Trade Union Membership)
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Minister of Health if he will take steps to prevent local authorities from compelling their employees to join trade unions or any other appropriate organisation.
    Mr. Bevan: I have no power to intervene between local authorities and their employees in this matter.
    Sir W. Smithers: May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman is a supporter of the Hitlerian and totalitarian policy of the closed shop?
    Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member can take it for granted that the Minister of Health is not going to take Hitlerian powers of dictating to local authorities.
    Mr. Awbery: Will the right hon. Gentleman persuade the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) that this is 1946 now, and not 1896, and that all negotiations are done through the trade unions?
    Mr. Bevan: I have known the hon. Member for Orpington for so many years that I would not try to persuade him of anything.

    Meetings (Public and Press)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Health if he will introduce legislation to ensure that the public and the Press shall be admitted to all meetings of local authorities and their committees.
    Mr. Bevan: The question of securing more publicity for the proceedings of local authorities is being considered by the local government associations, in consultation with my Department. I am very much in sympathy with this general aim; but I can hold out no hope of early legislation.
    Sir W. Smithers: Do the Government propose to enact the policy laid down by the Prime Minister when he was a free lance demagogue, when he said that the local authorities should be governed by regional commissioners, and should not be independent, but Socialist, on the lines of Russian Communism?
    Mr. Bevan: I am afraid I am unable to follow the hon. Member in all those animadversions.
    Mr. George Wallace: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members could set an excellent example in this matter in their own constituencies by persuading local authorities to provide accommodation for the public where local authorities have none provided at the moment?

  PUBLIC HEALTH

    Ice Cream
    Mr. Austinasked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to
    1046
    make a statement on proposed legislation regarding the purity content and hygienic manufacturing conditions applicable to the ice cream trade.
    Mr. Bevan: I am sending my hon. Friend copies of draft Regulations which I published in the London Gazette," and of a circular I issued to local authorities, on 8th October.

    Hospital Regions
    Colonel Stoddart-Scottasked the Minister of Health whether he is yet in a position to place in the Library a map showing the hospital regions he has in mind in the National Health Service Bill and the medical schools with which they are associated.
    Mr. Bevan: No, Sir. If the Health Bill becomes law in its present form it will then be my duty to consult the bodies and organisations concerned and lay an order defining the hospital regions before Parliament.

    Christian Science Nurses
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Health whether it is now his intention to allow a Christian Science Nurse who has been fully trained to use this term of designation.
    Sir Frank Sandersonasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that the title Christian Science Nurse has been used for over 50 years by members of the Church of Christ, Scientist qualified to do so, he will see that no discrimination against Christian Scientists is made in the Nurses Amendment Regulations, 1946.
    Mr. Bevan: I would refer the hon. Members to the Debate of 14th October on the Nurses Amendment Regulations, 1946.
    Sir F. Sanderson: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that my Question was put down before the Debate took place—
    Mr. Bevan: Yes.
    Sir F. Sanderson: —but is he also aware that the nursing of the sick is an integral part of Christian Science practice?
    Mr. Bevan: All this, of course, was very thoroughly debated on the occasion I have mentioned.

    Insurance Practitioners (Payment)
    Sir Henry Morris-Jonesasked the Minister of Health what is the remuneration now received by general practitioners under the National Health Insurance Act; whether this payment complies with the standards recommended by the Spens Committee; and whether the remuneration under the present National Health Bill, when it comes into operation, will be based on the present payment.
    Dr. Comynsasked the Minister of Health why he has refused to implement the recommendation of the Spens Committee on the remuneration of insurance practitioners by increasing the capitation fee to 12s. 6d. instead of 15s. which was the recommended amount; and if he is aware that this refusal has created dissatisfaction among insurance practitioners.
    Mr. Bevan: I am at present having discussions with representatives of the profession, and would prefer to await the outcome of those discussions before making any statement.
    Sir H. Morris-Jones: As the House is interested in the question of remuneration for medical practitioners, both in the present Measure and in the coming Act, could the right hon. Gentleman tell the House as soon as these negotiations are completed what the remuneration will be?
    Mr. Bevan: As soon as the negotiations are completed I shall be delighted to tell the House, but I think it would be tactless to make a statement at this moment when negotiations are under way.

    Water Supply, Northamptonshire
    Mr. Mitchisonasked the Minister of Health for how many, and which of the parishes in Northamptonshire, which, on 28th March, 1946, were without, or substantially without, piped water supplies, such supplies have now been provided; and whether he will make a statement on the results of his consideration of the unsatisfactory conditions of water supply in rural parts of the Kettering Division, on the progress of the schemes which on 28th March had been prepared, or were in course of preparation, and on the coordination of water supply under local authorities in Northamptonshire.
    Mr. Bevan: No parishes in the Kettering Division which were without, or substantially
    1048
    without, piped water supplies on 28th March, 1946, have yet been provided. Of the schemes prepared, or in the course of preparation, on that date, two for nine parishes are nearing completion; a local inquiry will shortly be held into two schemes for 21 parishes, and a scheme for three parishes is under consideration. To remedy the unsatisfactory conditions in the rural parts of the Division, a joint scheme for this and adjoining areas, by the exploitation of a source at Pitsford, is being prepared by a joint committee of authorities, and I am hoping that such a scheme will prove practicable.
    Mr. Mitchison: Is the Minister prepared to stress to the local authorities, whose coordination in this matter has been far from perfect, as I think he knows, the extreme urgency of the water supply question in the rural areas in this Division?
    Mr. Bevan: The joint committee, to which I have referred, was called on the initiative of my Department, which is evidence of our sense of urgency about this matter.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: Does the Minister recognise the desirability of taking into account alternative supplies, in addition to the supplies contemplated from Pitsford reservoir, particularly in view of the fact that there is still a village whose inhabitants get their water supply from dustbins?
    Mr. Bevan: The provision of a piped water supply to this area is extremely urgent, and it has been urgent for the last half century.

    Ambulance Services (Staffs)
    Mr. Hardyasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that at Orpington, Epsom and Ewell, Banstead, Welwyn and Surbiton, ex-Civil Defence ambulance workers have now been taken over by the local authorities operating an ambulance service; that the staff are required to work 24 hours on and 24 hours off duty for Civil Defence rates of pay; why these employees are not being paid the appropriate National Joint Council rates for a 48-hour week; and what steps he is taking, as it is unfair for patients to place their lives in the hands of persons who have to undertake such long spells of continuous duty.
    Mr. Bevan: I was not previously aware of the facts stated by my hon. Friend, but the matter is one in which I have no power to intervene.

    Nursing Shortage, Birmingham
    Sir P. Hannonasked the Minister of Health if he has been informed of the acute shortage of nurses in Birmingham hospitals, and that the Birmingham Public Assistance Committee is now confronted with the possible closing of certain wards in the local infirmary, and if measures can be expedited to augment the essential nursing services.
    Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir. The shortage of nurses is unfortunately widespread, and I know that the Birmingham Public Assistance Committee is in particular difficulty. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and I are doing all we can to increase recruitment, by the improvement of pay and working conditions, publicity campaigns and other similar measures. I understand that the Birmingham authorities are undertaking a special recruiting campaign to deal with their particular problem.
    Sir P. Hannon: Does the Minister contemplate the introduction of some national scheme to encourage larger recruitment of nurses for hospitals? The outlook for hospitals this coming winter is very serious indeed.
    Mr. Bevan: We have already got under way a national campaign, and when the National Health Bill is on the Statute Book, we shall really have a national scheme.
    Mrs. Braddock: In view of the fact that there is a definite shortage, does not my right hon. Friend agree that the time has come when the whole question of recruitment and methods of training nurses should be inquired into?
    Mr. Bevan: It is being inquired into now.
    Mr. Maclay: Is the right hon. Gentleman giving any consideration to the possibilities of a system of voluntary nursing aid, such as is now in operation in the United States and without which many of their hospitals would have had to close during the war?
    Mr. Bevan: Some schemes are in operation here at the moment, but I am ready
    1050
    to consider any suggestion to ameliorate the very great difficulties of some local authorities at the present time
    Mr. Stokes: In considering a solution of this problem, will my right-hon. Friend consider the possibility of recruiting from the large number of competent displaced persons who are at present in displaced persons' camps on the Continent doing nothing?
    Mr. Bevan: A large number of persons from the Continent are coming over now, and are being employed by hospital authorities.

  REGISTER ENTRIES (CORRECTIONS)
  Sir Frank Sandersonasked the Minister of Health what steps are taken to see that amendments are made to records of births, marriages and deaths by the Registrar General, when the original registration has been proved to be inaccurate by proceedings in a court of law.
  Mr. Bevan: A registrar has no power to correct any error of fact or substance in a register entry except under the special conditions prescribed in the Registration Acts, which require in the case of marriage entries the personal attendance of witnesses before the registrar, and in the case of birth and death entries an application from an interested party supported by statutory declarations by two persons intimately concerned with the registration. I will, however, consider whether by improved administrative arrangements this procedure can be made to operate more effectively in the kind of case the hon. Member has in mind.

  DAY NURSERIES
  Mr. Piratinasked the Minister of Health the number of day nurseries which are functioning, and the total attendances, at the nearest recent date, and also at a comparable date in 1944.
  Mr. Bevan: There are 928 day nurseries in England at present. In October, 1944, there were 1,497. I am afraid that up-to-date figures of attendances are not yet available, but I will send the hon. Member this information as soon as possible.
  Mr. Piratin: Does not the Minister agree that this reduction is due to the fact that local authorities are in many cases charging exorbitant fees for the maintenance of children?
  Mr. Bevan: This is always a matter for the local authorities concerned. The hon. Member must realise that I am not a dictator of the policy of local authorities.
  Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Does not the Minister agree that the right policy is to convert these institutions into proper nursery schools for children of two years and over, and that those under that age are better left with their mothers? Will the Minister urge the Government to encourage part-time employment of women in industry?
  Mr. Bevan: I am afraid that that is entirely outside the Question, but I am sure that what the hon. Member has said will be given attention.
  Mr. Wyatt: What positive steps are being taken to encourage local authorities not to close down nurseries, in view of the shortage of women workers in industry?
  Mr. Bevan: We have provided a grant of 50 per cent. of the cost of day nurseries. It is not for me continually to press local authorities. It is for hon. Members and other citizens to exercise their local franchise in these matters.

  TEACHERS' SALARIES
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Minister of Education (1) how many authorities are entitled to submit lists recommending additional payment above the Burnham Committee Scale to teachers holding posts of special responsibility; how many authorities have done so; and what is the total number of names submitted;
  (2) how many authorities have submitted lists of teachers qualified for payments above the Burnham Committee scale for posts of special responsibility by 1st October, 1945, 1st January, 1946, 1st April, 1946, and 1st July, 1946; and in how many cases, respectively, such recommendations have been approved.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Hardman): As the answer involves a considerable amount of factual material, I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, communicate the information to him direct.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that since this recommendation was made in April, 1945, there is no substantial number of teachers, whose claims have been admitted, still awaiting a decision?
  Mr. Hardman: During the last three months there has been a big improvement in the primary and secondary fields. On 1st July, only 37 proposals had been agreed out of 115 submitted, but on 1st October 102 had been agreed out of 134 submitted, so that the delay is not very apparent today.

  CENTRAL OFFICE OF INFORMATION
  Mr. De la Bèreasked the Prime Minister whether he will now make a short statement setting out the work on which the Central Office of Information is engaged in connection with the publicity sections of Government Departments; and indicate if it is the Government's intention further to extend the scope of the Central Office of Information to deal with films, booklets, posters, advertising and exhibitions.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The Central Office of Information acts as the central Government agency for the preparation of material required by Departmental information services for use in this country and overseas. This already includes films, Press and poster advertisements, exhibitions and displays, photographs, books, pamphlets, and magazines. For overseas use, the Central Office also prepares reference papers and a daily service of comment and background news. The Central Office maintains a number of regional offices both for its own purposes—such as the distribution of official films to factories, clubs, and special groups—and for use by Departments which require regional publicity services. It provides machinery for the general distribution to the Press of official news originating in the Departments themselves.

  1053
  The Central Office may make suggestions for publicity outside the scope of any one Department, and may carry this out when required. Generally, the information or public relations divisions of Departments and the Central Office work as a partnership in the conduct of the official Information Services. The Departments are responsible for policy and the provision of news, the Central Office for technical assistance and specialised production work.
  Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the heavy cost of maintenance of this Department to the taxpayer, and can he give an assurance that official news from the Department is not paid publicity along any biased party lines? This thing is a very great danger.
  Mr. Morrison: I am aware of the cost, but we think it is in proportion to the public need. There is, however, no question of using these services, either detrimentally or otherwise, for party political ends. They are the citizen's right to know what is happening, and we do it as a public duty and not as a means of protecting the Government against criticism. We can do that for ourselves.
  Mr. Warbey: In view of the fact that newspapers are devoting their increased allocation of newsprint to murder trials, sport, and advertisements, is it not highly desirable that the Government should have improved means of disseminating the true facts about the national peace effort?
  Mr. Morrison: I must say that Mr. Heath had a very good show during the first week of the larger newspapers. However, that is a matter for the Press. What is clearly a necessity of modern, democratic, Government is that the public should have the means of knowing what is happening, and there is a duty, as well as a right, on the part of the Government to let them know what is happening.
  Mr. Churchill: But ought that not to be done by the energetic action of Ministers and supporters of the Government, rather than through machinery which has been set up at the public expense?
  Mr. Morrison: The machinery now existing is somewhat more modest than that which existed under the Prime Ministership of the right hon. Gentleman. What this machinery does is quite distinct from speeches by Ministers on the platform or, for that matter, from speeches by the Opposition at Blackpool. This is a matter of the citizen, the taxpayer, with all the complexities of modern legislation and administration, having the right to know what administration and legislation means, and what his rights are under the legislation. It is a totally different matter from controversial political speeches by leaders of political parties.
  Mr. Churchill: But is it not a fact that during the war we had a national Coalition Government, officially representing all parties, and that the use of publicity in those days was for the essential purposes of national survival? Now that we have a two-party system again it is very questionable how far public funds and machinery, used in order to disseminate—(HON. MEMBERS: "Speech.")—I was only answering the very full and courteous reply of the Leader of the House. It is a different situation altogether in considering how far national publicity should be used.
  Mr. Morrison: I admit that there is some difference when the nation is struggling for survival in war and when there is a general Coalition. On the other hand, that Coalition was not complete. There were some people who were outside it—
  Mr. Churchill: And the right hon. Gentleman has not got to look very far, has he?
  Mr. Morrison: That is very true. The right hon. Gentleman and other Ministers, including myself, had our critics inside Parliament and outside, but the fact remains that we must be careful not to go so far as in wartime. The trouble with the right hon. Gentleman is that he is persistently thinking that what he was entitled to do with impunity when he was Prime Minister this Government must not even look at.
  Brigadier Mackeson: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it reasonable to spend £100 this year where we spent £9 before the war, on publicity?
  Mr. Morrison: Before the war this admirable democratic service was in its infancy. Obviously, there had to be some development, but we are spending less than during the war, and rightly so.
  Sir William Darling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the considerable inefficiency in his Department, and has his attention been drawn to the fact that a retail grocer in the City of Edinburgh received three double crown posters asking his customers to stimulate the export trade?
  Mr. Morrison: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to return the posters, with full particulars, so that I can have full inquiries made.
  Mr. De la Bère: In view of the fact that this position is thoroughly unsatisfactory, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter again on the Adjournment, at the first opportunity.

  WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  Mr. Keelingasked the Prime Minister whether, as an inducement to hon. Members to ask for written answers to Questions, he will arrange for a written answer to be issued not later than the day on which an oral answer would have been given if asked for.
  Mr. H. Morrison: The present instructions to Departments, which are based upon the second Report of the Select Committee on Procedure, are that Questions for written answer should be answered within seven days, but that every effort should be made to answer them more speedily. To adopt the hon. Member's suggestion would add considerably to the pressure on Ministers and Departments, and in cases where considerable research is needed, it might be impossible to give a final answer within the period proposed. In any event, I should have thought that the present arrangements were adequate in the great majority of cases. It is, I think, recognised that where there is real urgency there is no alternative to putting down a Question for oral answer.
  Mr. Keeling: But does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that it is the uncertainty about the date when written Questions will be answered which promotes orality, and that if he would give an
  1056
  unqualified "Yes" to my question, the number of oral Questions would be considerably diminished?
  Mr. Morrison: The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that he has a passion for bureaucratic rigidity. He really must allow for the human element in this business. We will do our very best, and I think that the proposition advanced by the Government is not unreasonable in all the circumstances.
  Mr. Churchill: Are we to have a discussion, at any time, on adding a quarter-of-an-hour to Question time for oral Questions? Is anything in prospect with regard to that?
  Mr. Morrison: I am afraid not, Sir.

  AUSTRIA

    Rations
    Mr. Keelingasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will give an assurance that the calory value of rations in Austria will not be reduced below that of German rations.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): This is a matter for the Austrian Government to decide in consultation with U.N.R.R.A. I am, however, naturally anxious that food imports should be on a sufficient scale to permit the rations to be increased from their present low level, and we are in constant touch with U.N.R.R.A. on the question.
    Mr. Keeling: Can the Chancellor relate his reply to a comparison between Austria and Germany?
    Mr. Hynd: Yes, Sir. We are directly responsible for the maintenance of rations in Germany, but not for the maintenance of rations in Austria, which is a matter for the Austrian Government and U.N.R.R.A.
    Miss Jennie Lee: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that in conversations between the occupying Powers when it is proposed to increase the rations, the Austrian ration will be at least the equivalent of the German ration, and that the British representative will support that proposal?
    Mr. Hynd: We are doing everything possible to persuade those who can con-

    1057
    tribute towards securing that end to ensure that sufficient imports are brought into Austria for that purpose.
    Mr. Warbey: Do I understand my hon. Friend to say that the Allied Council has had nothing to do with the allocation of the ration level in Austria?
    Mr. Hynd: Certainly. The Austrian Government fix the calory standard for each 28-day period, and we are making representations to the Austrian Government that they should maintain and even increase that standard as soon as possible.

    Tuberculosis, Vienna
    Dr. Segalasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many new cases of tuberculosis have been notified in the city of Vienna during each of the last six months; and what is the institutional accommodation available for them.
    Mr. J. Hynd: There were 491 new cases in April, 481 in May, 586 in June, 369 in July, 382 in August and 335 in September. The number of beds at present available for tuberculosis cases in Vienna is 2,500.
    Dr. Segal: In view of the probable increase in the tuberculosis rate in Vienna during the coming winter, would the Minister say what steps are being taken to increase the available accommodation?
    Mr. Hynd: I am not sure that the problem is shortage of accommodation. The total number of beds in Vienna is 2,500, and there are over 5,500 beds available in Austria. Calculations would show that there is ample bed accommodation for any contingencies that are likely to arise. The real difficulty is the shortage of trained nurses.
    Mr. K. Lindsay: Do I understand that we are responsible for tuberculosis beds, but that we are not responsible for the food of the people in Vienna?
    Mr. Hynd: It is not a question of whether we are responsible for the beds or not, but, as we are in Vienna, we are naturally concerned with answering questions with regard to the situation in Vienna.
    Mr. Nicholson: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the system of notification is complete, or is it the case that not all the cases are notified, and then only the most advanced ones?
    Mr. Hynd: That is another question. I cannot give a categorical answer to it. The system of notification is in the hands of the Austrian authorities, working in close conjunction with the health authorities of the Control Commission.
    Mr. Scollan: Is the Minister satisfied that the Allied Control Commission, in dealing with problems of this character, are going about it in the right fashion, in so far as they do not know what to do about the food rationing, and they are in a bit of a quandary about the incidence of tuberculosis?
    Mr. Hynd: I do not know what is the quandary in regard to the increase of tuberculosis. The figures which I have given show a steady decrease since May. There is no quandary, because the number of beds is more than sufficient to deal with the incidence of tuberculosis. So far as the food question is concerned, I would point out that it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to give the Austrian Government maximum freedom of operation, and it is completely in accord with the policy of giving responsibility to U.N.R.R.A. We cannot therefore intervene too far in that direction.

  GERMANY

    Jewish Fishery School
    Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on whose authority five deep-sea fishing trawlers were allocated to the Jewish Aid for Palestine Committee to operate from the Hamburg district; if he will state how much fish has been landed by these trawlers; where it has gone; and whether there has been any illicit traffic in the form of export of displaced or persecuted persons by this means.
    Mr. J. Hynd: The Jewish fishery school in Hamburg possesses three fishing vessels. These are of river craft type and were apparently chartered by Jewish relief agencies through direct negotiation with German owners. The catch of fish has averaged about 150 kilos a week and has been distributed to Jewish communities in Hamburg. Military Government Authority was not obtained for the establishment of the school, the allocation of the vessels or distribution of the fish, and the activities of the school have been

    1059
    suspended. I have been unable to obtain evidence of any unauthorised emigration of displaced or persecuted persons by this means.
    Mr. Stokes: While I could not hear the first part of the reply, may I ask the Chancellor whether the sense of it was that no deep-sea going fishing vessels have been allocated to this committee?
    Mr. Hynd: The answer is that the three craft in question were river craft. The catches were very small—I understand about 150 kilos a week against 3,000 tons total catch a week—and the operations have now been stopped. They were not undertaken with the authority of the Military Government.
    Mr. Janner: Is not the use of such terms as "export" with regard to persecuted and displaced persons adding insult to injury to people who have already suffered all too heavily?
    Major Bramall: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us why, in view of the fact that there was no impropriety in the actions that were taken, these people, who have suffered so badly, were prevented from supplementing their extremely meagre rations?
    Mr. Hynd: For the reason that the ration standards have to be controlled. Certain standards are laid down. I can see no justification for allowing unrestricted fishing or other food obtaining facilities for the special purpose of supplementing the official ration of any section of the community.
    Mr. Churchill: Is it to be declared a new crime for people to catch a few fish?
    Mr. Hynd: On the contrary, these vessels will continue to be used for catching fish, but the catching of fish and the organisation of any other food supplies will be distributed fairly according to the accepted standards, and not for any special section of the community.
    Mr. Stokes: In view of the interjection of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), may I say that I was not raising this matter on the importation of fish but on the question of discrimination. Why are these
    1060
    trawlers being allotted to a particular body, and, secondly, with regard to the term "persecuted persons," is it not a fact that the term "persecutee" is not a recognised term in the House?
    Mr. Janner: Why the word "export"?
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he has now laid down a principle that no one is to be permitted by honest means, within the law, to add, by his own efforts, to his rations?

  British Children (Education)
  Colonel Gomme-Duncanasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he is satisfied that adequate arrangements have been made for the supply of teachers and suitable school accommodation for the children of Servicemen going to Germany.
  Mr. J. Hynd: Yes, Sir. Ninety-five teachers have already been selected. These are sufficient for our initial needs. Accommodation is being provided, and we hope to open some schools by the end of next month.
  Mr. Churchill: Has the Minister endeavoured to enlist the interest and services of the German people in this process of their own education or re-education?
  Mr. Hynd: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has not understood the Question, which refers to the education not of German children but of our own children.
  Mr. Churchill: I owe the hon. Gentle-, man an apology.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: In view of the desperate shortage of teachers in this country, is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the quality of these teachers going to Germany is good, and will he say from where they come?
  Mr. Hynd: They are coming from this country, and the movement is being organised in conjunction with the Ministry of Education. We are in touch with the Union of Teachers with regard to the skill, salary, and so on, of these teachers, and the standards required are the normal standard with regard to teaching.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Churchill: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make on the Business for next week?
Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. The Business for next week will be as follows:
Monday, 21st October—A Debate will take place on housing on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Tuesday, 22nd October, and Wednesday, 23rd October—A Debate will take place on foreign affairs on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Thursday, 24th October—Debate on forestry on a Government Motion.
Friday, 25th October—Consideration of the Lords Amendment to the Cable and Wireless Bill; Second Reading of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Circuit Officers) Bill [Lords] and of the Public Notaries (War Service of Articled Clerks) Bill, if received from another place; Motions to approve the Greenwich Hospital Accounts and outstanding Purchase Tax (Exemptions) and Import Duties Orders.
During the week we shall ask the House to consider the Motion relating to Parliamentary elections.
Mr. Churchill: Can the right hon. Gentleman state when the last item he has mentioned, the Motion relating to Parliamentary elections, will be taken?
Mr. H. Morrison: I am afraid I am not quite certain yet, but I do not imagine it will be a lengthy matter. In any case, it will be taken as early as possible. I will see that the usual channels are informed, and if necessary, the House. The actual time is not yet fixed.
Mr. Churchill: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider that Friday would probably be the most appropriate occasion, when there would be time to take this matter?
Mr. H. Morrison: We will certainly give that suggestion consideration. I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Ellis Smith: I wish to ask the Leader of the House two questions. First, shall we receive a full statement on the Paris Conference from the spokesman for the Government, and secondly, between now and next Session, will my right hon. Friend consider the advisability of the
1062
restoration of Private Members' time, and if it cannot be restored in full, will he consider restoring at least the right of Members to the ballot, in order that the House may give consideration to the great issues which are being considered in the country?
Mr. H. Morrison: In regard to the first point, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will take part in the Debate, and I have no doubt he will make a report on the proceedings of the Paris Conference. The second point raised by my hon. Friend is premature at this stage, and I have nothing to say about it.
Mr. Ellis Smith: Will my right hon. Friend consider, between now and next Session, the suggestion which has been made?
Mr. H. Morrison: I always consider every suggestion which is made.
Mr. Frank Byers: In view of the very restricted Debate which we had on Monday last, will the Government give time for the House to debate fully the question of the "closed shop"?
Mr. H. Morrison: I see no immediate prospect of that, Sir. I should have thought that there might be quite a full opportunity in the Debate on the Address, but I am afraid that in the remaining period of this Session, I see no opportunity of providing special time.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: Can the Leader of the House indicate today the general sense of the Motion on forestry which the Government intend to put on the Paper, so that we may be advised in advance?
Mr. H. Morrison: I think it will be a Motion to approve the policy of the Government in relation to forestry which was announced some time ago by the Minister of Agriculture.
Mr. R. S. Hudson: May we assume that the Minister of Agriculture will explain in fairly considerable detail what the policy is, so that we may have a really informed Debate?
Mr. H. Morrison: I should think that would be so. I do not want to commit my right hon. Friend about the order of things, and so on, but I think the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion is not unreasonable.
Mr. Austin: In view of the importance of the foreign affairs Debate prior to the Foreign Secretary going to America, and bearing in mind the fact that in past years so many hon. Members on both sides of the House have been unsuccessful in their attempts to speak on foreign affairs, will the Leader of the House give consideration to suspending the Rule on Tuesday night, so that hon. Members on all sides, who wish to do so, can take part in the Debate?
Mr. H. Morrison: I think that probably my hon. Friend means, when he talks about suspending the Rule, not an unqualified suspension—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] There are two reasons. When all-night Sittings take place, the newspapers are full of complaints about it, and so are hon. Members. It is no good being brave at Question time and not so brave the next morning. Secondly, I do not think it would be a good thing, on the second day of an important Debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "The first day."] I am talking about the consequences of the first day and the first night. I do not think it would be a good thing for the second day's Debate that the House should have sat all the night before, having the second day's Debate on a matter of such vital importance as foreign affairs; but I would consider a restricted suspension of the Rule. We would consider quite a restricted suspension.
Mr. Churchill: We are all agreed that some additional time should be given on the Tuesday night, but I am entirely in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be a great mistake to have an all-night Sitting on foreign affairs.
Mr. McGovern: May I ask the Leader of the House whether there is any prospect of an early statement and Debate on the continuation of conscription in this country and the future of military service for young men?
Mr. H. Morrison: No, Sir. I know of no happenings that would require a statement at this time. What the future has in store, I cannot say.
Mr. McGovern: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of people are very perturbed at the continuation of conscription so long after the war, without any very definite statement
1064
from the Government, and that they feel it is high time the Government made up their mind as to the future of conscription in peace time?
Mr. H. Morrison: As to the temporary continuation of compulsory military service, a full statement was made about that by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour some time ago. As to the nature of the peacetime Army, that is another matter which requires fuller consideration, and the Government are not in a position to make any statement at this time. I quite agree that people may be thinking about it, and may even be perturbed, and if it is any comfort to the hon. Gentleman, the Government are perturbed about a lot of things relating to it, too.
Mr. Snadden: Will the right hon. Gentleman give time for a Debate on agriculture, in view of the fact that there is on the Order Paper still a Motion to approve the Government's agricultural policy, and also because of the acute position that will arise when German prisoners return to Germany?
Mr. H. Morrison: It is not our fault that the Motion is still on the Order Paper. It was intended to be disposed of in the Debate that took place, but I think somebody talked it out. I do not complain about that, but we must not be blamed for it. I do not see any occasion for a new Debate on agriculture. There will be plenty of opportunities next Session.
Mr. R. S. Hudson: May I remind the Leader of the House that we were promised, at an earlier stage, an additional day and we never had it, and that it was the Parliamentary Secretary who talked out the Motion? We are still deprived of the additional day which was originally promised.
Mr. H. Morrison: The Debate on forestry will be the second day.
Mr. Hudson: Oh, no.
Mr. H. Morrison: It also is related to the growth of things from the soil. There was an idea earlier on that these two subjects might be taken together. Now they are being taken separately. I think we are treating the House handsomely on the subject.
Mr. Hudson: If the right hon. Gentleman will look up the records, he will find that we were promised another day for

1065
agriculture, and a separate day for forestry. We were promised another day for agriculture.
Mr. Stokes: Despite the sudden conversion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) to a dislike for all-night Sittings, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will reconsider really seriously the suggestion which has been made? There are many young people here who would be quite prepared to sit all night in order to debate things in which they believe, and this would not hurt the Debate in any way. Secondly, may I revert to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) with regard to Private Members' time? Will my right hon. Friend give us some assurance that this matter will be considered before the next Session, bearing in mind that while we were prepared to give it up in order to allow Government Business to go through, it is nevertheless a very important part of Parliamentary procedure and we all wish to see it restored?
Mr. H. Morrison: My hon. Friend may rest assured that the question of Private Members' time will be considered, for the simple reason that it will have to be. If the Government decide to restore it, they will refrain from putting a Motion down to take it, and if they decide to take it, they will have to put a Motion down in that sense. I have a great respect for the Parliamentary prowess of my hon. Friend and the part he plays in this House, but I am bound to say that the idea that, on a foreign affairs Debate when every word matters, we should sit through the night, and go on next day and keep on talking, really shocks me. All-night Sittings may be unavoidable from time to time, but deliberately to plan for them does, as I say, really shock me.
Mr. Stokes: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask your advice on this matter? Until quite recently it was the ordinary custom in this House that when the Rule was suspended, it was suspended indefinitely, and it was only during the wartime period that the present arrangement was adopted. It cannot suddenly be to the disadvantage of a foreign affairs or any other Debate, that there should be an all-night Sitting if hon. Members so desire. All that matters is whether hon. Members wish it or not.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of Order.
Mr. Stokes: I could not raise the point in any other way.
Mr. Speaker: I must point out that we are going very wide, and are discussing all kinds of things whereas really we should be discussing the Business of next week.
Mr. Janner: On Business, may I ask the Leader of the House whether, in the course of the foreign affairs Debate, there will be an opportunity of discussing the Palestinian situation; and, if not, will he provide another opportunity for this?
Mr. H. Morrison: What will be discussed is a matter for the Chair. The Debate will take place on the Motion for the Adjournment and the hon. Member can form his own estimate of what is possible and what is not, but, as I say, it is really a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Erroll: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would be in Order to discuss the position in Germany during the Debate on foreign affairs?
Mr. H. Morrison: Germany being a foreign country, I should have thought it might be permissible.
Mr. Austin: May I ask my right hon. Friend, in the most reasonable and moderate manner I can, whether it is quite fair to the House, since we do sit all night on the Finance Bill—
Mr. Speake: I do not think we should argue that point any further.
Mr. George Thomas: May I ask my right hon. Friend if it is proposed to give the House an opportunity to discuss the Curtis Report with regard to the care of children?
Mr. H. Morrison: It is obvious that the Report must have the consideration of Ministers, and there are three Ministers at the moment who are directly involved. I imagine that when the Government have come to a conclusion about the Report, one of those Ministers will make a statement and perhaps we might consider it at that point.
Major Legge-Bourke: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is the intention of the Government that there

1067
shall be a Debate on the Defence White Paper; and, if so, whether it would be in Order to discuss conscription on that?
Mr. H. Morrison: On the latter point, I would say that that again is a matter for the Chair, but we can keep the point in mind. With regard to facilities for a Debate, there will have to be legislation in due course, but, on the other hand, it may be convenient to have an early discussion on the White Paper if suitable arrangements can be made. I think that if the hon. and gallant Member would raise that through the usual channels we could consider it.
Mr. Spence: May I ask the Leader of the House if the Secretary of State for Scotland will be present during the Debate on forestry since Scottish questions will be under discussion then?
Mr. H. Morrison: It is recognised that in the matter of forestry, Scotland is exceedingly important, and certainly the Secretary of State will be here.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  COUNTY COUNCILS ASSOCIATION (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [MAJOR MILNER in the Chair]

  COUNTY COUNCILS ASSOCIATION (SCOTLAND) BILL

    CLAUSE 1.—(Expenses of County Councils Association.)
    3.45 p.m.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, after the second "in," to insert, "the year preceding."
    I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I addressed myself, at the same time, to the remaining three Amendments on the Order Paper, which are consequential.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: On a point of Order, Major Milner. May I ask which Measure is under consideration?
    The Chairman: The first item on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Fraser: These Amendments, taken together, provide that the allocation of expenses incurred by the Association shall be on the basis of the rateable valuation for the preceding year. As the Clause now reads they would be based on that for the current year.
    Earl Winterton: On a point of Order, Major Milner. In order to protect the rights of the Committee, should not a Minister, when he wishes to take four Amendments together, ask your permission and that of the Committee?
    The Chairman: In reply to the noble Lord, the hon. Gentleman did ask permission and I thought I indicated my assent. Perhaps I did not make it sufficiently clear, but I agreed that the four Amendments might be discussed at the same time.
    Mr. Fraser: I need only say further that it would be for the convenience of the county councils to have the rateable valuation for the previous year taken into account for the purpose of allocation rattier than that for the current year, and the Amendments would provide for this.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 1, line 15, after "said," insert "preceding."
    In page 2, line 3, after "said," insert "preceding."
    In line 16, after "said," to insert "preceding."—[Mr. T. Fraser.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Interpretation.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Snadden: I should like to ask the Joint-Under Secretary a question about this Clause. There is some uncertainty in the minds of members of joint county councils about the position that may arise, in regard to their representation upon the County Councils Association, as a result of the Bill. Under the rules of the Association, as I understand them, the joint county councils always have separate membership of the Association. They are, naturally, anxious, as I think hon. Members generally will be anxious, to know whether that position is to continue, so that the individual and smaller county councils may still have their say in the affairs of the Association.
    Under the Bill it is the joint county councils who have to meet the subscriptions and expenses in connection with membership of the County Councils Association. They are asked in the first instance to make the actual payment. There is no statutory authority that I am aware of whereby the smaller individual counties can meet such expenses. There is fear, particularly in my area of Kinross, and possibly in Moray and Nairn, that the smaller individual county councils may lose their representation upon the County Councils Association. I realise that it is not possible to insert an Amendment to give effect to our desires. I take the view that the Bill is a finance Measure entirely, and that it would not be possible to legislate in regard to the constitution of the County Councils Association. I quite appreciate that point, but the Minister might be able to meet the fears of the smaller county councils if he would give an assurance.
    First, can he give an assurance that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the existing position continuing of the small
    1070
    county getting a say in the affairs of the Association? Can he say that it is not the desire or intention of the Minister to introduce anything that would lead to such a result? If something was said on that point of the smaller joint county councils we should be very glad.
    Mr. T. Fraser: I readily give the assurance. The Bill does not deal with the matter of representation at all, and no change need necessarily be made as a result of the passage of the Bill. I understand that the separate authorities of the joint authority are indeed represented on the County Councils Association at present, and I expect that that position will continue; but it is a matter to be dealt with by the Association by administrative action, if they should, at any time, decide to bring about a change. We have no right of intervention. It is entirely a matter for the Association, and we have no desire to interfere. We expect that representation will continue upon the same basis as at present.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I should like a little more assurance on that point, about the Government not having the desire to interfere. Can we be quite sure that the Government do not intend that there shall be a change in representation? That is the thing we want to get clear.
    Mr. Fraser: The Bill does not contain any provision which we are trying to impose upon the Association at all. It is a Bill to carry out the wishes of the Association and, as the hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) stated, it is purely a financial Bill. We are enabling the Association to raise money from its constituent bodies. It needs the money to carry out its work. I give an assurance that the Bill in no way interferes with the present representation of the lesser authorities.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    3.56 p.m.
    Mr. McKie: This is a small Measure which may have very far-reach-

    1071
    ing consequences. In the absence of the Secretary of State for Scotland I wish to say how pleased I am that the right hon. Gentleman has seen fit to introduce the Measure. We all regret his absence. No doubt there is some very good reason for it. Before we give our final blessing to the Bill I should like to say how very pleased I am that it has fallen to the lot of the right hon. Gentleman to present such a Measure as this, especially when I remember the very hard things which the right hon. Gentleman has said in the past about county councils. The underlying idea of the Bill is to allow county councils to give bigger contributions to their central association and for the work of the association to be more important than it has been in the past. I feel it my duty to make these comments upon the right hon. Gentleman's past about county councils, even though he has not seen fit, on this one occasion, to be here. I recall in the last Parliament that he made some very unfavourable remarks about the kind of work done by the councils of the two counties which I have had the honour to represent for many years in this ancient House. He criticised them as being reactionary, and as quite unable to fulfil the duty of carrying out the work committed to them.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I do not think there is any reference to that matter in the Bill. The hon. Member is only entitled to refer to what is contained in the Bill.
    Mr. McKie: We want to give a unanimous vote on this Bill, and we are allowed to say why we are glad to see what is contained in the Bill, which has been introduced by a Socialist Secretary of State for Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman, as I said, has rather a bad report with regard to the smaller local authorities. That is all I wish to say. I see by the expression on the face of the Joint Undersecretary of State that he is taking these remarks fully to heart—they were made upon the Second Reading, too—and will no doubt tell his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State what some of us who represent small county local authorities in Scotland feel about the whole position. We are glad that the right hon. Gentleman has made a deathbed repentance in this matter. In the past, the smaller local authorities have had a very uphill fight,
    1072
    but at long last, and after more than 50 years of the existence of this County Councils Association, we have a Bill presented to provide for the expansion, and more efficient working in the future, of this noble Association. When I say that, I am not casting any aspersions upon the great work of that great body. I am glad to see that it is the Socialist Government, which causes such a lot of evil—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] Perhaps I may be allowed to say this. I am very glad that this Measure has been promoted by this Government. This will enable the work of the County Councils Association in Scotland to be more effective for the benefit of the northern Kingdom, than it has been in the past.
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. Scollan: I welcome this as the beginning of what may be a most important step in administration for Scotland, and very probably for England too. I see in this the beginnings of a revolutionary scheme. At the moment, this Association has no actual legislative or even administrative powers. It is more in the nature of a consultative body covering the various counties and the burghs within the counties, for the purpose of acting in conjunction with, presumably, at the moment, the Scottish Office. No doubt at some future date it will act in conjunction with some other form of Government representative, for the purpose of dealing with matters that are of common interest to the area covered by the Association. The only good thing I see in it at the moment is that we are giving the Association power to be financed by the various bodies levying one-twelfth of a penny on the rates. That is very important official recognition. I sincerely hope that the day will come when that power will be extended for even greater purposes. At the moment a local authority can promote a Bill for the improvement of its own area and get the consent of Parliament for it, but up to now we have not had this power extended outside these areas. I see in this Bill the beginning of something which is really of importance. I shall be pleased to see the Bill passed, and I hope it will develop on the lines that I have indicated.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  POLICE (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]
  Resolution reported:
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the amalgamation of police forces in Scotland, to provide for the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of grants towards police expenditure in Scotland and to amend the law relating to the provision of buildings and acquisition of land in Scotland for police purposes, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament towards the expenses of police authorities or joint police committees constituted under the said Act of such sums at such times in such manner and subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury determine."
  Resolution agreed to.

  POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

  POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

    CLAUSE 1.—(Voluntary schemes for amalgamation of police forces.)
    4.5 p.m.
    Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I beg to move, in page 1, line 22, at the end, to insert:
    "(c) the period of office of members of the joint police committee and the filling of casual vacancies therein."
    Clause 1 (2), as it stands, provides for an amalgamation scheme, making provisions of various kinds, but with regard to the actual joint police committee which is to administer the police in the joint area; all that is provided for in the Bill is the constitution of the committee. We are moving this Amendment in order to obtain an explanation from the Government of the position as they see it. Do they regard the word "constitution" as sufficiently wide to provide for the matters which are set out in the Amendment—
    "The period of office of members of the joint police committee and the filling of casual vacancies …"
    —or do they think these are matters which should be left to the free discretion of the constituent bodies so that a particular county council may, for example, appoint delegates for three years or five years or only at pleasure, and that a county council could fill up a vacancy as and when it chose? Or is there some other explanation? I do not take any strong view as to which is the right way to do it, but it
    1074
    would be better that somewhere there should be some regulatory provision and that the matter should not be left completely to the discretion of each of the constituent bodies as to how they appoint their representatives If it is the Government's view that that should be done, I will not press the matter, but we ought to have the Government's view as to how this piece of administration is in fact to be conducted.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. We take the view that the word "constitution" in Clause 1 (2, b) is adequate. It covers the point. I believe that we have other statutes in Scotland that have a somewhat similar loose provision. I think Section 11 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, leaves the position just as we propose to leave it in this Bill. I, personally, can see no objection to putting in the provision, other than the one I am about to give the right hon. and learned Gentleman. If we put in this provision, I fear that it might be considered that, in the absence of similar provisions in other statutes where exactly the same intention obtains, by inference the provision would be excluded. We believe that the word "constitution" covers the point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. If some should fear that it might not be wide enough, they should refer to Clause 1 (3, f):
    "any other matters incidental to or consequential on the provisions contained in this scheme."
    One would assume from that that permission is given to the authorities concerned to decide the period of office of members and the filling of casual vacancies and so on. With that brief explanation, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment.
    Mr. Reid: In view of what the Joint Under-Secretary has said, I think it certainly would be a pity to do anything in this small Bill which would disturb the general understanding and meaning of words in larger Bills. Therefore I do not press this Amendment. I hope, however, that when an appropriate occasion occurs, some further clarification may be introduced. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, at the end, to insert:
    "(d) the payment by the constituent authorities in such proportions as may be specified in the scheme of the expenditure incurred in the administration and maintenance of the combined force;"
    I do not know whether I should, at this stage, call the attention of the Committee to the words at the very top of page 1 of the Bill:
    "NOTE.—The words enclosed in brackets and underlined were left out by the Lords to avoid questions of privilege."
    This is a privileged Amendment.
    Mr. Maclay: May I ask, Major Milner, whether this is the right time to discuss this Amendment as it is a privileged Amendment, or should it be discussed on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"?
    The Chairman: The hon. Member should say anything he has to say on the Amendment now.
    Mr. Maclay: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary some questions about this Clause, because it is on this Clause that determination can be made of the proposed expenditure and how it is to be distributed between the new constituent authorities? I can well understand that in the case of voluntary amalgamation it will, presumably, be worked out by the authorities concerned and will not be a matter for the Secretary of State But when it comes to compulsory amalgamation, which is possible under the next Clause, it would be very helpful if the Joint Under-Secretary could give some indication of the distribution of costs of the new force between the constituent authorities. Will it be done on the basis of the relative rateable valuation of the constituent areas, or will it be the number of police employed in the areas? Is there any idea in his mind of protecting an existing authority which has an efficiently run police force? This might act very unfairly indeed in an area with an admirably behaved population if it is amalgamated with another area, which requires a large number of police. I confess I tried to draft an Amendment on those lines but found it extraordinarily difficult to do so. However, there is an Amendment on the Order Paper which may be discussed later and which, if accepted, may go part of the way to meet the point. Perhaps the Joint Under-Secretary can give us some indication
    1076
    how, if the Secretary of State is involved in a compulsory amalgamation, he will endeavour to distribute the cost?
    Mr. Scollan: I am struck by the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland has brought forward six Amendments to his own Bill. I think there is something wrong there. There is one in Clause 1 on page 2, line 27—
    The Chairman: The hon. Member is not entitled to go through all the Amendments at once. We are at present dealing with a particular Amendment in page 2, line 2. There may be an opportunity for him to raise other questions later, but the answer is presumably that the Secretary of State is moving the privileged Amendments omitted in another place.
    Mr. Scollan: My point is that we shall have to devote some time to this and the subsequent Amendments, and I want to ask the Under-Secretary whether it would not be wiser if the Secretary of State for Scotland had withdrawn this Bill, and brought forward one which included these Amendments. It would save the time of the Committee.
    Mr. Fraser: I thought the few remarks I made at the outset explained the position. We are not bringing forward any new provisions at all. These Amendments will be found in the Bill as printed but, when the Bill was dealt with in another place, the question of Privilege arose and brackets were put round certain words.
    Mr. Scollan: May I point out that they will only be in the Bill if we allow them to be there?
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. Fraser: The position is that any words in the Bill will only be there, providing the House of Commons permits them to be there. If this Bill had started on its journey in the House of Commons, we would not have been moving these Amendments at all; we would have put these words into the Bill and they would have been there when the Bill had its Second Reading. However, since the Bill started on its journey in another place with these words in it, the question of Privilege arose and, for the convenience of the Members of another place, brackets were put round certain words. Therefore, they were technically taken out of the Bill, and today we are trying to put them back in the Bill. That is all.

    1077
    The hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) asked me a question about the effect of this Amendment and how the expenses would be shared by the constituent members of a joint police committee. I hesitate to say anything that would be binding on the authorities who might be parties to an amalgamation scheme. Quite clearly these matters must be dealt with in the scheme. In the case of a scheme proposed by the Secretary of State, again this particular matter would have to be settled in the light of local circumstances. The Committee is aware, I am sure, that it is our intention, before imposing any scheme on any two or more authorities, to hold a local public inquiry, to cause a report to be published by the independent person holding the inquiry, to allow that report to be put in the hands of hon. Members, and to have the scheme brought before the House of Commons for approval. These matters will have to be dealt with in that scheme, so I think there are adequate safeguards, and it would be most indiscreet of me to say anything at this stage as to how the expenses would be apportioned.
    Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I welcome what the hon. Gentleman has just said, but if he will look at Clause 2 (2), to which he referred a moment ago in connection with the public inquiry, he will see that before the inquiry, all that is obligatory on the Secretary of State is to give notice of the general nature of the proposed scheme. May we take it then that at that stage, in spite of the vague words "general nature," there will always be notice of the precise financial arrangements which the scheme is to inaugurate? If so, then his assurance is of value, but unless you get the precise financial arrangements published at that stage, then the inquiry loses a good deal of its value.
    Mr. Fraser: I understand that the ability of the constituent authorities to contribute to the expenses of the joint authority is a matter that would fall to be considered. I think I can proceed to Clause 2 (2) by reference, and deal with the point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the general nature of the inquiry. It has to be fairly general. I do not think it would be the wish of this Committee to require that any such public inquiry should have its scope widened to enable every little detail to be gone into. In the nature of things
    1078
    the inquiry must be into the general nature of the proposed scheme, but I believe that this question of finance would fall to be dealt with by the local public inquiry. In any case the full details of the schemes have to be published and laid before the House of Commons for approval before the schemes can be operated.
    Mr. Maclay: I am not certain that the Joint Under-Secretary has answered the question of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I appreciate that it may be difficult to give any hard and fast ruling at the moment on how the inquiry should be arranged, but surely when the Minister puts the scheme under Clause 2 (2) to the police authorities concerned, there will be an indication of how the finances would be apportioned? It might not necessarily be an arithmetical business based on the rateable value of the number of police, but surely consideration would be given in the general consideration of the financial arrangements to the previous cost to the authority of its own police force, and also to the previous cost in the other areas with which it is being amalgamated?
    Mr. Fraser: Yes, I do give an assurance readily. I thought I had covered that point in using the somewhat vague and ambiguous phrase that these matters would be decided "in the light of all the circumstances." I do not want to be too specific.
    Mr. Scollan: I am anxious to know how this is to operate, and what the effect of not having it in the Bill is likely to be. Does it mean that in the event of amalgamation the expense will be borne, 50 per cent. by the Exchequer, and 50 per cent. by the local people, and that the 50 per cent. borne by the local people will be divided on the basis of services received, or on the rateable value? It will be very ambiguous if left outside the Bill, unless some provision is made for the Minister to take special circumstances into consideration, as they operate in different ways in different localities. If that is what is meant, it is understandable. I would like the Joint Under-Secretary to tell us if that is so.
    Mr. Fraser: This whole Clause deals with voluntary schemes for amalgamation of police forces. I do not think we wish to provide that in any voluntary scheme a hard and fast rule should be laid down

    1079
    on how the costs are to be allocated. We are dealing only with the responsibility of constituent authorities to contribute to the local authorities' expenses incurred in running a police force. We think it desirable to allow the greatest latitude to the local authorities to frame schemes to suit local circumstances.
    Mr. Scollan: That means that by negotiations between the bodies affected, the allocation of expenses will be arranged?
    Mr. Fraser Mr. Fraser indicated assent.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir Basil Neven-Spence: I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, at the end, to insert:
    "(f) the submission on the first day of April annually to the constituent authorities by the joint police committee of an estimate of all its proposed expenditure for the financial year beginning in the following May and the submission of supplementary estimates as and when necessary, and in the event of any of the constituent authorities refusing to give its sanction to the said proposed expenditure, the reference of the matter to the Secretary of State for his decision, which would be final and binding on all parties."
    Clause 1 of this Bill makes provision for the amalgamation of police forces voluntarily, and I have nothing against that. It makes provision for a number of things which will have to be done when such an amalgamation is carried out. But I think it is a defect of the Bill that there is no provision, so far as I can see, for the joint police committees which will be set up to submit estimates of their proposed expenditure to the constituent authorities. Everyone who has served on local authorities knows how worrying is the question of financial responsibility. When an amalgamation of this kind is carried out, and a joint body is set up, it is not unreasonable to ask that the estimates should be submitted to the constituent authorities in order that they may see what is proposed and, if necessary, ask for explanations. Possibly the matter could then be settled quite comfortably. Clause 1 is the velvet glove, but Clause 2 is the mailed fist. If my arguments are apt in relation to Clause 1, they are very much stronger in regard to Clause 2, where the Secretary of State takes power to compel amalgamations. It is most important that the constituent authorities should have an opportunity of examining
    1080
    the estimates, because where a compulsory amalgamation takes place, the stage is set for friction. This Amendment would be a great improvement of the Bill, and would promote the aims of the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Maclay: I support very strongly the argument put forward by my hon. Friend, particularly in relation to the circumstances envisaged by Clause 2. There must be some safeguard under this Bill for an authority whose police force is being amalgamated, possibly not entirely with their own free will. The Secretary of State stressed his hope that the amalgamations would go forward with the utmost good will of the authorities concerned, and we all share that hope. It is most important that that should happen. I am not talking about any particular area in Scotland, but there is often the danger of feeling between burghs and counties. Nothing is more likely to arouse feeling of that kind, than if a burgh feels that it is saddled too much with the cost of running county affairs. This Amendment would go a considerable distance towards removing that fear as it would mean that every year the constituent authorities would be able to consider the matter in detail.
    Mr. T. Fraser: I hope very much that hon. Members will not press this Amendment. After all, we are dealing in this Clause particularly with voluntary schemes for amalgamation.
    Mr. Maclay: But I was talking of Clause 2.
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. McLean Watson): The hon. Member cannot discuss Clause 2 on this Amendment.
    Mr. Maclay: I wonder if there is a way of discussing this Amendment under Clause 2? Under Clause 1 the Parliamentary Secretary states, correctly, that we are dealing with voluntary schemes, but Clause 2 does not include this subsection.
    The Temporary Chairman: Clause 2 cannot be discussed on this Amendment.
    Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I do not know, Mr. Watson, whether your attention has been directed to lines 24 and 25 of Clause 2 of the Bill which state:
    "… provisions of Section one of this Act shall apply in relation to any such scheme …"

    1081
    that is to say any compulsory scheme. Therefore. I suggest that it is in Order, in discussing provisions in Clause 1, to show how they will apply to the Clause 2 type of amalgamation. This is the only opportunity we have for linking the two together. If Clause 2 says that Clause 1 procedure is to apply to the Clause 2 type of amalgamation then when we are discussing Clause 1 procedure, we must have in mind that it is going to apply to Clause 2 type of amalgamation.
    The Temporary Chairman: It seems to me that reference cannot be made to this on the Clause. The only question is whether reference can be made to Clause 2 when discussing this Amendment or whether when we get to Clause 2 an Amendment cannot be moved.
    Major Guy Lloyd: Would it not meet your view point if instead of reference to Clause 2 reference were made to a possible compulsory amalgamation?
    The Temporary Chairman: No, it would not. I have no objection to a reference to Clause 2, but we must not have an elaborate discussion of it at this stage.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. Fraser: I was saying that Clause 1 provides for voluntary schemes of amalgamation of police forces. If we were to accept this Amendment, we should be accepting the position that the police forces which have voluntarily agreed to an amalgamation scheme must refer the matter in dispute to the Secretary of State for decision. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] As I read the Amendment it says:
    "… the reference of the matter to the Secretary of State for his decision, which would be final and binding on all parties."
    I think it is clear enough that the mover and supporters of the Amendment wish the Secretary of State to be the arbiter to whom any aggrieved constituent authority might appeal, and that his decision should be final and binding on all parties. In the case of any voluntary scheme of amalgamation, I am sure that it would be the wish of Members on all sides of the Committee to allow the constituent authorities, the participating authorities, to agree among themselves how the money should be raised, and how any future disputes that might arise should be settled.
    In the case of compulsory schemes, clearly a different situation arises, and the Secretary
    1082
    of State would have to provide machinery for the settlement of disputes. But it will be seen that in Clause 1 we have divided that matter into two parts. One part, Subsection (2) provides that certain matters "shall" be provided for in any scheme, while in Subsection (3) other matters "may" be provided for in the scheme, and Subsection (3, c) provides that the settlement of differences between the constituent authorities is one of the matters that may be provided for in the scheme. We think that is the right thing to do, and that it would be improper to prophesy, as we should do by accepting this Amendment, that there would be differences and disputes which could only properly be settled by the Secretary of State. I, therefore, give the assurance that this matter of apportionment of expenses and the submission of estimates to the constituent authorities is a matter that would have to be given consideration by the Secretary of State in any scheme that he proposes.
    I call the attention of the Committee to the fact that we have many precedents for allowing this matter to be dealt with in a commonplace way; that is, we have our existing joint committees for mental hospitals, etc., and the statutes under which these committees are set up certainly do not provide that all the constituent authorities should have put before them for their consideration the estimates of the joint committee. How far the constituent authorities are dissatisfied with the present position as it affects these other joint committees, I do not know. I can only say that, to my knowledge, no representation has been made to us by the smaller authorities as to the desirability of bringing such a provision as this into the Bill. I should have thought that, in the circumstances, the Committee would wish to defer to the wishes of those who are most likely to be affected by this Bill, and would not wish the Secretary of State to assume any powers which the local authorities themselves might not wish to have conferred upon the Secretary of State.
    Commander Galbraith: It may be, as the Joint Undersecretary of State has said, that this matter should be left to the scheme, or to the precedents which are already in being in regard to joint authorities. But I do not think that the hon. Gentleman

    1083
    has really dealt with the point at issue. It is not a question of how the money shall be raised and in what proportion it shall be raised. The point at issue is whether, when the joint committee has framed its budget, the constituent authorities will have an opportunity of stating whether or not they are in agreement with it. There may be something in that budget to which one of the constituent authorities strongly objects, and in regard to which it does not feel inclined to pay the price. The Amendment really asks that where such a thing happens, where the constituent bodies cannot agree, that matter shall be remitted to the Secretary of State for decision. It is not a question of how the money shall be divided, but how, in the annual budget, where there is a difference of opinion between the constituent authorities, that difference of opinion is to be got over. It may be that it will be done in accordance with precedents, but if the Joint Under-Secretary of State could give us some further indication of what the Secretary of State has in mind, we should be grateful.
    Mr. Fraser: I do not think I misconceived the intention of the Amendment. I said I was sure that hon. Members would wish the local authorities who voluntarily participated in an amalgamation, to decide among themselves—
    Commander Galbraith: We are agreed on that point. What we have in mind is a position in winch the constituent authorities having decided among themselves, the scheme is in operation, and then there is a budget in which there is something to which one of the constituent bodies objects.
    Mr. Fraser: Might I be allowed to finish my sentence? I am sure that hon. Members would wish the voluntary participants in an amalgamation scheme to be free to decide for themselves how any issue which might be in dispute should be settled, including the question of disagreement on estimates. If, in a voluntary scheme, the participating authorities wished to provide that any disagreement on the estimates should be referred to an arbiter appointed by themselves, hon. Members would wish to allow the participants freedom to adopt that course. If we were to accept the Amendment, we should be robbing the
    1084
    constituent authorities of that freedom, and I do not think we could justifiably interfere in the case of a voluntary scheme.
    In the case of a compulsory scheme, this is a matter to which the Secretary of State would have to give his attention if he is going to compel authorities to amalgamate to form a combined force against their will. He will have to provide in his scheme for a means of referring to the constituent bodies the estimates of the joint police committee. I cannot say what he will propose in any scheme that he might bring forward, though I cannot foresee him bringing forward very many schemes. In any case, any scheme would come before the House, and hon. Members would then be able to represent the interests of their constituents, and any sense of grievance felt by any small authority in regard to their right of scrutinising estimates for which they would be partly responsible, might be considered. I do not think there is much in dispute. I am sure that hon. Members would not wish to have in the Bill the Amendment as it stands upon the Order Paper, and that they wish for no more than an assurance that the rights of the smaller authorities will be safeguarded. I give that assurance. We wish to safeguard the rights of the smaller authorities and where agreement is not reached between the authorities who are parties to a scheme, voluntarily or otherwise, care should be taken to see that the representations of a small authority are not ridden over rough shod.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: I think the point which has been raised is an important one and that this little discussion has been valuable in that it has elicited from the Joint Under-Secretary the opinion of the Scottish Office in this matter. I think I understood him to say that the Secretary of State for Scotland would take into consideration, in approving any scheme under Clause 1, any suggestion of an arrangement by which, if they so desired, authorities would require submission of budgets to constituent bodies in a voluntary scheme. The Secretary of State, I understand, would be ready favouraby to consider the incorporation of such a suggestion in a scheme. If that be so, I am satisfied.
    Sir B. Neven-Spence: In view of what has been said by the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In page 2, line 27, at end, insert:
    "(4) The expenses incurred by a constituent authority for the purpose of the payment of the expenditure incurred in the administration and maintenance of the combined force shall be defrayed in like manner as expenses of that authority for the purposes of their functions relating to police would have required to be defrayed if the amalgamation scheme had not been made."—[Mr. T. Fraser.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Maclay: There are one or two small points which I would like to raise on this Clause. The first may possibly be regarded as rather absurd and perhaps I ought to know the answer to it. Subsection (3) appears to be another of these pieces of permissive legislation. I am not clear whether all or any of these headings (a) to (f) are the only matters in regard to which an amalgamation scheme may make provision. Is the scheme restricted to these provisions, or can others be introduced? Another point is in regard to Subsection (8). I raised this matter on the Second Reading, and the Joint Undersecretary said a few words about it, but I would like to ask him again, Is it clear that no employee of any police force is likely to suffer in regard to his superannuation as a result of an amalgamation? Are the superannuation funds in Scotland roughly or exactly upon the same basis, or is there any risk of anyone suffering? If not, I assume that this Subsection is necessary only in connection with the details of the superannuation scheme.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. T. Fraser: In reply to the second point, I do not think that all the superannuation schemes in Scotland are exactly the same. I am advised, however, that there is no substantial difference between them. We do not anticipate that any employee will suffer in his superannuation entitlement as a result of any amalgamation scheme being put into operation. On the question of Subsection (3), there we are merely indicating to the authorities matters for which they may make provision. We say:
    "all or any of the following matters."
    I do not think they are conclusive. They are put in so that the authorities may be
    1086
    advised of matters which we think might be provided for in a scheme. I have no doubt that there may be other matters which are not covered in this Subsection.
    Commander Galbraith: When the hon. Gentleman was replying just now, he did not seem to be definite on the question of superannuation for officials. I ask him to give a definite assurance that no officer will surfer in that respect. It is a matter of great importance. Really, I think he intended to give the assurance but he was not definite on the point. I ask him to give a direct assurance that, so far as superannuation funds are concerned, none of these officers will suffer in the event of a scheme being proposed.
    Mr. Fraser: If I was not very definite, it was because I wanted rather to leave this matter, among others, to be dealt with in the scheme; but I feel that, since I have been asked so to do, I am entitled to give a very definite assurance that no employee will suffer.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Power of Secretary of State to make amalgamation schemes.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Maclay: Before we accept this Clause, again I would like to ask one or two questions of the Under-Secretary. The important one is whether it would be possible at this stage to give us any indication of the extent of these amalgamations which he may have had in mind when he thought that he had better have this Clause in the Bill. I think before we can reasonably be expected to approve of this Clause, we ought to know how big a unit the Secretary of State has in mind in working towards amalgamation. We ought to know whether it is a question of a few very small forces being joined to other small forces. If it is a case of small burghs being amalgamated with counties, that may be all right. It may be all right for, say, the burgh of Arbroath to be amalgamated with the county of Angus. That is one thing, but is it likely to extend to Dundee as well? I think there should be some indication of the scale upon which the Secretary of State was thinking when he introduced this Clause.
    Mr. T. Fraser: I must disappoint the hon. Member. We have not any plans up our sleeves ready to be pulled out when this Bill passes. It has for a long time been regarded as desirable that legislative power should be sought to bring about amalgamations compulsorily if, in the interests of the communities concerned, such amalgamations were considered desirable. I believe that, for many years now, some very eminent people have considered that we have too many police forces in Scotland, but it is not for me to say where we are to draw the line. I do not think that, in sparsely populated parts of the country, one could adhere to the same size of force, from the point of view of numbers, as one would consider to be desirable for the formation of a unit in a more heavily populated part of the country. I cannot be bound either by numbers or area in this matter.
    We are merely seeking the power, first, to permit of voluntary schemes, and, secondly, where, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, a scheme is desirable although one has not been proposed by the authorities concerned, or where they refuse the invitation of the Secretary of State to bring forward a scheme, we should be able to carry forward a certain procedure with a view to bringing a scheme before this House. I can only say that that seems to be the time to argue whether or not we were doing the right thing in amalgamating the force of a small burgh with the force of a large burgh or that of the county authority. I do not think that any Minister standing at this Box would be entitled to give any indication as to the size of the force or the area over which that force should have jurisdiction before he would regard it as a reasonably-sized unit.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: I listened with great care and a good deal of sympathy to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I am not altogether satisfied with his reply. Surely, in the original approach to this problem, the Secretary of State must have had in mind, no doubt as a result of the best advice, some broad idea of the areas at which he was aiming. For example, the Boundary Commissioners at the present time have a sort of target at which they aim, and have an idea that a constituency should not be greater than a certain size. It is difficult for me to believe that the Scottish Office have no idea
    1088
    whatever of what size of scheme they have in mind, even for voluntary, much less for compulsory, schemes. The hon. Gentleman says it is only a case here of taking power, but it is power that is very clearly defined, with all the paraphernalia of laying Orders and the rest of it, and we cannot pass this Clause without getting from the Under-Secretary some idea of what is in his mind. If the hon. Gentleman again says that he has no idea, I must believe him, but I must submit to him that he is not seized of the point which my hon. Friend has in mind, and I invite him to say that there is some broad picture in the mind of the Scottish Office of the areas to which these schemes may be directed.
    Mr. Scollan: I have been considering this matter, too, and I would like to know if the promoters of the scheme have not had something at the back of their minds about the areas to be covered. If we take one area, that of Clydebank, which embraces Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, and reaches the borders of Ayrshire, it may be true that some advantage may accrue from having one police force operating right through Clydebank. I do not know what would happen if someone had the temerity to suggest that a coordinated police force should be set up, embracing Renfrewshire county police, Glasgow, Paisley, Greenock and so on, but I am afraid he would be letting himself in for some kind of trouble. I would like to know exactly what the Scottish Office had in mind when they decided on this scheme, because the scheme is of no use unless we know how it is going to operate, and I think we are entitled to some explanation on that point.
    Mr. Stephen: I have a little difference with my hon. Friend in this matter. As I understand it, the Government line in this connection is eminently reasonable. I understand that, in the interests of efficiency in the working of the police forces, it has been decided that there should be a certain number of amalgamations. The Government have decided on the general need for such amalgamations. They have not gone over the country and said, "We will join Arbroath and Forfar" and so on.
    Mr. Scollan: May I point out to my hon. Friend that this Clause gives them power to do so?
    Mr. Stephen: No. If only the hon. Member will listen to me a little longer, I will possibly make clear to him what I understand to be the position with regard to this Clause. The need for amalgamation is taken by the Government as a blueprint. There is general agreement that there should be amalgamations in various parts of the country. Therefore, the Government come to the House and ask for powers to carry through these amalgamations. If voluntary amalgamations can take place, and this appears to the Government to provide an efficient police force in these various areas, that finishes it. But various local police authorities may not want to amalgamate and the amalgamations may not take place on a voluntary basis. Clause 2 gives to the Government the power in those instances to insist on amalgamation in order to secure police efficiency in the various areas. Consequently, I cannot see that the Government are in any need here to say, "Well, here is our plan for the policing of Scotland in the future. We are going to have Orkney and Shetland and Dumfries all joined together in a police force," and so on.
    I do not like the police. My attitude to life is that I do not believe in police forces, in armies or in any of those things at all, but, looking at this from a sensible point of view, I think that the Government are acting soundly. Seeing that there is general agreement that a certain amount of amalgamation would make for efficiency, that power should be taken so that local police forces may, by voluntary means, propose schemes for such amalgamation, but where they are not willing to do that in the interest of efficiency, the Scottish Office should have the right to insist on a scheme. That is all, as I see it, and I hope I have satisfied the hon. Member for Western Renfrew (Mr. Scollan).
    5.0 p.m
    Mr. McKinlay: I am sure that the Committee will be pleased to note that the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) has at least found some virtue in the Government Front Bench. I am also sure it is news to us to know that he is not so much concerned with efficiency as with innocence. He, himself, is so innocent that he does not believe in police forces at all. If hon. Members of this Committee, let alone the people outside,
    1090
    were as innocent as the hon. Member for Camlachie, that desirable object might be achieved. There are two points which I should like the Joint Under-Secretary to clear up. This Clause gives power to the Secretary of State to make an amalgamation scheme. It says:
    "Subject to the provisions of this Section, if it appears to the Secretary of State that the expediency in the interests of efficiency …"
    Who is going to be the judge here? Let us assume for a moment that the Hamilton police force is in question. I cannot use my own constituency for the purpose of the argument because we have not the same conglomeration as Lanarkshire. Hamilton is part of the area from which my hon. Friend comes, and he could not be accused of taking any mean advantage. The Hamilton town council may say that they are satisfied with their police force and that it is an eminently efficient one. If Motherwell were accused of having an inefficient police force they would say, "No, we are the democratically elected town council and we say that our police force is quite efficient." Who is to judge whether a force is inefficient? Is the Inspector-General of Police to judge this thing? Who is he, and who controls him? He is the servant of the Scottish Office. I want to give all the credit in the world to my right hon. Friend, but, frankly, I do not think he is an efficient policeman, or that he knows all the answers of police administration. Therefore, I want to know who is going to be responsible for determining when there is an efficient police force.
    The other point to which I wish to get an answer is in connection with Clause 2 (2). It says:
    "… shall cause a local inquiry to be held by a person appointed by him"—
    meaning, of course, that the Secretary of State is going to make the inquiry—
    "(not being an officer of police or of any Government department) …."
    What constitutes a "Government Department" for the purpose of this Subsection? I would ask my hon. Friend whether it is intended that this work shall be delegated to a sheriff or a sheriff substitute. I am doing this deliberately because my experience of sheriffs holding inquiries is most unconvincing. If it is a question, not of determining law but of fact, I think that, in the main, somebody other than a sheriff

    1091
    ought to take the chair. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be good enough to give us a little insight into what is behind the mind of the Secretary of State when he puts these words into this Clause. He may be in a difficulty. It is not a Scottish Bill at all it is a pocket edition of the English Bill. The gestation period of the English Bill was two months, but for this one it may well be 12 or 13 months. If the Scottish Office are in a difficulty, I will not press them, but I do feel that we are entitled to know, first, who is going to be the judge of efficiency and, secondly, what type of person the Secretary of State has in mind for conducting an inquiry into a submission made by the Secretary of State himself that police forces A, B, C or D in given areas are inefficient. It is rather a complicated business and I can visualise some people doing pretty well out of it before it is finished. In any case, I think that I am entitled to an answer and I hope the Under-Secretary will give it.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I would like to press the particular point of the purpose behind the Government's having introduced this Clause giving powers for compulsory amalgamation. I dislike too great powers being given to the Secretary of State over a thing like this. Do the Government anticipate that they are going to use these powers? If they do not—and I rather gather that they do not—why are they being put into the Bill? Are we going to get to the stage where two or three police forces are amalgamated and then proceed to a bigger amalgamation on an area basis until we have one police force which, in due course, will be transferred to London? Is that the idea at the back of the Government's mind? These things have happened in other directions and are happening every day. I should like to be assured that that is not the intention and to know the reason for the introduction of this compulsory Clause.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: With due deference to the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) I think that the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) and the hon Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) were well within their rights in asking what the Secretary of
    1092
    State had in mind in putting this Clause into the Bill and that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) was equally justified in pressing the point, I shall ask one question only. The Secretary of State is mentioned six times in this Clause. He is mentioned considerably more than six times in the Bill, and in the three Scottish Bills on the Order Paper his name is mentioned over and over again. My question is: Where is the Secretary of State? When the Secretary of State seeks to obtain these compulsory powers for the amalgamation of police forces, he ought to be present to explain to the Committee what sort of ideas he has in mind. After all, it is not so often that Scotland has a whole day to itself and three Bills to discuss. I hope the Joint Under-Secretary of State will not think I am suggesting that we are not pleased to see him and that we are not delighted to hear his answers to the questions, but, as regards this Clause, I submit that as the Secretary of State is mentioned six times and is asking for these considerable powers, he ought to be present in person to explain what exactly he has in mind.
    Mr. Maclay: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) was present at the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. I would not like to detract from his admiration of the Government because it seemed to be welcomed by hon. Members opposite, but he may remember that in that Debate I asked the Parliamentary Secretary a question about efficiency, a subject which was dealt with so admirably by the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan), and I was told that it was not possible to discuss the grounds of efficiency because it was difficult to define. Now, when we ask about the intentions of the Government, we are told "We have no idea. We just want some very nice powers." Most of us agree that some sort of amalgamations may be necessary, but I think it is inconceivable that we should be asked to sign a blank cheque. We have no idea what are the grounds of efficiency. I think the Under-Secretary should give some explanation.
    Mr. T. Fraser: The hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) has just said, "Most of us agree that amalgamations may be necessary."
    Mr. McKie: He said "some."
    Mr. Fraser: Very well, "Most of us agree that some amalgamations may be necessary." But he objects to power being given to the Secretary of State to make amalgamation schemes, while recognising that although an amalgamation scheme may be necessary, if we do not have such a power a very small authority—I have no doubt, very well meaning—may make the amalgamation impossible because of a disinclination to agree to a voluntary scheme. He says "Amalgamation may be necessary but you must not take power to bring about the amalgamation."
    Mr. Maclay: My statement must have been very "cockeyed" if the Undersecretary got that impression from what I said. I am sorry if I gave that impression. I say it may be necessary to have powers, but I think it is incredible that no indication should be given as to how those powers are to be used, except to say vaguely, "We will use them on some kind of amalgamation on some scale." That is my complaint. I am not really contesting the right of people to do it voluntarily, or even of the Secretary of State to do it if it is necessary, but I think we ought to know what he has in mind.
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. Fraser: As I said earlier, it is impossible for me now to tell the Committee precisely all that will ever be done under Clause 2. That would be out of the question. I said that we did not have any plan ready to pull out of our sleeves the moment the Bill was passed. Of course, we have not. But, like the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs, we do appreciate that some amalgamations may be necessary and they may not be agreed voluntarily, so we have inserted in the Bill the power to bring about a scheme, even though it might be against the wishes of the local authority. But then we provide all sorts of safeguards, including the right to hold a local public inquiry to be carried out by an independent person. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) asked who would be the in-dependant person, and said that he could sec some people doing well out of this arrangement. I ask the Committee, how
    1094
    many amalgamations could we have in Scotland? How much could anyone make out of them? Nobody is going to make anything out of them whatsoever. My hon. Friend also asked if a sheriff would be a fit and proper person to be appointed. As I understand it a sheriff would be. He is not an officer of the Government, as I understand, and he is a person who might be appointed to conduct this inquiry. In any case, an inquiry will be conducted; a report will be published, and hon. Members will have an opportunity to read it. The scheme must be drawn up by the Secretary of State and submitted to Parliament far scrutiny, and hon. Members may turn down the scheme if they think fit.
    The scope of particular amalgamations must be considered in the light of the local circumstances and, perhaps, even local views, but I cannot say what areas will be brought within the scheme. I cannot say that we shall not have in Scotland a police force smaller than the Glasgow city force, or the Lanark county police force or the Edinburgh police force. I did say that we have some more sparsely populated areas in Scotland, where clearly we could not impose the same population basis for an amalgamation as might be taken into account in a more populous area. Obviously, we cannot say that we will draw the line at a certain population level or at a certain size of police force. Scotland varies so much in character from place to place, that we must deal with these matters in the light of local requirements.
    As to the question of efficiency, it was raised the other day on the Second Reading, and I have been asked again today who will judge as to the efficiency of a police force. The Secretary of State will not be the judge. If the Secretary of State, on all the advice that he is able to get, considers that an amalgamation is necessary—and apparently hon. Members in all quarters are at the moment convinced that amalgamations may be necessary in the interests of efficiency—he is empowered to ask the local authority concerned if they will agree to a scheme, and if they do not agree he is empowered to cause an inquiry to be made by an independent person, and to do the other things to which I have already referred. There will be an examination of the relative efficiency of the existing forces and of the proposed new amalgamated

    1095
    force. When the scheme comes before Parliament, it will again examine the relative efficiency of the existing forces and of any proposed amalgamation. Therefore, it is not for me to define at all in any particular terms what we mean by "efficiency." I have been asked about the absence of the Secretary of State from the Debate. It is not unusual for the Secretary of State to have very pressing business. He fully appreciates the desirability of being in the Committee when Scottish business is being discussed. Indeed, apart from his period of illness in the latter months of last year he has not been absent from the Committee very often when Scottish business has been under discussion. It docs so happen that today very important and pressing business is being discussed elsewhere, demanding his attendance elsewhere. I could not have deputised for him in the other work. I think he was perfectly in order in asking me to deputise for him in the handling of this Bill this afternoon.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemlsey: Before the hon. Gentleman leave that point may I say this? Surely Scotland commands some voice in the councils of the Government? If it is not possible for the Secretary of State to be present in the Committee on the Front Bench when three important Scottish Bills are being discussed, surely it ought to be possible for him to go through the usual channels and say, "May we have another day for the discussion of these Scottish Bills?" Could not that have been done?
    Mr. Fraser: I really think the hon. Gentleman is taking this too far. He has been in this House a very long time, and he has seen many Scottish Bills handled by the Joint Under-Secretary.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Not three in one day.
    Mr. Fraser: He has seen more far-reaching Bills than this being handled by the Joint Under-Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend is attending to very pressing business elsewhere. He would liked to have been here, but he considered it appropriate on this occasion to allow me to handle these matters. Having expressed myself further on the provisions of Clause 2 I hope we will be able to pass on. Everybody's views have been expressed in this matter, and we all know
    1096
    where we stand. We all appreciate the desirability of having such a power in the Bill. I think I have made it perfectly clear that we have no plans, and could not state this afternoon which' authorities are proposed to be dealt with under this Bill. That would be a most unfair thing to do, and a most improper thing to do. Without naming authorities, without dealing with populations, without dealing with areas and so on, it is impossible for me to go further than I have done this afternoon.
    Mr. J. S. C. Reid: May I congratulate the Joint Under-Secretary on a most admirable piece of stonewalling? I think he has done all he possibly could, looking to his own position, not being ultimately responsible in this matter. However, I do think it is a pity that the" time of the Committee should have to be taken up with a display of that character. I would agree at once if the Secretary of State has been summoned to an urgent Cabinet meeting to defend the interests of Scotland. That would be a perfect answer. If the hon. Gentleman can tell me that that is the urgent business on which the Secretary of State is now engaged, of course I shall understand. If it is something else, if it is only some discussion, or committee, or conference, then I think the Secretary of State has misconceived the necessity for his attendance in this Committee. I hope, therefore, that that matter may be cleared up, as to the nature of this urgent business, because I think we are entitled to know.
    Passing from that, I should have thought if the Secretary of State could not turn up, he could at least have informed the Joint Under-Secretary in some more detail what his intentions were. The point was raised in the Second Reading Debate. Nobody asks him to name authorities. Nobody asks him to lay down precise limits or sizes of police forces or populations. What we do want to know is whether this power will only be used in exceptional cases—of which we all agree there are some—or whether it will be used over a great part of Scotland. Surely that is a very simple question to answer—or would be if the Secretary of State himself were here. Is this power only going to be used in exceptional cases?—in which case we would all agree. Or, is it going to be used over a considerable part of Scotland—in which case many of us would disagree? That seems to me a very simple

    1097
    question, and if the Joint Under-Secretary has been briefed properly it is one which is susceptible of an equally simple answer.
    Mr. Scollan; I would like to ask a. question on the same lines. Evidently the initiative is being left to the Secretary of State for Scotland. When we pass this Bill he may take no action at all. On the other hand, we are not being told what would prompt him to take action, other than that power is being given to him. We cannot be told whether a county will be the area that will determine it. We cannot be told whether a city and the environs of the city will be brought in, with parts of the county. This is the most important Bill I have ever read about or heard about for the things we cannot be told. I do not exactly understand that. I can quite understand Clause I, the voluntary Clause. In the voluntary Clause the people themselves realise that their police force is totally inadequate and they can get together, in which they are encouraged by the Secretary of State. That is an invaluable provision, and it should have been done long ago. When it comes to the Secretary of State taking the initiative we are not told what determines where he will take it, when he will take it, or why it should be taken. All we are told is that he is simply given the power, and that we have sufficient safeguard in the fact that when he does decide to take it he will bring the matter back to this Committee. That is all we are told. That is not good enough. To the Joint Under-Secretary I say I am very pleased with the manner in which he has acquitted himself in carrying out his duties. He has done so in a very excellent manner. I am not concerned about who is carrying out the duties. What I am concerned about is the power we are giving to somebody today, and what that power will lead to. Quite frankly, I do not see any justification for handing out this power until we know exactly what is in the minds of the people who will exercise it.
    Mr. Hoy: I did not intend to take part in this discussion, but I think there is a great deal of undue suspicion in the minds of hon. Members. It is rather significant that no protest was raised, even by hon. Members of His Majesty's official Opposition, to the Clause other than the first protest from one hon. and gallant Gentleman nor was there any protest from the leaders
    1098
    of the Opposition regarding the absence of the Secretary of State until one of their back benchers decided to make some protest. He appeared to have nothing to say on this Clause other than to make this protest, which I considered grossly unfair and rather cheap. Within this Clause we have certain provisions. I think there would have been reason for a row in the Committee if the Secretary of State for Scotland had come along here today and said, "Within these certain areas amalgamations will take place, which I will direct." If he had said that I think we would have had a real reason on which to get at loggerheads with the Secretary of State on this issue. All this Clause does is to make it possible for amalgamations to take place. It gives power to the local authorities to take part in the discussions or inquiries which are to be held. In Clause 2 (3) ultimately Parliament will be the deciding voice. I think the Secretary of State has made full provision to enable us to deal with these amalgamations democratically, and it is a little unfortunate that this undue suspicion should have been raised at this time.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. McKie: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) has done his very best to support the Joint Under Secretary in his defence in the Committee this afternoon in regard to Clause 2 as it now stands. Although I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having the courage to be the only hon. Member on those benches to rise and support his Government, I am afraid I cannot congratulate him on the defence he has made. I will go so far, in my generosity, as to say he did his best with exceedingly bad material. He, indeed, showed, in the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hill-head (Mr. Reid), that he had been very badly briefed. It was quite evident, from the speech which the hon. Gentleman has just delivered, that there was no liaison, no forethought, on this very important matter between him and the Secretary of State. I hope the Under-Secretary will make a further reply, because we are entitled to a further reply. Obviously, this is not a party matter. I hope that hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies, too—perhaps we shall have a speech from the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Jean Mann)—will show that they

    1099
    entertain great apprehension about the wording of this Clause as it now stands. I hope the Under-Secretary will proceed to make a further reply, and that in the course of his remarks he will reply to the request—indeed, the demand—of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead for a real reason why the Secretary of State for Scotland is not present tonight to defend these Bills—and, especially, this Bill—which are of such great magnitude and importance to the people of Scotland.
    I hear murmurs of dissent from my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen). But in conversation a few moments ago he expressed himself to me as being in agreement with me, on this point at all events, that the members of the police forces in Scotland are a very fine lot of men, and take a great interest in this subject. He went so far as to say that, although he entertained us, in the course of his remarks, with his insistence on the anarchy that he would like to see prevailing in Scotland, and in all of Great Britain, and, indeed, in Europe. There is great fear, particularly in some of the rural areas of Scotland, on this point, and I was very glad to hear the strong speech that was made by the hon. Member for Western Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) who showed us that, at all events on this matter, he is quite prepared to take upon himself the responsibility of going into the Division Lobby, and of voting for the deletion of this Clause, against the Government which he was elected to this House to support, if no proper explanation of this Clause, as it stands, is forthcoming.
    I felt I had to make these remarks, feeling, as I do, so strongly that the hon. Gentleman has not made his case. It was not through any fault of his own. He was not properly briefed, and was not able to make a proper defence. I hope he has sent away to the prompters' box. If he has not done so, I hope he will, in the course of the speeches that follow, and at the appropriate moment, rise and tell us why the Secretary of State is not here, and the nature of his business today. I hope also that he will do something to throw light on the wording of this obscure Clause, and show us whether the Government have any scheme in view. He said they had not. Is the mind of the Scottish Office on this matter, are the
    1100
    plans of the Scottish Office on this matter, just as vague and nebulous as the mind of the Government is on the closed shop issue? I think we have a right to know.
    Mr. T. Fraser: Quite clearly, I said that we had not a cut and dried plan. It is clear this Bill had to be brought forward in the first place to allow voluntary amalgamations. There may be police forces in the country just now that would amalgamate if they were free to do so. They are not free to do so. There is no pledge to bring about amalgamations. In Clause i we allow them to bring about voluntary amalgamations. After that, after we have seen what use is made of Clause 1, it will be seen whether it is necessary to implement the provisions of Clause 2. There we must leave it. We must leave it to the Secretary of State to decide, in the light of what happens under Clause 1, whether he will exercise his powers under Clause 2. I can, therefore, give the assurance readily that we do not intend to embark on any wholesale amalgamations. Some considerable time must elapse before we embark on any one amalgamation. I think we all of us know where we stand in this matter, and there is no point in continuing the discussion.
    Mr. Maclay rose—
    The Temporary Chairman: I was hoping the Committee might now come to a decision. I think the Committee has very fully discussed the Clause.
    Mr. Maclay: I should like to state one point briefly. On the face of the discussion, it may seem as though we should divide the Committee on this Clause. That was hinted at by the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie). I do not think that that is actually necessary, because, as a matter of fact, in the course of his remarks the Under-Secretary of State has given us some idea of what is in the Government's mind—or, more important, what is not in the Government's mind. But I end with a final protest at this blank cheque legislation—that we should wait to see what happens under Clause 1, and that then we shall know about Clause 2. Why take Clause 2 at all now? There is too much of this type of delegated legislation in this country, and this is a new manifestation of it.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 3 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Chief Constables.)
    Amendment made: In page 6, line 21, at the end, insert:
    "(2) A chief constable who is not transferred as aforesaid shall be deemed to have retired from his police force immediately before the date when the scheme came into force and the following provisions of this Subsection shall apply to him, that is to say:—

    (a) during the period of three months beginning with the said date (or, if within those three months he joins the combined force, during the period beginning with the said date and ending with the day before the date on which he joins that force) he shall be entitled to be paid by the joint police committee a salary and emoluments at the same rate as the salary and emoluments which he would have been entitled to receive had he continued to be the chief constable of his police force;

    (b) if during the said three months he joins the combined force, he shall be deemed for the purposes of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, to have served in that force during the period for which he is in receipt of a salary under paragraph (a) of this Subsection;

    (c) if during the said three months he does not join the combined force, there shall, at the expiration of the said three months, be payable by the joint police committee to him or, in the event of his death, to his wife, children or other dependent relatives, such pension, gratuity or allowance, and on such terms, as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State:

    Provided that the amount of any pension, gratuity or allowance payable under paragraph (c) of this Subsection shall, in a case where the former chief constable would have been entitled, with the consent of the police authority, to retire at the expiration of the said three months without a medical certificate and receive an ordinary pension for life, be not less than it would have been if he had so retired; and the amount of any pension payable under that paragraph to the widow of a former chief constable shall not be reduced, in the event of his death, by reference to the number of complete years (if any) during which a pension was payable to him thereunder before he attained the age of sixty-five."
    In page 7, line 31, at the end, insert:
    (4) The provisions of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, shall apply, subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State, to any pension, gratuity or allowance payable under paragraph (c) of Subsection (2) of this Section."—[Mr. T. Fraser.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 8 and 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE II.—(Provision of buildings and acquisition of land for police purposes by county and town councils, and joint police committees.)
    Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 10, line 21, at the end, to insert:
    'Provided that Section two of that Act (which confers temporary powers for speedy acquisition of land in urgent cases) shall not apply to any compulsory purchase of land under this Section."
    This Amendment is intended to meet the point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hill-head (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) in the Debate on the Second Reading. I gave an assurance then that it was not part of our intention to make use of the "blitz" powers, as he described them, under Section 2 of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946. This Amendment gives legislative effect to the assurance I gave on that occasion.
    Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for giving effect to what he said in the Debate on the Second Reading.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 10, line 34, at the end, insert:
    "(6) Expenditure incurred by a police authority under this section for any purpose shall be defrayed in like manner as expenditure for such a purpose would have required to be defrayed if this Act had not been passed."—[Mr. T. Fraser.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 12 and 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Compensation of officers prejudicially affected.)
    "(1) If in consequence of an amalgamation scheme or of anything done thereunder, any person who, immediately before the date when the scheme came into force, was an officer employed by a constituent authority or by a joint police committee, suffers direct pecuniary loss by reason of the determination of his appointment or the diminution of his emoluments, he shall, unless provision for his compensation for that loss is made by or under any other enactment for the time being in force, be entitled to receive compensation under this section from such constituent authority or joint police committee as may be determined by or under that scheme.
    (2) Any person who, immediately before the date on which an amalgamation scheme

    1103
    came into force, was an officer employed by a constituent authority or by a joint police committee and who, at any time within five years after the said date,

    (a) has his services dispensed with or his emoluments reduced, otherwise than on the ground of misconduct; or

    (b) relinquishes office by reason of his having been required to perform duties which are not analogous or which are an unreasonable addition to those which he was required to perform immediately before that date

    shall, for the purposes of this section be deemed, unless the contrary is shown, to have suffered direct pecuniary loss by reason of the determination of his appointment or the diminution of his emoluments in consequence of the scheme.
    (3) For the purposes of the determination and payment of compensation under this section the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Rating (Scotland) Act, 1926, and of paragraph (i) of Subsection (1) of Section seven of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, shall be incorporated with this section subject to such modifications as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe for the purpose of adapting those provisions to claims under this section."—[Mr. T. Fraser.]
    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Exchequer Grants towards police expenses.)
    There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament towards the expenses of police authorities or joint police committees such sums, at such times, in such manner and subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury determine.—[Mr. T. Fraser.]
    Brought up, and read the First and Second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."—[Mr. T. Fraser.]
    Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 4, after "Treasury," to insert "by order."
    I hope and believe that the Government will accept this Amendment, because I feel sure that it is in line with their real intentions. There are two points involved. The first is to make quite sure that the conditions to which the Clause refers are published and made available to anybody who wants to see them. I assume that they will have some permanent character, and have effect over the whole country. The second is to give this House an opportunity of pronouncing on those conditions. The hon. Gentleman very
    1104
    properly pointed out that there were other Bills where there were no such powers, but this Bill is much more important; a police grant is much more important than grants in the case of children and young persons, and the two things are not similar. I am sure the Government would wish, as they are consulting local authorities, that this House should also have an opportunity of expressing its view.
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. T. Fraser: We consider that the Amendment moved by the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a most reasonable one, and we have pleasure in accepting it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made to the proposed new Clause: In line 4, at the end, add:
    "(2) Any order made by the Secretary of State under this Section shall be laid before Parliament immediately after it is made; and if either House of Parliament, within the period of forty days beginning with the day one which any such order as aforesaid is laid before it, resolves that the order be annulled, it shall thereupon become void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new order.
    In reckoning any such period of forty days as aforesaid, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or during which both houses are adjourned for more than four days."—[Mr. J. S. C. Reid.]
    Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
    First Schedule agreed to.

    SECOND SCHEDULE—(Provisions as to Inquiries.)
    Amendment made: In page 14, line 25, at the end, add:
    "7. The Secretary of State may make orders as to the expenses incurred by the parties appearing at the inquiry and as to the parties by whom such expenses shall be paid.
    8. An order by the Secretary of State under paragraph 7 of this Schedule requiring any party to pay expenses may be enforced in like manner as a recorded decree arbitral."—[Mr. Fraser.]
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
    Third Schedule agreed to.

    FOURTH SCHEDULE.—(Enactments repealed.)
    Amendment made: In page 16, line 20, column 3, after "three," insert "and sixty-six."—[Mr. Fraser.]
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
    Mr. Rankin: There was a point I desired to raise, but I had no opportunity of presenting it.
    The Temporary Chairman: I am afraid the hon. Member has lost his opportunity. After the Bill is ordered to be reported the hon. Member cannot speak.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. T. Fraser.]
    5.48 p.m.
    Mr. Maclay: There is a point I should like to raise on the Third Reading. It refers to the words:
    "(2) Any person who, immediately before the date when an amalgamation scheme came into force, was an officer employed by a constituent authority or by a joint police committee and who, at any time within five years after the said date, …
    (b) relinquishes office by reason of his having been required to perform duties which are not analogous or which are an unreasonable addition to those which he was required to perform immediately before that date "
    Those words are in the Clause which was put earlier. It is perhaps not a very important point, but I would like to know who decides this question. Is there provision anywhere for an appeal tribunal? The words that I am particularly concerned with are:
    "relinquishes office by reason of his having been required to perform duties which are not analogous or which are an unreasonable addition to those which he was required to perform, immediately before that date."
    It is quite clear that there might be a very serious difference of opinion on this point, as to whether the duty was analogous to or was an unreasonable addition to those which he had been required to perform. That is all I wanted to raise on the Third Reading, except to say that I feel that the Parliamentary Secretary has, as was said earlier, done an excellent piece of stonewalling. We are not at all happy about the lack of information.
    Mr. T. Fraser: Is the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) asking whether any such officers who might be prejudicially affected would have the right of appeal to the Secretary of State?
    Mr. Maclay: I was asking who decides, where it is a question of a man relinquishing his
    1106
    "office by reason of his having been required to perform duties which are not analogous or which are an unreasonable addition to those which he was required to perform immediately before that date."
    It is a matter which is open to dispute, and it is not clear by whom this will be decided.
    Mr. Fraser: In the first place, it would be decided by the joint committee when a scheme is brought about, but if the officer should be aggrieved by any such decision arrived at, he has the right of appeal to the Secretary of State.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]
  5.53 p.m.
  The Chairman: As this is not a controversial Bill, I propose, with the agreement of the Committee, to put the Clauses in blocks.
  Clauses 1 to 143 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

    CLAUSE 144.—.(Citation, extent, commencement and repeal.)
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): I beg to move, in page 91, line 28, to leave out "September, nineteen hundred and forty-six," and to insert: "January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven."
    This Amendment relates to the date when the Act comes into operation. It has been rendered necessary by the passage of time. When the Bill was introduced on 13th February, it seemed reasonable to expect that it would become law by 1st September, but our expectations have not been realised, and it is therefore necessary to amend the date.
    Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Am I to take it that this postponement makes no difference to anyone, or is there any small point whereby somebody may be suffering by reason of the postponement? I imagine that this is not the case; if it is so, I should like it stated.
    Mr. Stephen: I should like to ask whether this alteration is changing the law.
    Mr. T. Fraser: This alteration does not in any way change the law. As I have explained, when the Bill was introduced it was expected that it would pass through all its stages in time to become law by 1st September, 1946. We are now beyond that date, and we are still functioning under the very many statutes passed since 1872. This new date has merely been made necessary by our taking longer than we expected to get the Bill through all its stages. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) asked whether anyone would suffer as the result of the postponement. No change in the law is effected, and no one will suffer. I unhesitatingly give that assurance.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Schedules 1 to 8 agreed to.
    Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    5.58 p.m.
    Mr. Gilzean: I confess that I am at a loss, because I do not know whether I am in Order at this juncture to speak on the lines I desire. I have been warned that this is a consolidating Bill. It is simply a matter of drawing together in one volume all the pieces of legislation so that those responsible for education may say, "Here is a job which has been well done." The difficulty which presents itself to me is that no sooner is it done, and no sooner is this Bill being read the Third time, than I can see a lot of things which are necessary.
    Further, in this consolidation there is, naturally, the 1945 Education Act, which was passed in a tremendous hurry at the time when the last Parliament was dying. It had to be rushed through so that the birth might take place before the demise of the parent. It is generally admitted among educationists that this Bill did not get the consideration that was due to it. Yet it is consolidated in this Bill, and I suppose it will be assumed that Scots people must be satisfied and not demand any new legislation for education. There is a great deal wrong with education in Scotland today. I regret to say that, and I wish that I did not have to say it.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman but he cannot go into that subject now. The only matters with which he can deal are those contained in the Bill.
    Mr. Gilzean: I agree that the things I am concerned about are not contained in the Bill, otherwise I would not be on my feet, Sir, but there are some things in the Bill that I am concerned about, and one of them is the permission that is given to education committees to allow fee paying in education committee schools. In my opinion that is becoming a festering sore, and—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I gather that the hon. Member is suggesting a change in something that is in the Bill. There, again, he would be out of Order.
    Mr. Gilzean: I am not suggesting a change, because I am alive to the fact that we are not permitted to make any change in this marvellous consolidation Bill. But that is no reason why I should not point out the weaknesses of this Bill, always provided that I do not propose any changes. The change I am after is in the mentality of those who are responsible—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Clearly, that question is not in the Bill. I am afraid the hon. Member is out of Order again.
    Mr. Gilzean: I am quite willing to admit that it may not be in Order to demand a change in the mentality of those responsible for framing the Bill, but, at the same time, the first thing the Secretary of State for Scotland must consider is how soon he can introduce a Bill that will have for its object the improvement of education in Scotland.
    6.5 p.m.
    Mrs. Jean Mann: I would like to refer to Clause 43 of the Bill, Subsection 3, where it is expressly stated that
    "… any award made by the Carnegie Trustees for the Universities of Scotland"
    shall be ignored. I think that those who are putting forward this form of consolidation feel that they are making some advance on previous consolidation, or unconsolidation, whichever they prefer. But the fact is that the words are meaningless unless there is some collaboration with the Carnegie Trustees for reciprocal

    1109
    agreement. The Trustees simply will not give any grant whatever if an education authority is giving what it is said to be going to give under this Bill. This does not take us any part of the way towards helping to get more students at universities in Scotland. Some regard should have been had to the maintenance of students today, as compared with—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Lady, also, is out of Order.
    Mrs. Mann: I would draw your attention, Sir, to Subsection (1, c) of this Clause, which states:
    "to grant scholarships, bursaries and other allowances to persons over school age."
    I was referring to these other allowances, which I thought might include maintenance allowances.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Lady is now referring to something which is not in the Bill and is expressing her regret that some item is not included. Such a reference is out of Order on the Third Reading. She could have raised some of these points on the Committee stage, but she cannot do it now.
    Mrs. Mann: Then all I will say is that as a form of consolidation this Bill is no use.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed, with an Amendment.

  SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS
  Resolved:
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Chard, a copy of which Order was presented on nth October, be approved."
  Resolved:
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of East Grinstead, a copy of which Order was presented on nth October, be approved."
  Resolved:
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Chepstow, a copy of which Order was presented on nth October, be approved."—[Mr. Oliver.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Joseph Henderson.]

  GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR
  6.9 p.m.
  Mr. Martin Lindsay: I wish this evening to raise the question of the possibility of encouraging selected German prisoners of war to remain in this country with, after a probationary period, the full status of British citizenship. I use the word "possibility" deliberately, rather than the word "desirability," because I have a very open mind on this question, and I shall be particularly interested to hear from the Minister whether the Government have given consideration to this matter, and what they think the pros and cons be.
  The advantages of augmenting our labour force in this country by thousands of industrious, highly skilled, workers would appear to be obvious to anybody except, possibly, to trade union leaders. The decision of the mine workers to exclude Poles from the mining industry in this country was a retrograde and shocking one. I always understood that the party opposite called themselves internationalists, yet they are not prepared to have 200 Polish miners, who fought for us during the war, working alongside them in industry. It is an ironical thing that the political wheel should have turned so far that I, a Tory, should be recommending an over-generous gesture to foreigners, rather than the party opposite. I think that it is a very bad decision of the trade unions of this country that they will not have Poles and other foreigners. I can see that there would be great difficulty in persuading the unions, even many years ahead, to admit Germans. I think this is unfortunate. One could well understand it if we were faced with the problem of unemployment, but that is not the situation today. After all, has this country not elected a Government who are pledged to do away with unemployment? Ministers and trade union leaders must surely have some faith in themselves and in their Government.
  The position today is that there is an acute shortage of skilled labour. If anyone doubts that, he has only to go to Birmingham or any of our great industrial

  1111
  cities. We all know how, when the land has been crying out for agricultural labour, Italian prisoners of war have been sent back to Italy, and some of them are now doing their best to come back to this country, which could well do with them. There must be many farmers who would like to keep German prisoners of war, who are now working on their land, and in many cases these men would wish to stay in this country.
  There is another reason for considering such a course, and that is the ethnological one. We all know how much the United States have gained by the admixture of good, foreign blood. There are, today, in Great Britain no fewer than 200,000 surplus women of marriageable age between 20 and 40. I am one of those people who believe that it is a great misfortune for a woman to be unable to fulfil her natural biological functions because of the shortage of males, yet this is the prospect of 200,000 women in this country. I think that the actual figure is very much higher, because there is a considerable number of ex-Service men who are anxious to emigrate, and, in addition, a large number who desire to marry German girls. The figures are not yet available, but I understand that they will be available within about a month. We hear that in some units in Germany the proportion of British soldiers who want to, marry German girls is in the region of 20 to 25 per cent. So the actual figure of surplus British women is likely to be considerably higher than 200,000. A number of these would find husbands in due course, if we could get the best of the Germans to remain in this country. I would, therefore, make it a qualification for those who wish to remain that they should be batchelors.
  I appreciate that there are many other nationals who should first be considered for naturalisation; that is to say, our friends who have fought with us, rather than those who have fought against us, but if there is any possibility of offering British naturalisation—and I do not believe we shall get the best of the Germans to stay in this country unless we do—a statement to that effect should be made now. It may be said that it is too soon after the war, that feelings are still too high, and so forth, but if there is this possibility and it is not made plain now,
  1112
  it will be too late, because soon these men will have gone back to Germany. I shall, therefore, listen with great interest to what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say to us as to whether this question has already been considered by the Government, and what are their views upon it.
  6.15 p.m.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: I do not go as far as my hon. Friend in his approach to this problem, but I think that all of us feel that the German prisoners of war should be returned to their country, if they so desire, at the earliest opportunity subject to special considerations. The difficult food situation, as it now exists in this country, is such that we must look ahead for the next year or two to ensure that we get the maximum food supply from our own land. I feel that the danger will be next year, and if most of the Germans have returned to their country we shall be in for very serious trouble. A compromise in this matter is required. I feel personally that it is too early to consider giving naturalisation facilities to German prisoners of war, but that they should have the matter put to them, so that they can go back to their homes in Germany to rehabilitate themselves for a period, and see their families before they apply for naturalisation if we should require them.
  I say definitely that before this matter is considered we should absorb our Allies, such as the Poles and others, who fought for us in the war, and give them the first opportunity of taking out papers of naturalisation. If this were done, I think that we would have to alter out attitude to the Germans in many respects. We must give them more facilities for correspondence with their families, and adopt altogether a more reasonable attitude towards them. I do not like the Germans, but I think that in our own interests we have to be broad minded in considering this problem.
  I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give this matter his full consideration, not as an immediate issue, but as a matter which should be brought to finality in two or three years' time. If we can get volunteers to stay for a period and help us through the next 18 months, much good will be done.
  6.20 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Oliver): I should say at once—because the hon. Gentleman who raised this subject said he would like to know what consideration, if any, had been given by the Government to this matter—that no consideration whatsoever has been given to it. Apart from the knowledge that the question was being raised, I had no idea of the form of approach until I spoke to the hon. Gentleman tonight, and I had not the remotest idea of what he was going to say. I think it is right to approach the matter on these lines. The day is rather early for a consideration of the naturalisation of ex-enemies. Barely a year has passed since the war. From the controversy which there was in the House only last week on a very minor matter of air-raid sirens, it is evident that war memories are still fresh, and it would invite very severe criticism and censure if we were to suggest that German prisoners of war should be naturalised, although I readily understand that it is not proposed by the hon. Gentleman that the naturalisation should take place now, but that we should make some promise to them that if they are prepared to stay here that privilege, for undoubtedly it is a privilege, will be conferred upon them. I do not think it would be right of me to hold out the slightest hope of that being done at this time. There are approximately 30,000 applications for naturalisation at present, and they are coming in at the rate of between 40 and 50 a day. At present, we are naturalising about 7,000 people a year, and that means that it will take approximately four years to work off the arrears. In those 30,000, it is unnecessary for me to say that there is a large number of aliens who fought in the British Army, and, therefore, they must have preference—
  Mr. M. Lindsay: I think the hon. Gentleman will admit that I said that. I quite appreciate that the Germans must be last in the queue if they are offered, eventually, naturalisation.
  Mr. Oliver: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman stated that. In the circumstances, it will be realised that four years would pass before consideration could be given to the question of naturalising any German prisoners of war. Therefore, I come to the question whether a promise
  1114
  can be given with regard to the prospect in the distant future, when the cases of those aliens who have already applied for naturalisation have been disposed of, that Germans might be considered. I would not like to make that promise tonight.. even looking over the distance of three or four years, because I feel that it might not be a promise which would be capable of fulfilment at that time. As the war recedes, passions will become assauged and memories will become dim, and the proposition may be much easier. If in two or three years' time the Government think that the proposal might be considered, that would be the time to do it. At the present time, I cannot hold out any hope whatever that the Government would consider the proposal. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) suggested that we should retain some of the prisoners of war for purposes of agriculture.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: Volunteers.
  Mr. Oliver: That might or might not at some future time imply naturalisation.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: I suggested that we should ask for volunteers for a limited period to see us through what may be a crisis on the land.
  Mr. Oliver: That opens up problems in the agricultural industry with which I would not like to attempt to deal. There is a large number of Poles in this country, and they will require to be settled, many of them on the land. It may well be that, when they are assimilated into the industry and trade of this country, they will provide a sufficient number, without holding out any prospect of German prisoners of war remaining here. If one asked German prisoners of war to remain here, they would, of course, have a right to expect that, by reason of the invitation, they would, at some future date, be considered for naturalisation. I should think that that would necessarily follow. As I have already said, I do not feel it would be the appropriate occasion tonight to make any promise that that prospect was open.

  AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY (SUPPLIES)
  6.26 p.m.
  Mr. Baker White: I apologise for rising a second time in the space of 24 hours to address the House, but I do so on a question of urgent and

  1115
  pressing importance—the shortage of agricultural machinery and spare parts. I think it is true to say that there is not one agricultural district in Britain that is not affected by this shortage. I know that the Minister of Agriculture has this matter very much at heart. I raised the matter in a Debate in April this year, and the right hon. Gentleman wrote to me afterwards to say that he would see what could be done to increase the proportion of home production that would go to farmers, and that would mean consequently a decrease in the proportion going for export. It appears from the available figures that the Board of Trade have not carried out that undertaking. In reply to a Question which I put to the Minister of Agriculture on 9th October, it was shown that, whereas in the months January to March, 1946, on an average 91 per cent. of the home production of tractor ploughs was allocated for home use, the proportion in August was only 86 per cent. In the case of 3–4 wheeled tractors, 80 per cent. of production went to British farms in the first three months, but only 65 per cent. in August. For 2-wheeled tractors the proportions of production were 70 per cent. in January-March, and 61 per cent. in August.
  What does this mean in numbers? It means that in March, 1946, 1,309 tractor ploughs went to British farms, and in August 1,171. In the case of 3–4 wheeled tractors, it was 1,587 in March, and 1,149 in August. In the case of 2-wheeled tractors, it was 371 in March, and 393 in August. In other words, although production may have been expanded, our farmers are getting fewer tractors, and not more. In a letter which I had from him recently, the Minister pointed out that, while the percentage of production going for export has increased, the amount, measured in value, going to home use also shows a marked increase. That is perfectly true, but the farmers are not concerned with that; they are concerned with the volume, and whether they get a tractor or whether they do not. I venture to express the opinion that, in spite of the need for the export drive, we are sending too much home-produced machinery abroad.
  Let us look at the export figures. The Trade and Navigation Returns show that, in the first eight months of this
  1116
  year, we sent out of this country £4 million worth of home-produced machinery. That included 13,408 tons of tractors, that is something like 8,400 in number, 7,796 tons of ploughs, 1,779 tons of threshing machines and 11,668 tons of other farm machinery. Any farmer can confirm that all over the country threshing, to give. but one example, is held up through the shortage of boxes, and we lost thousands of quarters of corn through the shortage of combines. The President of the Board of Trade is, I believe, the owner of agricutural property. In any case he has first hand agricultural experience, but it does seem, in the face of the figures I have just given, that the Government do not appreciate the needs of the farmers in this matter of machinery. I repeat that I really do understand the need for exports but it seems to me a form of economic insanity to deprive the farmers, who are the food producers of this country, of the machines they need so badly.
  I should like to give one or two brief examples of what this means to individual farmers. At a recent meeting of the Kent County Committee of the National Farmers Union a member pointed out that it was impossible for farmers in Kent to obtain new tractors. Dealers handling home produced tractors would not quote delivery under 18 months or two years, and those handling imported American machinery would not quote a delivery date at all. I have a letter from a farmer in my constituency in which he gives me these examples. In September, 1943, over three years ago, he ordered a new British made tractor cultivator; he has not received it to this day. In July he took delivery of a disc harrow for which he had been waiting three years. On 28th May he placed an express order for new contact breaker points for his farm van. He has not yet received them and the van is held up. On 13th February he was granted a permit to convert his tractor to rubber tyres. When the tyres were available the wheel centres were not; when the wheel centres came through there were no tyres. In September he had to use discarded army tyres to put on the back of the tractor and tyres for the front are still unobtainable. That is the story of one farmer's experience, and it could be repeated by thousands of farmers all over the country.

  1117
  Finally, may I say that we seem in this matter of agricultural imports and exports, and on the question of machinery, to be facing really fantastic contradictions? We cannot get feeding stuffs from abroad for our dairy cattle, but we are importing tinned milk from the United States. We cannot get maize for our chickens—and this is black October for British poultry keepers—but we import dried eggs from America. The one thing we want from America but cannot get is a supply of spare parts for American machines. Our own farmers are not allowed to make their own cheeses—the best and most famous in the world—at economic prices, yet we are spending valuable exchange on importing foreign cheeses, very often of indifferent quality. British tomato growers today are suffering from the effects of a glut of imported tomatoes simply and solely because the Ministry of Food failed to take heed of the warnings they were given two months ago.
  Mr. Walkden: Will the hon. Member tell the House exactly where these tomatoes exist, where they can be procured and where there is a glut in Britain?
  Mr. Baker White: I only know that in my own county the farmers have on their hands hundreds of lbs. of tomatoes which they are selling at 3d. and 4d. a lb.
  Mr. Walkden: That is the pre-war price.
  Mr. Baker White: Our precious foreign exchange is being used to buy imported fruits. I have no particular complaint about that provided there is some restriction on the volume, but I would not like it to harm the interests of our own horticultural industry. But these foreign products are coming in first class, non-returnable wicker and wooden containers. A good deal of the material used to make these containers comes from Empire resources, yet our own growers are deprived of these very materials.
  I do not know what is to happen about farmworkers' rations. The miners and heavy workers have been granted extra food but not a word has been said about the farmworker. I know perfectly well that the Minister of Agriculture and his Parliamentary Secretary have the cause of British agriculture at heart, and I wish I could say the same about the Board of
  1118
  Trade and the Minister's colleagues in the Cabinet, but they do not seem to understand the needs of the farmer and the farmworker. They seem to regard the country as a pleasant place in which to spend the weekend. Their minds are full of nationalisation and their eyes are firmly fixed on the urban and industrial vote. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look once again at this question to see if something cannot be done quickly in this industrial crisis.
  6.37 p.m.
  Commander Maitland: The House is indebted to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White) for having raised this important and urgent problem of agricultural machinery. Certainly the men of Lincolnshire congratulate the men of Kent on having raised it at this time. I think it is rather remarkable that in an industry where there are such differences between county and county and almost between parish and parish the great need for agricultural machinery should have spread over the whole country.
  I have looked up Questions which have been put to the Minister of Agriculture from time to time on this subject and they are numberless. I should like to quote briefly two of them. The first was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. J. Morrison) on 15th October last year. He asked what was being done about spare parts for American machinery. He was told that ail possible steps were being taken and that the Minister was doing his best. Just a week later, on 22nd October, the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins), asked whether arrangements had been made to enable a sufficient supply of spare parts for caterpillar tractors and other agricultural machinery to be imported from the United States of America. The answer was, "Yes, Sir." I suggest that either something has gone very seriously wrong with the arrangements or that the estimates of the supply were at fault, because in my constituency we are worse off today than ever before and it is particularly tragic that our chief need is for heavy tractors of the crawler type. In our industry today, where the land has had so much taken out of it, as is the case in my own part of the world, deep ploughing is more important than ever before, in order to try to produce even as

  1119
  much as we have done in the past, let alone more. It is unfortunate that it is just those tractors we require for deep ploughing which are most difficult to obtain.
  I should like to make a constructive suggestion on this matter of spare parts which is causing such difficulty. During the war there were hundreds of thousands of machines of various types—tanks, Bren gun carriers and so on—and I am advised by agricultural machinery repairers who have also had to do with mechanised vehicles during the war that there are considerable numbers of similar parts to those which are needed in agricultural machinery and that these are interchangeable. I know that if there are not sufficient war vehicles in this country to "cannibalise" there are certainly a very considerable number in Germany. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether this is a practical proposition. If it is, what steps is he taking to see that that source of supply is available.
  From that question, I turn to the consideration of a spare part which is sometimes overlooked because it is so obvious. It is the common or garden automobile tyre and the tractor tyre. I want to impress upon the Minister that there is a really acute shortage in Lincolnshire today. We have a sugar beet harvest on top of us at the moment and we do not know how we are going to get through it. Other hon. Members from agricultural constituencies will know what a vast amount of transport has to be mobilised for this part of the industry, but lorry after lorry is going off the roads because they have not enough tyres. I have done everything I can, by approaching the Minister and putting down Questions, but still there is a shortage. I beg the Minister to use all the power he can to convince his opposite numbers in other Departments of this great need in order that something can be done at once.
  We are faced with a growing shortage of agricultural labour. That fact must be in all our minds today. The German prisoners are returning to their own country. For myself and for the majority of people in my constituency I can say that we are glad that should be so. It is right and proper and just, but the fact
  1120
  that they are going places an enormous responsibility upon the Government. We have not yet heard what the Government short-term policy is for dealing with this question of the shortage of manpower. Surely one of the factors in that policy should be the very urgent replacement of agricultural machinery. That would help. I suggest to the Minister that, owing to the increasing age of the machines, their rate of deterioration is becoming higher and higher. Even though the Minister may say that there is an increase in the supply, it does not catch up with the machines which are going out of action. I would close my remarks by trying to impress the Minister with the Very great urgency of this matter. We, in Lincolnshire, and people in the rest of the country, simply must have something soon.
  6.43 p.m.
  Mr. Collins: The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White) has done the House a service in bringing up this very important matter, although I felt that in his later remarks he was trying to make up for the refusal of the Lord President of the Council to devote a special day to a Debate upon agricultural policy. I would mention one or two things which the hon. Member mentioned, notably the absence of local, home-grown cheeses. That is obviously due to the fact that we have not sufficient milk to spare. He made reference to a glut of tomatoes because of foreign imports, but he must be well aware that at the present moment there is no foreign importation of tomatoes whatever. The temporary extra supplies which are on the market at the moment are due to the very great outdoor supply, which is very much later this year than it would have been but for the late, wet summer. So far as the consumer is concerned, and apart from tomatoes of inferior quality, there is no question whatsoever of a glut.
  In regard to imported fruit, no-one would suggest that we have anything like too much fruit and that we are doing other than welcoming the supplies that the Minister of Food has been able to secure. In this connection the home growers, particularly those apple growers who have been bewailing their lot recently, would be well advised to look, now that the war period is over, to producing their fruit in grades that will sell

  1121
  in competition. A reference was made to containers and to the fact that foreign producers can find timber, paper and other material for packing such as are not available for our home producers, but, in large measure, those home producers do not need those materials. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The home producer does not need them to anything like the same degree as his competitors. He does not need to send his fruit necessarily in non-returnable containers. Mention was made of baskets. The hon. Member was apparently unaware that 340,000 Dutch bushels have been imported this year. Thousands of English basket makers would be glad to make baskets for the home grower, but they have failed to place a single order. Therefore the shortage cannot be anything like so severe as is sometimes represented.
  Lieut.-Colonel Kingsmill: Does the hon. Member suggest that wicker containers are suitable for sending apples all over London?
  Mr. Collins: Most decidedly. That has been done for 250 years and wicker is still eminently suitable. It is nonsense to suggest that a bushel or a half bushel is not a suitable package capable of performing many more journeys than is the flimsy wooden package.
  Let me deal with the far more important matter which was raised by the hon. Member for Canterbury, because it is a real and vital issue for agriculture. He rightly said that it impinges on the labour problem and that there must be a great increase in the mechanisation of agriculture. Our farmers have lost many quarters of corn this year through the absence of machinery and difficulties with regard to spare parts. I hope that the Minister will tell us what steps the Government are taking to meet this difficulty. I want to emphasise, however, that this is not a problem which has arisen in the last 12 months. It arises directly out of the old problems of agriculture and from the fact that agriculture was a hopelessly depressed industry for many years before the war. The industry did not give encouragement to our manufacturers of agricultural machinery to lay down plant with any kind of hope of getting a continuing and sufficient market. It was not possible to make machines on a sufficient scale during the war. As with so
  1122
  many things that have had to be set up since the war ended, it has not yet proved practicable to produce the necessary goods in sufficient volume. I suggest that this is a matter which seriously affects the farming community, and into which hon. Members representing rural constituencies should enquire closely. There are now many Members on this side of the House who have these problems very truly at heart.
  Sir William Darling: There are not very many.
  Mr. Collins: What they lack in numbers they make up in greater effectiveness. I hope we shall learn tonight something of the volume and the diversity and the nature of the plans which are in operation for the provision of the necessary machinery, as well as for technical education to assist the farming community to a greater appreciation of the necessity for employing machinery to the fullest possible extent.
  There are certain short-term measures which might be taken to effect an improvement. One was suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland). He suggested that a review should be made of all kinds of surplus disposal goods with a bearing on tractor work and machinery of various kinds to see what can be obtained for the use of the farming community, and that any resulting spare parts should be collected together, classified and catalogued and made available through the county committees or some other medium to the farmers. Another suggestion I have for my hon. Friend is that his Department should satisfy itself that manufacturers are giving effect to the priorities which his Department has instituted. I have had a number of individual cases where parts have been required and the agents or farmers requiring them have been waiting a long time. When the matter has been taken up through the Ministry, the parts have been supplied in a couple of days, and some excuse has been made by the manufacturer that the original instructions were not understood. Things like that have happened, and in many cases the supplies are not being made in accordance with a proper ordered priority from the dealers. We need to be satisfied that instructions are being properly carried out, and that

  1123
  those in the greatest need are being supplied, and in no other way.
  With regard to longer term remedies, we need to be satisfied that encouragement is being given to manufacturers with regard to the types of agricultural machinery that they should produce and an assurance of a market for that machinery when it is produced. I hope also that we shall learn that farmers can be given some capital assistance on easy terms to obtain the necessary machinery when it is available. This is a most valuable point. I hope that my suggestions and those of other hon. Members will receive the Ministry's full consideration and that we shall receive an adequate reply from my hon. Friend tonight.
  6.53 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Kingsmill: It is a great pleasure for me to support the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White) on the subject he has raised tonight. The first point I wish to deal with is the lack of raw materials for the manufacture of agricultural implements. Last summer, in response to a request by the shop stewards of a firm of agricultural implement manufacturers in Chard, I took the matter up with the Board of Trade and got from them a sympathetic but extremely unsatisfactory reply saying that no further allocations of raw materials for agricultural implements could be made because the steel position was so short. I rather wonder whether the Ministry of Agriculture presses the priority which agriculture really deserves. It is only by continually pressing the other Ministries, be it the Ministry of Supply or the Board of Trade, that we can expect to get the steel or iron, without which we cannot use the majority of our farm implements. Cases have already been mentioned of people who have been without spare parts for their tractors. I know a farmer who has a tractor made by the International Harvester Corporation of America, of which one part is broken. He has been unable to get a new part in this country for over six months in spite of repeated efforts everywhere. Does the Ministry of Agriculture press the Board of Trade or the Ministry of Supply for the import of spare parts for American tractors which were in this country before the war, in order to get the necessary
  1124
  allocations so that the machinery we have can be kept in running order?
  Another great shortage in agriculture today is that of baling wire. I took up that matter last April with the Board of Trade and gave actual instances in which there was 16 weeks' delay between the time the farmers ordered baling wire and the time they received it. I got a reply to the effect that 16 weeks was not an undue delay but they hoped to cut it down. In the meantime threshing could not go on because the hay could not be baled. At the time we were considering bread rationing. Surely baling wire should have been pressed for as an extreme priority from the Ministry of Agriculture to the Board of Trade? Another point to be pressed is that the use of the bulldozer in the agricultural industry today is very important, particularly when we want to increase the amount of ground under cultivation. But it is impossible to get tyres for the transporters on which these bulldozers are carried from place to place. Cannot the Ministry of Agriculture press on' the Ministry of Supply the necessity for priority for tyres for transporters in order that bulldozers shall not be immobilised? It is not a foolish thing to ask the Minister to do, and I hope he will be successful.
  Many hon. Members have said that we should make use of surplus Army vehicles on the farms, and I quite agree with that. However, early last spring I tried to obtain from the Ministry of Supply jeeps for use on the farms. I got a reply from the Ministry of Supply that they had no idea that jeeps could be of any use on farms and therefore they thought there was no necessity to give priority for farmers to buy them. If the Minister looks at the back of any American magazine, he will see illustrated jeeps pulling ploughs and doing other work about the farm, and there will be a full description of how useful a jeep can be to any farmer.
  6.57 p.m.
  Mr. Edelman: I hope that as a Member for an industrial constituency I shall not seem to intrude into this valuable Debate, in which the speakers have for the most part represented agricultural Divisions. In Coventry we have established a mass production plant for the manufacture of tractors, the first in this country, and therefore one which will have a most important effect

  1125
  on the future of agriculture in Britain. In the past, the manufacture of a tractor has been very largely like the manufacture of a motor car in Edwardian days. The tractor was manufactured by craftsmanship methods. In consequence it was impossible to produce tractors in sufficient quantities to satisfy the demands of farmers who wished to convert their farming into a mechanised process. Of the limited production which we have had in the past in this country, I understand that approximately 75 per cent. is going to U.N.R.R.A. I would not wish to diminish the number of tractors which are going abroad for that purpose, but instead of diminishing the number of tractors we export, we should now concentrate on increasing the number produced in this country. Today we have the opportunity of doing that. For the first time we have a mass production plant producing a multi-purpose tractor—the Fergusson tractor—capable of drawing a large variety of different tools and bound to have a considerable influence both on our agriculture at home and, I hope, in the long run, on agriculture abroad. We have one most important problem, the problem of raw materials. Associated with it, we have in this new and modern factory the problem of labour. The question therefore of the production and allocation of tractors is the concern of the Minister of Supply and the Minister of Labour, almost as much as of the Minister of Agriculture.
  We have heard that there may be a considerable cut in steel supplies. It is something which affects the motor industry, and it is bound to affect the young and growing tractor industry which we have just established. I would like the assurance of the Minister of Agriculture today that he is in touch with the Minister of Supply in this matter; that the steel required for the production of tractors will be made available, and that the other material commodities required will also be made available for our programme in a proper scheme of priority In mass production it is important to plan ahead, to have a programme and a schedule. It is important to know approximately what materials we will have for, say, a straight run-through of six months or so. Unless the tractor producers have that assurance, it is impossible for them to have a real mass production programme.
  1126
  I believe that this new tractor plant may be a model for similar plants engaged in the production of agricultural equipment throughout the country. I believe that not only will it be important to farmers, but also that it is potentially one of the great export industries in which our country can engage. Just as in the past 20 years we steadily developed the motor industry, which today in great measure can compete with the American motor industry, so equally I believe that with this beginning of the mass production of tractors, we can compete with the American tractor industry. I hope, therefore, that all the Ministers concerned will give whatever help is necessary to the industry, both in the form of supplies of raw materials and also in ensuring that there is adequate labour for this plant to have a really good start. I hope that, with the assistance of the Minister, we shall be able to have a considerable production of tractors in this country, which not only would be of the greatest use to our farmers at home, but would be able to supply the Continent with those tractors without which the recovery of agriculture on the Continent may be indefinitely delayed.
  7.4 p.m.
  Mr. John Morrison: I, like other hon. Members, welcome the opportunity given to the House to discuss this important question of spare parts for agriculture because, with the return of German prisoners of war, there is no doubt that mechanisation becomes more and more important. I only want to ask the hon. Gentleman who is to reply to this Debate two questions. He may not be able to give me a direct answer this evening, but I hope he will be good enough to look into them. I asked a Question today of the Secretary of State for War based on the fact that when I flew over Germany in July last with the Parliamentary delegation, I saw, both from the air and from going around, a great number of vehicles parked. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Yeovil (Lieut.-Colonel Kingsmill) will bear me out in this. The Question was as follows:
  "To ask the Secretary of State for War, how many disused vehicles are still parked in the British zone in Germany, and what it is intended to do with them."

  1127
  The answer was as follows:
  "Apart from the normal Army reserve holdings, there are at present in this zone about 75,000 vehicles which are not in use. Some 35,000 of these have already been declared as surplus to the appropriate disposals authority; the remainder are in process of being similarly declared, as the necessary work of classification and inspection proceeds."
  I suggest that the hon. Gentleman may be able to go into this state of affairs with the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Supply, and, as has been suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland), that some form of "cannibalisation"—as they used to call it in the Army—might be brought into being to make use of many of these vehicles, some of which are in an exceedingly good state of repair.
  The other point I wanted to mention was that of tyres, which has already been brought forward. I do not know if it is a fact, but I have been told by several people that the depots at which war agricultural executive committees' spare parts and implements are kept hold, in quite considerable numbers, stocks of tyres. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to look into this and see that they do not hold too large stocks of tyres, but that they make them available for the ordinary farmer who really wants them. There is no point in keeping a five-year supply of tyres when they are wanted on the land right away.
  7.7 p.m.
  Major Wise: I am sure that in this Adjournment discussion there is a good deal of agreement between hon. Members opposite representing agricultural Divisions, and those of us on this side of the House who are in the same position. The absence of spare parts and machinery in agriculture during the last few months has been very acute. We have muddled through the harvest, we have rigged up all sorts of odds and ends to make do, but the fact remains that the time has come when the agricultural machinery of this country, while not worn out, is wearing out in many of our arable counties and has to be replaced. I know the difficulties of the Ministry. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary and myself have had many letters passing between us during the Recess on the wants of the Norfolk farmers. Norfolk is a great arable county, and many have been the requests received from the farmers of
  1128
  Norfolk for new parts, new machines and spare parts, but little has been forthcoming. I think I might quote one case in which the Ministry were unable to help us where, with that business acumen which is common to many Norfolk farmers, we were able to get the spare parts from America by air, and the machine T 6 international tractor, is now playing its part, I hope, in the wheat production which has now started.
  I had my own difficulties, and I bring a particular case to the notice of the Ministry because I, sitting on one of the Government benches, want this Ministry of Agriculture of ours to be 100 per cent. perfect and 100 per cent. helpful. In agriculture, as has been mentioned, the labour problem will arise and, unless we are very careful, we shall have a pretty queer time in the months ahead of us. So machinery will play a very important part indeed. In an effort of my own to help the fuel situation by burning wood, I ordered a Bamford saw bench three months ago. I am informed that there is a delay of 20 months before delivery. That is not good enough. I hope the Ministry will do everything in its power to expedite the machinery which agriculture requires. During the harvest I broke a very common part on the binder, but there was not another part in England, and it had to go to the village blacksmith to be welded. He made a good job of it, and we were able to run the McCormack during the harvest. Those are only two isolated cases, but I am certain they could be multiplied. On behalf of Norfolk farmers, who have been through six years' of arable cultivation to a great extent on land which possibly knocks out machines, I appeal to the Ministry to be up and doing and do what is required of it.
  It may seem strange that a speech such as I am making should be delivered from this bench, but it is important. I have the welfare of agriculture at heart. I can perhaps see far into the future when machinery will play an all important part in our industry. I wish to make one or two suggestions which perhaps have been made before. There is the question of standardisation of machines, and of spare parts. We are saddled by far too many different bolts and nuts and different parts. The Ministry may be able to do something in that direction in order to help us, so that our home manufacturers will have the good sense not to compete

  1129
  with one another for the trade they receive from spare parts sales, but to help one another so that the industry is not carried on in a haphazard, muddling way. I would like to see interchangeable parts which could be used on many machines.
  Another point I would like the Ministry to consider is this. There are many new British machines coming on to the market. I want the Ministry to give every possible encouragement to the British manufacturer to be able to turn out these machines in great quantities. A few weeks ago I was at a demonstration of a new potato picker, sorter and loader. It does three or four jobs in one. It is a machine which in the big areas of Norfolk and Lincolnshire, and in Scotland, may give very great help. It will save many men, and will do the job more quickly, though perhaps not in such an orderly fashion and so effectively. But, that is the type of machine we are expecting in agriculture in the future. I want the Ministry to encourage British manufacturers to play their part in delivering to agriculture the machines we want. I do not want the price of new machines to go rocketing higher and higher. It may be that the agricultural prices in regard to our products may go slightly backwards. At present farmers are called upon to pay very heavy costs on machinery, for repairs, and in tradesmen's bills. I want the Ministry to take a part in controlling the prices which we have to pay for new machines.
  The time has come to encourage the village craftsman. The village crafts have been dying out to some extent, but the handyman of the village, who can weld and repair a machine, is important. In the future we may have to rely on the village craftsman more than in the past. I hope this Debate will have served a good purpose. Next harvest is a long way off, but by that time I hope that the British farming industry will be able to have not only quantities of new machines at its disposal, but quantities of spare parts as well.
  7.17 p.m.
  Mr. Cole: This Debate is bound to do an enormous amount of good. There is scarcity not only here but in Ulster, where, as a rule, milk is very plentiful. I think it is time that the
  1130
  Minister of Agriculture stopped the slaughter of calves. The Irish Free State slaughtered an enormous number of calves some years ago. with the result that later their milk supply suffered very considerably. Today, unfortunately, the same kind of thing is going on; in fact a short time ago a veterinary surgeon went out and bought—
  Mr. Speaker: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but this evening we are not discussing agriculture—although it is in Order on the Adjournment, and therefore I have no power—but the shortage of spare parts and agricultural machinery. I do not think that calves have mechanical spare parts.
  Mr. Cole: I am sorry if I am out of Order. I will draw attention to our unfavourable plight during the last few years. If we could get driers in agricultural districts it would be very much appreciated. If the Government had subsidised driers and put them in each county according to its size, we could have saved a large quantity of oats and grass. If the grass had been dried, we would have got a large amount of food. That would have been most useful now that winter is approaching, when there will be a great scarcity of food. I turn to tractors. I know of cases of tractors in good order, but which, unfortunately, since tyre rationing has ended and tyres have become much scarcer, have no tyres, with the result that the tractors are absolutely useless. If these things were taken into consideration and looked after, especially the matter of tyres for the tractors, it would be a great service to the farmers.
  7.21 p.m.
  Mr. Walkden: You may have been inclined to wonder, Mr. Speaker, why a town dweller like myself, representing an industrial constituency, should have endeavoured to catch your eye half a dozen times this evening. When I heard that this subject was to be raised, I felt an interest in the matter, because of late one has been noticing so many complaints about the exportation of agricultural machinery. During the Recess we have been looking at these figures and wondering what on earth they meant, They must be of concern, not only to the people who represent agricultural constituencies, but to town

  1131
  dwellers as well. The figures presented to us, which undoubtedly encourage us to believe that our exports are doing well and are soaring month by month, must be a source of considerable pleasure. But as town dwellers, I was almost about to say hungry town dwellers—we depend on the products of the countryside just as they depend on our coal—we cannot feel encouraged if we are exporting agricultural machinery at the expense of the British agriculture. If our fanners cannot get the right kind of tractors and equipment, how can they produce the food?
  I am not quite sure about this. When the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White) first rose to mention this matter in the House, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture was not in his place, and I was hoping that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade was to reply. But when I had listened to the hon. Member for Canterbury, covering such a wide range of subjects, ranging from agricultural machinery to tomatoes and wicker baskets and other subjects affecting the whole industry, I realised that it was probably right that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture should reply Let us face facts. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman) is not in his place because he was inclined to suggest that Coventry had entered into a new experiment—mass producing tractors. I am sure he must have noticed a little experiment that has been going on at Dagenham for the last 20 years. There is John Brown's of Huddersfield, and also an excellent firm at Grantham.
  More recently, International Harvesters, who used to produce on the other side of the water, have, thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, when he was President of the Board of Trade, said to them, "If you are interested in our British market at all, you had better come over here and produce tractors"—
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: No, he did not.
  Mr. Walkden: He did. The Minister of Supply, the Minister of Agriculture and his Parliamentary Secretary and himself were the quartet who determined it. I
  1132
  believe they chose a town which could do the job. They chose Doncaster. We are hoping to see full employment. This factory should have been used to full capacity months ago. It was one of the first factories in Britain to be turned over, but it has taken about 15 months to turn out a single prototype. We are anxious about this, because we feel that the kind of information which has been given in this Debate should be answered by the Minister. We should sort out the real facts behind the statistics in the monthly digest. Do they mean that tractors which should be in Norfolk, or the West Country, or in any other part of Britain, available to our farmers, are being put on to ships and exported at the expense of the British farmer? I do not know. Do these figures mean only tractors or do they mean ploughs, harrows, or every type of agricultural equipment of which our own people are badly in need? I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to dissect these figures. I hope that he can.
  I would express this further hope: Just as we said to International Harvesters, "If you want to produce for British farmers, come to Britain and do it," we also have our ideas for abroad. Quite recently, I was privileged to be in Prague and saw there a huge fair of all kinds of industrial products. It was noticeable that there was a general shortage of our agricultural machinery on exhibition. There were not sufficient units to tell the Czechoslovakian farmers what Britain can do and what Britain can make. There has also been an exhibition or fair in Utrecht. I understand that we have received many good orders from Holland, and indeed Holland wishes to become a good customer of ours. But our factories are somehow not really producing, in the way we feel they ought to be producing, the kind of machinery which these different countries require urgently. I am sure the hon. Member for Canterbury does not object to our exploiting these markets and doing our best to convince and satisfy those customers who at the moment are undoubtedly willing buyers. But it would be most helpful if, in the presentation of these figures to us—and I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade could explain them in greater detail if he were here—we could be told precisely where we are falling short, where we are falling down.

  1133
  On the other hand, it would be distinctly encouraging if we could be told how much of one particular piece of equipment as against another is actually going out and the British farmer could feel satisfied that the Government's policy is not wrong. I believe that the policy of this Government in relation to farming and exports is better than Tory policy ever was over the last 40 years. We are providing an economic policy and programme of full employment. In our town we are grateful for the work which was done, including the work done by the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson), in bringing to us a new industry, but we want other industries to be working at full speed. We want them to turn out this machinery and we want our customers to be well satisfied. The hon. Member for Canterbury is right in saying that British agriculture must come first, but, the Government must see to it that we do not lose a single customer throughout the length and breadth of Europe.
  7.29 p.m.
  Mr. Oliver Poole: All of us who have the honour to represent agricultural constituencies are aware of the state of agricultural machinery, particularly in regard to spare parts. I hope that the opportunity given in this Debate tonight will reinforce the efforts of the Minister of Agriculture and the other Ministers responsible for producing these items. We have felt that all is not being done to ensure that the maximum flow of spare parts and vital equipment has come out of the factories of this country. Those points have been referred to, and I do not wish to repeat them, except to say that we in Shropshire are suffering from exactly the same difficulties as are other farmers all over the country. I realise that whatever action the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary take as a result of this Debate, however much this Debate may reinforce their efforts, it will be some time before these spare parts and the new equipment are available.
  Fanners will have to continue to improvise, and the question of the maintenance and repair of existing machinery will be of importance. I was very interested to hear the hon. and gallant Member for King's Lynn (Major Wise) refer to the way in which the Norfolk farmers had improvised during the harvest and how the village craftsmen had played their part. In my constituency exactly the same thing
  1134
  applies. To a very great extent repairs are done by small blacksmiths and garage proprietors throughout the district. Unfortunately the labour available consists of the very old or very young. In the case of young labour which is so urgently required, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he will do his utmost to ensure that men previously employed on repair and maintenance of agricultural machinery are returned from the Services as soon as possible and, where necessary, deferment is given to others. That is the only reason I intervened in this Debate. I have had occasion to write to the Ministry of Labour about cases supported by the war agricultural committees of three counties, and deferment has been refused because the man's registered trade was not one of the proper category. I can understand that. These boys and old men are doing very important work in keeping in order our agricultural machinery and improvising spare parts. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he will take that question up with the Ministry of Labour and assist us to ensure that there is a steady flow of labour for the purpose of the maintenance and repair of this machinery.
  7.32 p.m.
  Mr. Kenyon: I wish to put to the Minister a practical suggestion which should assist in some of the difficulties in which he finds himself. We must remember that the demand for agricultural machinery is only one demand from one industry. All other industries require new machinery, and agriculture will have to take its place in the sharing out of that which is available. We are facing the present difficult position to a certain extent because of lack of coordination between the agricultural machinery manufacturers in not standardising the machines which they produced. As everyone connected with agriculture knows, we can go on to a farm and find machines of all types. If they break down there is not a spare part to fit any of them. We need a larger measure of standardisation. If the manufacturers worked in closer cooperation, the result would be of great benefit to agriculture. We must recognise also that since the war the increase in the use of agricultural implements of all kinds has been tremendous. I believe we are the most highly mechanised agricultural community in the world.

  1135
  When we remember that all these machines have been working at full pressure for six years, we can understand why some of the breakages take place.
  I cannot see how the Minister can meet this situation at once and I would like to put to him one suggestion. In various parts of the country arable farming is being discontinued but the agricultural committees still have their depots stocked with agricultural machinery which they are ready to loan to farmers. In some areas 50 to 75 per cent. of this machinery is not used. That machinery should be transferred from these marginal land areas to the arable land areas and that, I think, would relieve some of the difficulties experienced by the arable farmers. In the grassland areas, the marginal or hill farm areas, a large number of farmers do not want to see arable machinery again. They want to carry on with their grass farming and they would be quite content with their ploughs and re-seeding machinery. Where there is a surplus of machinery, I hope the Minister will take steps to transfer it to the arable areas where it could be put to good use.
  7.34 p.m.
  Mr. Hurd: We are sorry that the Minister of Agriculture is not able to be in his place this evening. We felt that it was a good move when the Prime Minister put the Minister of Agriculture into the Cabinet. The problem which has been raised fully deserves the attention of a Cabinet Minister. I am a little doubtful whether the Ministry over which he presides fully realises the seriousness of this matter. I wonder whether the Ministry of Agriculture does not still preen itself on the fact that British agriculture is said to be the most highly mechanised agriculture in the world and, therefore, everything is all right and this talk about lack of suitable machinery and spare parts really cannot matter very much. I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White) about the overstressing of our export trade in machinery of this type. We are apt to forget that almost all the machinery on our farms is over age. Since the beginning of the war I have been able to buy only one new tractor for my farm. I have one tractor which is seven years old and another which I have had for nine years. Both of them should have
  1136
  been on the scrap heap a long time ago. Instead, they have to be patched up season after season. There is no wonder that the demand for spare parts is heavy.
  I think the Minister overlooks the point that the possession of this highly mechanised agriculture, which we needed so much during the war, avails us very little if too many of our machines are standing idle week after week because of the shortage of spare parts. In spite of what has been said by hon. Members opposite, it is my opinion that the hold up has become more serious during the last 18 months than at any time during the war. Perhaps that is partly because our machines are older, partly because of the cessation of Lend-Lease, which has made it much more difficult for us to get spare parts from America, and partly because of labour difficulties in the United States. The Minister has given repeated assurances in the House, but the hard fact remains that farmers cannot get prompt renewals when their machinery wears out. Binders, hay mowers and threshing machines have already been mentioned. To my mind, it is quite astounding that a farmer should be unable to get all the ploughshares he needs. Recently I wanted five dozen ploughshares and I was told that I could have nine and they would be of different types. That is a fantastic state of affairs. The Minister of Agriculture told us, as long ago as early summer, that we would have to maintain and even increase the tillage acreage. That seems to me a very simple proposition, and the Minister of Agriculture, with his power as a Cabinet Minister, should have been able to see that the necessary material was available to make these ploughshares in plenty of time for the autumn ploughing.
  All of us concerned in any way with agriculture want to maintain a good standard of wages. We know that wages are not the only thing, and that better housing and amenities are also vital, but we are all absolutely determined to do our utmost to maintain a good standard of wages in agriculture. The standard of wages depends, quite simply, on the output per man employed in agriculture—what each pair of hands is producing. At the moment, we are living in a fairyland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told me, in a written answer, that food subsidies are now running at £369 million a year.

  1137
  That is not going on for ever, and, one day, the Chancellor will want to balance the Budget. We in this country are going to be faced with the necessity of reducing our cost of production of food very considerably, and our costs, and the output per man, are largely governed by the amount of suitable machinery that is available. I hope that the Minister of Agriculture and his Cabinet colleagues realise that British agriculture has not got a very long time in which to adapt itself to full economic production, and that with every week and month that passes while the machinery is held up we are losing our place in a race which is going to be a pretty hard-run race before it is done.
  What can the Minister do? I imagine that his predecessor would have made sure exactly where this trouble arises. He would probably have called for reports from his war agricultural committees, who are his agents in the counties, and would probably have got together the chairmen of the machinery committees in the counties, because they are in touch with the work that is being done and are also in touch with the best farmers in the country. He would have got them together in London and said to them: "What is really the trouble? What are the kinds of machinery really wanted—how many binders, threshing machines and so on"? Having got himself very well informed at first-hand from sources upon which he could rely as to the nature of the trouble, he would have called together the agricultural machinery makers and said: "We are being held up in our food production campaign. What is your trouble?" Having got to know from them where the bottlenecks and hold-ups were occurring, he would have gone to his Cabinet colleagues and said: "We are going to be in a very queer street unless we get this put right, but a certain responsibility rests upon the President of the Board of Trade and a certain amount on the Minister of Supply." Wherever that responsibility does lie, it is the duty of the Minister of Agriculture to secure the information and then tackle his Cabinet colleagues. That is the only way in which we shall get the spare parts and have our machines working, instead of standing idle as they are today.
  7.45 p.m.
  Major Peter Roberts: I also represent an industrial
  1138
  constituency, and I was glad to hear the intervention of the hon. Member for Don-caster (Mr. Walkden). I have been going round my constituency talking to various people, including the housewives, and have thus gained information from the consumption side. On the other hand, I have certain first-hand knowledge of the production side, because I have a farm in Norfolk. I suggest to the Ministry that there must be given to the farmers some explanation of the Government's attitude to this question of spare parts. The farmers are told over and over again to grow more food, but they are getting more and more frustrated. Evidence has been given from all parts of the House and the country. I also have experienced, on my own farm, difficulties with a combine in which the shaker broke. We went up to London, only to find that there are no shakers in the country at all. There is another difficulty in connection with the supply of baling wire. I have two balers going, and found that it was quite impossible to get any more wire. That must be a question of planning. It must be known by the Minister of Agriculture how many balers there are in the country, and it must be very simple to work out how much wire they require. It would have been possible for the Government, if they had had a plan in this matter, to have foreseen this, instead of waiting until a very bad hay harvest was upon us.
  I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary two specific questions. What is the position about the American loan at the moment? Will he say what we are expecting to get in the way of spare parts from America, whether the hold-up is on the other side, and what arrangements have been made for delivery, in regard to the money from the American Loan? I also want to ask a question about the industrial area of Sheffield, where there are a number of factories which have been on war production. I suggest that the production of tanks with caterpillar wheels is something analogous to the machinery required for this work. Has the Minister approached the Minister of Supply to see if it is possible to obtain factory space for making some of these machines? It is generally recognised that we cannot in this country, with our present production, hope to meet all our mechanical requirements. We are very dependent on America. What plans have the Govern-

  1139
  ment developed to increase home production? I foresee in the future, with the withdrawal of German labour, that our only hope will lie in more mechanisation. Farmers in Norfolk, whom I meet, and in Lincolnshire think the Government have no plan for this problem. I suggest that tonight is the time when the Parliamentary Secretary should give us some idea of their plan, if the Government have one, on this topic.
  7.48 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Davies: There are three small points which I want to raise. I would like to draw the attention of the House, first, to the fact that we have been hearing the gentleman farmer talking, not the small, "dirty boot" farmer, who is most interested in this machinery question. There is need for cooperation between the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Transport in these days of mechanisation, for the single reason that it is absolutely vital, if the Government want to raise productivity per acre in-future, to increase the mileage of asphalt roads to arable land. We want more metalled roads in the country districts, because much of the wear and tear of agricultural machinery during this war has been due to the bad conditions of the roads in country districts. I myself have had to appeal to the Ministry of Transport to get roads put into a condition so that milk could be brought in without being lost and without the springs of the lorries being destroyed. In this period, when it is so difficult to get spare parts, it is most important to see that the wear and tear of equipment is reduced as much as possible.
  I have noticed that, in the Cotswold districts, the big farmers could take a great deal more care of their machinery, which I have seen left out in the open without any covering. Consequently, I believe that, whichever Ministry is responsible, they should consider it a matter of priority when a farmer asks for the materials for exterior sheds in which to cover up his machinery.
  Earl Winterton: The trouble is that, for some reason which nobody understands, and I shall get into trouble for saying this, no farmer in this country thinks of dragging his machinery under cover, whereas every Continental farmer does so.
  Mr. Davies: I am glad to see that the noble Lord agrees with me. It is a point to which we could give much more publicity and I fail to understand its neglect.
  There is one other small point which I would like to raise. I would like to re-emphasisè the necessity for the standardisation of parts. Some eight or ten months ago I put down a Question about the standardisation of parts for agricultural machinery. It seems that, unless there is standardisation, a farmer may be held up at a critical moment.
  Finally, in defence of the small farmer, the "dirty boot" farmer, who has to work very hard, I would point out that some method of cooperative ownership, of combine harvesters is necessary. This necessity was demonstrated to me when I was in the Cotswolds during the summer. One farmer told me that he was probably going to lose 800 acres of cereals during that period owing to the lack of such harvesters. If we were able to organise some kind of national system of cooperative ownership of combine harvesters, it would bring help to the struggling farmer who really needs it, especially when he is farming in a small way. I beg the Minister to bear these practical suggestions in mind when considering this difficult problem of agriculture during the transition period.
  7.52 p.m.
  Major Legge-Bourke: This has been an extremely interesting Debate. The thing which particularly interested me was the fact that two hon. Members, opposite decided to speak although they do not represent agricultural constituencies. I am very glad to see that the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden) is in his place. He raised the very important point that unless we are going to get the industrial areas to appreciate, to a far greater extent than ever before, the tie up between themselves and the rural areas, we axe not going' to make a sound proposition of our agriculture in this country. Of course, I cannot go quite the whole way with the hon. Member for Don-caster, because he criticised the party to which I have the privilege to belong for their policy. "I would ask him where the present Minister of Agriculture would have been had it not been for the Tory Party. I hope he will take that in the spirit of "fair exchange is no robbery."

  1141
  As for his general view about the part industrial areas have to play in the matter of agriculture, I am with him all the way.
  The hon. Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman) mentioned the matter of the production of machinery in his constituency. He referred to a new factory which was being sot up there. In view of the fact that he used the personal pronoun "we," I wonder whether, in the light of his article in "Picture Post" this week, he is proposing to add this factory to his Wallace Collection. I would suggest that there are already extremely efficient factories in this country, although I agree that there are also some which are not so good. I remember, not long before D Day, talking to an American who had been working as a big producer of motor cars and farm machinery in America. He told me that he had just been to a certain town, which I will not name, to look at a factory which was to produce tractors. He said, "If that is your idea of mass production, I do not think you are going to get very far. When I was there I found the men filing bits until they fitted. In America if the bit does not fit it is cast away to be melted down and we start again with another bit." That may be just one isolated instance, but if we are going in for mass production in this country I believe that we must go in for it in a far greater way than ever before—in the "Dagenham" rather than in the provincial town way.
  I hope it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to encourage mass production of British agricultural implements. At the same time, I am prepared to believe that some countries are better suited for manufacturing certain types of machinery than we are. As to the matter of exports, I am not at all satisfied that it is the most important one, and I am wondering whether or not we should try to buy outside the dollar and in the sterling area a little more, and whether or not we cannot get machinery from Australia to a greater extent than hitherto. I know some people have had such Australian machinery and I would like to see that policy pursued. I would also like to see a British Commonwealth tie up on the matter of agricultural machinery production. I believe that we are rather inclined to go to a country which has been
  1142
  well proven, in the production of such machinery.
  I cannot help feeling that the whole policy of this Government really boils down to too many swords—"save more bread" and too few ploughshares for agriculture. We must face up to this. We have to realise that whatever this Government are going to do, or are anxious to do about the labour problem on the land—they are certainly not doing it now—they must realise that machinery is going to be needed on a far greater scale than ever before. The hon. and gallant Member for King's Lynn (Major Wise), whose speech I much enjoyed, mentioned the matter of a certain potato reaper. I believe that had he come down to my constituency, which is next door to his own, he would have seen some rather remarkable demonstrations of machinery at Chatteris. Chatteris is now famed for a gentleman who is something of a fighter. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member would have agreed that Chatteris gave a knock-out performance in regard to agricultural machinery. It was a fine demonstration, but one could not help wondering how many of those machines existed and what difficulties the manufacturers had been through in order to get them to the show. It was agreed by all that it was the best exhibition of such machinery this year. The most encouraging part was that the machines were mostly of British manufacture.
  The hon. and gallant Member mentioned the fact that he wants the rural craftsmen to be encouraged a little more. I believe that we must give more attention to the smaller types of machinery because, in areas such as the Fens, there is an enormous number of smallholders and of people who own farms of, say, 35 acres, and so on. I think that in those areas there is just as great a demand for the smaller as for the larger machines. I cannot understand why the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) said he thought there was a case for State ownership of these big machines like combines. Surely, the agricultural executive committees have been carrying out that policy—
  Mr. Harold Davies: I did not use the expression "State ownership." I asked whether it was possible to get cooperative ownership. I do not think I mentioned the term "State ownership." I was not

  1143
  thinking in terms of the days to come when we shall have State ownership.
  Major Legge-Bourke: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I see his point, and I do not propose to argue the pros and cons of cooperative ownership. I agree that that type of machinery should be available to be shared. That brings me to one of my main points, concerning the method of application to be adopted in the future to get new machinery or spare parts. The time is rapidly approaching when this matter must receive thorough consideration. We must consider whether we are satisfied with the present situation and with the system whereby the small farmer applies to the war agricultural executive committee, and we must decide whether he gets quite the same priority as the larger farmer, because the small farmer does a big job of work. I appreciate there is a shortage of implements, and I know that our farmyards are rapidly becoming Heath Robinson outfits, but that is a matter which will get better in time.
  I was interested in what the hon. Member for Doncaster said about the Parliamentary Secretary being present to answer questions, instead of the President of the Board of Trade. Tractor ploughs have been mentioned this evening. On a former occasion when such a Question about tyres was put to the Minister of Agriculture, he transferred it to the Board of Trade. Yet when that subject is raised in Debate, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture is present. There must be greater drive in this matter of agricultural machinery. The time is coming when the agricultural executive committees must, to some extent, be divorced from the matter of priorities. Priorities should be a matter for the new advisory service which, I think, will be discussed next Tuesday. Every time a complaint about priorities—concerning tyres, for instance—is made to the Ministry, the Ministry refer it back to the executive committee. That takes time. Everything goes to the executive committee, but when it is a question of trying to get tyres, for some extraordinary reason the whole of the responsibility is passed back to the individual concerned. That does not seem to be a proper cohesive policy. One moment one has to go to the executive committee; the next moment one has to go to the manufacturer
  1144
  of the tyre, and another moment one has to go to the Ministry.
  There is far too much form filling for the farmer. The farmers are sick of it, and so are a great many people in the executive committees. Every piece of machinery involves more paper, whereas we want to get the machinery to the retailers and into the farmers' hands. The only way that can be done is for the Minister of Agriculture, for whom I have the greatest respect because I think he is doing his best, now that he is in the Cabinet, to say, "This cannot go on; the machinery which exists is rapidly wearing out, and a good deal of it should not be used at all." The only way this problem can be solved is by making more machinery for our own use, and let us tie up where we can with the Dominions before we start thinking so much about the United States.
  8.6 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. Collick): The House is indebted to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White) for initiating this interesting Debate; and we are also indebted to our friends across the Border who limited their own Debate and thus have allowed us the time for this one. I wish right away to come to what seemed to be two main points of criticism which the hon. Member for Canterbury raised and, if I may say so, raised in a very friendly spirit which I very much appreciate. The background for this complaint, which is mainly one of the shortages of spare parts, is quite understandable. Everyone familiar with the industry knows how heavy the demands have been on our agricultural industry during the war. Inevitably it follows, as hon. Members in all quarters of the House have pointed out, how short are the machines of essential spare parts. But it must also be admitted—it is certainly the case so far as the Ministry is concerned—that there has been no great complaint either in the House today or in the Department about shortage of spare parts for British made agricultural machinery; neither, for that matter, have there been many complaints about the shortage of spare parts for Canadian agriculture machinery.
  The main trouble, the main criticism and the main difficulty has arisen in the supply of spare parts for agricultural

  1145
  machinery made in the U.S.A. I wish to accept right away the justification for some of the criticisms that have been made on that point. However, we must appreciate, too, that there was no great supply of these spare parts in this country when the war ended. The supply of spare parts for American-made agricultural machinery was running down. Anybody who has been familiar with the events that have been taking place in the United States in past months, since the end of 1945—industrial difficulties and production difficulties of one kind and another, with which hon. Members on all side of the House must be familiar—knows they have added enormously to the difficulties of obtaining those spare parts which we so badly need from the States. I want to assure the House that everything possible the Ministry can do in order to ease that difficulty has been done. Personally, I am only too familiar with the problem, by Questions and by approaches from hon. Members in regard to difficulties that have been experienced in the country in this regard.
  We have endeavoured, first, to obtain larger deliveries from the United States, and second, to try to get supplies from other overseas sources, and to do everything we could by way of production of these essential spare parts in this country. There has been no difficulty whatever in this matter over any question of dollars. Let me at once remove that impression, which I think was rather behind some of the suggestions put by hon. Members. There has been absolutely no difficulty so far as the Government are concerned in providing the necessary dollars in the States for the importation of essential spare parts. The difficulties have been wholly those of obtaining the parts. Every mortal thing possible which the Government could do, by way of approaching the Ministry of Supply office in Washington and the agricultural attaches, and using every facility that was open to the Government by way of impressing on the firms concerned how difficult this position was becoming, has been done over the long period of months past. I can assure the House that not one of those firms—and spokesmen on either side of the House know perfectly well the main firms involved—has not been made very clearly aware of the concern which the Government have
  1146
  over the delay in supplying these spare parts. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Major Wise) instanced in one case some of the efforts which we made to try to meet certain points and representations that were made in that regard, I remember on one occasion a suggestion being made in the House that we might make sure from our foreign representatives to see if we might even get some of these vital spare parts from Sweden.
  Mr. Hurd: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Collick: I am glad to hear the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) say "Hear, hear." What was the result? We approached the agricultural attaché for Sweden; we endeavoured through his good offices to see if we could get something done in this matter. However, we found by and large that in certain regards Sweden was having her own difficulties in getting spare parts for some of the American machines, which we want so badly here. Although we did get a tiny amount of help, by and large we did not get any substantial help in this direction.
  Mr. Hurd: The information which I had from Sweden was that they developed the manufacture there of spare parts for American machinery. When I made the suggestion to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, I was saying that I hoped we might be able to come in on their manufacture of spare parts for American machinery; that is to say, to get some of the spare parts they are making in Sweden which we could not get from America.
  Mr. Collick: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept it from me when I say we have explored that matter very thoroughly in the hope of being able to do something in that regard. If that possibility was open to us, I assure the hon. Member we would have no hesitation whatever in taking advantage of it. Anybody who knows anything about industrial production knows that when one starts exploring the possibility of producing in this country machinery parts which are, at present, for example, American produced, all sorts of difficulties arise, on which I need not elaborate here. They must be familiar to anybody who has any sort of production experience. We have been trying to see if we could do something in this country by way of producing some of those more

  1147
  important spare parts. We have, in fact, accepted a suggestion which was made by an hon. Member in the course of the Debate this evening. We have encouraged machinery committees and the war agricultural committees to use their depots in any way they could by which they could be of assistance to the farming community, to tide us over this immediate difficulty. Let it be put on record to the credit of the war agricultural committees and some of those machinery officers, that they have been able to do a particularly good job of work in many cases, of which we have records.
  We have explored the possibilities, too and the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden) referred to it—of the new development of industry here for the production of agricultural machinery, about which I will have something to say in a moment. We have explored the possibilities, to see if, by utilising the new factories—that at Doncaster is one case in point—we could do something to try to replace the parts which are wanted so badly. One of the real difficulties—many hon. Members on either side of the House have referred to it—is the multiplicity of the parts. I understand, for example, that the International Harvesting Company alone has spare parts running to no fewer than 70,000.
  Mr. Walkden: Seventy thousand units.
  Mr. Collick: Seventy thousand varying spare parts. The number of spare parts which the International Harvesting Company are called upon to supply in various forms of machinery runs to no fewer than 70,000. So one can see the great difficulty there is in trying to meet all these demands, which are mainly for spare parts for this American machinery. That reminds me of a suggestion that has been thrown out about the desirability and the need for the simplification of spare parts. About that I would say that the Ministry has its own experimental station in this regard. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) is familiar with some of the remarkably good work being done. The facilities for research going on there are made available to the manufacturers of agricultural engineering in this country.
  Complaint was made, however, about what, I frankly admit, is rather a difficult
  1148
  question—this striking of a balance between the amount of our agricultural machinery which goes for export and the amount for our home use. I am not going to occupy the time of the House tonight in developing the argument of how vitally necessary it is for this country to develop its export trade. Anybody who knows the economic position of this country, anybody who is concerned to rectify the adverse balance of trade, must be conscious of the need for doing what can be done to develop this export industry, in particular in regard to agricultural machinery. But we have tried in this regard to keep the balance fairly evenly. Figures have been quoted in this House tonight. I want to refer to just one or two of them. For example, reference has been made to tractor plough supplies. For the three months of this year, January to March, 91 per cent., of the total production is for home use. In tractors of three wheels and four wheels 80 per cent. is the average for this period.
  May I say this to hon. Members who used this point about the amount of agricultural machinery going overseas? We ought not to forget that, quite apart from the general need to develop our export trade—and let us not overlook how important this will be to our own future agriculture—the more we can develop our own manufacture of agricultural machinery in this country, obviously, the cheaper the products may become. That is not unimportant, and it is not just good enough that hon. Members should take the point of view, "Let us hold everything here." That would mean waiting until the overseas market had been exploited by others, and we should find ourselves too late in that market. That has been the history of this country too often in the past, and what we are anxious to do in this matter is to try to put into the overseas, market that agricultural machinery, without doing any harm to our own home agricultural production. If I may say so, I think we have held the balance fairly evenly. Let this never be forgotten either, that no less than £3,000,000 value of machinery exports have gone to U.N.R.R.A. alone.
  Just as we in this country were only too appreciative of the assistance we received from overseas in our great days of difficulty, I do not think the feeling of the House would be against allowing exports to U.N.R.R.A., to rehabilitate

  1149
  some of our friends who stood by us in those dark and difficult days. I think we must approach this matter with all the responsibility which a question like this involves, and allow ourselves to be satisfied that we are doing the fair and the proper thing, in all the circumstances. My submission is that that is exactly what we have done.
  Let me now try to give the House an indication, at all events, of what is happening in regard to the increased rate of our home supply of agricultural machinery. In the first six months of this year the number of wheeled tractors going to the home market was no less than 32 per cent. greater than it was in the corresponding period of 1945. I could quote many figures which would bring home the point I am trying to make, that in this matter the allotment of agricultural machinery as between export and home users we have, I think, struck a balance fairly and evenly. One of the things we want to do, and I think hon. Members on all sides of the House will agree with this, is to do everything we can to build up the production of agricultural machinery in this country, and if we envisage a postwar agriculture worthy of this country, as this Government does, we must pay some attention to the building up of an agricultural machinery industry in this country itself. If the plans that we have in mind materialise, we ought next year to double the total value of our agricultural machinery production. If we do that, having regard to all the difficulties inherent in emerging from six years of war, I think it will be fairly good going.
  Now may I reply to one of two of the detailed points which hon. Members have put? The hon. and gallant Member for Ecclesall (Major P. Roberts) asked about parts for threshing machines, and I am advised that the factory from which they would normally come—again it is in the U.S.A.—has not been operating since Christmas. Therefore, in that matter again we can say that there is no blame to be laid at the door of this Government. Other hon. Members said that perhaps we might do more by exploring the possibility of getting spare parts from dumps of tractors, and the like. I have been as keen about that as anybody could possibly be, and we have managed to get several hundreds of Crawler tractors from
  1150
  that source, and have made them available to the industry. But there are plenty of people who go about the country and see some of these places who know very well that much of that material is not in very good condition these days. I do want to say. however, that as far as possible we have explored every possibility of utilising anything which is available there.
  A point was made by another hon. Member about whether we worked in the closest touch with the Ministry of Supply. Let me assure him we do. The Ministry of Supply are very well aware of the raw material we want made available for the agricultural machinery industry, and I am hoping that exchanges which have been going on in that direction will prove profitable in the period ahead.
  The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. O. Poole) raised the question of village craftsmen. Let me assure him that where cases are put to the Ministry of the lack of highly skilled blacksmiths and the like, there is no difficulty, provided the facts are warranted. We do have cases where the facts are clearly wrong, but where they are valid—and we utilise the services of the war agricultural committees in this connection—then we do all we possibly can to help.
  Mr. O. Poole: As the Parliamentary Secretary has been good enough to answer that point, will he also say whether the. Minister will support the deferment of young men from being called up?
  Mr. Collick: One cannot generalise on these matters, but if the hon. Member has any particular case and will make a submission, I promise to examine it and see whether it is possible to do anything for him. The hon. Member for Newbury raised the question about difficulties over ploughshares. That is a new question to me. Had he let us know at the time about there difficulties we should certainly have investigated them. I do not understand why there should be this difficulty but perhaps he will let me have further details, or details of any other difficulties in this regard, and I think it would be possible to find a remedy. Two hon. Members spoke of the difficulty of obtaining baling wire. There has been difficulty in getting baling wire, and we are very conscious of it. We have been in touch with the Ministry of Supply

  1151
  to try to remedy this, and we hope that we shall soon speedily overcome it. I think that I have dealt with most of the important points which have been raised. I promise that we shall carefully go through HANSARD, and if there is any helpful point which I have not dealt with, it will be carefully considered.
  Commander Maitland: Can the Parliamentary Secretary give us any hope about tyres? A great many hon. Members have mentioned the tremendous shortage of tyres. Have we any hopes in this direction fairly soon?
  Mr. Collick: It has been a question of readjusting the position of increasing supplies. I have every reason to hope that, as increased supplies become available, we shall have our share for agriculture. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that the limiting factor is solely the availability of supplies.
  8.28 p.m.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) who said he was sorry that the Minister was not present during 'this Debate, and I venture to reecho that. I am glad to see that his Parliamentary Private Secretary has been present, and I hope he and the Parliamentary Secretary will tell their chief all that has happened in this Debate. This Debate has gone on now for some 2½ hours, and it' is remarkable' that on all sides of the House, without exception, speeches from Members have contained nothing but criticism of the Ministry in regard to this vital matter. We are told on all sides of the importance of maintaining and increasing food production. The Minister of Food, in a speech made at Hastings the day before yesterday, said it would be impossible to abolish rationing in this country in respect of any commodity until world production of that particular commodity was raised to between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. above pre-war. The contribution which British agriculture can make to that problem is substantial, but it cannot be made unless we can get tools and machinery.
  The Parliamentary Secretary said, with complacency, that the production of wheeled, tractors this year was 32 per cent. greater than last year. That is
  1152
  nothing to boast about, nothing to be complacent about. What the House has to remember, and what every fanner knows, is that for the last six years we have not only been steadily increasing the number of wheeled tractors and crawlers, but that their life is very limited. It is not only a matter of providing tractors for the increased demand, but also of providing replacements. The estimate has been made that during the war we spent well over £100 million on new machinery for agriculture. Now, all that has to be replaced. The present Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary have been aware of this ever since they took office.
  In an endeavour to justify the present position, the Parliamentary Secretary said that few complaints had been received about the shortage of spare parts for English machinery. I dare say that is true, but according to my experience, and from the letters which I get, there are plenty of complaints about the shortage of parts for English machinery, although the chief complaint is the shortage of parts for the machinery we imported from the United States and Canada during the war. That is nothing new. We realised that before the end of the war. Before the Caretaker Government went out of office we were altering the whole emphasis of orders we placed in the United States and Canada from new machinery to spare parts. The Minister of Agriculture, on more than one occasion in the House, has explained that the Treasury have not been stingy in providing him with dollars for the purchase of such machinery, and that he had applied those dollars not so much for ordering new machinery as for spare parts.
  Now, the Parliamentary Secretary says, quite rightly, that the difficulty is not so much in obtaining dollars as the spare parts themselves, because of the increased demand in the United States from their own farmers, strikes, and all sorts of difficulties in their actual production. But that is nothing new. The strikes, difficulties, and bottlenecks did not occur in August or April of this year. We have known about them for months. I urged from this Box over a year ago that the Minister should take steps to see that the more common spare parts required for American machinery should be made in this country. Of course, difficulties have arisen, but I would remind Members

  1153
  opposite, in case they have forgotten, that at the Election they claimed that they would be the Government of all the talents, that they would be able to overcome all difficulties. Now they are coming along and saying that they are just ordinary individuals, like the rest of us. They cannot have it both ways.
  There is no conceivable reason why the Government should not have ordered spare parts, and have had them manufactured in adequate numbers. They cannot claim that they did not know what sort of spare parts would be required, because they made a census of all the agricultural machinery in the country, and every farmer who owned any agricultural machinery was compelled to send in a list of his machinery, and state the year in which it was bought. The Ministry had at their disposal a complete census of all the existing machinery in the ownership of farmers, and it should not have been beyond the wit of a really competent Minister and Parliamentary Secretary to get the necessary supplies. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Ministry of Supply were aware of their requirements. All that I can say is that he was singularly incompetent, if he will allow me to say so, in getting the Ministry of Supply to take action. That is the fundamental difficulty which we are up against. An hon. Member talked about a new tractor in mass production, which was something which had never been done before, and he was quite rightly answered by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden), who talked about the magnificent efforts at Dagenham.
  The real trouble is shortage of steel. That is the fundamental difficulty we are up against today. There is also no proper planning of the allocation of steel. First one Department gets priority and then another. The wretched Minister of Agriculture comes at the bottom of all priorities, and he has failed dismally to get the necessary supplies. I hope that the criticism on all sides of the House. which we have heard today, will do something to stir up the Minister of Agriculture to be a little more tough in his dealings with his colleagues, and that he will let them know that it is a vital necessity for extra food production that those engaged in agriculture get spare parts without further delay.

  BRITISH ADMINISTRATION, GERMANY
  8.37 p.m.
  Mr. Stokes: While not wishing to continue the Debate on agricultural implements and their spare parts, I cannot help but remark that I fully understand the irritation of farmers who find themselves without spares; but as a manufacturer, I am bound to say that it takes time to make these arrangements, and if I were asked whether I could normally expect a plentiful supply of spare parts for American machinery at this moment, I should say that of the responsibility for their production rested at the door of the Minister of Agriculture, I should ask who was the Minister of Agriculture two years ago. The right hon. Gentleman has himself to thank for some of the shortages. It is an astonishing thing that we have had two complaints of this sort today. Earlier, there was a complaint that the Secretary of State for Scotland was not present at a vitally important Debate, on which so many Tory Members wished to speak. Then it transpired that practically no one wanted to speak, and the whole thing collapsed about six o'clock.
  Sir William Darling: We wanted to give the hon. Member a chance.
  Mr. Stokes: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will continue to be as tolerant.
  I wish to raise an entirely different subject, and to apologise to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for the short notice; but ability to take advantage of these quick opportunities is the salvation of the back bencher. Under the ballot system, one might go a long time without an opportunity of raising a subject of importance. The subject which I wish to raise arises out of a Question on Monday addressed to the Minister by the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. MacKay) with regard to the proposal to concentrate the headquarters of both the British Army of the Rhine and the Military Government in Hamburg, known generally as the Hamburg project. I realise that as this is an Adjournment Debate, very wide issues on the Control Commission in Germany can be discussed. No doubt some of my hon. Friends will wish to widen the Debate, and to that nobody can object, but I wish to focus my remarks on this point, because it is one

  1155
  that is causing great concern in Germany and great discontent among, I will not say the big white chiefs, but among the British people who have to deal with the day-to-day affairs of the zone. It is, moreover, symptomatic of what has been going on as a result of inadequate political control at the head. I do not blame my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy for that; I merely think he ought to be in Germany.
  What is the Hamburg project? It is a proposition that a large building shall be put up in the middle of what is an almost completely devastated city, that it shall be put up at the expense of the German people—with which I do not argue—and that a total of 48 million marks shall be expended on the project. That big building is to be put up right in the centre of Hamburg, and in it, when it is completed, there are to be housed the headquarters of the British Army of the Rhine and the Military Government. I will state the case for and against having it there a little later, but the fact remains that this building, which is ultimately, when we clear out—Heaven knows when that will be—to become the property of the German people, will house some 2,300 people, whereas it has caused a great deal of distress to a very much greater number already.
  I was puzzled by the answer which the Chancellor of the Duchy gave the other day, because he said that the zonal executive offices of the Control Commission for Germany are at the moment dispersed in a number of separate small towns, and the implication in the answer to the Question is that those are now all to be concentrated in Hamburg; but the information which I have is quite the contrary—the zonal headquarters are now all to be concentrated in Berlin, which is another reason why this project should not be proceeded with. I was surprised when I came back the other day, because I had heard about the Hamburg Poona, to read, a few days afterwards, in the "Daily Herald," that the project had been suspended; but that now appears not to be the case. Those right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have been to Hamburg will know the appalling devastation there and the terrible state of distress of some 1,400,000 human beings. The preparations which have been made for the building of this enormous place have
  1156
  already caused the destruction of housing accommodation—I am not talking of dugouts—which was, I will not say unshaken, but at least above the surface of the ground, for 1,400 people. If my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, in the process of his rehousing project, had dispossessed and destroyed the housing accommodation of 1,400 people, his political career would have been ended for all time.
  Mr. Osborne: What a pity.
  Mr. Stokes: The hon. Member will live to regret that remark. He will find that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has made a tremendous success of the project on which he is engaged. I will not, however, discuss that now, but will leave it to the test of time. What is the second result of the Hamburg project? It has resulted in the concentration in the Hamburg area of all the available building operatives for the purpose of this construction, and also all the available materials in the British zone. While houses are badly needed, while people are crying out for houses in the Ruhr where coal cannot be got because there are not enough people to get it, and the housing accommodation is simply frightful, the whole of the building operatives and the building material? have been sent to Hamburg for the purpose of completing this structure. Beyond that, 30,000 people are to be turned out of already overcrowded houses for the purpose of making accommodation for what I call the British Raj.
  It is no use saying that it is not so; I have been there myself and have seen it I have walked at random into the houses and seen the conditions in which the people are living. I agree that there is a section of Hamburg, the residential quarter, where the well built houses still stand, but they are not occupied by industrial potentates any longer. It is rarely—and again I pick houses at random—that one does not find six or seven families, probably two in the basement and two on each floor, and, in order that the personnel manning the British headquarters of the Military Government shall have what is considered appropriate accommodation, 30,000 of these folk are to be turned out into accommodation which is already simply hopelessly overcrowded and inadequate.

  1157
  Of course, there have been promises that furniture is not to be confiscated and that the people are not to be turned out of their houses until at least equal alternative accommodation is available. But the evidence of everyone who has been there is that there is no equal alternative accommodation, and the evidence I have myself shows that furniture is in fact being confiscated. It is no use saying it is not. We had an example when I was there of one leading trade union leader having his furniture confiscated. It was only because of the intervention of one of the Military Government officers, who happened also to be a trade unionist in this country, that the furniture was restored to him. What do these people find who have been bombed to blazes—whether or not they deserved to be is quite outside this argument? They now find themselves dispossessed of the houses and limited accommodation they have and learn that the few things they have scraped together have to be left behind for the use of British people.
  It will, of course, be asked what alternatives we are prepared to offer. First of all, I doubt very much whether there is really the need for this ugly hurry to concentrate in Hamburg. I fully appreciate that it is possible to criticise and to say, as the Minister will no doubt say when he replies, that it is highly inefficient to have the staff dispersed as they are over the zone. But they have got along quite well for 18 months and it really would not hurt them to carry on for another year. I agree that it is inefficient, but in the state of things and the background which I will proceed to describe it is really unnecessary, I submit, to make this concentration in Hamburg at the present moment. If the Minister says it is absolutely necessary, why Hamburg? Why not Luneberg, which is not very far away and has, I am told by competent people, fairly adequate accommodation? One of the answers I was given when I raised that particular point was, "Oh, but if we go there so many people will have to live in barracks." Why should they not have to live in barracks? I can see no harm in that in the existing circumstances.
  I do not want to mention names in this matter, but the very capable gentleman to whom this refers will recognise himself from my quotation. When I said, "If you must commit this atrocity"—
  1158
  and I think it is an atrocity for reasons which I will state—"why choose this area where you have had to knock down houses belonging to 1,400 people? Why don't you go down the road? It is only half a mile away and there is nothing there at all." The answer I was given was, "We could not possibly go there because that is down in the slums." But we do not propose to allow the building of slums any more in Germany; that is one of the things the war was about. It just shows the hopeless mentality of some of the people on the spot who are responsible for taking decisions. I ask the House just to consider the background of all this. Here we have, projected into the minds of 1,400 people in Hamburg, and many millions more who live in the zone and who are aching to have something done about their housing accommodation and conditions of livelihood, the fact that in the middle of a ruined city which is 68 per cent. destroyed, this apparent British palace is to be built. The industry of the town is completely destroyed; they have been subjected to what I call a series of big bangs. I would only mention the Blohm and Voss idiocy as one example, but there have been others. Last year they had no coal at all, and they kept themselves warm and the pipes unfrozen only by collecting timber from the rubble. A few days ago the theory was that they were not going to have any coal this winter, but things are better now, and I give my hon. Friend credit for making arrangements which will allow them to have a limited amount.
  The food situation is bad, even at its best. I know that we have improved the rations, but if we examine the figures we find that the ordinary general labourer, with a wife and two children, has not sufficient money left, when he has paid his taxes, even to buy the limited rations which are allocated to him. That is true, as anybody can find out who takes the trouble. It is admitted by our people in Germany, and they have made reports on the matter to responsible quarters. While it may be some satisfaction to know that what was hitherto 1,100 calories, about the Belsen level, is being increased to 1,500 calories, which is what we call the slow starvation level, it is still true that the general worker with a wife and two children will not be able to pay for those additional rations, because of a system of taxation which is antiquated

  1159
  and useless. The ordinary worker cannot afford, with the balance of income which is left to him, to pay for his necessary weekly budget.
  When I come to industrial matters, let me say that I have not met one responsible person in industry understanding ordinary industrial economy who thinks that the industrial conditions of the Potsdam Declaration are any use. I have not found anybody who thinks that the decision of 28th March last year is anything but completely phoney, including the author, and when I went to Germany the first time he shook me warmly by the hand and congratulated me upon my letter to "The Times." "But," I said, "this is a criticism of you." He replied, "I know, but I entirely agree with what you said." Yet, for some extraordinary reason we are still imposing upon these people an industrial level which we know ourselves, and which is admitted by responsible people, to be completely disastrous, holding out no hope of any kind.
  Another thing which I would mention is that this requisitioning causes much distress. It is no use the Minister saying, when he replies, that these houses are being requisitioned only in exchange for alternative, equal accommodation, because there is no alternative and equal accommodation to be found. It is no use telling me that when the people come back from the zone and are safely planted in Hamburg, there will be a corresponding let up in the zone. The people in Hamburg cannot go and live in the zone. It might be all very well on paper, but in practice it does not work out. I hope the Minister will issue instructions that requisitioning of furniture and houses must stop. Are we to see, in the midst of this devastation and in a state of things where men and women have not enough money to buy food for their families, have nowhere to live but holes in the ground, and nothing in the shape of a prospect of industrial development, what? A great big gin palace in the middle of Hamburg? For what? For what I call the Hamburg Poona, for the British Raj? Is this to be done when everybody is suffering from cold and hunger, and is it to be surrounded with soldiers carrying fixed bayonets and marching up and down outside? Is that the way to treat a population who should regard us as
  1160
  liberators and not as conquerors? We went there to liberate them from a beastly disease and now that we have done it we are behaving in exactly the same way as the beast did. This is precisely the sort of thing that the Nazis did. That is what the Germans are saying to themselves now. They say, "What is the difference? Here we are down and out and trodden on, beaten and hopeless, and there is this insult to man's intelligence being heaped upon us at this evil moment when we have no hope at all in front of us."
  I will conclude by saying I hope that the Minister will take thought. I hope that the other hon. Members in the House tonight will at least support in some degree what I have said. I do not see how we can get the collaboration of these people if we behave in this kind of manner. I do not believe there is a real necessity for it. The grandest gesture would be to say, "This scheme shall go up, but the moment it is finished you shall have it. There is decent habitation there for at least a few hundred of you." Such a policy would give some hope.
  8.56 p.m.
  Mr. A. Edward Davies: I welcome this opportunity to say a few words on a subject which is very close to the heart of many people in this country at the present time. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), with all of whose remarks we must agree in point of detail, has done the House a service in using this opportunity for the consideration of a matter which is constantly cropping up in the newspapers, and particularly in the correspondence columns, not only of "The Times" but of other newspapers—reliable papers like the "Manchester Guardian" and the "Daily Herald." Ordinary men and women in the country are coming to wonder what is the actual position in Germany. It was my privilege a few weeks ago to accompany some of my colleagues on a Parliamentary delegation. I do not claim that from that short visit it was possible to extract a great deal of all the reliable facts which are at the disposal of the Minister and the officials. I do not want, in bringing this subject to the notice of my colleagues tonight, to view it from any ultra-sentimental angle, but to look at it as a matter of public interest on humanitarian grounds purely and simply, because I think there is a great deal of

  1161
  misunderstanding about what is meant by the "Hamburg Project," for example, to which my hon. Friend has already referred.
  I hope the Minister in his statement tonight will make clear to this House and the country what is involved in this scheme. Is it a scheme which merely concerns the military personnel—the centralisation of military government—or does it involve the civil government? Will he tell us what is going to be the effect upon this project when the fusion about which we have heard so much recently materialises in a more practical form? It seems to some of us rather premature that these principles- should have been worked out in such detail. My hon. Friend says that it is proposed to put in some 30,000 people—
  Mr. Stokes: I did not say put in 30,000 people. If that were so, I should be quite happy. It is taking out 30,000 and putting in about 3,000.
  Mr. Davies: I am grateful for the correction. It is to displace 30,000 people and to put in a much smaller number. Five thousand has been mentioned—
  Mr. Stokes: Less.
  Mr. Davies: —as the incoming population for the purpose of administration. We saw from a remarkable letter in ''The Times" the other day from people who do not belong to the Labour Party that as many as 20 people are being asked to leave their rooms to make accommodation for an officer and his wife. We know that if men and women who are already overcrowded in what was a great city are going to be asked to move their goods and chattels to make possible such a setup, it is going to create a very bad taste in the mouths of the people on the spot.
  I had the opportunity of seeing some of the conditions to which I propose to make reference when I was in Hamburg a few weeks ago. We saw people living in all sorts of unsatisfactory conditions. Some were living in cellars. Much good work had been done to adapt the upper storeys, the attics, and many people were living in a small space there.
  I know that this job is most difficult and that it is easy to criticise. My endeavour tonight is not to criticise anybody in any personal way. I recognise that however well the job may be done, there
  1162
  are inherent in this situation great difficulties deriving, in my view, from some mistakes in the Potsdam Agreement—what has been done with some of the shipyards, the way in which the coal situation has worked out, the shortage of steel, the world shortage of food. All these things are having repercussions upon the sorry state of things in Hamburg. My information is that there is a high rate of infantile mortality there, that tuberculosis is at a very high level.
  I am sure that as good Socialists and as good Britishers we would not wish to pile on the agony, having defeated the enemy on the field of battle. It goes very badly against the grain of British people to be in any sense vindictive. While we believe that they have asked for many of those things which have come to them—and, my goodness, they did come to them, as we can see from some of these erstwhile great German cities—my view is that now we should do everything we can to set the nation upon its feet once again, so that it can take its fair place in the comity of nations in a sane and proper manner. I want us to have such a basis of economy, so to plan the housing, so to share the potential foodstuffs of the world, that we shall create an atmosphere in which we may expect a different state of affairs to eventuate in the years ahead.
  So I hope the Minister tonight will tell us exactly what is involved in the Hamburg project. He said on Monday in reply to a Question of mine, that my suggestion that some 30,000 people were not to be asked to change their homes, or to evacuate in some way to make room for some 5,000 people, was inaccurate. Will he tell us what actually is the position? He went on to say further that it was not expected that this scheme in any case would materialise until late 1947 and possibly the spring of 1948, or maybe the summer of that year. We ask the reasonable question, How can we project our minds to such a date as 1948 in view of the impending and the constantly changing position in Germany? We hope that Germany will be a united nation where the Russian, French, British and American zones may work together, and I should have thought that that would have had the ultimate result at not too distant a date of rendering possible a very material reduction in the number of people we

  1163
  have there. So we may not have to think in terms of 30,000 people or of 5,000 people or of moving 30,000 people to provide accommodation for 5,000. I should have thought that in such matters as transport, in such matters as local government, in such matters as running the economic life of the nation, in most of these jobs of administration the Germans could have very well done these things for themselves.
  A point which is made today is that there is too much duality of Government. That is what I think the Germans themselves are saying and some observers are also saying it: that we are getting down to too much detailed work ourselves. If that is a fact, it is a totally erroneous approach. We might well act on the advice given by the Estimates Committee earlier in the year, when they said that in their view there was too great a number of people already in the Commission in Germany, and that at the earliest opportunity there should be a reduction. I understood the Government were sympathetic to that view, and I want the Minister to give an indication of what that may mean in terms of numbers and accommodation. I am satisfied from my own observations that this thing needs to be very carefully examined before we commit ourselves.
  I do not raise this matter on any sentimental grounds, or because I have any special love for the Germans, but because I saw for myself conditions on the spot which filled me with grave anxiety. I was told that some 28,000 to 40,000 people were living in totally unsatisfactory conditions and that some 2,000 people had no homes at all. They were roaming about the place while others were living in air raid shelters and bunkers. Hamburg used to be a great commercial city, and some of those affected are folk who were not our worst enemies. But we are alienating some of our well wishers who would work with us. If that is the case, it is most regrettable.
  9.8 p.m.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: I am sure the House owes a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) for raising this important subject. He dealt very fully with the Hamburg project and has also touched on other features of our occupation in Germany. I feel there is no problem, except possibly
  1164
  that of foreign intervention in China, which is of greater importance today than this question of Germany. It is important for three reasons. The first is because Germany is the keystone of the economic and political life of Europe, and without that keystone our ancient European civilisation can never be built up. Secondly, it is important because of the enormous cost to the British taxpayer, which he can very little afford to bear. He will find after a while that he is put into the position of a man mentioned by Jefferson who was holding the ears of a wolf which he was neither able to hang on to nor willing to let go. In other words, we are in a very awkward and dangerous position.
  Thirdly, it is important because it is one of the few places in which the four Great Powers are meeting and trying to govern, so that it is, as it were, an experiment in a mutual undertaking between the four Powers. If they are not successful in Germany, how can we hope for them to be successful anywhere else? The world is naturally looking to this experiment with very great interest and concern. At the moment it is no use deceiving ourselves by thinking that the public are otherwise than disturbed at the tales which are coming from Germany. We, as Members of Parliament, get letters from officials in Germany, from Germans and from other persons, who all tell us tales which fill us with concern. I have no doubt that to some extent they are exaggerated, but there is a basis and foundation of truth which we must investigate.
  So far as I can see, there are two grounds of complaint. The first is that there is a lack of a general clear cut policy for Germany, and the second is that there are certain administrative weaknesses. I believe that the British Government are not to blame for the lack of a general clear cut policy. I believe that they have done their best, both before the Potsdam Agreement was arrived at, and afterwards, to persuade the Powers to come to a sensible agreement with regard to Germany. In the planning stages which took place in 1944, it was always assumed that Ministries would be set up in Germany, through which and by means of which orders could go down to the four zones. It was never contemplated, for instance, that the four Allied Powers would try to govern without central Ministries located in Berlin. I believe that it has been our policy all through

  1165
  that those Ministries should be set up, so that we cannot blame the Government for that. We must look further afield for blame. I feel that Russia must accept the blame for much that is happening in Germany today in the chaos, political and economic, there.
  For the administrative weaknesses, however, I believe that we can levy a good deal of criticism at the Government. I am not saying that any of us could have done any better, but they have the duty and we are onlookers. Therefore, it is our responsibility and duty to our constituents to see that such help as we can give them is freely and fully given. I hope that we shall have from the Chancellor of the Duchy tonight some statement as to the effect of the proposed fusion between the British zone and the United States zone, first of all, whether it is to mean any reduction in the expense of the zone to the British taxpayer, and secondly, what effect the fusion is to have on our political and economic policy in Germany.
  As I understand it, we had hoped and intended to support the Social Democrats in our zone, and also to nationalise and socialise as many industries as we possibly could. In fact, I fail to see how anyone can put the industries of the Ruhr on their feet without a large measure of nationalisation. We found it most desirable, and in fact essential, to do it in this country. It is far more essential to do it in that desolated country in which the Ruhr is a great industrial centre. But I do not see how we can nationalise half a railway or half a colliery company. Therefore, if the Americans, are prepared, in their zone, to encourage monopoly capitalism, as we presume they must be, what is to be the effect on our plans for Socialism and nationalisation in our zone? The two cannot marry. We have seen all sorts of curious marriages in our time, both political and natural ones. This I suggest, is an absolute impossibility. The two things cannot possibly be rationalised.
  Therefore, it is most important for the future of Germany that we should have an understanding from the Chancellor tonight as to how he proposes that those two factors can be accomplished. When the Foreign Secretary is in New York, I hope he will make a determined effort to effect an agreement amongst the "Big Four" for a united Germany on a federal basis. I believe a federal basis should be one in which the States have the reserve
  1166
  of power and the central Government have those powers which are assigned to them by the States; but I am not going to quibble about the exact details so long as there is a federal form of government in Germany with State representatives of the central Government controlling those organisations such as economics and transport which affect the life of the people. If it is found to be impracticable at this time to get the other nations concerned to agree to this political and economic federation of Germany, I hope at least the Foreign Secretary will be able to persuade the representatives of the other nations to set up German ministries in Berlin which can control German life from an administrative point of view. I hope that we shall have that satisfaction when the Foreign Secretary returns from America.
  With regard to administrative weaknesses, I think one cause of these weaknesses is the fact that the Chancellor has not seen fit to go in for quality rather than quantity in the servants that he has in Germany. For the last eight months we have pressed him on numerous occasions in this House to appoint a long term Civil Service in place of the short time, spasmodic, and uncertain service which he has today. He really cannot expect men of eminence in any profession to go to Germany when they may have notice at any time and be turned out of their employment. Until that is remedied, we are just playing with this question of administering Germany. Then, there is a definite lack of grip in the political sense. I think hon. Members opposite suggested a Minister of State resident in Berlin. I am not inclined to favour that. I suggest that the Chancellor should have assistance and that the Government should appoint either a Parliamentary Secretary or a Vice-Chancellor, or whatever they like to call him, to assist him. The spectacle of the unfortunate Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster controlling 23 million people who are mostly in most unfortunate, unhappy circumstances, without any help whatsoever in the Parliamentary sense, is ludicrous and is again merely trifling with the problem. It is quite time the Government made up their minds to appoint a Parliamentary Secretary so that one of them can pay frequent visits to Germany whilst the other remains here to deal with Parliamentary matters.

  1167
  I think that one of my hon. Friends, who is much better able to do so, will deal with the economic situation. However, I would like to say a few words on the question of coal in the Ruhr. It is obvious that in order to get the economic life of Germany on to a proper footing we must have more coal from the mines in the Ruhr. If we get more coal from the Ruhr we will run into a lot of trouble with the French. The French do not understand why even now they are not getting far more coal from the Ruhr. I was in Paris recently and I discussed this subject with a number of prominent politicians and trade union leaders. None of them had ever heard the reasons why coal could not go to France in large quantities There seems to have been a breakdown in our publicity services in Paris. I suggest that the Government should take this matter in hand and, by newsletter or by this paper which I understand they are starting, they should publish widely the reasons for the lack of coal for France from the Ruhr. Otherwise, they will find that, whilst setting up industry in Germany and getting it on its feet again, they are imperilling our good relations with the Western European countries.
  Finally, I would request the Government to take the lead, both in regard to Germany and the Continent generally, in encouraging the Social Democrats wherever they may be found. Very little has been done in this respect, as we know. After the General Election of July, 1945, there was a general feeling throughout Europe in the Social Democratic ranks that here, at last, was the great friend to whom they could look. Today, I think no one will deny that many of the Social Democrats and the Socialists in Europe are discouraged. I know very well, and I appreciate, the great difficulties of the Foreign Secretary. I know what trouble he has had and what an awkward situation he has had to meet, but I ask him now to give a definite lead from this country to those movements in Europe on which we can rely for help in the future when we might need it, and which now need the help that only we can give.
  9.21 p.m.
  Major Bramall: I do not wish to deal in any detail with the Hamburg project which the hon. Member for
  1168
  Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) introduced as the first subject in the Debate on this question, because he dealt with it so extremely comprehensively. I would merely like to say that I endorse very heartily all that the hon. Member said on that subject, though not all that he said on every subject which he touched upon. One sees quite easily how inconvenient it is at the present time to have the headquarters of the Control Commission, the headquarters of the Army and of other Services in Germany scattered throughout a number of small towns in Westphalia, but to say that it is inconvenient is to put it at its highest. It is no more than that. If we had in Germany a country with its housing even in the comparatively healthy state that we have in this country, it would perhaps be an excellent project to say that we would destroy a certain amount of housing accommodation and set up a single unified headquarters, but we must remember that, while this new headquarters is being built in Hamburg, all the accommodation in all those small towns in Westphalia is occupied, the people who have been turned out of their houses to make way for these headquarters number tens of thousands, and that that housing accommodation which is still being occupied will still be occupied in 1948. It is in that light that we must look at the problem.
  When we had an opportunity, before the Recess, of discussing the problem of Germany, I was fortunate enough to be able to make certain observations about the manner in which, in my estimation, we were failing in what I regard as our one single job in Germany—to build up a democracy and make it possible for Germany once more to take her place as a healthy member of international society. I made the point then that I thought our attitude towards Germany was wrong, and that the political liberty and knowledge of the people did not even come up to the policy which the Government had laid down. The policy was not realised and was not carried out. I think that, since that time, there have been numerous improvements in Germany in respect of administration and the carrying out of something like a political policy, but I am very much afraid that these political and administrative reforms have been very largely nullified because the economic situation has immeasurably deteriorated

  1169
  since we last debated this subject two and a half months ago.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a recent speech, drew attention once more to the fact that we, the victims, are virtually in the position of paying reparations to the vanquished in this war, and he made it clear that, far from this tendency to pay reparations diminishing, we were in serious danger of having to increase these payments. He in no way exaggerated the situation. If it were necessary for us to spend this money in order to carry out our object of turning Germany into a decent democratic country, I should not grudge it. But, far from that being the case, we are spending this money and yet the situation in respect to the fulfilment of our goal is daily becoming worse. If it were inevitable that we should spend this money and yet get so little return, then we ought not to begrudge it. But again, I say it is not inevitable.
  What is the background of this payment of reparations by the victor to the vanquished? It is that, even after the enormous assaults by bombing and other forms of warfare on Germany, we have still a vast industrial potential in that country. We know that in the past that industrial potential has been used for war, but, after all, we have the Armies of four Allied victor nations on the soil of Germany and if they cannot see that any further industrial potential is used for peace and not for war purposes then they are very much less efficient than I give them credit for being.
  We have that vast potential and, at the same time, in practically every other country in the world, with the exception of the United States of America, there is a state of want for every form of commodity almost unparalleled in the world's history. At the present moment this vast industrial potential is not just standing still; it is steadily rotting. That is the truth of the position with regard to the economic life of Germany. Because we are not using it, it is not just standing still. If things could remain as they are, and if we could stop the clock for a couple of years until we had worked out our policy and decided what to do with German industry and economic life, we might, perhaps, be content to let this matter rest. But that is not the position; the machines in those factories are steadily
  1170
  rotting, becoming inefficient and getting nearer to being useless altogether.
  The key to the situation is, of course, coal. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams) referred to the need of getting our Western Allies to see the position that if we get more coal from the Ruhr, as we hope we shall, we cannot just step up the exports from the Ruhr. We must, by every means in our power, try to bring our Western Allies to regard the coal we are getting at the moment as an investment in German industry. What use are we making of Germany today? We are getting from Germany two things—coal and timber. In my view, that is the height of folly. We are getting from Germany the two raw materials without which it is absolutely impossible to do anything with the rest of Germany. Because we are taking that coal, a vast amount of German industry must remain idle. It is incredible to anyone who has seen the devastation of housing, and who has read about the situation in Germany after the bombing, to realise how much of its industry still stands today. We have that vast industry just going from bad to worse.
  Mr. Stokes: May I interrupt my hon. and gallant Friend to ask him to make it clear to the House that we are not taking any of this coal; it is some of the other Allies who are doing it? No coal is coming from Germany to England.
  Major Bramall: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interruption. When I said that we were taking the coal, I did so in the sense that this was the country which has control of the coalmines and that we are, therefore, responsible for sending out the coal. At the same time, it is true that we are not the beneficiaries in any sense.
  I was privileged the other day to hear a person who had been a leading and distinguished man of the Government service in Germany talking about the German economic situation. He said that if in August we had had the courage to make this investment of coal in German industry, we might perhaps have done it by a moratorium of three months on the export of coal. I am not an expert on the subject, but I believe that today nothing less than a year of such a moratorium would be

  1171
  reasonable, not to enable German industry to attain anything like her former industrial power or to be in a position to make war with her industry, but to attain a reasonable level. I do not say that such a moratorium would enable Germany to attain the Potsdam level of industry. Hon. Members have quite rightly criticised the level of industry that was laid down in the Potsdam declaration; but the level of industry in the Potsdam declaration is not practical politics today. It is not worth discussing because we cannot come within shouting distance of attaining that level of industry today.
  Let us think of something more immediate. Let us think of attaining a level of industry where we can keep the machines in such a state that they will be machines and not become a mass of rusting scrap. More important, let us think of attaining a level of industry where we can keep the workers who will work those machines as workers and not also as rotting masses of scrap. That is the human position in Germany today. We have there a country on poor relief. I am not sufficiently familiar with the mind of the German people, but I believe that if given the chance, they are willing to work their passage home. The only prosperous industry in Germany today is that of working for the Military Government. That is one of the most important industries in the country. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the black market."] The black market is another important industry, and there is the industry of producing coal for export. We know, and the Germans know too, that they have to work to rebuild other countries, but they cannot rebuild other countries if their own country is steadily becoming less efficient from both the mechanical and the human point of view. Therefore, I appeal to the Government to reconsider this question of coal export, and see whether we and our Western Allies cannot have a moratorium for a limited period and treat this coal as an investment to enable us to put a limited amount of German industry upon its feet. I am not, of course, asking for a cessation of exports. I think if we had such a moratorium we would see a miraculous increase in coal production, because the German miners would feel that they were doing something for their own country, and we know to our own
  1172
  cost how strong an emotion is patriotism in Germany.
  If we could bring this industry once again to something like a reasonable state of health, could we not go a step further and use this industry to meet some of the frightful shortages in the world and, perhaps, to meet some of our own shortages? There has been a lot of criticism of the Russian policy in Germany, and with most of it I am in agreement, but one thing for which we should not blame them is the fact that they have used German industry to meet some of the shortages from which they are suffering in Russia. It seems to me to be the most elementary common sense. It may be galling for a German worker—and personally I do not mind particularly whether it is—to have to work for his conquerors rather than for his own countrymen, but it is far more galling and, incidentally, it is hopeless nonsense, not to work for anybody, and that is the position today. Let us make other forms of investments. It has been suggested that the Americans are going to do so. Why should we be behindhand in our policy? Why should we not make an investment in raw materials? All the use we are making of Germany today is to take raw materials out. Let us put some raw materials in. Many of our shortages in this country are caused by an absence of manpower and by our inability to convert various industries from war to peace. Perhaps we could find in Germany just the complement we need. If we could not, there are many stricken countries in Europe which could.
  Therefore, surely every possible call of economy, every possible call of our own national self-interest, and every possible call of internationalism and humanitarian-ism, from whatever standpoint it is regarded, seem to demand that we should take the commonsense viewpoint and make this investment in Germany so that we can make Germany useful to herself, to give her a chance of working her passage back into the comity of nations—and, incidentally, show that democracy is not just something which is the equivalent of starvation, but that it can work and bring them back into the comity of nations, at the same time doing ourselves a good turn.
  9.36 p.m.
  Mr. Grossman: When I was listening to this discussion of the

  1173
  Hamburg project, I could not help remembering a conversation I had with a German anti-Fascist who had just been thrown out of his house in Frankfurt when they were forming what the Frankfurt people call the "K.Z. Amerika," the American concentration camp. That was the "American Poona" in the middle of Frankfurt. I wonder whether it is wise for us in this respect to follow the American example in Hamburg. We are not discussing merely a question of housing or rehousing the Germans. We are discussing a symbol of our occupation. I entirely agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bexley (Major Bramall), that we want to concentrate our Government in Germany as far as possible, and to avoid any inconvenience. What I am concerned with is the method we are using for giving houses to our people and the sort of social life we expect our people to have. In Frankfurt the Americans expect the Americans to live only with Americans, that they should live with barbed wire around them, cut off from the Germans outside. I wonder whether that is the right way to give our people a feeling of their task in Germany?
  It has been suggested—and I believe it is practised in certain parts of the French zone—that we might let the Germans keep one room in their house and give the rest to a British officer and his family. Other people have told me that can only produce the wrong relationship between the British and the Germans. Is it really considered that we should treat the Germans as we have treated Indians in the past, as a Colonial people? Is that the relationship we want to engender? If we do not, is not the Hamburg project wrong from the start as a symbol of our Government? I cannot help feeling that many hon. Members of this House, and many of the general public, are still suffering from the propaganda of the war. They move from "Vansittartism" to something which is equally wrong at the moment, an attitude of treating Germans as a potential Colonial people. I sometimes wonder whether some hon. Members do not regard them as potential native troops for fighting some one or other. If we are giving that impression we are not making a unification of Germany possible. I suggest that we must gain the respect of the Germans. We will not do that if we behave as a new Hitler, if we
  1174
  behave as though we were a different sort of people with different standards of living between upper and lower classes of people.
  I believe we should demand that those who go to Germany should not only be induced to go there for the highly comfortable life which is offered. Whatever life is going to be offered, I do not believe anyone who goes there because he thinks he has a soft job, or because he thinks he will get a house to himself rather than a house with a German in one room, will be the better for that. I think if it is true that people will not take jobs on the Control Commission without having completely separate houses, and completely separate compounds surrounded by barbed wire, it is much better they should not be there. If we are to offer that sort of inducement we shall get the wrong sort of official I do not think anyone wants to get that sort of official. We have heard about the shortage of staff. The trouble is not shortage of staff in Germany. We have plenty of staff in Germany. The trouble is shortage of policy, and shortage of quality in the staff.
  I would like to make one suggestion. It was my impression in Germany that where we have substituted civilian for military Government on the whole we have done worse than before. What has really impressed me, looking back—and I was very critical of the soldiers there—was what an amazing job they did with so very little. They did not live in separate houses. They settled down quickly in the emergency, and did an astonishing job under emergency conditions. I wonder why it is that there is this general German impression that the new Control Commission in replacing the Military Government has not always the same qualities of integrity and soldierliness that the soldiers possessed. The soldiers had integrity which, I feel, some of these carpet-baggers—to be perfectly crude—are lacking. Some people are going there because they feel that that is the place where they can earn more money than they can at home, and where it is easier to get a comfortable, high, senior job. One of the most urgent things to do is not merely to cut down the staff, but to give a different type of incentive to the people being recruited, so that they should not be recruited by bribes of comfort, but with a vocation for the job

  1175
  and for the discomfort they are likely to suffer.
  There is one other suggestion on recruitment I should like to make. I wonder if we could not do more if men were recruited for permanent service in the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Fuel and Power, and if men in the civilian Ministries were seconded to Germany. How much should we save on our military Services, for instance, if we recruited, say, 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. more men than are required in the civilian Ministries and sent them to Germany? Thus, we should recruit men who felt they were entering upon a permanent career in which they went to Germany as one stage in their advance in their careers. We could have men who would replace the military, and who would feel that they were whole time servants, whose life was devoted to the Ministry they had joined. We cannot do that with the 10-year men. That is not the type of men we want for the job.
  I was shocked when once again the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a speech yesterday, made it look as though our major interest in Germany at the moment was the saving of money, and that the only interest there was for us was to cut down the £80 million to £75 million by some means or another. Of course, we want to make sure that the £80 million is well used in preventing a revival of German militarism. I am very concerned lest the Chancellor's work in Germany will be hampered by the public impression that his major job is to save money. His major job is to see that the money is well spent, and I should prefer to see an increase in the amount spent in Germany if the issue is regarded as a long term investment, not only for saving ourselves from militarism, but as a long term economic investment as well. Then we can look forward to the Chancellor carrying out his job; his job is not merely to save now and have a third world war as a result. We have bad administration, because we are getting a bad type of man, and he is not given a chance. He must know that this section of the world is regarded as one of our most important responsibilities. The other day we heard the Prime Minister tell us that £30 million was readily to be spent on atomic research, but surely research on how to solve the German problem is worth while, and I hope that we shall have a clear
  1176
  statement that the Chancellor dissociates himself altogether from the suggestion that mere cheeseparing and the saving of pounds here and there is to be the basic policy for Germany.
  9.44 p.m.
  Earl Winterton: I rise, not for the purpose of making a speech, but to make a statement. This Debate arose rather unexpectedly, and it must not be supposed, because no one has risen from these Benches to speak in it, that we do not attach the greatest importance to the subject under discussion. We do, and certainly in the new Session we shall ask for a full day on Germany. The only other observation I want to make is to say that, like other hon. Members in the House, I have been profoundly impressed by the last three speeches we have hard. I should like to make this observation. In my age-long experience of this House I have always thought that an essential part of the fibre of the House of Commons has been its strong sense of moral responsibility, which is a matter which goes quite beyond party. Whether we like it or not, we have an immense moral responsibility, as well as a physical and constitutional responsibility, for British-occupied Germany. We cannot divest ourselves of that responsibility. It is with us day and night, and the sooner we, as a House, realise it, and the sooner the country realises it, the better it will be for the solution of the problems at issue.
  9.45 p.m.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): As the noble Lord has rightly pointed out, this Debate was somewhat unexpected, and has spread over quite a wide field which it would be impossible to deal with adequately in the time that is now left to me. The Debate was originally raised on the question of the Hamburg project, and I think it would be well, while reserving what time may be available for dealing with some of the other questions that have been raised, to deal specifically in the first place with this question. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) has been denunciatory without qualification of the Hamburg project, but I would like the House to appreciate just what is involved. It is true, as the hon. Member for Ipswich said, that our present zonal executive administration, as distinct from the central administration which is situated in

  1177
  Berlin, is at the present time distributed amongst a number of small towns and villages within the zone, a situation which has arisen from the fact that in the first stages of the occupation the real need was speed in establishing headquarters and the various offices and contacts, and that has been the position up to date. In those towns and villages, however, apart from the quite obvious fact that there must be considerable waste of time, inefficiency and a large amount of unnecessary travel, there do not exist the services necessary to enable an efficient central administration to be carried on. Also, with the development of the devolution of responsibility to German zonal administrations, which themselves have to be concentrated somewhere and with which we have to maintain contact, it has become increasingly necessary that we should look around for a suitable site in which to establish our zonal headquarters.
  I would point out in this connection that far from this being, in total, an addition to the burden upon German housing facilities and accommodation, it should in fact economise them, because these distributed sections of our administration all have their services, their buildings for messes and clubs and so on, which could be concentrated in a common centre. The question that is raised by a number of hon. Members is, if this is the case, if it is necessary to concentrate—and the hon. Member for Ipswich has agreed, although he said that we had managed all right until now and could carry on probably for another year that the present situation is inefficient—why should we continue inefficiency, particularly when, as I say, in the total result, in spite of the considerations which exercise the mind of my hon. Friend in particular, the pressure on German housing accommodation will not be relieved by our staying where we are?
  We have selected Hamburg for very clear and specific reasons. It was necessary that we should have a substantial town where there are facilities and services to enable an efficient administration to be carried on, with ready contacts with all parts of the zone, telephonic, transport and other. Hamburg presented the most suitable site from that point of view. Hamburg is equally the centre of the political, cultural and commercial life of the British zone. Hamburg also happened to be the town which physically was most suited for this purpose, because all the
  1178
  big towns in the British zone have been very seriously damaged and, in some cases, almost entirely obliterated as a result of the war. In Hamburg it happened that there were a number of suitable buildings still standing, and suitable cleared spaces upon which new buildings could be developed. It meant the rebuilding of quite a large number of flats, the reconstruction of war damaged houses, the completion of houses which had been left unfinished at the beginning of the war, and repairs to a large number of houses which had suffered minor damage.
  Those were the reasons which persuaded us to select Hamburg, but in any case we had to look somewhere for a central point for administration, and Hamburg has been selected. It was not selected for the projected scheme without the most careful consultation with the German authorities. They have been consulted at every point, and their reactions will probably interest the House, because they have not been the reactions which one would gather from most of what we have heard here, and from the comments which have been made in the Press. I have discussed this myself with the authorities in Hamburg, and unanimously the public representatives of the Germans there welcomed the choice of Hamburg. Why was this? It was because, in the present conditions in Germany, there is a tremendous amount of rebuilding and reconstruction to be done. We obviously could not do a lot of this work at the same time in every part of the zone, and it is therefore to the advantage of Hamburg that we should have selected it for this purpose, concentrating their manpower and other facilities.
  Mr. Stokes: Does the Chancellor mean to represent to the House that responsible Germans in Hamburg welcome this scheme at this moment?
  Mr. Hynd: Certainly.
  Mr. Stokes: It is contrary to my information.
  Mr. Hynd: I could quote from the minutes of meetings I have held in Hamburg. I have the papers here, and I can show them to the hon. Member. He will see that the German representatives have expressed satisfaction.
  Mr. Stephen (Glasgow, Camlachie): Who are these representatives?
  Mr. Hynd: They are representatives of the German local authority in Hamburg, and representatives of various political parties and trade unions whom I met in conference on the subject. We have laid down as a first consideration, in regard to this project, that so far as it is admissible German interests should be safeguarded. I think that the House would agree that it was desirable we should do so. It is essential that we should have the accommodation, because as the noble Lord has said, we have a tremendous responsibility in regard to the Germans, both morally and constitutionally. I do not think anyone in the House would quarrel with the fact that the Control Commission is in Germany, or would suggest that it should be brought out entirely. In so far as they require accommodation, we have laid down that there shall be no displacement of Germans, unless and until suitable alternative accommodation is made available. The hon. Member for Ipswich says that there is no equal alternative accommodation available in Hamburg. It is quite true that there is not equal alternative accommodation for everyone. What we have done is to ensure a minimum standard is laid down for those people who have to be removed to make accommodation available, and such standards are not enjoyed by the great majority of people in Germany under present conditions.
  Mr. Stokes: May we have some clarity on this point? Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the alternative accommodation now being offered is in any respect equal to the already over-congested accommodation from which these people have been turned out—because it is not?
  Mr. Hynd: Accommodation from which they have been turned out varies. The accommodation into which they are being put is good accommodation in relation to the conditions in Germany today. It provides room, air, heating, furnishing and other amenities, which as I say, are not enjoyed by large numbers even in Hamburg. There is quite an amount of misrepresentation and misunderstanding on this matter. There have been stories reported in the Press, and elsewhere, which in no way present the real situation. I am satisfied that casual observers have been misled by the, crowds of refugees pouring into Germany, who are living under very unhappy conditions,
  1180
  and relating that to the Hamburg project. That is entirely erroneous. But we have gone so far as to control the speed of the Hamburg project to the possibilities of providing this alternative accommodation. It is partly because we have insisted on this condition of alternative accommodation, because we have had to switch building materials and labour to the Ruhr, owing to the importance of getting miners' houses restored, and the industry into a swing, that we have already decided to delay the project very considerably. That is the reason why I mentioned, in a reply to a Question the other day, that it will not be completed before the spring of 1948. This will probably have some considerable effect on the size of the project in regard to the accommodation required for the Control Commission.
  We have made this further provision in regard to the situation in Hamburg in order to relieve pressure on housing conditions there, that refugees, who have poured into the zone in their hundreds of thousands during recent months, shall be directed away from Hamburg into other parts of the zone. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich says that the fact that we are releasing accommodation at Lubeck and Minden, and other parts where the central administration is distributed at the present time, will make no difference, because the Germans will not go there from Hamburg. But the fact is that accommodation is being released and will be rapidly filled by refugees who would otherwise go to Hamburg. Therefore, pressure on Hamburg will be released to that extent.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. A. Edward Davies) asked what was the size of the project. That is something we cannot assess precisely so far ahead as 1948, but we have had to go on with some form of calculation. Originally, the plan was to provide for a total staff, for the central zonal administration of the Commission, of 8,780, of which 2,000 are already in Hamburg. That was the project which was intended for the spring of 1947. As a result of the policy we have been pursuing in the zone, of devolving responsibility on to the German administration, we have already been able to make considerable reductions in our estimates of the anticipated staff. We-have been able to review the project to

  1181
  the point that instead of 8,780 we shall now provide for 4,500 to be housed or accommodated in Hamburg by the spring of 1948.
  We cannot foresee what developments will take place in the interval. The total staff estimated was 4,500, by 1948. This will include 2,500 single officers and men, who will be accommodated in 12 blocks of flats which are being built now in the city for that purpose. That is to say, 2,000 of the personnel will require accommodation elsewhere. Of that number 700 are already accommodated in Hamburg, and they will not require further accommodation, so the maximum amount of accommodation required will be for 1,300. That will not be until the spring of 1948 or, late in 1947, and there will be no evictions in connection with the Hamburg project until late in 1947, by which time there is every possibility that there will be still further reductions in staff.
  Mr. Medland: Will the Minister make it clear whether the 2,500 people are in addition to those already in the Regional Commissioners' quarters, and will the Regional Commissioners continue in office?.
  It being 10 o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Joseph Henderson.]
  Mr. Hynd: The 2,000 in question will not be in addition to the total staff of the Commission as provided for today, but it certainly will not mean that we shall abolish the Regional Commissioners from their office. They will continue for the regional organisation. If it were the case, and we hope it may be, that by the time this project is completed—assuming that we are in the meantime able to provide the necessary building manpower and materials for the purpose—and assuming that it is completed by the beginning of 1948—and we have, as a result of zonal fusion, or as a result, maybe, of the establishment of a central German administration in accordance with the Potsdam Agreement, a still further devolution of responsibility on to the Germans, and a still greater reduction in the necessary supervisory Control Commission staff—Hamburg will have gained to that extent. The intention is that the building and repair
  1182
  of houses, the reconstruction of badly damaged houses, and the completion of houses that had been begun but not completed before the war, will represent new buildings to Hamburg, and will make more accommodation available for the Germans.
  I do not think that the hon Member for Ipswich or the hon. Member for Burslem would suggest that we should stop all building in Germany outside the Ruhr. We are concentrating on the Ruhr necessarily, but we are endeavouring, so far as materials and manpower permit, to develop the building and repairs of houses wherever we can. The fact that we are concentrating on a particular town does not reduce the total amount of building and repair work, and, to that extent, it will be to the advantage of the German people.
  The question was raised, I think by the hon. Member for Burslem, about the effect of the movement of families. Some confusion has arisen with regard to the situation in Hamburg today. There has been, and there will be, no requisitioning of houses in connection with the Hamburg project and the concentration of our zone executive staff unless and until alternative accommodation is provided. There has been a certain amount of requisitioning to provide for the families of the personnel who are at present in Hamburg—very little, but some. I do not know whether the criticism that has been made of this development is so strong as to suggest that we should cancel out the decision taken some time ago that families should be allowed to join their men in Germany. That suggestion has been present.
  An hon. Member made reference to a letter, which was recently published in "The Times," from a number of well-known ladies who were concerned about the situation arising from the arrival of the families, and the suggestion was unfortunately made, without any sound basis whatever, that these families were living in the height of luxury in Germany. Reference was made to that letter as evidence of the fact that this was a mistake. There have been other letters in "The Times" since, and, without reading them here, I would suggest that hon. Members who are concerned with the real conditions in which families are having to live in Germany should refer to those letters for more information of the facts.
  Mr. Stokes: Would the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many persons have been displaced? I think mention has been made of 30,000.
  Mr. Hynd: I do not suppose for a moment that there will be anything like 30,000. The maximum estimate we have at the moment, assuming that in 1948 we still have the same amount of staff and there has not been sufficient rebuilding, would be 13,000 Germans at the outside; but let me point out that we are repairing and rebuilding houses for no fewer than 8,000 in Hamburg for the transfer of these families, and that, in addition, there is accommodation for at least 5,000 being released in the zone, making a total of 13,000. This is being done in order to ensure that, as far as the Germans are evacuated from their present accommodation for the purposes of this move, they shall be guaranteed alternative accommodation before the move is made. That is a condition of the move. I might say that already in Herford and other parts of the zone where sections of the administration are housed at the present time, we have derequisitioned no fewer than 214 houses in recent months, and that at a time when families are going out. That, of course, is a net gain in these areas. I do not believe that even the most ardent critics of the Hamburg scheme—and I think the criticism is based largely on a failure to appreciate precisely what is being done—would suggest that there would be any advantage whatever in abandoning this scheme and in stopping the plans for the rebuilding of Hamburg, which have been received with such a welcome by responsible Germans in Hamburg, and would suggest that we have anything whatever to gain from retaining the present dispersed staff, with the waste of manpower, time and efficiency which necessarily go with the present situation.
  With regard to the Ruhr, to which the hon. Member for Ipswich referred, while we have had to suspend a certain amount of the operations in connection with the Hamburg project in order to transfer the men and materials to the Ruhr, that is only one very small part of what we have been doing lately in order to boost coal production. I do not think we require the injunctions, although we welcome the support, of hon. Members behind me in regard to necessity for intensifying
  1184
  coal production and maintaining a very close watch upon coal policy, because we realise fully that the coal question is the key to the whole of the economic situation in Germany, and for that matter in the whole of Europe. We have suspended and sacrificed part of the Hamburg project for this purpose. We have also concentrated the greater part of the available part of commodity goods in the Ruhr for the miners and their families. We have a very concentrated plan for rehousing and rehabilitating the Ruhr generally. We have provided the miners with special amenities in the form of cigarettes and even schnapps. We have provided every possible incentive to higher production. I am satisfied that we are at the point of realising an improved production in coal as a result of these measures. The latest figures suggest that that is already on the way. Here we come to the very wide question that has been raised by a number of hon. Members concerning the general coal policy. The hon. and gallant Member for Bexley (Major Bramall) criticised the policy that we have been pursuing in regard to coal, and said that we have been exporting too much. Another hon. Member referred to the fact that we are losing caste with our French Allies and others because we are not exporting enough coal to France.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: What I said was that French politicians and trade unionists do not understand the reason we are not able to export more, and that unless the Government explain the reason to the French there will be a cause of friction. I did not ask for more coal to be exported.
  Mr. Hynd: I do not think there is any reason why the French Government and politicians should be unaware of the reasons we are unable to export more coal to France, because I have held a series of conferences with French Ministers and coal experts for the purpose of going into these facts. We have discussed them very fully both here and in Germany and I think the French are well aware of the situation because in addition to these conferences we have just recently completed a quadripartite examination of the production and allocation of coal in Germany in which the French participated. In addition the French also take part in the tripartite Coal Committee in Germany which makes the total allocation for export month by month.

  1185
  While I can sympathise with the point of view of hon. Members who have criticised the policy of exports, I should like to remind them that there have been more considerations than just German economy or even our own budgetary considerations involved in this question as a whole. At the beginning of the occupation we were faced with devastated countries to the West of Germany as well as the East. But French transport and industrial activity, as well as those of Holland, Denmark and other countries, were practically at a standstill for lack of the Ruhr coal upon which they were dependent before the war. We therefore decided, rightly or wrongly, that these Allies must come first, whatever might be the inconvenience to ourselves or to the German economy, and that whatever might be the difficulties which we might create for ourselves immediately we must make our contribution of Ruhr coal for the reconstruction of those countries. I think that the work that has been done in those countries on the basis of the allocation of coal, steel and other materials, has justified that policy.
  The question is now becoming more acute so far as we and Germany are concerned, and as hon. Members will be aware exports for October were cut by 150,000 tons. It is quite evident that so long as the present situation in Germany continues, and so long as we are not in a position to turn out the coal we require in order to maintain the present exports, plus the total amount we require in Germany, the coal question must be closely watched month by month by His Majesty's Government.
  Earl Winterton: May I ask the hon. Gentleman a question on that point? The question has been raised on the other side of the House of the doubts which exist in the minds of our French Allies and others about the position. Could they not be resolved by the publication, say once a quarter, of a White Paper or some other official document, available in this House and dealing with all these most important matters which go to the very root of the economic position of Germany? So far as I know, information is only released through the Press at present so that there is no official document on the subject.
  Mr. Hynd: Official reports are, of course, issued by the various committees
  1186
  in Germany dealing with these different questions. The Quadripartite Coal Commission publishes its own report which is circulated among its members who report back to their Governments. The Control Commissions of the respective Governments publish their own papers through their Governments and, as the noble Lord has said, Press reports are published from time to time. Whether or not any useful purpose would be served to justify our publishing a special White Paper with regard to the coal output and allocations, or other economic subjects in this connection, is a question I would not like to answer offhand at the present moment. I do not want to go much further into the question of the Hamburg project. I think I have dealt with most of the points raised but I should now like to deal with some of those which remain.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams) referred to tales that are coming out of Germany which he classified as, first, the lack of a clearcut policy on the part, presumably, of the British authorities, or of the Allied Control Council generally. I do not mind which it is. Secondly, he referred to tales of administrative weaknesses. In regard to the lack of a clearcut policy, I do not think there is justification for repeating that tale. It has been repeated often. The policy that has been enunciated is surely sufficiently clear. The difficulties have arisen from the fact that that very clearcut policy has not been fully implemented by all the parties to that policy. The clearcut policy was laid down in the Potsdam Declaration. It provided for certain fundamental things to be done in Germany, and included the recognition of Germany as a single economic unit. Germany may have been recognised as a single economic unit, but it has not yet been worked as such.
  The Potsdam Declaration also lays down the establishment of a central German administration. Neither of those things have been realised, but that is not a matter which can be laid at the door of His Majesty's Government. We have consistently pressed for those things to be established. Indeed, our very persistence in following that policy and in demanding its full implementation can fairly be said to be the cause of quite a large amount of our troubles. It is because of the fact that we are not realising that objective that the Foreign Secretary upon the

  1187
  Council of Foreign Ministers in Paris made his statement last July with regard to the necessity for the implementation of those clauses of the Potsdam Agreement, or for the linking up of those zones which were prepared to take that step then and there. The American zone and the British zone have accepted the principle. We are still hoping that the French and Russian zones will come in and join us, and therefore secure the implementation of those very important aspects of the Potsdam policy.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon asked me what were the effects of this fusion. In the very limited time at my disposal I will try to give at least some indication. In the very short space of time that has elapsed, we have already set up certain German executive administrations, bi-zonal administrations, covering economics, transport, agriculture, telegraphs and postal communications. These German executive bodies will operate bi-zonally. They will be under the control of the British and American authorities in Berlin, for purposes of policy. As speedily as we can safely permit, we propose to hand over full executive powers to those administrations, retaining for ourselves control of policy.
  My hon. Friend is perturbed in case this might mean that the operation of the fusion arrangements, and the establishment of these bi-zonal economies might modify or endanger the policy which he assumes the British Government would like to follow in the British zone, namely, a policy of socialisation of the basic industries. I do not think he need have any fear. We have already nationalised, in so far as that is possible to an occupying Power in parts of a country which has no native Government for that part or for the whole of the country. We have nationalised the coal industry in the Ruhr. We shall continue to take into our control other key industries pending the establishment of German administrations.
  It is no use asking us to nationalise, in German terms, any industry or to municipalise any industry, if there is no municipal or national authority. We have gone as far as we can, until German authorities are established, to take control of these industries into our own hands.
  Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: What does the Minister mean by "nationalising"? I am not trying to be pernickety. Does he mean nationalisation as we understand it in this country, or does he mean operation as opposed to ownership?
  Mr. Hynd: What I have been trying to explain, probably in rather a confused way, is that so far as we can nationalise a concern where there is no native national authority, we have done it. We have dispossessed previous owners of these industries and taken them under our custody, and their final disposal will depend upon the establishment of democratic German administration capable of dealing with economic policy for themselves and upon the type of German administration and the representations they may make to us. It has been our consistent policy all along in these matters not to support the S.D.P. in particular or any particular parties, but to make possible the development of democratic political parties, trade unions and other organisations and finally democratic administrations which themselves will represent the political feeling of the German people in the zone with whom we can consult, without necessarily committing ourselves in advance to accepting everything they may care to advance. But it must be the German administrations who will have to make their policies and be responsible for the implementation of whatever policies they make. It is not our purpose to tie them down to any policy—
  Mr. Stokes: What about the link-up with the American policy?
  Mr. Hynd: The zonal fusion, as it has been called, is purely economic. The German executive bi-zonal committees are purely concerned with the execution of the policy which is laid down either by the Joint Anglo-American Committee in Berlin or, where there is no agreement, by the Control Commission for the particular zone. In other words, we will be free to carry on our own policy within our own zone so far as we consider it desirable to do so and where we can find no compromise with our colleagues on the American side.
  I should like to say a few words about the administrative weaknesses to which my hon. Friend the Member for South

  1189
  Croydon referred. Here again is the old question about the short-term contracts of the Control Commission. I have never denied that this is a difficult question. It is a difficulty that is inherent in the type of administration we have to manage in Germany. It is not the kind of administration that we can say will last for any particular time. Certainly we cannot say that any particular branch of activity within that administration is likely to last for 10, 12, or 15 years or less. We can only judge as events develop how long the administration in a particular direction will be necessary. Therefore, we cannot say at the beginning that everybody taken on in the Control Commission will have a 10, 12, 15 or 20 year contract with a pension at the end. We are conscious of the difficulty and the deterrent effect it has on recruitment of staff. We are therefore examining it very closely in conjunction with the Exchequer and with the Civil Service Commission in order to try to find a solution.
  I rather resent the implications that have been made by some hon. Members who have suggested that we are getting no men of quality in the Control Commission, that there is no satisfactory standard being maintained, and that since the establishment of the Control Commission and the development of the civilian side as against the military side there has been a constant deterioration. The facts and the evidence are all to the contrary. Since the establishment of the Control Commission, and since we have developed the civilian side of it, we have at the same time been able to develop a much closer and careful screening of the personnel who apply for the jobs in Germany. That position was not possible 12 months ago when the staff were recruited almost entirely from the Army. There is no shortage of candidates. On the contrary, we find it difficult to cope with the number of candidates coming forward, in many cases of very high quality.
  There is no evidence at all which would bear out the allegation made by my hon. Friend, and I would like to point out this to him and others who make these charges: that this is not very fair on the people who are carrying out this very difficult job. It does not add to British prestige; it does not add to the confidence of the Germans, or any one else, in our representatives who are working in these very difficult conditions. It is extremely
  1190
  discouraging, and it is not only discouraging to those on the job, but it is discouraging to the best type of person we would like to get on the job if they feel they are going into a service from which they cannot expect to get any credit when they come back. Therefore, I would ask hon. Members to be very careful in making allegations of that kind without being very sure of the facts.
  I would like to wind up by returning to the main subject of the Debate, namely, the establishment of the headquarters of the Control Commission in Hamburg, the effects upon the housing situation in Germany, and the complaints that have been made in that connection. I would ask the hon. Member for Ipswich to remember that the logic of his argument is either that we should leave Germany altogether or that, in so far as we remain in Germany, we ask our men to remain there, men who have probably been six years in the Army and may have another six or ten years' contract, apart from their families or that they and their families should come out of the houses or barracks they occupy and live in tents or air raid shelters.
  Mr. Stokes: No.
  Mr. Hynd: That obviously is not admissible, and if that is not admissible then the only thing that is admissible is that they have accommodation in something as near as possible to what we would expect them to have if they were at home. We have to balance carefully the humanitarian aspect, the effect upon the German people, and the necessity for our own people being there. I think I am on sure ground because I have discussed these matters with Germans of many political complexions in many parts of the zone and they appreciate the necessity for our own men being there at the present time. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich said we were doing the same as the "Beast," meaning the Nazi occupiers of other territories during the war. Is that really fair? What are we doing? The Social Democrat Party in the British zone have publicly announced that the British administration has saved millions of lives during the past year through the contribution we have made because, without our contribution and without our control and our influence, Germany could not possibly have lived during the past winter.
  Mr. Stokes: May I interrupt my hon. Friend? Really, I said nothing of the sort. I was speaking on the question of the Hamburg project. I am the first to have the greatest regard for the contributions made by the British Army.
  Mr. Hynd: My point is that we could not have done these things if we had not the staff there, and if we had the staff there and had not provided them with accommodation, they could not possibly have done that work. The hon. Member for Burslem referred to the growth of tuberculosis, but the fact is that tuberculosis and pestilence of all kinds would no doubt have swept the western areas of Germany and the whole of Europe if it had not been for the miraculous work done by our personnel there.
  May I describe what has been done in Brunswick? There you had thousands of refugees pouring in from the East during the past 12 months, ridden with disease in many cases, with very few
  1192
  clothes, no blankets, very little food, very little personal belongings of any kind. Yet there has been no epidemic in the Brunswick area or anywhere else. That, where there has been a shortage of medical equipment and supplies such as is probably unprecedented in Europe. I have been in these transit hospitals where they have not had a bandage, and I asked one nurse what she would do if she had somebody to bandage? She said, "I would tear a piece off my dress and make the best of it." There has been no epidemic because of our personnel in Germany, and I suggest that men doing work of that kind require to have their families there if they stay for a prolonged period, and require as reasonable accommodation as we can provide after giving the maximum consideration to German interests.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes past Ten o'Clock.

PUBLIC HEALTH
  Birth Certificates
  Birth Certificates
  Day Nurseries
  Day Nurseries
  Sewage Disposal Works, Bromham
  Sewage Disposal Works, Bromham
HOUSING
  Disused Camps and Huts (Squatters)
  Disused Camps and Huts (Squatters)
  Building Materials (Cost)
  Building Materials (Cost)
  New Estates (District Heating)
  New Estates (District Heating)
  Flats (Conversion of Houses)
  Flats (Conversion of Houses)
  Rural Housing (Report)
  Rural Housing (Report)
  COAST EROSION (SURVEY)
  COAST EROSION (SURVEY)
  POOR LAW INSTITUTION, CAMBRIDGE (CASUALS)
  POOR LAW INSTITUTION, CAMBRIDGE (CASUALS)
GERMANY
  Coal Exports
  Coal Exports
  Control Service (Staff)
  Control Service (Staff)
  Displaced Persons' Camps (Cultural Activities)
  Displaced Persons' Camps (Cultural Activities)
EMPLOYMENT
  Hospitals and Allied Institutions, London (Joint Council)
  Hospitals and Allied Institutions, London (Joint Council)
  Directed Mineworkers (Absentees)
  Directed Mineworkers (Absentees)
  Rural Industries (Training Schemes)
  Rural Industries (Training Schemes)
  Nursing and Domestic Staffs (Alien Women)
  Nursing and Domestic Staffs (Alien Women)
  Shanghai Municipal Council (British Staff)
  Shanghai Municipal Council (British Staff)
  Agricultural Workers
  Agricultural Workers
  Foreign Skilled Workers
  Foreign Skilled Workers
  Further Education and Training Scheme (Grants)
  Further Education and Training Scheme (Grants)
  Statistics
  Statistics
  Disabled Persons, North Staffordshire
  Disabled Persons, North Staffordshire
NATIONAL SERVICE
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  University Students
  University Students
DEMOBILISATION
  Conscientious Objectors
  Conscientious Objectors
  Directed Mineworkers
  Directed Mineworkers
  STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS (CORRECTION)
  STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS (CORRECTION)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax (Territorial Officers)
  Income Tax (Territorial Officers)
  American Loan (Dollar Proceeds)
  American Loan (Dollar Proceeds)
  Tractor Oil (Duty)
  Tractor Oil (Duty)
  Housekeeper Allowance
  Housekeeper Allowance
  Food Subsidies
  Food Subsidies
  Shilling Pieces
  Shilling Pieces
  Argentine (Sterling Balances)
  Argentine (Sterling Balances)
  Purchase Tax (Dustbins)
  Purchase Tax (Dustbins)
EDUCATION
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
  University of London Institute of Education
  University of London Institute of Education
  Secondary Education, Binbrook
  Secondary Education, Binbrook
  Trainee Teachers' Salaries
  Trainee Teachers' Salaries
  Temporary Schools, Cardiff
  Temporary Schools, Cardiff
  PRISON OFFICERS' HOUSES, CANTERBURY
  PRISON OFFICERS' HOUSES, CANTERBURY
CIVIL SERVICE
  Scientific and Experimental Officers
  Scientific and Experimental Officers
  War Service and Promotion
  War Service and Promotion
POST OFFICE
  Gift Parcels (Delivery)
  Gift Parcels (Delivery)
  Postage Rates
  Postage Rates
  Telephone Service
  Telephone Service
  Cable and Wireless
  Cable and Wireless
  Postal Orders (Football Pools)
  Postal Orders (Football Pools)
  Taverham, Norfolk
  Taverham, Norfolk
NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Departmental Staff (Recruitment)
  Departmental Staff (Recruitment)
  Supplementary Pensions
  Supplementary Pensions
  Uninsured Persons
  Uninsured Persons
  Members of Parliament
  Members of Parliament
  EX-DETAINEES (RESTRICTIONS)
  EX-DETAINEES (RESTRICTIONS)
POLICE
  Rejoined Pensioners
  Rejoined Pensioners
  Officers (Pension Entitlement)
  Officers (Pension Entitlement)
  Recruitment
  Recruitment
  Compulsory House Purchase
  Compulsory House Purchase
  War Duty Allowance
  War Duty Allowance
  FIREARM CERTIFICATES (REVOLVERS)
  FIREARM CERTIFICATES (REVOLVERS)
ALIENS
  Stateless Persons (Identity Certificates)
  Stateless Persons (Identity Certificates)
  Distressed Relatives Scheme
  Distressed Relatives Scheme
  BOUNDARY COMMISSIONERS (RECOMMENDATIONS)
  BOUNDARY COMMISSIONERS (RECOMMENDATIONS)
  CONVICTED MURDERER (MEDICAL ENQUIRY)
  CONVICTED MURDERER (MEDICAL ENQUIRY)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Footwear (Exports)
  Footwear (Exports)
  Cotton Yarn (Shortage)
  Cotton Yarn (Shortage)
  BANNED PLAYS
  BANNED PLAYS
BRITISH ARMY
  Surplus Vehicles, Germany
  Surplus Vehicles, Germany
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  SEA CADETS (GREATCOATS)
  SEA CADETS (GREATCOATS)
  DISTRICT HEATING SCHEMES
  DISTRICT HEATING SCHEMES
  FARM INSTITUTES
  FARM INSTITUTES
  NASH TERRACES, REGENT'S PARK
  NASH TERRACES, REGENT'S PARK
  OIL-BURNING LOCOMOTIVES
  OIL-BURNING LOCOMOTIVES
  SHIPPING (AUSTRALIAN ROUTE)
  SHIPPING (AUSTRALIAN ROUTE)
  ROAD SAFETY (DIRECTION INDICATORS)
  ROAD SAFETY (DIRECTION INDICATORS)
  U.S. SERVICEMEN (PATERNITY ORDERS)
  U.S. SERVICEMEN (PATERNITY ORDERS)
  ALTERNATIVE PENSIONS
  ALTERNATIVE PENSIONS
Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, before we come to the business on the Order Paper, I should like to take this opportunity of informing the House that for the purpose of receiving Bills from another place, there will be a purely formal meeting of the House for public business to-morrow (Friday) afternoon at a quarter past four o'clock. Further, my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has informed me that there will be no judicial sitting of the House on Monday next, and that consequently if the House so desires, the Chamber will be free for them to meet at half past two that afternoon, instead of at four o'clock as we had originally anticipated. As the House is aware, it is proposed to continue that afternoon the Committee stage of the National Health Service Bill, on which there are a number of Amendments, and I have accordingly told my noble and learned friend that unless your Lordships have any objection to this course, we shall be delighted to avail ourselves of the opportunity of the earlier meeting at half past two as this will enable us to make further progress with the Committee stage. I think your Lordships will agree that at this period of the Session time is too precious to be wasted. I hope that it will meet with your Lordships' convenience that we should meet at half past two on Monday afternoon, instead of at four o'clock.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I am quite sure I shall be voicing the view of noble Lords on this side of the House when I say that we are delighted to hear that the House can meet at half past two on Monday. We shall be quite prepared to agree to that proposal.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I beg to move that Standing Orders No. XXI and XXXIX be considered.
Moved, That Standing Orders No. XXI and XXXIX be now considered.—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I beg to move that these Standing Orders be suspended for the remainder of the Session, and I should state my reason for doing so. I may say that I took the opportunity of consulting the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, the Leader of the Opposition before submitting this Motion. Its purpose is to enable us to get through the Bills that are now before us and one or two small Bills that are yet to come, before the end of the Session. It means that in this way Government business will take precedence. At the same time, I should like to state that we have every desire to meet the convenience of the House with regard to important discussions which it may be desirable, if possible, to fit in between now and the end of the Session. In particular, there is one relating to foreign affairs which the noble Viscount opposite, Lord Cranborne, mentioned to me he desired to have and for which we shall find time. There is, too, another subject which has also been particularly suggested for debate, and for which also I hope we shall be able to find time, one dealing with matters relating to Germany, which we could not reach last Tuesday. Subject to this understanding in respect of these matters and of emergencies, upon which we shall be only too glad and anxious to meet the convenience of the House, I hope that your Lordships will agree to my Motion.
Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX be suspended for the remainder of the Session and that Government business have, except with the consent of the Government, precedence over other Notice and Orders of the Day.—(Viscount Addison.)
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, the Leader of the House did speak to me about this and I consulted some of my friends. We are all convinced that there is no option before us but to accept the suggestion made by the noble Lord opposite. Obviously, the House does not like its time taken up. We have a number of Motions, some of considerable importance, and all of interest, and we should have preferred that it should not have been necessary to postpone those, but we

345
realize the difficulties in which the Government are placed. They have a certain amount of legislation which must be passed before the end of the Session. In view of that fact I feel quite certain that noble Lords on this side of the House will agree that whatever must be done must be done, and we shall do it with a very good grace.
I have only one other word to say. The noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, mentioned that an exception would be made for a foreign affairs debate and, I think, a debate on Germany, which had to be postponed the other day. I do not know at the moment of any other debates in respect of which we should wish to come to the leader of the House and ask for a further exception. But should there be any matters of very urgent public importance I feel quite certain that we can come to an agreement with regard to those also.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, a Motion of this character is not unusual at this stage of the Session, and we on these Benches concur in the necessary inevitability in respect of which the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, has spoken. I am glad that room has been found for debates on the two topics mentioned by the Leader of the House, and on that understanding and the understanding that any other very urgent business will be provided for, we cordially agree—well, I do not say cordially; we reluctantly agree to the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT; 1932 (COUNTY BOROUGH OF SOUTH SHIELDS ORDER).
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion in my name on the Paper.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before the House on Friday last, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932, (BOROUGH OF REDCAR ORDER).
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move the next Motion in my name.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before the House on Friday last, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (CITY OF SALFORD ORDER).
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move the last Motion in my name.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before the House on Friday last, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (NORWICH) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE BILL.
4.9 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[THE EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Central Health Services Council and Standing Advisory Committees.
(3) The Minister may, after consultation with the Central Council, by order constitute standing advisory committees for the purpose of advising him and the Central Council on such of the services aforesaid as may be specified

347
in the order, and any committee constituted under this subsection shall consist partly of members of the Central Council appointed by the Minister after consultation with that Council as being persons of experience in those services and partly of persons, whether members of the Central Council or not, appointed by the Minister after consultation with such representative organizations as the Minister may recognize for the purpose.
(4) It shall be the duty of a standing advisory committee constituted under this section to advise the Minister and the Central Council upon such matters relating to the services with which the committee are concerned as they think fit and upon any questions referred to them by the Minister or Central Council relating to those services, and, if the committee advise the Minister upon any matter, they shall inform the Central Council, who may express their views thereon to the Minister.
LORD MORAN LORD MORAN moved to leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert:
"(3) The Central Council may, if the Minister so approves, appoint standing advisory committees for the purpose of assisting them in such manner and subject to such conditions, if any, as they may direct, in the exercise of their functions under subsection (1) of this section in regard to all or any matters relating to particular services provided under this Act. Any such standing advisory committee may consist either wholly of members of the Central Council or partly of members of the Central Council and partly of other persons being persons of experience in the particular service or services with which the committee is concerned."
The noble Lord said: In moving the Amendment which stands in my name, I trust that my inexperience in Committee procedure may not obscure whatever merits this Amendment may have. At the beginning of my remarks I associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, said on the Second Reading. I am very anxious to make this Bill of some worth, and I do not wish to be associated with any Amendments which he called "wrecking Amendments." I am moving this Amendment simply for the purpose of strengthening the Central Health Services Council. When this Council was proposed by the Minister it had a very tepid welcome from the profession. I think the profession felt that it was simply another of the old advisory committees which in the past Government Departments have set up and which have sometimes seemed, no doubt wrongly, to be largely for the purpose of persuading people that the best brains of those connected with the particular profession were
348
being sought. In spite of misgivings the Negotiating Committee desired, with regard to this new Advisory Committee, that it should be as strong and as influential as it could be, and they were successful in that the Chairman was to be appointed by themselves and also that they would be able to report annually—a printed report on their proceedings.
In many ways, I think the Minister is perfectly justified in claiming that this is not a committee comparable to the old advisory committees of the past, but as time passed it was found that the Central Health Services Council had become swollen. It contained forty-one members, and not only was it unwieldy in that respect. It was apparently the result of later trying to please various sections. Here I must say that this Bill has been singularly free from that fault of trying to meet sectional interests at the expense of the community. In this particular example I think it was perhaps a little unfortunate that the committee was allowed to grow to forty-one in number. The second thing that seems to prevent it from effectively working was that it was proposed, apparently to overcome its large number, that there should be a number of standing advisory committees. These standing advisory committees were to be appointed by the Minister, and to report direct to him, though, at the same time, they would report to the Council.
The difference between the Bill as it stands and my Amendment is that in the Bill, as I have said, the Minister appoints standing committees and they report direct to him. In my Amendment the Council appoints these standing committees—they are really sub-committees in my Amendment—and they report through the Council to the Minister. Is that, or is that not, a vital distinction? I think it is vital because it is obvious that any Minister who is faced with a committee of forty-one and who has an alternative committee of eight or nine experts, will naturally turn to the experts, deeming the matter too detailed to be dealt with by a large body If that should happen, obviously the Central Health Services Council will simply become one of the old advisory committees. In other words, there is a general feeling throughout the profession, and the General Negotiating Committee are quite unanimous, that if the Bill is passed as it stands the standing committees

349
will do the work and the Central Health Services Council will largely be robbed of its chief function. Does it matter whether this is done or not? Would it be just as well for the standing committees to do this work as for the Central Health Services Council to do it? I think the first question we have to ask ourselves is why in the profession was this Central Health Services Council put up at all? The answer to that is that there is a general feeling that if the experience of those in the profession, who are actively engaged in the practice of their profession, could be brought to the service of the Ministry of Health, there would be a great gain to the country. At the present time, those actively engaged in the practise of their profession play very little part in administering the service, and it was hoped this Central Health Services Council would be a means by which those engaged in active practice could take an active part, not only once or twice a year, but in every important thing that came before the Minister of Health concerning health.
The Minister of Health in another place has tried to define what this Central Health Services Council could do, and what the standing committees could do, and he raised as an example that the Central Health Services Council could not give him advice on putting up a gynæcological service. May I just take his example? I ought to say that a practising gynæcologist and a practising obstetrician are generally one and the same person. At the present time, there is a dispute in the profession; the British Medical Association feels that every single practitioner on the Register should have the right to attend midwifery cases. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynæcologists feel that only a practitioner who has had special training should be allowed to attend confinements. Supposing this dispute—and both feel very strongly on this point—has to be referred to the committee of gynæcologists the answer is not in doubt, but it would not bring conviction to the profession generally. Surely a matter like that is a matter which should go to the Central Council to adjudicate between these two sections of the profession. Therefore, I say it is extremely difficult to say in advance what the standing committees should deal with and what the Central Health Services Council should deal with.
One last point in that connexion. The Minister, when he deals with general practitioner matters, has got into the habit, and the right habit, of consulting the British Medical Association. He has not yet established an equally healthy habit of consulting the bodies which represent the consultants and the specialists in this country. If this Bill is going to be a success we must associate the profession with it and we must make the profession feel they are responsible for its success. If you have this Central Health Services Council imbued with the feeling that the success of the whole scheme depends upon it, then I think there is some chance, with the profession behind it, that it will work really well. If the Council starts from the beginning with the feeling it is being by-passed and has very little say in the matter, then you will have the feeling that the Minister is indeed consulting a few specialists and not really a body representing the profession. I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Moran.)
4.17 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT): My Lords, the Amendment moved with such a weight of authority as this Amendment carries with it must obviously deserve very serious consideration, but, having given it consideration, we do not feel it is an Amendment that we ought to accept. I have to sit twice a week nowadays on a body which consists of not quite twenty members, and we find that the only way we can possibly get through our business is to refer a very large number of more or less specialist or technical questions to sub-committees with power to act. I do ask your Lordships to consider whether we have not here got the best set-up. We have got a Central Health Services Council and there is a power in the Minister to appoint standing committees, but before appointing standing committees he has got to consult with the Central Health Services Council. There may be many of these standing committees of course, and they may advise on all sorts of technical questions, and it may frequently be necessary to act with some speed. Therefore, we have provided that the standing com

351
mittees shall report to two people. They may report direct to the Minister but they shall also send a copy of their report to the Central Council, so that the Central Council, in their turn, have a chance to consider the report of the standing committee and make such observations as they think appropriate upon it. I submit to your Lordships that that really is a better set-up than a Council of forty-one which, if only by reason of its very numbers, is bound to be rather an unwieldy body.
Let me take an illustration. The noble Lord gave one with regard to which I say at once that where you have got something which is a matter of dispute within the profession, it would obviously be improper for the Minister to act merely upon a sectional report of the specialists upon that subject, without waiting for the report of the whole Council on the report of the standing committee. But suppose it is a question simply with regard to some matter of dentistry. Is it really necessary that we should wait for the report of the forty-one members, of whom, for instance, two are registered pharmacists, one a midwife, two registered nurses, and two persons who are experienced in private service, and so on. Is it not right in a case like that that a standing committee should have the right to report to the Minister direct, sending a copy of their report to the Central Health Services Council, so that if there is any wider aspect of this thing which conflicts the Health Council themselves shall be able to pass the report of the standing committee?
That is the set-up which we have embarked upon here. It is really not in the least that we want to embarrass or disregard the services of the Central Health Council. We entirely agree that it is of the utmost importance that we should make it really effective and bring it into play, but it is in the nature of things rather an unwieldy body. We submit that our set-up is the right one, that the standing committee should report both to the Minister and the Central Council, so that the Central Council can make what observations it likes on the report of the standing committee. It is for that reason, and not because we want to belittle the authority of the Central Council, that we do not see our way to accept this Amendment.
LORD MORAN: The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor has made a point of detail. We are absolutely agreed that the Central Council should not deal with details. The only point is whether the Central Council should decide what detail is, and should then refer it to the committees. We are only asking that this Central Council should be a body which would appoint its own sub-committees and, like every other body, deal with detail in that way rather than by this unusual procedure by which committees which are not really sub-committees are appointed by somebody else. However, in view of what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: On Clause 2 there is just one point about which I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. The duties and responsibilities of the Central Council can be found in subsection (1) of Clause 2 and in subsection (5) of the same clause. They are obliged to make an annual report to the Minister, and that report will be laid before Parliament with such comments as the Minister sees fit to make. That is followed by a proviso which says that the Minister, after consultation with the Central Council, if he is satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest to lay such a report before Parliament, may refrain from so doing or may refrain from laying part of that report before Parliament. I wonder if the noble and learned Lord can tell us what it is which might be found in the annual report of the Central Council which it would be contrary in the public interest to lay before Parliament.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is difficult to conjecture, but the sort of thing we have in mind is this. There may, of course, be matters connected with war. That is an obvious illustration. There might also be a question of a rather promising discovery made with regard to a great disease, say, cancer, and I can well understand it being undesirable in the public interest to let it out too soon. However, apart from rare cases of that sort I do not think that this proviso will have to operate, so long as peace remains.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I take it that if particular information was not published, the Minister in his comments to Parliament would say that he had withheld one part of the report.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
4.25 p.m.
Clause 4:
Accommodation available on part payment.
4. Where there is provided in any hospital, as part of the hospital and specialist services, accommodation in single rooms or small wards, the Minister may make any such accommodation, which is not for the time being needed by any patient on medical grounds, available for patients who undertake, or in respect of whom an undertaking is given, to pay for the accommodation such charges, designed to cover part of the cost thereof, as may be prescribed, and the Minister may recover those charges.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out "prescribed" and insert "determined in the prescribed manner" The noble and learned Lord said: This is a little more than a drafting Amendment. I wish to leave out "prescribed" and insert "determined in the prescribed manner." I do not actually want to prescribe the amount but the method by which the amount should be arrived at. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 34, leave out ("prescribed") and insert ("determined in the prescribed manner").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, at the end of the clause, to add: "and where there is provided in any hospital any such accommodation as aforesaid such accommodation shall be maintained and shall not be converted into larger rooms or wards." The noble Earl said: This Amendment of mine is really one to seek some information from the Government. Under Clause 4 as it stands at the moment the Minister may in the case of single rooms make them available for persons who are suffering from some serious illness or disease in certain circumstances, all of which are enumerated in the clause. What I am anxious to ensure is that the voluntary hospitals, and indeed the nursing homes, which already have small single rooms should not find, after the passing of the Bill, on instructions from
354
the Minister, that the small rooms are to be abandoned, that the walls of the cubicles, if I may so describe them, are to be knocked down and the rooms are to be made into one large ward.
I agree every time, and there can be no dispute about this between us, that the health of the people in hospitals is absolutely vital, and if a small private room is necessary for a particular case of illness, then the Minister should have power to grant it. However, what I am concerned about is that the powers which the Minister now possesses are so large that he can decide to abolish all the small rooms in Guy's Hospital, in St. Mary's Hospital, and all the other hospitals and convert them into one large ward. As I say, my main purpose is to get information on the point from the noble and learned Lord. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 35, at end, insert ("and where there is provided in any hospital any such accommodation as aforesaid such accommodation shall be maintained and shall not be converted into larger rooms or wards").—(The Earl of Munster.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think I can give the noble Earl the information he wants. Whilst on one hand I am sure he would agree that it would be quite impossible to tie the Minister's hands in regard to reconstruction and alterations that may be necessary, there is no intention on the Minister's part on a wholesale scale to knock down cubicles and go in for a principle of large wards. I should imagine privacy plays a very important part in the curing of these cases. I can give an assurance that these rooms will not be converted, or otherwise sacrificed, unless this is found really necessary in the interests of the services provided by the hospital as a whole, or in the wider interests of the whole co-ordinated hospital service. As the noble Earl will agree, we cannot foresee what is going to happen, and there may be cases where it does become necessary. I cannot, therefor, tie myself absolutely, but I can reassure him on the point that we have no intention of making a series of small rooms into one large room except where that is necessary. The noble Earl cannot really expect us to tie our hands in the matter, and I hope after that assurance he will be content to withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am naturally obliged to the noble and learned

355
Lord, but I still have a great fear that on account of the enormous shortage of hospital accommodation at the present time the Minister may find himself in the position that he is forced to go into many of these hospitals and remove the whole of the private accommodation and turn small rooms into one large ward. However, in view of the noble and learned Lord's assurances, which I naturally accept, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Accommodation for private patients.
(2) The Minister may allow any medical practitioner serving on the staff of a hospital providing hospital and specialist services to make arrangements for the treatment of his private patients either at that hospital or at any other such hospital, and may make available for that purpose the special accommodation aforesaid, and in that case the charges prescribed under the last foregoing subsection shall not include the cost of any services rendered by the medical practitioner, and regulations may prescribe the maximum charges to be made and recovered by any such medical practitioner in respect of the treatment of his private patients under this subsection.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Amendment to this clause is the same as that which I moved just now—to leave out "prescribed" and insert "determined in the prescribed manner", in order that we may specify the manner and not the actual amount.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 41, leave out ("prescribed") and insert ("determined in the prescribed manner").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "serving on the staff of a hospital providing hospital and specialist services" The noble Lord said: This Amendment, upon which the one following it on the Order Paper is consequential, is to leave out the words "serving on the staff of a hospital providing hospital and specialist services." If this Amendment is agreed it will allow a doctor to follow his patient into a hospital even though that doctor is not a specialist on the staff of that hospital, and—more important than that—allow a patient to continue under the same doctor. That is
356
the point of view from which I look at it. If a patient who is admitted to hospital has been attended by one doctor, it is important that that patient should be allowed to have that doctor attending him or her even though he (the medical practitioner) may not be serving on the staff of that particular hospital.
This is an Amendment to which we attach very great importance, because what we all want to do is to ensure that patients have the doctors who suit them best, and the doctor who suits a patient best is surely the one who knows that patient's past history and who has his or her confidence. He should, therefore, go on attending that patient even though he may not happen to be on the staff of the hospital. If this Amendment were not carried, any patient who wished to continue with a specialist not on the staff of the hospital to which he might be admitted would have to go into a nursing home and pay extra fees. But these patients will have paid fees which would entitle them to hospital treatment, so I think they ought to have the benefit of their own doctor even though he, the doctor, is not serving on the staff of that particular hospital. I am not, I hope, one who ever wastes the time of your Lordships' House. That is the short point of this Amendment, which is an important one. We regard it as important from the point of view of the patient, and I very much hope that the Government will be able to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 4, leave out from ("practitioner") to ("to") in line 6.—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD SALTOUN: I should like to support my noble friend's Amendment, which relates to a difficulty felt by a great many hospitals in their work to-day. As I expect my noble and learned friend knows, it is very often covered by hospitals making all medical practitioners within a certain range honorary members of their staff. As that practice is quite common in hospitals, I hope the fact will serve to induce the Government to accept this Amendment.
LORD HORDER: From the purely medical angle I should like to give an emphatic support to the noble Lord's Amendment. It is greatly in the interests of the patient, both on personal and on medical grounds, that continuity

357
should be preserved when the patient leaves his or her home and is transferred to an institution. The medical practitioner who has had charge of the case up to the moment of transfer is really the only person who can, in the patient's interest, continue that treatment whilst the patient is in an institution.
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): I think we ought to be quite clear of the position under the Bill. A doctor who chooses to remain outside the public service (which is the doctor with whom the noble Lord opposite is dealing) can give institutional as well as domiciliary treatment to his patients. That is not ruled out. From the patient's point of view, the patient can receive institutional treatment—he can have an operation, for example—from a doctor who remains outside the public service.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Where?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: In a nursing home.
LORD LLEWELLIN: What about in hospitals?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am coming to that. The effect of this Amendment would be that a specialist or a general practitioner who chose to stay outside the public service and not to take any part in it would be able to use, for his own private work, hospitals provided at the public expense. I do not think that this would be an unfair parallel. Suppose a solicitor who was a member of a private firm were to ask permission to do his own work for his own clients in an office used by the legal adviser to a Government Department in a Government building: I do not think that that would be regarded as a fair and equitable claim. But I think it ought to be made perfectly clear that any person who wishes to have an operation and whose medical adviser is on the staff of any hospital—and of course that covers the great majority of the cases that are likely to arise—will be able to receive the treatment he needs in that hospital. There would, therefore, be precisely that continuity of treatment for which the noble Lord opposite is asking.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I cannot feel that the House will be very satisfied with the answer they have had from the
358
Government on this point. What the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said in effect was that it was unfair that a doctor who had not opted to join the State scheme should have the advantages accorded to a doctor who had so opted. But he did not say anything at all about the patient. The patient has made his contribution to the State scheme and presumably he has the right to enter a State hospital. The noble Earl may say that he can enter a State hospital and that he then has to have the State treatment, but I cannot feel that we should agree he should be limited in that way. As the clause stands, as I understand it, the Minister may allow any medical practitioner serving on the staff of a hospital providing hospital and specialist services to make arrangements for the treatment of his private patients either at that hospital or at any other such hospital, but the other man—the man who is not a member of the State service—cannot even make arrangements for his patients to be treated by some body else at the State hospitals; he is completely outlawed. The noble Earl does not seem to agree. That may or may not be so, but that is what it says here.
I suppose a doctor who stays outside the State scheme can make some communication of some kind to enable a doctor who is on the staff to take the patient in or to recommend that the patient should go in. I feel, however, that that is—I was going to say an in tolerable position, but I certainly think it is an utterly unjustifiable position. Suppose noble Lords opposite—say, the Lord Chancellor or the Leader of the House—were to be taken ill, what would they do? If they did not happen to have a State doctor, they might have their private physician. They would send for him and call him in for consultation. He would have a complete knowledge of their past medical history, he would have the personal relationship and would have information as to their private idiosyncrasies, if they had any. He is the man who would know about them. He decides that unfortunately they are so ill that they have to go into hospital or into a nursing home. If they go into a nursing home they have to pay very large fees and they get no advantage from the contributions which they have compulsorily made to the State service. If they do not go into a nursing home,

359
they have to go into a hospital, and from the moment they reach the doors of that hospital they are separated finally and completely from their own physician. I cannot believe that the people of this country are intending, when they set up their State service, that there should be that divorce between the physician and his patient.
I am bound to say that we take a very strong view about this. We are in favour of a State service but we do not believe that there should be this continual whittling down of private practice so that in effect it is really useless. We feel very strongly about this, and unless we get a very satisfactory reply I am afraid we shall be obliged to press this matter to a Division.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I add one word from the point of view of the legal mind, having a large knowledge of solicitors and how they carry on their business? I am unable to see the slightest analogy in the case that my noble friend Lord Listowel has presented to your Lordships and the case before us to-day. As the Leader of the Opposition has just said, the whole point in favour of the Amendment is that it protects the private patient. Anything more undemocratic than the answer that the private patient, if he sticks to his doctor and intends to go on taking his advice, cannot go to a nursing home, I never heard. A rich man may well go to a nursing home, but we know perfectly well that the vast majority of the people who have to go to hospitals, either for surgical or for medical treatment, which may involve their being there for weeks, are poor people who cannot possibly pay for the sort of service—the excellent service, no doubt—that you would get in a nursing home. It is for that reason that I suggest the Government had better reconsider their position on this point and accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: May I intervene for a moment, having personal knowledge of this matter? I think the noble Viscount who spoke just now was under some slight misapprehension as to what the existing facts are. As to the point made by the noble Lord below the gangway about medical practitioners in a district being attached to a hospital, that is quite common. Those men would be
360
on the staff of the hospital, they could take their patients in, and no question would arise. They would be on the staff of the hospital and would be entitled to make use of the services. The point embodied in this Amendment is quite different. At the present time, when patients are sent into hospitals they are treated in the hospital by the staff of the hospital. That is the case now. I have not the slightest doubt that it is happening at this moment in several hospitals in London and throughout the country. The hospital has its regular staff. Very likely under this measure that staff will be very much enlarged by numbers of medical practitioners using the hospital in accordance with the provisions of the Bill, and they will thereby become members of the staff of the hospital. But a hospital is an organization, like other institutions, run by the staff, and the staff know the nurses and the nurses know the staff. When medical practitioners outside send their patients into the hospital they do not follow them in themselves. The patients are treated in the hospital by a member of the staff of the hospital, and that is what is proposed.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Which makes the arrangements mentioned in the clause.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I have not the slightest idea what the interjection of the noble and learned Lord is, but I am stating the facts as they are and as they have been for a long time. They have never given rise to any complaint. If a medical man wishes the patient to go into a hospital, the patient goes in, and he is treated by arrangement with the medical man who sends that man in. He does not follow him in himself and become thereby a member of the staff of the hospital. What is here proposed is that for the purpose of private nursing a particular medical man will send his patient in, follow the patient in, and become thereby a member of the staff of the hospital. As a matter of fact, you cannot run hospitals on that indiscriminate basis; it is not a business-like arrangement. Under the Bill all the medical men with responsible practices will no doubt be attached to the hospitals and be on the staff, and will be entitled to follow their patients in and make use of the facilities. But the practice which is now in existence is satisfactory, and I have never heard it complained of anywhere. I am quite sure that the Amendment as

361
now proposed would dislocate the arrangements of the hospitals up and down the country, and it is not reasonable in itself.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I do not think the position is quite that, and I know the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong because he has much greater experience than I have. What he said at the beginning of his remarks was that it is probable that any local doctor of standing would be a member of the staff of the hospital. The point I wish to ask is this: Suppose there was a local doctor of standing who devoted himself entirely to private practice: would it be possible for him to be a member of the hospital now?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: No. So far as a medical man of standing in the locality is concerned, he is not now a member of the staff of the hospital unless so elected. If he had been selected and elected, then he would be. But he would not necessarily be so simply because he happened to be a competent medical man. It depends whether he had been elected or not.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The noble Lord himself said—I do not want to labour this point too strongly; I know it is so in my own countryside but I am not experienced in an urban district—that any doctor of real standing would be on the staff of his local hospital.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Yes.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: That was all right in the days of private practice. He might be a man engaged in private practice and yet be on the staff of the hospital. Now, as I understand it, the position will be that if a doctor is entirely devoted to private practice he will not be allowed to be on the staff.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: That does not follow at all. It does not make any alteration in that respect. They will be on the staffs of the hospitals as they have been hitherto.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Might I ask this question? Does this clause cover surgeons as well?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Certainly.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Let me tell the noble Viscount a story which occurred to myself. Many years ago I had an operation on my toe. I went into a small private ward of a hospital but I was not
362
operated upon by one of the surgeons of that hospital. I got my own surgeon to operate on me in the hospital. After the passing of this Bill that will become illegal.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: All I have to say is that there would be special arrangements pertaining to that hospital. I have known hospitals for forty years, and I know that the arrangement I have described is the ordinary normal arrangement which works quite satisfactorily, and it will not be altered by this Bill.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: As I understand it, it is said that the thing will work on in much the same way; we shall go on exactly in practice as we do at present. If that is so, what is the point of this clause at all? What it does is to draw a distinction between the doctor serving on the staff of the hospital and the patients of that doctor, and a doctor not so serving and his patients. Surely the only object of this is to give a preference to the doctor and the patients of the doctor on the staff of the hospital. The clause says:
"The Minister may allow any medical practitioner serving on the staff of a hospital providing hospital and specialist services to make arrangements for the treatment of his private patients.…"
Surely that is giving a special preference to the doctor on the staff of the hospital and the patients of that doctor, which is not accorded to the doctor and the patients who are not on the staff. What I cannot understand is how that is maintaining the existing position. If there is to be no alteration, then should have thought there would be no clause. But the very effect of this clause is to give a special privilege. I am not so much concerned with the doctors as with the patients, but if a particular class of patient happens to be the patient of a particular class of doctor he gets preference, and that is what seems to me to be unfair.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: It really is not unfair in the least. I should have thought this would have been regarded with thankfulness and appreciation by noble Lords opposite. What it does is this. Notwithstanding the fact that these hospitals are paid for out of public funds and so on, this goes out of its way to see that it shall be open to the members of the staff of that hospital to bring in private patients, and, if need be, to have a private ward and charge fees. Those are facilities which this extends.
A NOBLE LORD: Only if the doctors are on the staff.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am aware of that. In regard to many hospitals, this is not possible at the present time. It is only open now to the members of the staffs of the hospitals, it is not open to other people. In the special and very interesting case which has just been described to me, what took place was quite unusual, though it may no doubt have been quite a normal arrangement for that particular hospital. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred patients are treated in the hospitals by members of the staffs of the hospitals. This gives facilities to the men on the staffs of the hospitals to have these advantages with regard to the treatment of their private patients, but it does not throw it open to all the world to have the same advantages, as if they were members of the staff of the hospital. That would not be reasonable.
LORD SALTOUN: I think that the noble Lord may perhaps have misunderstood me. The practice to which I have referred is that if anybody who is not a member of the staff wishes to send in a patient we make him an honorary member.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: When that is the case then no question arises; the doctor is a member of the staff and has the facilities.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: On a point of law, may I say that the relevant words here are "practitioners serving on the staff." The word "serving" shows that it does not apply to a person who is made merely an honorary member.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: Will the Leader of the House say what is going to happen to the hundredth case?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The procedure in the hundredth case would be as it is now. The practitioner who had a patient would make the necessary arrangement with the hospital, send the patient in, and the patient would be treated by the staff of the hospital. That is what is done now in thousands of cases every week.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I cannot help thinking that there is some misapprehension on this matter and at the moment I
364
do not know who has got the position right. The words used are "serving on the staff." Does that mean a person working full time in the hospital—a full-time doctor on the staff.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Oh, no.
LORD LLEWELLIN: So it can include anybody who gives or provides any services for the hospital and so is considered to be on the staff. Another point over which we are likely to be confused arises in connexion with the words "private patients." What we have to remember when we talk about these sums being paid out of the taxpayers' money is that they are also, as I gather, to be paid to a considerable extent by the amounts each of us will in future stick on an insurance card. By doing this, we shall come into this health scheme and shall be entitled to the services which it provides. The question which has been raised is whether the ordinary patient will be penalized if he wants to continue with his own doctor, who does not happen to have gone on to the list, but yet wants to go into hospital, while his doctor does not happen to be a member of the staff. There is, I think, some misapprehension upon this matter. What I should like to do, if your Lordships will allow me, is to look at these words again in the light of the discussion which we have had this afternoon, and to consider between now and the next stage of the Bill what the position is. I feel that there may be some misunderstanding between us, and we would like to reconsider the matter. Therefore I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
4.55 p.m.
Clause 6 [Transfer of hospitals to the Minister]:
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The wording of this clause as drafted is too wide and it would, in fact, defeat the intention of the clause. It would transfer to the Minister property of local authorities which is not part of the hospital. For instance, it would result in transferring to the Minister a site which has been bought for the purpose of building a hospital upon it, but has not been used for that purpose. The Amendment which I now move alters the wording of subsection (2) to put that right, and will afford protection to the local authorities.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, leave out lines 40 and 41 and insert ("the purposes of those hospitals or any of them or for the purposes of securing accommodation for persons in the area at any hospital not vested in the authority.")—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: I think that this Amendment seems quite right, and we on these Benches have no criticism to offer.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH moved, after subsection (4), to insert the following new subsection:
"( ) In the event of the transfer to the Minister of any voluntary hospital which has denominational associations that link it with a particular religious organization, regard shall be had so far as practicable, in the general administration and in making appointments to the hospital management committee and to the staff of that hospital to the preservation of its character and associations."
The noble Earl said: It is generally agreed that the hospitals associated with various religious denominations have in the past performed, and are still performing, substantial services for the benefit of the health of the country. I need only instance such hospitals as The Retreat (the mental home provided by the Society of Friends), the generously supported Jewish hospitals, and the numerous Roman Catholic hospitals large and small, which are staffed by communities of religious women, communities whose devotion to the sick of all creeds is particularly valuable in these days when there is such a serious shortage of recruits to the nursing profession.
Your Lordships will readily understand that the proposals on which this Bill is based caused considerable apprehension among those who, like myself, have some responsibility for the management of denominational hospitals. That apprehension has, to a great extent, been allayed by a pledge which was given on behalf of the Ministry of Health in another place. Your Lordships will find the actual words of the pledge in the Commons Official Report, Volume 422, Column 402. I am now asking your Lordships to insert the Ministerial pledge in the Bill itself, and I would advance the following reasons in favour of my Amendment. But first I want to make it quite clear that I am not in any way distrusting the Minister. On the contrary, I am absolutely confident that he and, I think I may reasonably
366
assume, his successors, will observe the pledge which he has given to an exact and literal degree in this matter. I am certain that no Minister of Health would fail to consider it desirable to ensure the co-operation of the denominational hospitals, and that co-operation can only exist if they are permitted to retain their special features.
I have to remember, however, that the Minister is devolving his functions as regards 'hospitals upon the Regional. Boards, and I would ask your Lordships, to consider this. When a lady or a gentleman is appointed to a Regional Hospital Board an idea of the duties and rights of members will be obtained from a perusal of the Bill. A member is most unlikely to read through the debates that take place in this Chamber, or in another place, in order to ascertain what has been pledged by the Minister. Therefore, the members of Regional Boards may be quite unacquainted with the pledges made to the denominational hospitals, and it may be the very painful duty of the denominational authorities to remind the Boards of those pledges, and even—it might happen—to appeal over the heads of the Regional Boards to the Minister to secure observance of his undertaking. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that that would entirely prejudice, perhaps destroy, the hope which we entertain of fruitful, frictionless, friendly co-operation between denominational hospitals and the Regional Boards. We base our hopes of co-operation upon a complete understanding by both parties of their respective rights and duties under the Bill. That understanding can best be achieved by making the matter perfectly clear in the Bill itself. The co-operation can then be achieved in the manner that we all desire. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 16, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Iddesleigh.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have very considerable sympathy with this Amendment. As the noble Earl rightly pointed out, the Minister has already given an undertaking broadly on those lines, and I can understand that not unnaturally the noble Earl, and those who think with him, want that undertaking in the Bill. The Minister, obviously, cannot sacrifice medical considerations but sc far as practicable,

367
other things being equal, it is obviously right that we should maintain and uphold the denominational character of those hospitals. I assume that that has its influence in a curative effect on the patient. What I suggest to the noble Earl—if he will allow me—is that I will undertake to look at this matter with my advisers between now and the Report stage and see how far I can go to meet the noble Earl. I am not quite satisfied with his words, nor with the place at which he proposes to include this Amendment, but I am hopeful that I may be able to devise a form of words in the appropriate place which will satisfy the intention of the noble Earl.
LORD LLEWELLIN: A very large number of us were also in favour of this Amendment, and on behalf of myself and others who other who think in the same way, may I say that I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, for what he has just said. This may not be the right place to insert the Amendment, and it may well be that the Government would like to consider the wording. It is important to have the assurance which the Minister has given, actually included in the measure so that all those administering it, in the provinces or wherever they may be, may be able to see it in the Bill. I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for the attitude which he has taken and so, I am certain, will be a large number of religious denominations up and down the country.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: In those circumstances I shall, of course, be happy to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Endowments of voluntary hospitals
7.—(1) Where any voluntary hospital to which the last foregoing section applies is, before the appointed day, designated by the Minister under this Part of this Act as a teaching hospital or is one of a group of hospitals so designated, all endowments of the hospital held immediately before the appointed day shall on that day, by virtue of this Act, be transferred to and vest in the Board of Governors constituted under the following provisions of this Part of this Act for the teaching hospital.
(2) All such endowments shall vest in the Board free of any trust existing immediately before the appointed day and shall be held by the Board on trust for such purposes relating to hospital services or to the functions of the Board under this Part of this Act with respect to research as the Board think fit, and the Board may dispose of any property comprised in those endowments and hold the proceeds thereof on trust for any of the said purposes:
Provided that the Board shall, so far as practicable, secure that the objects of any such endowment are not prejudiced by the provisions of this section.
(4) All endowments of a voluntary hospital to which the last foregoing section applies, other than a hospital to which the foregoing provisions of this section apply, being endowments held immediately before the appointed day, shall on that day be transferred to and vest in the Minister by virtue of this Act free of any trust existing immediately before that day; and the Minister shall establish a fund, to be called the Hospital Endowments Fund, to which he shall transfer all such endowments.
(5) Regulations shall provide—

(a) for the control and management of the Hospital Endowments Fund by the Minister and for conferring on him any powers required for that purpose, including powers to sell or otherwise dispose of any assets of the Fund and to carry the proceeds into the Fund;

(b) for enabling the Minister to apply, to such extent as may be prescribed, the assets of the Fund for discharging any liabilities transferred to him under the last foregoing section from the governing body of such a voluntary hospital as is mentioned in the last foregoing subsection or transferred to him under this section;

5.5 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: The Amendments standing in my name were admittedly put down in the nature of a reconnaissance, in an endeavour to capture some further information. In view of the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, which is next but one on the Paper, and which seems to give promise of a more serious engagement, I will not move my Amendments but will rest my remarks on the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM VISCOUNT MAUGHAM moved, at the end of subsection (4), to insert:
"Provided that, in the case of any endowment of which a special application or appropriation shall have been directed or declared by the donor, the Minister shall, so far as practicable, secure that the directions of the donor shall not be prejudiced by the provisions of this section"
The noble and learned Viscount said: Having regard to the answer of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, to the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, it seems that the Amendment in my name has a reasonable prospect of being favourably received. At any rate it must be explained. Clause 7 of the Bill is rather curious, and noble Lords will observe that in effect subsections (1), (2) and (3) relate to teaching hospitals. The first does so expressly, because it mentions, in line 3, that where the hospital in question is:
"a teaching hospital or is one of a group of hospitals so designated, all endowments of the hospital…shall… by virtue of this Act, be transferred to and vest in the board of governors constituted under the following provisions of this Part of this Act for the teaching hospital"
Subsection (2) says that all such endowments shall vest in the Board free of any trust.
In passing, before coming to my Amendment, I must point out that, so far as I know, that is a wholly unexampled instance—or will be when the Bill is passed—of the powers of Parliament. I do not believe that Parliament, in a wide sense, has ever disregarded the terms of a trust and made it a sort of statutory power for certain organizations to commit a breach of trust. The draftsman of the Bill has realized that that is a very exceptional circumstance, and at the end of subsection (2) has included a safeguarding proviso:
"Provided that the Board shall, so far as practicable, secure that the objects of any such endowment are not prejudiced by the provisions of this section."
Whether that is satisfactory or not, is a question upon which I will not embark, but I frankly admit that there may be cases where it will be necessary to affect the trusts which relate to the endowments. The alternative would be to leave the matter in the hands of the Charity Commissioners, who may in such cases administer the charitable trusts—because they would be charitable trusts—in accordance with what is known as the doctrine of cy-près, even if some alteration were needed. I can see reasons, however, why the promoters of the Bill desire to have the matter in their own hands but have left themselves with an obligation to preserve, as far as possible, the objects of the endowments.
The actual words of the Bill are to secure that the objects are not prejudiced by the provisions of the clause. But then we come to subsection (4), and it is not very clear at first sight that the draftsman in subsection (4) is not dealing any longer with teaching hospitals, but is dealing with all the voluntary, non-teaching hospitals in the country. With regard to those the draftsman says that all the endowments of such voluntary hospitals as those, the non-teaching ones, which arc, of course, the vast majority of hospitals in the country,
"to which the last foregoing section applies, other than a hospital to which the foregoing provisions of the section apply"—
shall be transferred to the Minister. At first sight there seems to be trouble here because of the comma after "applies." The meaning, however, undoubtedly is that all the endowments of a voluntary hospital, not being a teaching hospital, being endowments held immediately before the appointed day, shall, on that day, be transferred to and vest in the Minister free of any trust existing immediately before the appointed day, and the Minister shall establish a fund to be called the Hospital Endowments Fund to which he shall transfer such endowments. So that, in the Bill as it stands, there is nothing in the world to prevent the charitable objects of the donors being absolutely and wholly disregarded and treated as if they did not exist.
I am almost certain that that is due to inadvertence. The object is nearly always disclosed in some document or will of the donor, and it cannot be intended hat they should be disregarded in the case of voluntary hospitals though followed in the case of teaching hospitals. Accordingly, I have put down in my Amendment a proviso that in the case of an endowment of which a special application or appropriation shall have been directed or declared by the donor, the Minister shall—and I have borrowed the words "so far as practicable" from the previous subsection, though I insert them with some diffidence and regret—"secure that the directions of the donor shall not be prejudiced by the provisions of this section." I venture to suggest that there is an overwhelming case for such a provision. I would also add the hope that those persons (and I hope there are not many in this House) who think that the

371
will of a donor should be disregarded where the Government think fit, or that trusts, which are conditions of charity, are matters of small importance—I hope there are not very many who think so, because to this moment the Legislature has always treated trusts imposed by donors as being sacred—at any rate may be impressed by the fact that, unless there is some such provision as this, duly carried out by the Minister, large gifts of charity for the benefit of the hospitals will cease.
Take the not uncommon case of people who, for some special reason give a large sum—£10,000 or more—in order to endow a ward for a special ailment, say, diabetes (I know of such a ward), or who desire to endow certain beds in a hospital for a specific purpose, for people of a particular trade or coming from a particular district, such people in future will no longer make gifts of this kind to any voluntary hospital unless they have reasonable confidence that the Minister, who is in charge of this great enterprise, will, so far as practicable, observe and carry out the objects which a donor has declared. In these circumstances—if the Minister is in any doubt about it—I do call upon everybody in this House to support this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 46, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Maugham.)
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Perhaps I may take this opportunity of adding a few words to what the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, has said on this matter, more especially as it was a point on which I ventured to lay some stress during the Second Reading debate. Some of your Lordships may remember that I there gave an example of what I had in mind, where a particular locality had made a benefaction to a local hospital in memory of a particular local hero who had given his life in the course of the great war, and I ventured to ask—I think perhaps not unreasonably—what was to be the destination of those funds, or what was to be the authority controlling the disposal of those funds, once this new scheme had come into operation. Some answer was supplied by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the point was further touched upon, in his final speech, by the
372
noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. The upshot of both those replies was that, although no doubt the Minister would be prepared to give favourable consideration to returning such sums, or devoting equivalent sums to the purpose for which they had originally been given, in the Bill itself there was no actual direction of any kind that the wishes of the donors of those funds were to be observed and that the money was not to be appropriated for purely different purposes, having no sentimental or other connexion with the motive which had led the original donor to make the gift.
It is very difficult to see either the legal or the moral aspect of that particular outlook. I do very much hope that, on consideration, the Government will come to the conclusion that such gifts as are covered by the terms of the Amendment now proposed by the noble and learned Viscount will really be incorporated in the Bill; that the very real apprehension of many people will thus be allayed, and that the matter will not be left, as it should not be left, merely for the consideration of the Minister, as to whether or not those specific provisions are ever to be put into force.
5.19 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: If I may add one word before the noble and learned Lord replies, I would only say that, in order to achieve what I think is right, this Amendment has been drafted in the mildest and most inoffensive way. It reads:
"Provided that, in the case of any endowment of which a special application, or appropriation shall have been directed or declared by the donor, the Minister shall, so far as practicable. …"
That means, of course, not to cut across the whole of his scheme, but so far as practicable the Minister shall see that the money is applied to the purpose for which it was given, whether for a war memorial, such as was mentioned by the noble Marquess who has just sat down, or for some other purpose in a hospital. So long as the money can be used in that way I think it is right it should be, and this does not completely bind the Minister. I hope, and sincerely hope, the noble and learned Lord will be able to give us satisfaction on this point. This Amendment, at any rate, does say that in any practicable case it shall remain as the testator or donor gave it and hoped it would be applied. I very much hope that the noble

373
and learned Lord will be able to say that he can accept these or similar words in this part of the Bill.
LORD SALTOUN: As my own Amendment is coming in a few moments with practically the same intention as that proposal by the noble and learned Viscount, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say now what I should otherwise have said upon my own, although, with paternal blindness, I do, ignorantly, no doubt, prefer my own. There are two further points which I think might be made. In the first place, I come from Scotland which has been described as the home of mortification, but it amounts practically to this—there is hardly a corner of the world today where some Scotsman is not toiling and denying himself in order, amongst other things, to leave some benefaction to some spot in his native land. I was at variance with my noble friend Lord Elgin about the work of his Commission which was so much discussed at one time in your Lordships' House. At that time I was doing work which brought me into touch with many Scottish wills, and I do not quite know what the resolution of the committee has been, but I believe that educational endowments have fallen off very much since that time. I am afraid that endowment for hospitals will fall off very much if this clause becomes law in its present form without some Amendment like that of my noble and learned friend.
Another point is this. These endowments are not always clear endowments—so much money for the hospital. There is nearly always a purpose expressed. It not only covers a hospital; there is generally some condition expressed, and the trustees, who are in charge of these various endowments, are charged with the trust. I happen to be in that position myself, and I look on myself, in a sense, as a guardian of the grave or a memorial. It is my duty to see the purposes of the trusts are carried out. I accepted the trust on these conditions, and it is my duty to see they are fully carried out. Parliament can do anything up to a point, but I remember reading a fairy story about a battle between a king and a fairy who changed the king into every conceivable animal, but the one thing the fairy could not do was to make the king say what he did not want to say. I am
374
in that position to-day because I am a trustee of a hospital which has certain benefactions. It is perfectly true that His Majesty's Government and Parliament may take these things away, but they cannot take them away with my consent unless I am reasonably satisfied that the purposes of the trust, which I have taken over as a solemn and great duty, are carried out. I do not think I should be compelled, or that Parliament should try to compel me, to transfer these securities away from the trust. It is a very difficult moral point, and it is one that I have often seen coming in the distance. I am putting this to the Government quite seriously, and I sincerely hope they will do something to meet the position to secure to trustees that the duties that they have solemnly undertaken will not be disregarded after the passage of this Bill.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: I am a chairman of a trust for a war memorial hospital, and I am profoundly disturbed by some of the remarks made by the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, who moved the Amendment and by the noble Marquess. This hospital was erected as a war memorial by people to their loved ones who died in the last war. They were most anxious that this war memorial should continue for ever, and in order to do that they entrusted it to the security of a trust. Now it seems to me by this clause that the security of a trust, which I have always believed existed and continued for ever, can be completely overturned and upset by some clause in a Bill. I always understood that the security of a trust would be for a definite purpose and could not be overturned except by an action at law. But here we are, and it seems to me that you can overturn a trust by passing or approving a clause in a Bill. Is that so? I am profoundly disturbed by it if it is.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think there is no doubt you can, by Act of Parliament, disturb any trust you like. You can, by Act of Parliament, completely disregard the wishes of the donors and so on. Whether you should, or should not, is a very different question, and it would obviously ill become me as President of the Chancery Division to suggest that this thing should be lightly or wantonly undertaken. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, that quite obviously if we disturb a trust we are embarking upon a

375
very serious thing, and it behoves us to watch very carefully exactly where we are going. As this is the first of the Amendments dealing with endowments, and as I rather gather that there is some little misapprehension about the matter, may I explain to your Lordships the underlying principles? The noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, said in his remarks, and he said quite frankly, that he wanted to put into this clause which deals with the voluntary hospitals some words which will be broadly analogous to the corresponding provision in the earlier clause which deals with teaching hospitals. But there is this profound difference between teaching hospitals and non-teaching hospitals, that whereas with regard to the teaching hospitals there is no taking away and redistribution of funds contemplated and the existing funds remain—albeit with the teaching hospitals the board of governors is changed and not its constitution. In regard to the voluntary hospitals, it is of the very essence of this scheme that there should be a redistribution. It is the very essence of the scheme.
Now let me just give your Lordships some figures. They are not intended to be accurate figures, they are estimates, but I think they are estimates which are likely to be about right. We are embarking on a scheme here which is probably going to cost the public Exchequer something of the order of £150,000,000 a year—approximately that figure. That £150,000,000 is being found as follows: Approximately £30,000,000 comes from the contribution under the insurance scheme, the 10d. a week; probably some £10,000,000 will come from local authorities, and the balance of £110,000,000 will come from the Exchequer. The Exchequer will, therefore, have to find £110,000,000. Of the £150,000,000, if I may give you one other figure, I estimate that approximately £90,000,000 is the part of the £150,000,000 which will be expended on hospitals. Believe me, if you go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and put upon him a burden of £150,000,000 a year and you tell him that he is only going to have £30,000,000 in the insurance fund, he is apt to be a bit restive. The inevitable reactions of the Treasury officials in the early days of this thing were: "If you are going to call on us to find out of public funds this vast sum of money, at least you ought to let
376
us have in return for our doing this the various endowments in the fund to put against our obligations." In the early stages that was raised, and in the later stages in our discussions we got the Chancellor of the Exchequer to agree that he would forgo that claim, and that he would let the endowments—I am not talking about the teaching hospitals—of the voluntary hospitals remain for hospital purposes.
I attach great importance to that, for this reason. I am most anxious that the hospitals should have some cushion between themselves and the rigour of Treasury control. I do not want them to have to go round and get some authority for every single penny they are going to spend. I would like them to have some little nest egg to which they can go from time to time. But observe this. You have two sets of hospitals at the present time, quite separate, the voluntary hospitals who have endowments, and the municipal hospitals who have no endowments. You have further this fact, that amongst the voluntary hospitals some in certain areas are very well endowed, and others are very inadequately endowed. Therefore it seems to us right that there should be, so far as the endowments of voluntary hospitals are concerned, a redistribution of the funds which they have got so that all the hospitals, those which were previously voluntary and those which were previously local authority, which are now going all to form part of a common service, should all be able to share in the proceeds. What do we estimate they are worth? This is only a guess. It is probable that the capital value of the endowments is of the order of £50,000,000. So that at three per cent. you would get something of the order of £1,500,000 a year. That is the sort of figure you are dealing with. I think even that figure probably contains a not inconsiderable element of the endowments of the teaching hospitals, which we are not here considering.
Is it right that we should start our new system with one set of hospitals with what I may call pocket money—I am not speaking disrespectfully—with a cushion, if you like, and another set without? After all, can we not fairly say if we could go back to the donors, most of whom are dead, of course: "We are

377
carrying out your wishes. We are providing out of public funds in carrying on the hospitals." The effect of the noble Viscount's Amendment would be absolutely to smash up the scheme. It would make the redistribution of funds impossible. There is hardly an endowment which has been given to a hospital which has not been given to some specific hospital, a hospital anywhere you like, but to some specific hospital. If I am not to be allowed to take that endowment away and put it in the pool and thereafter distribute it, then, as I say, the whole scheme does not work. We are quite deliberately, by Act of Parliament, suggesting that the right and honest course, in view of the fact that we are now prepared to expend out of public funds a far larger sum of money than is involved in these endowments on maintaining the hospitals, is to take this endowment fund not in relief of the taxpayer but in order that it may be something additional to the hospitals, so that the hospitals shall have this cushion between themselves and Treasury control. Some of it will go to what were municipal hospitals, and some of it to voluntary hospitals which are almost entirely dependent on subscriptions. The rich hospitals with large endowments will suffer, but in return for being deprived of part of their endowments they will get the benefit of a far larger expenditure of public money in keeping up the hospital. In these circumstances it seems to us that this is a case in which we could with good morals do what we undoubtedly can do legally—namely, by act of Parliament—that is take away and redistribute in order that we may have this equality all round in the way I have suggested.
Supposing we were to accept this Amendment—and I am not boggling about: precise words for the moment because other words might be thought of—"any endowment of which a special application or appropriation shall have been directed or declared by the donor." Ninety-nine per cent. of the endowments would come under that, and the effect of this Amendment would be that this scheme of redistribution would become absolutely impossible; and if the scheme of redistribution becomes impossible, then I think it quite inevitable that the Treasury will take this line, and perhaps ought to take this line. They will say to a hospital which is richly endowed: "You are so well off that you need not
378
have a large amount of public funds," and the whole idea of this cushion will go. I, as I suppose the principal protector of charities in this country, submit that what we are doing here is the right thing to do. So far as the teaching hospitals are concerned, there is no distribution; we leave to them their endowments. So far as the non-teaching hospitals are concerned, we take away all the endowments, we put them into a special fund, we thereupon distribute them and we do not allow the Treasury to have any regard to the existence of that fund in saying what those hospitals are to receive. That is our principle.
There is another class of case where you get something of this sort. You get a sum of money which has been subscribed to a hospital on a condition. It may be a condition that a mass be said for the soul of the departed, or something of that sort. I should think, and anybody would agree, that in a case of that sort that condition ought to be followed and observed as far as possible. Endowments are, of course, defined, although I think that some of your Lordships have not studied the definition. At the bottom of page 8 an endowment is defined as "property held by the governing body of the hospital or by trustees solely for the purposes of that hospital." Where you have got an endowment with a gift over, that, I think, would constitute an equitable interest which is dealt with at the bottom of page 9. Therefore, what we intend to do is this. So far as we can, in redistributing that which we have brought into this fund, we shall have regard to particular cases of that sort, and we shall always try to see by the directions which will govern the redistribution that those conditions of that sort are, so far as possible, observed.
If I were asked to sty that I should not take into the fund these sums of money merely because they all have some special application, then I would say the whole scheme was unworkable. Therefore, I cannot do anything which would lead your Lordships to suppose that we could accept any such provision as that. I cannot in any way put the non-teaching hospitals in the same category as the teaching hospitals, though I will undertake that in so far as it is possible in particular cases such as those I have

379
indicated, the wish of the donor which accompanied the gift—it is very often done in endowing a cot or something of that sort—shall be given effect to. Apart from that, I must ask your Lordships to allow me to appropriate these funds. I justify it as a matter of good morals because I point out that I am paying out of public funds a sum vastly greater than the sum I am taking, and even the sum which I am taking is not a sum to be used for the benefit of the Exchequer but a sum which is to be distributed round all the hospitals. I cannot contemplate that in the future hospitals which all form part of one public service shall find themselves some with and some without some mitigation and some cushion of the sort I have indicated. Therefore I regret to say I cannot accept this Amendment.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: I am afraid that the remarks of the noble Lord do not at all case the disturbance to my moral feelings on this question. This idea of taking endowments intended for a special purpose and putting them into a special endowment fund in order that they may be shared by all seems to my mind to be rather close to the practice which existed in olden days. When bodies were buried in those days, they were the property of the family, and then there came along the body snatchers who took the bodies in order that they might be used for the public service in the hospitals. Is there very much difference between snatching bodies and snatching funds which are put up to provide a war memorial hospital in memory of loved ones who have died? To my mind it is getting very close.
LORD SALTOUN: I could not help sympathizing with the noble and learned Lord's explanation, but at the same time there is one difficulty. I am thinking of a case where somebody has left money to provide a small hospital for a valley which is cut off by the snow in winter. To deprive that hospital of considerable funds would be to make entirely nugatory the original intention of the benefactor.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Lord follow the point? His hospital will get very much larger funds. It will get from the Chancellor of the Exchequer sums vastly greater than those taken away from it.
LORD SALTOUN: What I am anxious about is that trustees may be reasonably satisfied that the purposes of the trust are being carried out. I am perfectly certain that if the noble and learned Lord Chancellor was himself a trustee and was speaking as a trustee, he would not have entirely acceded to the argument with which he concluded his remarks, because he would not have been entitled to consider such things.
LORD LLEWELLIN: One remark made by the noble and learned Lord seemed to me completely to hit the point. The words that we propose here are not going to wreck the whole of his redistribution of these endowments. They are not intended to do so. If the noble Marquess had moved his Amendment, it would have had that effect if agreed to, but I do not believe that these words do that and they are not intended to do so. The noble and learned Lord told us that he thought 99 per cent. of these things were given for hospital purposes. Of those amounts, how many of them are given in such a way as to be for a general hospital purpose and not just for one bed or for one particular thing? Some people may donate money for staff quarters or something of that sort, but that is very rare. It is generally left to the hospital, and because of the additional Treasury grant that is going to these hospitals, there is no prejudice if you divide it up. There is no prejudice in taking away these funds if at the same time you are giving more funds, and you can do that, in my view, if this Amendment is carried.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I ask a question? Suppose there is a sum of money left, for instance, to the Reigate Hospital. Is the noble Lord saying that in these circumstances we are quite right to take that away, but that if it is left, for instance, to a nurses' home at the Reigate Hospital we are quite wrong?
LORD LLEWELLIN: If it is left for the general purposes of the hospital—purposes which will be equally well maintained, and perhaps more abundantly maintained, by a Treasury grant—then I say that the directions of the donor are not prejudiced because the hospital goes on in the same way or even in a larger way. The object of this Amendment is to ensure that, for instance, hospitals, or some parts of hospitals, given as war

381
memorials are continued. In any case, the words here are only "so far as practicable". We feel we ought to get something like that into the Bill.
As I said originally, we thought this was a very mild Amendment and one which the Government could well accept. Even if the noble Marquess had moved his Amendment, we were not prepared to support so drastic an Amendment, which we thought went to the root of the whole matter. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord would look at this again to see whether there are some words which will have the effect of preserving these particular gifts which may not otherwise be preserved—contributions from people for the purpose of war memorials and things like that. If we could get some words to ensure that those features and factors were preserved, I think it would meet what a lot of us have in mind. This Amendment was not meant to upset the whole of the redistribution scheme, and if the noble and learned Lord thinks it does that, then it has probably got the wrong words. But if he will say that we could attempt to find words, perhaps between us, which would do what I think both he and a lot of us want to do—namely, to preserve these special features—then I think it would be a good thing if we could talk it over and see what we could do to achieve that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I shall be glad to have a discussion with the noble Lord to see if I can find some words to help him, but I must have it made quite clear what exactly he wants to do. At the present moment, I do not follow.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I think it is just as well that we should talk it out here and see what we really are dealing with. With great respect, I was unable to follow the reasoning of the Lord Chancellor in this particular case, even though it was put with the utmost clarity and skill. We were first told that we should look upon the matter as if we were suggesting that the endowments in question, if they were preserved to the very limited extent suggested in this Amendment, would be some addition to the charge on the Chancellor of the Exchequer and would horrify him because he would have to find an additional £110,00,000 a year. A little later on we were told something absolutely in contradiction of that. It was pointed out
382
that the effect of leaving the endowments of a particular hospital to benefit that particular hospital would be a reduction in the amount of money granted to the hospital by the Exchequer. We have got to face that point.
It is no good blinking the fact that if a generous donor gives £500,000 to a particular hospital, he puts that hospital in such a position that it will need less from the Exchequer. That is perfectly true. It has been true in the past that if additional sums were given by somebody outside, the hospital needed fewer voluntary donations per annum to keep it going. The voluntary presents will not now come in, the Exchequer has got to keep it going, and we are facing that. But it is absolutely without foundation, I submit, to suggest that the Amendment is going to have the result of putting a greater charge upon the Exchequer. It is keeping the endowments for the hospital for which the endowments were given and declared, either by deed or will. It is enabling the will of the donor to be carried out without in any way adding to the total sum that the Exchequer has got to find to keep the hospital going. There is absolutely nothing—and I am willing to discuss this before any company of lawyers in the land—in the Amendment here which says that the money can be taken away from the endowments and wasted. It is true that if you can imagine endowments given for the purposes of providing, shall we say, port wine for the staff, it might very well he in that case that the endowments would be no use to the Exchequer and would not help the conduct of the hospital. But these are not the type of endowments with which we are dealing, nor out of the £50,000,000 which they amount to is there more than a microscopic part which is not given, and intended to be given, for the benefit of that hospital.
All this Amendment does is to say that so far as a man has given sums, either by deed or will, for the benefit of a particular hospital, or a cot in a hospital, or a ward in a hospital, or for the nurses who work the hospital and who have got to be kept going, they shall remain for the benefit of that hospital because that is what the donor wanted. If a Scotsman gives a sum for Edinburgh you may think it very ridiculous that he does not want it to go to Aberdeen; he has given it to the Edinburgh hospital. If

383
I have given a sum to a hospital—for instance, the King's College Hospital, with which many of us are connected—I do not want it to go to St. Bartholomew's. It may be silly, it may be illogical, but it is human nature, and you cannot alter that by Act of Parliament. I will no longer put it in an egotistical form, but if John Doe has given £10,000 to a particular hospital on the south side of the river, naming it and stating how the money should be applied for the benefit of patients of that hospital, he wants it to continue there and nowhere else.
It is simply talking in the air to say that when it goes into the Hospital Endowments Fund, which is established under subsection (4), the desire of the Government is that they should disregard the fact that this particular donation has been given to a particular hospital. I do not hesitate to admit at once that the people who administer the total funds, and who administer the Exchequer funds for the benefit of a particular hospital, will give less to it if it already enjoys the benefit of large endowments. That cannot be helped. That is a reason—not a very good reason, but it is a reason—why we should not give further endowments after this date to a particular hospital, because it may help the Exchequer. I think that sensible people have seen that, but the corollary to that is that with regard to past endowments they do not hurt the Exchequer in the least if they are retained for the benefits declared by the donor, and that is a principle which I think should be preserved. I do not believe it is correct to say that to do that strikes against the scheme in any way at all. I do not mind the endowments, if you like, being vested in particular trustees or given a name which you may call the Hospital Endowments Special Fund under which the funds, in the hands of whoever you like, have got to be applied in the way in which the donor said they were to be applied. That is all machinery, but I do insist that when people have given money for a particular purpose that purpose should be carried out, and I think your Lordships will be well advised to insist on that.
I am very sorry to differ with the Lord Chancellor on this matter, but when he says that morality approves of these gifts being taken away and thrown into the
384
pool I am unable to agree with him. I think it is a breach of trust, and not the least to be reprobated because it is a breach of trust which is supposed to be sanctioned by Act of Parliament.
5.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: The Amendment now before the House raises a question of great substance and touches a principle of real importance. The House may feel itself in some difficulty as to the course which it should now take. For my own part, I find myself in agreement with the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and not with the observations of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham. The point at issue has been clarified by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. It is clear that it is a new point which arises in connexion with this Bill, and in relation to the hospital system as it has been hitherto all through the centuries and as it has now become in our own times. The voluntary hospitals were almost the only means of dealing with the sick throughout the country ever since early centuries, and they have been supported by voluntary funds and endowed for that purpose. During the last century or so the new system arose, first of Poor Law hospitals, which have been converted in our own time into municipal hospitals, and now the two systems are to be amalgamated.
The Lord Chancellor tells us that the purpose of the plan is to provide what might be called a comforts fund to be given in addition to the per capita grants, or whatever system may be adopted, in which I understand municipal and voluntary hospitals are to be considered equally. If these ancient endowments which were given to the local hospital when it was the only one in the town are to be reserved to that hospital, that would mean that all over the country you would have the old voluntary hospitals with a number of comforts and amenities secured to them arising out of the ancient system in which they were the sole hospital authorities, while all the municipal hospitals throughout the country would be bare and barren of these additional comforts.
I do not think that that would really be fulfilling the purposes of these ancient and worthy donors of these endowments. What they cared about was that the sick should be well cared for and happy, and

385
they would not care very much whether the hospital had the name of Saint So-and-so, or whether it had the name of the Manchester Central Hospital, or whatever it may be, unless of course the question of denomination and religious endowments come in, which have already been dealt with this afternoon in connexion with this Bill. Therefore, it seems to me that we are fully entitled to endorse a change of trusts which arise out of the different circumstances that prevail in our own time, and when the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, says the trust must always be absolute and never be varied—
VISCOUNT MAIJGHAM: I have not said anything of the sort. If the noble Viscount reads my Amendment he will see that it says "so far as practicable."
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I was not referring to the noble Viscount's Amendment, but to his first speech, in which I thought I heard him say that trusts ought to be invariable, and that, so far as he knew, this was the first occasion on which Parliament had ever overridden trusts established for a particular purpose. If I misunderstood the noble Viscount I am sorry.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: The noble Viscount has entirely misunderstood me. Nobody is better aware than I that you can, with varying circumstances, vary trusts. I mentioned cy-près, under which Courts have acted for generations.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: But the Charities Acts are affected in this. The Charity Commissioners have power to deal with medieval and other charities the purposes of which are no longer valid. In their ignorance, some of those medieval benefactors thought that it would always be possible to distribute loaves of bread to the poor—not foreseeing present circumstances in this country—and there are other similar and more important examples that could be given. I suggest that we ought to be careful that we do not put in any special Amendment which, although the words "so far as practicable" are included, would hardly cover the general scheme as a whole. It would be practicable not to take away endowments and leave a hospital without other funds for comforts and so forth.
If some words could be inserted that would have the effect of ensuring that
386
what was done was done without detriment to the general principles embodied in the purposes of the schemes, and with the intention to fulfil so far as possible, in the circumstances, the wishes of the donors, I think that that might be acceptable to the Government. For example, if it were merely a question of a particular hospital being termed for all time "The 1914–18 War Memorial Hospital" or something of that kind, obviously that sort of trust ought to be fulfilled. Or if it were made a condition that particular beds were to be named after particular donors, that condition equally should be fulfilled. For the sake of clarification and in order that the intentions of Parliament should be made quite plain to all Regional Committees and local administrators, it might be desirable to put in a carefully devised Amendment on these lines.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words, although there is not really very much that I can add, for we have had a very full discussion. With the speech that has just been delivered by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, I find myself in very general agreement. Of course, like a great many other people in this House I dislike raiding endowments. In principle I think it is bad. One knows that people give money for special purposes which they would not have given but for that purpose, and it does not seem right to take it for some other use. Therefore, I have very great sympathy with what was said in this connexion by the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham. I think that we all sympathize with it as a general declaration of view, but it seems to me that it is perhaps not possible to interpret this quite so widely as he did in his last speech. I would rather look at the matter as one influenced by the purpose of the donor.
The Lord Chancellor has spoken of the question of the establishment of a hospital at Reigate. Suppose there was no hospital at Reigate and a man gave, say, £100,000 to put up a hospital there. That would be a donation for a special purpose. But suppose that, as the result of the Government scheme, there was going to be a very good special hospital erected in Reigate. In these latter circumstances, I should have thought that the purposes for which the money was given were in fact being ful

387
filled. Therefore, if you took the £100,000 and put it into the pool you would not be going against the purposes which actuated the gift. If, on the other hand, a man had a son killed in the war and he were to say: "I am very unhappy, but I would like to feel that someone benefited by what has happened. I therefore propose to give £50,000 to be used for the very special purpose of a memorial to my son," I think it would be wrong and wicked to take that money and use it for a different purpose. But I cannot believe that it is not possible to find some means of differentiating between these two cases. I would like to suggest, if I might, that the representatives of the Government and the Leaders of the other Parties should get together between now and the Report stage of the Bill and see if this could be done. I do not believe it would be impossible. I have not tried to devise a form of words myself, but I believe it would be a mistake if something on the lines I have suggested were not done. This is a matter on which people feel very strongly and one in which deepest feelings are engaged.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: There is just one question which I would like to ask the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. It relates to a matter upon which my mind is rather fogged at the moment. I would like him to explain for my benefit and that of other noble Lords who may be in doubt as I am, if when an endowment is maintained in a hospital the contribution which the Exchequer would make for the expenses of the institution would be a lower one. I think the Lord Chancellor said that in the case of the well-to-do hospital which had funds of its own the contribution which the Exchequer would make would be lower. We have heard of such things as comforts, cushions and pocket money. I really do not know to what the noble Lord was referring when he spoke of those matters. I understood, however, that he said that if a hospital is very well endowed and can produce an income every year the Exchequer would provide a lesser sum for the benefit of that hospital than if the circumstances were otherwise.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is not so. I am sorry if anything I said has misled the noble Marquess. Possibly
388
I did not make myself clear. As things are if you have a hospital so well endowed—if there be such a hospital—that it can do without current subscriptions, and without making any charges, under the scheme of this Bill what would happen is that its endowment would be taken away and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would then have to make a contribution to that hospital, to the extent that would enable it to function as a hospital. He would have to pay all necessary expenses and the hospital would get an adequate share. Where I think I clearly misled the noble Marquess was when I pointed out that the Amendment of my noble friend, Viscount Maugham, would probably have the effect of saving the Chancellor of the Exchequer from paying some money, because if we left that hospital all that money (it being, ex hypothesi a hospital which had enough for its own purposes) it would be inconceivable that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make any grant to that hospital.
I want to make it quite plain that I regard this pooling of money in the Fund and redistribution as an absolutely essential and vital principle of this Bill. I am not going to lead your Lordships to suppose that I can weaken for one moment on this question. I took the Reigate Hospital as an illustration. If money is left for the Reigate Hospital our intention is that that money shall be taken, put into the pool and distributed among other hospitals. Otherwise, you would have this position: that some hospitals would get comforts funds while some would not. That we regard as wrong. If there is any special case which a noble Lord has in mind; if, for instance there are cases in which you have got, as you do sometimes, a gift attached to a condition, and, in order to maintain the gift you have to keep up a garden or something of that sort—the instance given by Viscount Samuel I accept fully—may I say that I am very ready to see noble Lords in all quarters of the House and to consider whether I can devise some words to carry out what I think they desire, always provided that they are confined to special cases and that they do not seek to go so far as to say that any money merely left and because it is left to a particular hospital, should therefore be exempted from the pooling and redistribution which we think is absolutely vital to the Bill. Sub

389
ject to that, I shall be very pleased, between now and the Report stage, to see if we cannot devise some form of words limited to special, peculiar and particular cases, which will not strike at the root of the proposals of this vesting in the Fund.
LORD SALTOUN: May I ask one question? I listened very carefully to the words of the noble and learned Lord. Do they import that the £100,000 might be taken from the Reigate Hospital and the hospital closed, or do they mean that the hospital cannot be closed? I understood from him that the Government would be bound to keep that hospital going.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: What is suggested is that the hospital should be kept going, "so far as practicable," or something of that sort. If it became unnecessary to maintain a hospital there owing, for instance, to shifting of the population it would be foolish to keep it there. If that did not happen, and I see no reason why it should, the hospital would be kept on.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: Feeling has been strongly for and against this transfer of endowments to public funds, and I think I may say that, so far as this side of the House is concerned, we have a very large following throughout the country on this. I wonder if it would be possible to withdraw the clause for further consideration. If it cannot be withdrawn, I would appeal to the noble Viscount who leads this House to let us divide on it.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Having regard to the views expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, I confess with some regret and hesitation that I shall ask your Lordships to allow me to withdraw my Amendment, on the understanding that we have full discretion to review the whole matter on the Report stage, if satisfactory words cannot be found to meet the points of so many members in this House.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.13 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, after subsection (4), to insert:
"(5) There shall be excepted from the transfer to the Minister authorized by the last preceding subsection of this section all endowments created and the unexpended balance of all money received in the period between the passing of this Act and the appointed day by
390
the governing body of a voluntary hospital or by trustees solely for the purposes of that hospital and any endowment or balance so excepted from transfer to the Minister shall be transferred to the hospital management committee constituted under the provisions of this Act for that hospital or for the group in which that hospital is comprised, with an obligation to apply the same in accordance with the directions, if any, of the donors and, in the absence of directions, for the benefit of the hospital for which the endowment was created or to which the money was given."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment: deals with a different point. We have been discussing what is to be done with past endowments. As this Bill comes before us, there appears, in Clause 59 a provision that hospital management committees may receive gifts after the appointed day. The provision says:
"A Regional Hospital Board and the board of governors of any teaching hospital and a hospital management committee shall have power to accept, hold and administer any property upon trust for purposes relating to hospital services …"
That does not come into operation until the appointed day, when the Regional Boards and the hospital management committees come into being. That means that we have been discussing the past period; the future, after the appointed day, is dealt with under Clause 59. My Amendment deals with the interim period, from now until the appointed day. I know that those who in the past have done a lot of good work collecting money for hospitals still want to be able to collect sums for such things as additional comforts.
The noble and teamed Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has used several different terms, and I do not know quite what is the right one, but it is that additional freedom to spend small sums without a whole lot of control. These collectors feel that if we stop short now and say: "No; if you give this money to your local hospital now, it will go into the Endowment Fund" such gifts will not come in. Most people who give that kind of sum—that £100 or £50—give it to their own local hospital. If you once dry up that flow of gifts the collectors believe that it is most unlikely that it will ever start again. The effect of my Amendment is to provide for the interim period, and to say that once you have this equalizing, up or down, of past endowments, then from that: time you can start to build up a little fund, without waiting until the appointed day. That is the purpose of my Amendment. I will

391
not say much about the words, except that I saw what I wanted put down; and I thought that it looked pretty good when it was produced for me, Whether the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, and those who advise him, will think it is good or not, it is not for me to say. At any rate, I do hope that we shall accept my proposal for the interim period. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 46, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Llewellin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have very considerable sympathy with the noble Lord about this matter. I admit that I think it unlikely that between the passing of this Bill and the appointed day charitably-disposed people will leave money to the hospitals, if they know that on the appointed day it will be taken into a fund and pooled. In nearly every case the donor has in mind a particular hospital with which he is in some way associated. I do not like the language of the noble Lord—I mean the language of this Amendment. Endowments, of course, include money; and one of the things we all know about money is that it cannot be earmarked. If money goes into a particular fund, you cannot ascertain which particular piece of money is expended on a particular object. With regard to current subscriptions, therefore, it would be extraordinarily difficult to say whether any particular sum of money can be expended or not. What happens, is that the money goes into the bank and is expended.
With regard to cases of the sort which the noble Lord has in mind, I think that I can meet him. I do not think that he is talking about current subscriptions, but about cases of somebody leaving a fund—perhaps £10,000 Consols—to a hospital. The noble Lord wants to provide that if that is done between the date of the passing of the Act and the appointed day, that sum of money, of which the hospitals would use only the income, is not taken away and split up; in short, that it is treated as it would have been under Clause 59, if it had been given after the appointed day. That is not unreasonable, and I shall ask the noble Lord not to press his Amendment now, but to let me go to the Minister and see if I can get authority to devise between now and the Report stage some form of words which
392
I shall be pleased to discuss with the noble Lord. Perhaps we may be able to hammer out an appropriate form of words to meet what I think is a real point, and an important point.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. It is exactly that kind of case which I wanted to meet. It will be met after the appointed day, and I want it met between now and the appointed day. Otherwise, a lot of people might change their wills. And even if they die after the appointed day the gift would be out of the will. I fully accept the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, and I have no doubt that he and those associated with him will find some words between now and the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (5), after "Minister," to insert "or any person authorized to act on his behalf, and for defraying out of the Fund such expenses incurred for the purpose of the control and management of the Fund as may be prescribed." The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to enable the National Debt Commissioners to act as the Minister's agents in holding and managing investments forming part of the Hospital Endowments Fund. It also provides that the expenses of managing the Fund are to be charged to the Fund.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 3, after ("Minister") insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
6.22 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Is not this wider than the Debt Commissioners? It says "any person." I am not quite certain of the position. I suppose the drafting of this Amendment is all right. Of course, the Minister does not usually do everything himself. Everything that his servants do in his Ministry is the act of the Minister, and that is how it has always worked. The term "any person" seems to be very wide. Who is "any person"? Is it any person he appoints? It is not necessarily limited to the case that the noble Earl gave us.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I will certainly look into the wording. I imagine that the same wording is used as is used in other Bills.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I see. I have no objection, but it seemed very wide.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The next Amendment is a consequential Amendment upon the preceding Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 4, leave out ("him") and insert ("the Minister or any such person")—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The next Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7. line 6, leave out ("to carry") and insert ("for carrying").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment to bring the wording of this clause into line with the wording of Clause 6.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line II, leave out ("from the governing body ") and insert ("in connexion with the transfer ").—(The. Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved to add to paragraph (b) of subsection (8) "and for the apportionment of any rights and liabilities acquired or incurred for the purposes of managing the property and of any liabilities charged thereon." The noble Earl said: This Amendment provides that the rights and liabilities arising out of the management of property owned by a voluntary hospital as well as the property itself should be apportioned by regulations. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 18, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am going to suggest that we have, I think, made fairly good progress. We are now getting on to a new topic and probably it would be to your Lordships' convenience if the House were now to be resumed. Accordingly, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to; House resumed accordingly.

PUBLIC NOTARIES (WAR SERVICE OF ARTICLED CLERKS) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ROOSEVELT MEMORIAL BILL.
Message from the Commons that they have ordered that the Committee appointed by them to join with the Committee of this House to consider the said Bill do meet the Lords' Committee in Committee Room A on Friday the 25th inst. at half-past eleven o'clock, as proposed by their Lordships.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past six o'clock.